32 replies to this topic

[rwac]

Amendment 64 passes in Colorado

[Mind]

An interesting dichotomy. Colorado voted for Obama (who has overseen and intensified the Federal drug war and all of its illogical/violent ugliness), but then voted to legalize ganja. I wonder what they will think about it when the Obama's ATF starts kicking in doors.

Edited by Mind, 07 November 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[niner]

I wonder what they will think about it when the Obama's ATF starts kicking in doors.

That probably won't be happening.

Amendment 64 passes in Colorado

Washington state, too. States' Rights, Mon.

[Mind]

I wish Niner, I wish there was more latitude in state's rights. So do the people in California who were crushed by Obama's continued war on drugs and who are going to be crushed. Some people have hope that Obama will be more "liberal" (as in classical liberal) now that he is a lame duck and could care less about having a mandate or not. If I was in Colorado or Washington, I would heed the warning signs from California.

[niner]

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.

[rwac]

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.

[niner]

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.

So Obama could have stopped interdicting drug shipments, like Reason wants, and that would fly? Legally? Politically? I'm not sure if "lame duck" is the right term for a president who has just been reelected, but maybe the fact that he will never run for office again has something to do with his new WOD attitude that I linked above. Something tells me that if he had gone easy on "the scourge of drugs" in his first term, he would have been crucified for it. Maybe he can get away with it now. Maybe we're on a path to getting rid of this stupid prohibition that has been so ruinous for so many, turning Mexico into a narco-state, filling our prisons at a rate that vastly exceeds even the world's biggest tyrannys, and turning huge numbers of Americans into criminals with a less than ideal respect for the law or law enforcement. Whatever the outcome, the damage is still done. Just like the prohibition of alcohol created crime organizations that lived on for decades, the drug gangs are going to be around for a long time, and the lives ruined by the WOD won't be repaired.

[rwac]

Well, the children of bootleggers (JFK) become presidents. Why not the same with the drug gangs?

[rwac]

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.

[niner]

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.

[rwac]

Don't be so confident just yet.

http://news.yahoo.co...-022257328.html

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.

[Mind]

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.

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.

[maxwatt]

As a source of revenue, taxing the stuff would shore up the federal budget, and legalization would defund the violent cartels. I suspect legalization will happen faster than anyone thinks, but I don't know when.

[niner]

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.

But I don't think that's the choice that any president has. (I presume that you used to call it "Bush's War on Drugs", since now you're ascribing it to Obama.) Bush didn't end it. Neither did Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, or Ford. I think it needs to be a bipartisan choice, so you'll need to get the GOP on board. Good luck with that. Today I heard that the Mexican government is very opposed to these legalization initiatives. I also heard that these initiatives could cost the Mexican drug lords a large amount of money. Kind of sounds like the drug lords and the Mexican government have "some overlap"...

[Mind]

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.

[niner]

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.

Looks like he's letting it slide. What would Romney have done, had he been elected, and would you call him "king"?

[rwac]

Looks like he's letting it slide. What would Romney have done, had he been elected, and would you call him "king"?

"It does not make sense from a prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that's legal," he told ABC News in part of an interview released on Friday."

He's saying he won't go after people found with small amounts. Anything else will still be fair game. That's assuming we can take him at his word, of course.

[niner]

That's assuming we can take him at his word, of course.

Of course.

[Mind]

Looks like he's letting it slide. What would Romney have done, had he been elected, and would you call him "king"?

He is maybe letting it slide.

And of course I would call Romney "king". I didn't vote for Romney. I am surprised you don't know me better.

[niner]

And of course I would call Romney "king". I didn't vote for Romney. I am surprised you don't know me better.

I'm glad to hear that you would have called Romney king as well, because it seems like you come down harder on D's than R's. (That's perfectly valid if it's due to a legitimate policy disagreement, not so much when it come out in tone.) However, 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.

[Mind]

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

Something we can mutually refer back to in the future.

[mia22]

Well the administration had essentially said they were going to deprioritize going after Californians yet there were more raids/etc.. under Obama than there were under Bush.
So history teaches us that we cannot trust what these people say.

[lifebuddy]

Marijuana is legal in my home. Fuck the idiots outside.

[Mind]

I used the word "King" as a sarcastic statement to highlight the Obama worship that occurs within many segments of the U.S. population, but there is truth to it as well. Obama could crush the pot smokers in Colorado and Washington any second of any day. The Federal drug law is there to be exploited, like so many other complex, conflicting and arbitrary laws (hundreds of thousands of laws) in the U.S. I have often stated (and most legal scholars agree with me) that everyone in the U.S. is a target (law-breaker) everyday because it is impossible to follow the U.S. laws. (Aside, the latest NDAA also gives the President authority to kill any U.S. citizen at any time with no due process, very scary)

One of the traditional powers of kings that survived in the U.S. is that of the pardon, and it is one powers that Obama SHOULD use if he cares about social justice. Due to the ineffective and disastrous drug war, the U.S. currently has a greater percentage of the population locked up in cages, than even the old USSR ever did (in the gulags). If Obama and Holder are going to let Colorado and Washington pot smokers slide, then they should absolutely be pardoning (or at the very least commuting sentences) of non-violent marijuana users locked up for simple possession. It is an absolute hypocrisy and horror if they do not.

[SkatKat]

Marijuana should be federally legalized and taxed if only for economical purposes. While it's nice to see that Colorado is moving forward, this isn't helping the economy.

[Lister]

Living in British Columbia it's interesting to add in my view of the effects that your laws have up here.

Due to your laws down there we grow a significant amount of pot here for export (illegally). I’m a normal guy and I have a hair stylist downtown Vancouver who happens to have run a grow op for a couple of years in her early 20’s (about 4 years ago).

It’s a pretty common thing for people to have operated a grow op – If you’re caught they take everything involved (plants, lights, etc.) and slap you with a big fine. Though there’s little to no raids and as for any inspections you’ll be notified of at least 24 hours in advance. Our pot growing is, for the most part non-violent and pretty easy going.

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. While it will hurt us a bit I hope things continue to change down there. I guess in the long run Obama will only be able to do so much so it’ll be down to who gets elected next.

Though, I’m pretty confident Obama supports the legalization of Marijuana. Though I’m not sure why...

[niner]

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.

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.

[Lister]

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.

I think those people would likely be unproductive regardless of their pot habits. Those specific people smoke because they’re bored. They’re bored because they lack motivation to do anything productive. It’s more likely that their pot habits are a result of their lack of motivation which is probably caused by something else entirely.

[Mind]

Just another example of how horrible Obama's drug war is in California.

[niner]

Just another example of how horrible Obama's drug war is in California.

Reading the article, it sounds like it was all the doing of the Anaheim PD, working with the DEA. It doesn't exactly sound like Obama's got much to do with it, but I guess slagging him off is something that just has to happen... I hate to sound like I'm OK with the WOD, which I certainly am not, but for godsake, it's been going on for forty years. Can't we leave the political hating out of it and address the actual policy instead?