Amendment 64 passes in Colorado
L
onge
C
ity
Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:30 PM
Edited by Mind, 07 November 2012 - 06:31 PM.
Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:45 PM
I wonder what they will think about it when the Obama's ATF starts kicking in doors.
Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:37 PM
Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:00 PM
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:50 AM
Doesn't Congress have some role in the WOD? Can Obama just tell the DEA to stand down? That seems to be what Reason.com would like to see. I'm not sure he has the authority to do that, though maybe I'm wrong.
Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:31 AM
Doesn't Congress have some role in the WOD? Can Obama just tell the DEA to stand down? That seems to be what Reason.com would like to see. I'm not sure he has the authority to do that, though maybe I'm wrong.
Nope. The DEA falls directly under the DOJ and therefore Holder and Obama. Enforcement is up to the executive branch.
Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:35 AM
Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:39 AM
So Obama could have stopped interdicting drug shipments, like Reason wants, and that would fly? Legally? Politically?
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:36 PM
Well, the children of bootleggers (JFK) become presidents. Why not the same with the drug gangs?
So Obama could have stopped interdicting drug shipments, like Reason wants, and that would fly? Legally? Politically?
Legally yes, he can definitely choose to prioritize which crimes to prosecute and which to ignore. Even cops do it all the time. Do you doubt that they choose not to stop jaywalkers or someone going 6 over the limit, whereas they could, legally speaking.
Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:43 PM
Votes making Colorado and Washington the first U.S. states to legalize marijuana for recreational use could be short-lived victories for pot backers because the federal government will fight them, two former U.S. drug control officials said on Wednesday.
They said the federal government could sue to block parts of the measures or send threatening letters to marijuana shops, followed up by street-level clampdowns similar to those targeting medical marijuana dispensaries the government suspects are fronts for drug traffickers.
"This is a symbolic victory for (legalization) advocates, but it will be short-lived," Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the Obama administration's drug czar, told reporters.
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:20 PM
Well, the children of bootleggers (JFK) become presidents. Why not the same with the drug gangs?
I'd hate to be the guy who had to explain to the parents of a victim of Los Zetas that although their son had been tortured and decapitated, somewhere down the line a descendent of the murderers would become a great leader, so it was ok.So Obama could have stopped interdicting drug shipments, like Reason wants, and that would fly? Legally? Politically?
Legally yes, he can definitely choose to prioritize which crimes to prosecute and which to ignore. Even cops do it all the time. Do you doubt that they choose not to stop jaywalkers or someone going 6 over the limit, whereas they could, legally speaking.
Legally, I agree. Politically, not so much. If Obama had stopped interdicting drug shipments, the Republican Super PACs would have run a million ads eviscerating him on it.
Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:29 AM
Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:34 AM
For me it would come down to vision/principles vs power. Would ending the war on drugs be beneficial enough to sacrifice another 4 years as president. For me, given the billions of dollars wasted, all the incredible violence and death in Mexico (and the rest of the world we influence), all the non-violent people locked up, it would be worth it to stick to principles and lead through vision. At the very least, you would think Obama could go for de-crimilization. Hefty fines (but no jail time) could shore up the budget deficit.
Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:31 PM
Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:24 AM
King Obama considers crushing rebellious subjects in Washington and Colorado. I hope Holder & Obama let it slide, as it could open up the door to more experimentation within the states, more diversity, more freedom.
Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:35 AM
Looks like he's letting it slide. What would Romney have done, had he been elected, and would you call him "king"?
Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:07 AM
That's assuming we can take him at his word, of course.
Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:52 AM
Looks like he's letting it slide. What would Romney have done, had he been elected, and would you call him "king"?
Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:15 PM
And of course I would call Romney "king". I didn't vote for Romney. I am surprised you don't know me better.
Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:18 PM
I think I'd like it even better if there wasn't as much stuff that sounded like name-calling, regardless of who it's directed at
Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:45 AM
Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:55 AM
Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:38 PM
Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:47 AM
Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:39 AM
Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:52 PM
As a result the British Columbia cannabis industry is worth an estimated $6 billion annually. This actually made a HUGE impact during the financial collapse; we were still pulling in that money and it actually helped to prop up our economy locally. We almost didn’t feel the effects of the collapse at all.
There are significant side effects of the marijuana industry that you can’t imagine.
Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:08 AM
Makes sense. If you've lost your job and your house is under water, you can always fall back on the dictum: "Drugs will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no drugs". I can see where growing and vending pot can make a lot of money and have a big impact on the local economy, but I wonder if the people smoking it are possibly less productive or less likely to look for work. In other words, the net effect on the national economy might be neutral or even negative. Hard to say. Full legalization would slash profits for growers. Agribusiness would take over, and it would be just another commodity crop, although there would probably still be a market for special cultivars and whatnot. It would probably be more like the wine industry. Growing grapes in a secret room in your house wouldn't be an economic proposition today, and the same might be true in the future for weed, unless high taxes continue to prop up an underground economy.
Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:47 PM
Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:11 PM
Just another example of how horrible Obama's drug war is in California.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users