NAACP announces Its "Unconditional Support" for Cali's Marijuana legalization

[Article 15]

Art, I really want an answer here, why are you FOR a federal law which limits my choices when you are against one that limits yours?

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

 

[Article 15]

Art, I really want an answer here, why are you FOR a federal law which limits my choices when you are against one that limits yours?

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

If you are looking for some ideological or philosophical answer behind it there is none.

 

[ConHog]

Art, I really want an answer here, why are you FOR a federal law which limits my choices when you are against one that limits yours?

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

 

[WillowTree]

well, I say if you have a right to smoke it then I shall have the right to grow it. Make no law that says otherwise.

 

[topspin]

New Orleans CityBusiness — The Business Newspaper of Metropolitan New Orleans
Shortly after Keva Landrum-Johnson took over as district attorney following Eddie Jordan’s resignation Oct. 30, hundreds of new felony cases flooded the public defenders office, overwhelming the 29 defense attorneys.

After New Orleans regained its title as the nation’s murder capital, the public demanded its city leaders crack down on violent crime. By filing hundreds of new felony cases each month, it appeared as if the new DA heeded their call.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case, said Steve Singer, chief of trials for the Orleans Public Defenders Office.

The flood of new felony charges didn’t target murderers, rapists or armed robbers — they targeted small-time marijuana users, sometimes caught with less than a gram of pot, and threatened them with lengthy prison sentences.

The resulting impact has clogged the courts with non-violent, petty offenses, drained the resources of the criminal justice system and damaged low-income African-American communities, Singer said.

Landrum-Johnson’s decision to accept felony charges on people arrested for second and third marijuana possession offenses is a dramatic break from the tactics of former DAs Jordan and Harry Connick.

A first-time marijuana possession charge in Louisiana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison but typically results in a small fine. A second offense is a felony that can carry up to five years in jail and a third offense up to 20 years.

Under Jordan and Connick, however, second and third offenses were routinely reduced to misdemeanors that typically did not require a trial. This freed up public resources to be spent on violent crimes as opposed to minor, victimless offenses, Singer said.

Landrum-Johnson was unavailable for comment but her spokesman Dalton Savwoir said that while he agreed there has been an increase in second and third offense marijuana felony acceptances, the increase is not attributable to a change in policy.

“Rather, the increase is a result of the fact that during 2008, it has become easier to obtain certified copies of prior convictions (that are) required evidence (to prosecute) second and third offense marijuana cases,” Savwoir said.

In other words, Savwoir said, clerical malfunctions that prevented the DA from seeking felony prosecutions of marijuana cases in the past have been rectified.

 

[Article 15]

Art, I really want an answer here, why are you FOR a federal law which limits my choices when you are against one that limits yours?

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

No, not at all. I see a federal law as the most streamlined solution to what I see the problem as. Ultimately I want it legalized nationally but I support the state by state battles, you gotta take what you can get. What do you want me to say? I don't care about state's rights in this situations? The short answer is I don't. It's BS that I have to worry about going state to state worrying if pot is legal or not. The only way to assure that isn't the case is a minimum federal law that makes it legal.

 

[ConHog]

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

No, not at all. I see a federal law as the most streamlined solution to what I see the problem as. Ultimately I want it legalized nationally but I support the state by state battles, you gotta take what you can get. What do you want me to say? I don't care about state's rights in this situations? The short answer is I don't. It's BS that I have to worry about going state to state worrying if pot is legal or not. The only way to assure that isn't the case is a minimum federal law that makes it legal.

Do you really think pot is the only thing that is the case with?

Let's say you're a 20 y/o man with a 17 y/o girlfriend traveling around the country. Better be careful there partner, in some states that's statutory rape. Why no federal law ?

Why no federal law guaranteeing where a smoker can smoke and not smoke?

Etc, etc, etc.

You want to treat pot like it's a fundamental right that you have, and you don't. Is it something the government should mind their own business? Maybe, but minding their own business would equally mean not declaring it legal.

 

[Article 15]

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

No, not at all. I see a federal law as the most streamlined solution to what I see the problem as. Ultimately I want it legalized nationally but I support the state by state battles, you gotta take what you can get. What do you want me to say? I don't care about state's rights in this situations? The short answer is I don't. It's BS that I have to worry about going state to state worrying if pot is legal or not. The only way to assure that isn't the case is a minimum federal law that makes it legal.

Do you really think pot is the only thing that is the case with?

Let's say you're a 20 y/o man with a 17 y/o girlfriend traveling around the country. Better be careful there partner, in some states that's statutory rape. Why no federal law ?

There is no law against fucking.

But BTW I'm against that too .. I'd much prefer a national standard for statutory rape.

So you ask why no federal law and my answer is there should be one.

Why no federal law guaranteeing where a smoker can smoke and not smoke?

Etc, etc, etc.

In what state is it illegal to posses cigarettes? It's 18 to buy cigarettes and smoke everywhere as far as I know.

You want to treat pot like it's a fundamental right that you have, and you don't. Is it something the government should mind their own business? Maybe, but minding their own business would equally mean not declaring it legal.

Again, if you are looking for a philosophical answer or debate there is none to be had here. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it. I have stated my opinion over and over. Minimum legal standard much like how alcohol is regulated and no state can make it illegal. I want that for marijuana. To me, that isn't up for debate.

 

[Article 15]

So anyway I've pretty much said everything I need to say and this is getting repetitive.

I'm up wayyyy too late.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

No, not at all. I see a federal law as the most streamlined solution to what I see the problem as. Ultimately I want it legalized nationally but I support the state by state battles, you gotta take what you can get. What do you want me to say? I don't care about state's rights in this situations? The short answer is I don't. It's BS that I have to worry about going state to state worrying if pot is legal or not. The only way to assure that isn't the case is a minimum federal law that makes it legal.

may I just ask if you feel the same way about gun laws? should they be uniform from state to state?

 

[ConHog]

No, not at all. I see a federal law as the most streamlined solution to what I see the problem as. Ultimately I want it legalized nationally but I support the state by state battles, you gotta take what you can get. What do you want me to say? I don't care about state's rights in this situations? The short answer is I don't. It's BS that I have to worry about going state to state worrying if pot is legal or not. The only way to assure that isn't the case is a minimum federal law that makes it legal.

There is no law against fucking.

But BTW I'm against that too .. I'd much prefer a national standard for statutory rape.

So you ask why no federal law and my answer is there should be one.



In what state is it illegal to posses cigarettes? It's 18 to buy cigarettes and smoke everywhere as far as I know.

You want to treat pot like it's a fundamental right that you have, and you don't. Is it something the government should mind their own business? Maybe, but minding their own business would equally mean not declaring it legal.

Again, if you are looking for a philosophical answer or debate there is none to be had here. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it. I have stated my opinion over and over. Minimum legal standard much like how alcohol is regulated and no state can make it illegal. I want that for marijuana. To me, that isn't up for debate.

That's fair enough, and your opinion , but I disagree. No more need be said on it though. Obviously we won't be changing each others minds.

 

[sangha]

Art, I really want an answer here, why are you FOR a federal law which limits my choices when you are against one that limits yours?

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

Not true

People have a right to buy whatever they want. However, the Constitution gives the govt (specifically, Congress) the power to limit rights when it has a compelling interest to do so, such as "promoting the General Welfare" and "protecting public safety"

IMO, the govt has never shown a compelling interest to make marijuana illegal. It's just a welfare program for LEO's, which is why they support it

 

[Nonelitist]

I'm against a law that takes away my freedom to buy and smoke marijuana. I am against laws in other states that take away that freedom therefor I would support a federal level law making it legal. If that happens, states could then regulate as they please as long as at the fundamental level if you are 21 and possess it, you can smoke it at the very least on your own property.

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

Not true

People have a right to buy whatever they want. However, the Constitution gives the govt (specifically, Congress) the power to limit rights when it has a compelling interest to do so, such as "promoting the General Welfare" and "protecting public safety"

IMO, the govt has never shown a compelling interest to make marijuana illegal. It's just a welfare program for LEO's, which is why they support it

Most definitely compelling interest to protect public safety.. can't have high people driving, watching children or flying planes.

And don't spout that garbage that it doesn't affect people. There are plenty of studies that shows it does.

It will never happen.... move on.

 

[topspin]

It will be totally legal in 5 years

 

[ConHog]

It will be totally legal in 5 years

So you 're looking to smoke a legal joint when you graduate from high school eh.

Well at least you have a goal.

 

[topspin]

no gaylord, I'm looking to smoke 1,000 when I retire. I'll smoke one when I get home

 

[sangha]

You have no right to buy or smoke marijuana, you simply don't . As such , the government is free to pass any and all laws to regulate it. I fail to see how you could argue that there should be a federal law.

Read the COTUS, this is clearly a state's issue. The fact that the feds hae usurped that authority doesn't change that. You can't argue that the feds have no right to make pot illegal then turn right around and say "but they do have the right to make it legal" . Trying to say that COMPLETELY illegitimatizes your entire argument. Do you really not see that?

Not true

People have a right to buy whatever they want. However, the Constitution gives the govt (specifically, Congress) the power to limit rights when it has a compelling interest to do so, such as "promoting the General Welfare" and "protecting public safety"

IMO, the govt has never shown a compelling interest to make marijuana illegal. It's just a welfare program for LEO's, which is why they support it

Most definitely compelling interest to protect public safety.. can't have high people driving, watching children or flying planes.

You have a right to buy anything. You don't have the right to use something in a way that engangers others or infringes on their rights,

We already have laws on DUI. We're still allowed to buy alcohol.

And don't spout that garbage that it doesn't affect people. There are plenty of studies that shows it does.

It will never happen.... move on.

You have no argument, so you have to make up straw men.

 

[sangha]

South Bend Tribune: Cancer patient fired for using medical marijuana

Cancer patient fired for using medical marijuana

DETROIT — A man who uses medical marijuana to treat symptoms of an inoperable brain tumor and cancer claims in a lawsuit filed Tuesday he was wrongfully fired from a Wal-Mart store in Michigan after testing positive for the drug.

Joseph Casias was fired last year after five years on the job in Battle Creek despite being legally registered with the state to use the drug, according to the lawsuit against the world's largest retailer in state court.

Casias, 30, said he didn't use marijuana at work or come to work under the influence. Scott Michelman, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the lawsuit aims to test the extent that Michigan's law protects employees.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said in a statement that it is an "unfortunate situation all around." It said it is sympathetic to Casias' condition but said it is an issue of customer and employee safety.

"The doctor-prescribed treatment was not the relevant issue. The issue is about the ability of our associates to do their jobs safely," the company said. "As more states allow this treatment, employers are left without any guidelines except the federal standard."

Casias' drug test was given after he injured his knee at work in November, but the positive result on the urine test only indicated drug use in recent days or weeks, according to the lawsuit in Calhoun County Circuit Court. Casias said the injury had nothing to do with marijuana use; he simply stepped the wrong way.

 

[ConHog]

no gaylord, I'm looking to smoke 1,000 when I retire. I'll smoke one when I get home

McDonalds doesn't drug test, you should be ok.

 

[sangha]

no gaylord, I'm looking to smoke 1,000 when I retire. I'll smoke one when I get home

McDonalds doesn't drug test, you should be ok.

Says the man who has been on govt welfare his entire adult life (and maybe longer)