Hello:

Washington, Colorado and Oregon have measures to legalize pot on their November ballots... What happens to the drug war if one of those states says it's FINE to spark up??

I think Obama (during his second term) will propose to end it. You?

excon

PS> Interestingly, as you might recall, for about 5 minutes recently, Paul Ryan said it was up to the states... Then he changed his mind. Oh, OK.. He didn't change his mind.. After the phone call from Romney, he changed his POLICY.

It's certainly time for a change in thinking Ex perhaps decriminialisation for possession of small quatities for personal use as with tobacco and alcohol and perhaps registering and policing sellers but we can't get away from some of the issues, public health, addiction, associations with crime. These are bigger issues than rights. Ultimately we need to remove all addictive substances from our society. But legalising it and taxing it would certainly help to fix some other problems

It depends on how emotive an issue this is as to whether a President would take a brave decision which might affect his party's support for decades

but we can't get away from some of the issues, public health, addiction, associations with crime. These are bigger issues than rights.Hello clete:

Those are exactly the issues legalization WOULD take care of.. If we treated it like the HEALTH issue it is, instead of the legal issue it isn't, we could DEAL with the health issues. People wouldn't be afraid to come forward when they need help.

In terms of addiction, I don't know ANYBODY who is chomping at the bit to try addictive drugs when and if they become legal. Everybody I know that wants to use drugs, is USING drugs... That said, I'm sure there are SOME idiots out there... But, in the main, I believe there'll be a net REDUCTION in addictive drug use.. One problem with the drug war, is that they'll stick in a fact amongst the lies, and expect people to believe the fact.. But, that fact is, addiction IS as bad as they told us it is... So, I believe that if given the choice between addiction and rehab, MOST addicts would choose rehab.

Finally, if drugs became legal, crime would END. As evidence, I offer our experiment with prohibition... During prohibition, crime was rampant... After we ended prohibition, alcohol crime ended.

Somebody has to step up... Maybe Obama is that guy.

excon

I wouldn't start betting on it yet. Even in California they can't figure out what to do.

Los Angeles Dispensary Owners Fight Ban | Dispensaries Marijuana Blog | THC Finder - Dispensaries - Legal Marijuana Dispensary and Cannabis Clubs at THCFinder (http://www.thcfinder.com/marijuana-blog/dispensaries/2012/08/los-angeles-dispensary-owners-fight-ban)

And right now they are making too much from taking they aren't going to be giving that back in anytime soon.

I wouldnt start betting on it yet. Even in California they can't figure out what to do.Hello again, dad:

Personally, I'm not in favor of the Washington initiative, either... But, that has to do with the way they're proposing to regulate it... Nonetheless, if all three states legalize it, it's going to cause BIG trouble in DC. I believe it would represent a groundswell that the feds won't be able to ignore...

excon

Hello again, dad:

Personally, I'm not in favor of the Washington initiative, either... But, that has to do with the way they're proposing to regulate it... Nonetheless, if all three states legalize it, it's going to cause BIG trouble in DC. I believe it would represent a groundswell that the feds won't be able to ignore...

excon

Lets hope the domino effect works out as you wish. It is really hard to tell but local police and law enforcement are making so much money and getting cool toys for their local departments from seizures they will be the ones screaming bloody murder.

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html

I don't know Ex with legalisation comes commercialisation and promotion, this is the great problem preventing more people particularly youth from being added to the list of addicts. It is too simplistic to say all those who want to use drugs are already doing so. Peer groups are part of the problem of recruiting.

We have tried to deal with the problems here both of legal drugs and illegal ones of public awaresness campaigns, restrictions on promotion, interceptions of imports, crimiminalising of manufacture, trafficking, etc. Unless commercialisation is addressed you get nowhere

We have different issues here ex, decriminalisation, and regulation and control. You have a system out of control there, self perpetuating, and you have got to get the snouts out of the trough and into a different trough to bring change. You see this is the problem when you have a political system based on influence and corruption, everything gets skewed and you think this is freedom. As a nation you have more non-free people than any other developed nation, how you can call yourselves a free country I don't know. Truth is you are a police state with more levels of law enforcement than you can poke a stick at, a system out of control. Your war on drugs, war on terror, war on illegals, just creates more law enforcement. The answers are complex but they include forgoing some of those rights for the public good

So you have got to stop sending addicts to jail and start sending them to rehab and community service, be tough on the dealers and crims, but recognise the illness and detox the addicts.

but local police and law enforcement are making so much money and getting cool toys for their local departments from seizures they will be the ones screaming bloody murder.Hello again, dad:

That the cops now make money on the drug war is absolutely disgusting.. That they say we can't close down the prisons because it'll kill jobs is even MORE disgusting than the cops making money...

I hope you find these things as disgusting as I do.

excon

Hello again, dad:

That the cops now make money on the drug war is absolutely disgusting.. That they say we can't close down the prisons because it'll kill jobs is even MORE disgusting than the cops making money...

I hope you find these things as disgusting as I do.

excon

Yes I find it disgusting as well. Most of what happens with seizures is that they take it and start using it even before any trial takes place.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/police-in-north-carolina-patrol-in-a-corvette/


I guess if they can't have it then they just come take it from you.

Gee I thought all the libs liked the expansive Commerce clause definitions. Here is my only thought on the subject . I do not favor legalization and would oppose it in my state. I do not think there should be overly punitive punishment for pot possession . Nationally ? The prohibitionists understood that it would take an amendment to make a national law banning alcohol because of 10th amendment .

I do not think there should be overly punitive punishment for pot possession .Hello tom:

Well, what DO you think the appropriate punishment should be for a teenager caught with a joint??

Today, we put him in jail, convict him of a crime, send him to prison, take away his right to vote, take away his ability to get college loans, and then Romney expects him to take responsibility for himself and pull himself up by his bootstraps...

excon



Hello again,

We've been here before... I know we don't agree on the macro level...

What I'd REALLY like to do is discuss the national implications IF ANY or ALL of these three states legalize pot... Or maybe there won't BE any. But, that ain't going to work..

excon

'Gonzales v. Raich 'upheld the Federal laws due to the expansive view of the Commerce Clause . The question will be if the Justice Dept in the next adm. Chooses to uphold the federal law. The Obama Adm has already proven that it will enforce Federal law in California . I have no idea what Romney would do.



Today, we put him in jail, convict him of a crime, send him to prison, take away his right to vote, take away his ability to get college loans, and then Romney expects him to take responsibility for himself and pull himself up by his bootstraps...
My State doesn't treat pot smokers that way. I doubt your state does either .

My State doesn't treat pot smokers that way. I doubt your state does either Hello again, tom:

Yes, they do.. They've just got you convinced they don't... I speak from personal experience... By the way, what do you think the cops DO when they do a stop and frisk in NYC?? You think they just throw the pot away and let the perp go?? Really?? Sounds like you're stoned.

If they weren't worried about drugs, WHY do the stop and frisk?

excon

If they weren't worried about drugs, WHY do the stop and frisk?
illegal guns . We have a law passed in 1977 that bars the arrest of people for small amts possession unless they are publicly displaying it or smoking it publicly . If they are being arrested during stop and frisk then the cops are violating the law. Now I know it happens... but Ray Kelly this summer warned cops against making low level pot arrests during a stop and frisk.

Tom don't you know that police everywhere have to fill their quota, it's how their performance is judged, so if they are a bit behind nearing the end of the month, they do a little more pull them over and firsk or pick up on a few more traffic violations which of course provides opportunity

By the time the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition in 1933 was adopted , more than a dozen states had already opted out. Maryland never passed a law .New York repealed prohibition in 1923. Eleven states in 1932 repealed their state laws.

Yeah we know it was a bad idea but we keep perpetuating bad ideas

And when did your utopian nation legalize it ?

Hello again, tom:

Yes, they do.. They've just got you convinced they don't... I speak from personal experience... By the way, what do you think the cops DO when they do a stop and frisk in NYC??? You think they just throw the pot away and let the perp go??? Really??? Sounds like you're stoned.

If they weren't worried about drugs, WHY do the stop and frisk??

excon

Dude, they let me go when I was 16. That was 1976. In Texas. In a little podunk town called Canyon.

Dude, they let me go when I was 16. That was 1976. In Texas. In a little podunk town called Canyon.Hello Dude:

One experience doesn't indicate a statewide policy... It's a nice story. I'm glad they let you go... But, that doesn't mean they let EVERYBODY go.

excon

Hello Dude:

One experience doesn't indicate a statewide policy... It's a nice story. I'm glad they let you go... But, that doesn't mean they let EVERYBODY go.

excon

We know they let everyone go. Heck just ask Willie Nelson. Lol

Hello Dude:

One experience doesn't indicate a statewide policy... It's a nice story. I'm glad they let you go... But, that doesn't mean they let EVERYBODY go.

excon

Cops, DA's and courts have much more important things to deal with than tweaking some kid for a joint. That's the reality.

Come on dude you know cops love to catch someone in possession, you take that away from them and they will have to catch real crims

Give the tokers a break, let 'em smoke and tax it! I mean it can't be worse than jack daniels!

Not an issue about if it should be legal or not ;taxing it would have no affect on usage ,and would likely lead to even more illegal activity i.e.. Tax evasion and other crimes associated with tax avoidance i.e. hijackings ,smuggling ,illegal growing (Wickard v. Filburn) . On the Federal and local level the costs of tax enforcement would outweigh the revenue.I don't think that taxing would be the windfall you think .

An example is the illicit illegal activities in the tobacco trade .There is a vibrant black market for the product world wide and certainly in the United States, where it has been legal to use since the colonial days .In the United States ,the black market cigarette industry is more than a $billion business run by criminal cartels as ruthless as the drug cartels (often one in the same) .

Hey let's go chase tax evaders and smugglers instead of real criminals. Does this strike you as a little jingoistic. Law and order to collect revenue not deal with criminality

You need to understand what real criminlas are, they are those with the guns, those who commit violet crime no matter how motivated, those who kill, not those who are addicted

$billion business run by criminal cartels as ruthless as the drug cartels (often one in the same) .Hello tom:

Let me see. If it's ILLEGAL, it causes dangerous cartels... And, if it's LEGAL it causes dangerous cartels...

Seems to me something is basically WRONG with your thinking.

excon

Not an issue about if it should be legal or not ;taxing it would have no affect on usage ,and would likely lead to even more illegal activity ie. tax evasion and other crimes associated with tax avoidance ie hijackings ,smuggling ,illegal growing (Wickard v. Filburn) . On the Federal and local level the costs of tax enforcement would outweigh the revenue.I don't think that taxing would be the windfall you think .

An example is the illicit illegal activities in the tabacco trade .There is a vibrant black market for the product world wide and certainly in the United States, where it has been legal to use since the colonial days .In the United States ,the black market cigarette industry is more than a $billion business run by criminal cartels as ruthless as the drug cartels (often one in the same) .

Tom I hate to tell you this but they already do tax illegal drugs. That is how they are able to seize everything that person has when they are caught. States like Tennessee and others actually have a voluntary process whereby you could pay the taxes but who is going to do that??

Hello tom:

Lemme see. If it's ILLEGAL, it causes dangerous cartels... And, if it's LEGAL it causes dangerous cartels...

Seems to me something is basically WRONG with your thinking.

excon

Show me where I'm wrong .

https://reportingproject.net/underground/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=1

Tom I hate to tell you this but they already do tax illegal drugs.
Why am I not surprised ?

Law and order to collect revenue not deal with criminality


Does it really surprise you that governments create classes of criminals solely with their taxcodes ?

show me where I'm wrong .Hello tom:

I'm a market kind of guy... If what you say is true, it's a function of POLICY, and policy can be changed.. There is NOTHING inherent in drugs or cigarettes that causes cartels. Prohibition causes cartels.. Unreasonable taxes cause cartels.

excon

Unreasonable taxes cause cartels.


Umm that was my point ;addressing the 'legalize and tax it ' position.

umm that was my point ;addressing the 'legalize and tax it ' position.Hello again, tom:

If the tax is reasonable, there's no reason think it would go underground. Any more than safety pins are underground... Isn't that what you guys call a straw man?

excon

POT SMOKERS RAISE UP!! and be heard. Our time has come. Hell! Everbody I know smoks reefer, I smoke it at night to ease the pain that hevy radiation left in my thought.
OOPS! I just confessed to a crime.
Excuse me I have 2 men with badges at my front door. Am I going to hafta change my handle to Excon#2? More later! Five to ten later. Cheers. Tom

Well speedy do you do speed too?

Hello again,

I still want to know if I should BUY a big greenhouse NOW in anticipation of full on legalization? Nov 6 is right around the corner.

excon

Anytime is good to buy a green house Ex you could get in on the hydroponic market

Holder will not impose Federal laws until after the election. If I was a supporter of these state 10th Amendment laws ,I'd be wary of a 2nd Obama term .

If I was a supporter of these state 10th Amendment laws ,I'd be wary of a 2nd Obama term .Hello again, tom:

Yet, Romney said absolutely he'd IGNORE my states 10th Amendment rights, and he'll make SURE that pot is NEVER legal here.

I'll take my chances on Obama.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Yet, Romney said absolutely he'd IGNORE my states 10th Amendment rights, and he'll make SURE that pot is NEVER legal here.

I'll take my chances on Obama.

excon

He does seem to evolve whenever it's politically expedient. But then he won't have anything to run for if he wins this time.

He does seem to evolve whenever it's politically expedient.Hello again, Steve:

For a minute, I thought you were talking about Romney.

But, rather than evolve, pot legalization would logically BE a second term agenda..

I STILL haven't heard what you think would happen if my state, or even if all THREE states legalized pot. What would EITHER Romney or Obama do?? And, WHY do you NOT want to answer?

excon

I don't know what either would do, my precognitive powers are a little weak today. I don't answer for the same reason I've always given, this is your pet cause, not mine.

I hope obama doesn't get a second term he's a lier a cheat a communist a liberalist and just a plain jerk he says don't smoke he does pot he's a lier for crying out loud and don't see how all of these obama biden people don't understand it he doesn't deserve a secod term he's not worth it

i hope obama doesnt get a second term hes a lier a cheat a communist a liberalist and just a plain jerk he says dont smoke he does pot hes a lier for crying out loud and dont see how all of these obama biden people dont understand it he doesnt deserve a secod term hes not worth it

Thank you for your opinion, do you think you might find the spellchecker

Hello again,

Our resident right wingers BELIEVE that pot smokers DON'T go to jail. Try as I might, I CANNOT convince them otherwise. I don't mean to call THEM out particularly.. In fact, they're VERY representative of our culture, both RIGHT and LEFT.

I invite them to see a new movie called The House I Live In (http://www.thehouseilivein.org/). In fact, I'll PAY for tom and Steve and their wives to see it. Call it lobbying...

It opened in NY on the 5th, and is working its way west. Do I think it'll change minds?? I don't know.. Maybe the movie'll suck. I'm sure they'll report back..

excon

I never said pot smokers don't go to jail.

Hello again, Steve:

Again, the search features suck, so I'm not going to look back.. But, you DID say that YOU got busted and they let YOU go. I believe you THEN extrapolated YOUR experience onto the world...

But, it's MOOT. Will you see the movie? Tell you what. I'll go see the hated 2016 if YOU see this movie. I'll even throw in Atlas Shrugged.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Again, the search features suck, so I'm not gonna look back.. But, you DID say that YOU got busted and they let YOU go. I believe you THEN extrapolated YOUR experience onto the world...

But, it's MOOT. Will you see the movie?? Tell you what. I'll go see the hated 2016 if YOU see this movie. I'll even throw in Atlas Shrugged.

excon

Can a PAC make a deal like that?? I don't know.

Hello again, Steve:

Again, the search features suck, so I'm not gonna look back.. But, you DID say that YOU got busted and they let YOU go. I believe you THEN extrapolated YOUR experience onto the world...

But, it's MOOT. Will you see the movie?? Tell you what. I'll go see the hated 2016 if YOU see this movie. I'll even throw in Atlas Shrugged.

excon

Count me out . I go to movie theaters to be entertained . If you can wait until the DVD is out I'll watch it ,but it won't likely change my mind. Oh the trailer showed them rolling joints ,but everyone who spoke was in the slammer for heavier more dangerous drugs.

I'm going to see Trouble With the Curve tomorrow. Perhaps when it comes to Netflix.

Hello again,

I'm bummed. I voted AGAINST Prop 502 today. That's the law that would have, presumably, legalized marijuana.. But, it wouldn't have. It's a sneak attack..

What it WOULD do, is tax it to death so that the vibrant underground market would be guaranteed to continue - a scenario tom suggested might happen, and will surly happen under this law.

Then, in order protect public safety, they set a 5 nanogram limit of THC, per liter of blood, before a DUI would be issued.

First off, that's a totally non scientific made up number. Secondly, since remnants of THC remain in the blood LONG after the high is gone, any smoker can be cited whether he's stoned or not..

While it may legalize pot, it criminalizes pot smokers if they EVER take the wheel. That ain't something I'd vote for.

excon

And you still can't grow your own. That's what governments do, regulate and tax the hell out of everything. Now apply this lesson learned to another 4 years of Obama.

Hello again, Steve:

Obama is not my fav.. But, he's clearly the lesser of two evils... You KNOW what I think would happen with a Romney appointed 6th Supreme Court justice.

excon

The world would come to an end? Michael Moore and Sean Penn will finally move to Canada?

Hello again, Steve:

Obama is not my fav.. But, he's clearly the lesser of two evils... You KNOW what I think would happen with a Romney appointed 6th Supreme Court justice.

excon

Trickle down economics on steroids, economic scams (bubbles), higher deficits, and a war or two (off the books of course).

The repeal of everything except citizens united. More law and order, and bigger privatized prisons and schools. On the second day..

Economic scams? As opposed to Obama's corporate cronyism?

The right only hollers about the bad, never the good. Matter of fact you guys make the good look bad, and holler some more. When was the last republican who balanced a budget, or cut the deficit??

That's right NEVER, whether they had a republican congress or NOT. Even with a republican congress you guys screwed things up. But all you can come up with is forget he last republican, lets try the next one until we find a savior and hero. Like Reagan, the guy who ran from Lebanon after the 300 marines got killed.

The right only hollers about the bad, never the good

Again, like Dodd-Frank? That was good wasn't it?

A Year After Dodd-Frank, Too Big To Fail Remains Bigger Problem Than Ever (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/-dodd-frank-too-big-to-fail_n_903969.html)

‘The Biggest Kiss’ (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/biggest-kiss_655091.html)
Mitt Romney was right: Dodd-Frank is a gift to big banks

Dodd Frank doesn't make a bank smaller, just manages its failure so as NOT to tank the whole system. But of course you believe the right talking points about its supposed failures, while leaving out how the banks and republicans are obstructing the rules making process.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/major-dodd-frank-rule-delay-cftc_n_1294471.html

Should the Dodd-Frank Act Be Repealed? | Debate Club | US News Opinion (http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-dodd-frank-act-be-repealed)

Good read to get more facts.

What is Dodd-Frank Act? - Definition from WhatIs.com (http://searchfinancialsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Dodd-Frank-Act)


The act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to address persistent issues affecting the financial industry and prevent another recession. Banks are required to have “funeral plans” for a swift and orderly shutdown if the company goes under. By keeping the banking system under a closer watch, the act seeks to eliminate the need for future taxpayer-funded bailouts.

The act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to protect consumers from large, unregulated banks. The CFPB consolidated the consumer protection responsibilities of a number of existing bureaus, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. The CFPB works with regulators in large banks to stop business practices that hurt consumers, such as risky lending. In addition to regulatory control, the CFPB provides consumers with access to truthful information about mortgages and credit scores along with a twenty-four hour toll-free consumer hotline to report issues with financial services.

What Does the Implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act Mean for the Energy Sector? | Reed Smith - JDSupra (http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-does-the-implementation-of-the-dodd-53534/)


Key rules went into effect on or before October 12, 2012, with immediate and near-term consequences for OTC trading and your company's operations. These include the definition of what is regulated as a swap subject to mandatory clearing and what is exempt; definitions of who will be regulated as a swap dealer, major swap participant or end-user; and, recordkeeping, reporting and swap documentation requirements. More rules are slated to become effective in the first few months of 2013, while some remain pending as proposals – including margin and capital requirements, and the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act's extraterritorial reach – without a projected date for a final rule. Along the way, on the eve of effective dates for various final and “interim” final rules (most recently on October 12, 2012), the CFTC keeps rolling out “interpretive guidance” letters in response to requests for modifications and clarifications of rules, setting out examples, tests, and refined deadlines for compliance with the rules.

Takes longer when the republicans keep watering the rules down for their corporate buddies.

Um, my first link WAS Huffpo and last I checked they don't offer any right-wing talking points.

But on the first anniversary of the act's passage, the nation's largest banks boast larger holdings than ever. Their political clout is on the rise, say experts, and the government regulators who are supposed to be looking out for the next wave of reckless speculation are starved of cash. Meanwhile, stalwart banking industry allies in Congress are seeking to crimp the authority of the regulators on multiple fronts.


Some experts say this reflects considerable efforts by banking industry allies to hamstring the regulators as they seek to follow through. Republicans in Congress are determined to either repeal the law, trim portions of it, or -- if all else fails -- starve regulators of much-needed cash, say observers.

Its quite a battle, should we just quit?

Hello excon,

I'm all for legalising pot and everyone I know is for it to.
I mean if the drug that makes some people violent, dangerous drivers and impairs decision making (alchohol) Is legal why isn't the drug that keeps me concentrated and crave taco bell legal.

Were do you stand on this issue?

Hello Gamed:


Were do you stand on this issueWelcome to the discussion.

I'm for legalization, fair regulation, and fair taxation... But, the Washington initiative would force me to buy THEIR schwag pot, at THEIR store, force me to pay THEIR high tax load, and they'd STILL put me in jail if I grew my own..

I don't want ANY of that.

Excon

Were do you stand on this issue?

I think everyone should be able to grow their own but anyone who sells it goes to jail

Hello Gamed:

Welcome to the discussion.

I'm for legalization, fair regulation, and fair taxation... But, the Washington initiative would force me to buy THEIR schwag pot, at THEIR store, force me to pay THEIR high tax load, and they'd STILL put me in jail if I grew my own..

I don't want ANY of that.

excon

So are you for just the average joe mass growing his bud and selling that?
Or are you more for I grow my pot while my neighbor grows his.

So are you for just the average joe mass growing his bud and selling that?
Or are you more for I grow my pot while my neighbor grows his.

I think the second alternative is the way to go, no local enterprise, just grow your own but no selling, no incentive to get others hooked, and licence the growers so if found with weed then it is clear, a grower can have a quantity and beyond that it's commercial and illegal

Yea but I think government will just grow and tax it themselves if we even get that far in the war.

Yea but I think goverment will just grow and tax it themselves if we even get that far in the war.

Governments don't want to be part of enterprise, if you make it commercial then they will tax it, but we don't need another tobacco industry. Think of the licence as a small tax. You have to remember weed has some undesirable health aspects as do tobacco and alcohol, so keep it small. You could have Pharmas making all sorts of other drugs available but it has undesirable outcomes. Where there is a buck to be made crims will get involved.

Hello again, clete:


just grow your own but no selling, That's not going to work... Not everybody has the facilities, the money or the know how to grow...

Excon

Well hard luck ex you learn, back yard gardens and window boxes you know and of course there are attics, roof tops

Sell it at the liquor stores, sell it at the drug stores, and grocery stores. Just like Jack Daniels and Budweisers. What's the difference?

Why make it hard?

Hello again, clete:

It's a tropical plant. It won't grow like that.

excon

Really, then how does it grow in the neighbourhood, EX, don't tell me you don't cultivate it all over, we uncover vast plantations in country which isn't tropical and which may even be subject to snow, good heavens, I've even had to eradicate a few plants myself, curtesy of a wayward son. Perhaps your people aren't as enterprising as mine. It isn't called pot for nothing

governments don't want to be part of enterprise,
Lol ,this government wants to be the enterprise . That's why they gave up Obamacare and the GM bailout

it isn't called pot for nothing and it isn't called weed for nothing. Perhaps Ex wants to maximize THC ;which would mean specialized controlled environments .

Ex might want to run the neighbourhood hydroponic plant for all I know, but what I do know is the dollar signs light up as soon as someone mentions legalisation. What no one wants anywhere is a government enterprise growing and distributing any noxious substance, Taxing it, well that is a horse of a different colour, a pale horse I think

True ;although that doesn't stop governments from running numbers games . Oh but wait... lotteries (those noxious taxes on the poor) are for funding education... it's for the children.

true ;although that doesn't stop governments from running numbers games . Oh but wait.... lotteries (those noxious taxes on the poor) are for funding education ....it's for the children.

Yes we used to have that falacy here, they used it to finance public hospitals, but State Treasuries being what they are, privatisation became the order of the day and they sold it off. Now we have a federal government legislating in the administration of slots, it isn't enough state governments reap enormous taxes from them, now our benevolent government (the little red fox) has had a hot flush and decided that the poor (read chronic gamblers) must be protected from themselves by deciding in advance how much they will loose

There are plenty of people who will grow good pot, pay taxes and create jobs. The Jack Daniels and cigarette industry is doing fine. Why would the pot industry do as well if not better?

I'm with Ex on this . If the plan is to make it legal then what they are doing is the equivance of the Wickard ruling. Yes it's legal but don't grow it . The government just replaces illegal cartels with legal cartels run by the biggest cartel in the world... the government . The liquor industry is a good comparison. It is not illegal for me to brew my own beer ,or ferment my own wine with proper permitting and restrictions on qty. The ATF has very strict rules on distilling alcohol. To legally distill liquor, you need to fill out a lengthy application for a license, post a bond, have approved equipment, produce extensive records and file timely reports. You will also be subject to a special tax on every bottle of liquor you produce.

And by the way, doesn't Washington do the same thing for distilled spirits, sell them only in state-owned or state contracted stores?

I think that it's the state who gives the license to sell liquor to businesses, but has no ownership or franchise interest in them.

Washington may have changed, but there are states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_state#State_listing) where liquor stores are all state-owned, though some allow sales of beer and wine in grocery and convenience stores such as North Carolina.

Wow! I truly didn't know that. Hope the bars aren't state owned. For some reason that bothers me!!

Wow! I truly didn't know that. Hope the bars aren't state owned. For some reason that bothers me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In many states that have state owned liquor stores they have bars next door to them as they are only allowed to sell "mixed" drinks. You byob and they serve you for a nominal fee.

Bet there are a few cops waiting down the road for patrons too!!

I didn't know it until I visited my sister in Tennessee who moved there from North Carolina.

Paraclete asks UOTE]well speedy do you do speed too?[/QUOTE]
Where do you think I got the handle "Speed"? Back in my drinking days I was the veep of y\the badest motorcycle club n Tampa. I've been sober now for over 35 years. I don't ride any more and I grew out of drugs like speed when I stopped drinking. To tell you the truth A lot of things changed when I quit drinking. I became straight, respectable and boring as hell! Tom

Well then Tom it is good you gave up booze and drugs cause when you get older these things are not good for you

I became straight, respectable and boring as hell! Tom

I can verify the last part.

Paraclete Posts: 1,659, Reputation: 555
Ultra Member
Support paraclete #6 Report
Oct 7, 2012, 09:30 PM
Well speedy do you do speed too?
Where do you think I got the handle Speed? Back in my drinking dayze I was veep of the badest motorcycle club in Tampa. My club rode under the Outlaws umbrella, We did a lot of things back 40 years ago. I've been sober for over 35 years and when I stopped drinking I quit hard drugs and the club and turned into a straight, respectable and really boring guy. And now you know the rest of the story. Tom

Is it Groundhog Day?

Hello again:

Something's weird... Not only is the state going to legalize marijuana, but the proposition has virtually NO opposition.. I don't understand that at all..

Any ideas WHY?

excon

Well you know know what you want do you? When you get it you can't recognise it what state is that; Euphoria?

Speechlesstx Posts: 1,125, Reputation: 1447
Ultra Member
#3 Report
Nov 2, 2012, 11:23 AM
Is it Groundhog Day
Now why would you be asking that? Did your head pop out of the ground before you went back down in your hole? Just having a little fun with you Spineless. Because you're such a fun guy. Don't forget to vote! Tom

No Speednut, since you posted the same answer twice I was just wondering if we were stuck in Groundhog Day or you were just demonstrating symptoms of Alzheimer's or some other brain impairment.

Hello again,

It is my fervent hope that we can come together as a country to SOLVE our problems... But, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

With the authority invested in me, I now pronounce this thread CLOSED.

excon

With the authority invested in me, I now pronounce this thread CLOSED.
AMEN! Let's give it a nice burial. It's been a fun ride, R.I.P. Excon, I can close this thread for you if you wish, Regards, Tom

Hello again,

We're OPEN for business... I have some pressing questions... Before you answer, take a hit. Relax, and STOP yelling..

Marijuana is now LEGAL in my state, or at least semi so.. The over the top drug warrior, Mitt Romney got defeated.. The choom guy is our president.

If he doesn't move aggressively to STOP, both my state and Colorado, from implementing our new laws, the war against marijuana is OVER.

Or, am I smokin too much??

excon

Just posted a new OP on the subject since this one was closed .

Obama may look the other way, but I would still close the curtains before I fired up! I mean he has other things more important than tokers like republicans that think they can still obstruct.

Hello again,

Although they haven't decided, the word is the feds will SUE to STOP my state from implementing the new pot law. Eventually, it will be decided by the Supreme Court. How do you think they'll rule? It looks like a classic case of state vs federal rights.

excon

I thought this thread was closed.

How do YOU think they'll rule?

Hello again, Steve:


I thought this thread was closed. It was, but I have power. And what good is power if you don't use it? Therefore, this thread is liable to be closed and opened several more times.

Let me see. If Scalia wears his Constitutional hat, he'll rule for the state... But, if he wears his religious hat, he'll rule for the feds.

I BELIEVE his moral outrage and indignation will outweigh any "small government" notion that he THINKS he harbors... BIG government will WIN.

You?

Excon

I think as long as the feds have it classified as they do you lose. Of course there's always that shot that Obama's DOJ stops defending federal law.

Hello again, Steve:

The question was whether the Supreme Court would OVERTURN the feds classification, not lay down for it. You DO understand that they have the POWER to do that?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

The question was whether the Supreme Court would OVERTURN the feds classification, not lay down for it. You DO understand that they have the POWER to do that?

excon

They can not overturn the classification of a drug. That is not within the courts decision making powers. They may only rule on law and necessity. The tradition is that federal law has always superceded state law. That had been proven many times.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/

Yep.

Hello again, dad:


They can not overturn the classification of a drug. Exactly. But, it wouldn't BE the classification that would be challenged. It would be the LAW itself. If they found even a small part of the drug law to be unconstitutional, they can overturn the ENTIRE law.

I suggest you're looking at it through your drug warrior eyes instead of your states rights eyes... Now, I agree about what's been traditional.. But, a state VOTING to legalize marijuana is ANYTHING but traditional, and states DO have rights. That's different that pot smokers having rights.

I don't think ANYONE has considered the long ranging effects of what these states did. I believe they ENDED the drug war. Yes, it may take another 10 years to finally end, but I think our long nightmare is OVER..

Excon

Hello again, dad:

Exactly. But, it wouldn't BE the classification that would be challenged. It would be the LAW itself. If they found even a small part of the drug law to be unconstitutional, they can overturn the ENTIRE law.

I suggest you're looking at it through your drug warrior eyes instead of your states rights eyes... Now, I agree about what's been traditional.. But, a state VOTING to legalize marijuana is ANYTHING but traditional, and states DO have rights. That's different that pot smokers having rights.

I don't think ANYONE has considered the long ranging effects of what these states did. I believe they ENDED the drug war. Yes, it may take another 10 years to finally end, but I think our long nightmare is OVER..

excon

For one thing your reading too much into it if you think I have drug warrior eyes. I think all drugs should be legal. Lets end the war completely. Tax what is left and put it into education and rehab programs. But that is just me. I can dream.

The idea of a supreme court of the land is to keep consistency and to protect the constitution. I agree if a law is found unconstitutional it should be striken. But then again my mindset is finely tuned when it comes to the law and my opinion as to how it is applied without respect as to my likeing of it or not. I still attempt to respect the law.

Hello again, dad:

That's all well and good. My state VOTED to legalize marijuana, and my state has the RIGHT to do that. The feds will either STOP my state, or the drug war is over.

I STILL don't know how you think they'd rule. Want to share?

excon

Hello again, dad:

That's all well and good. My state VOTED to legalize marijuana, and my state has the RIGHT to do that. The feds will either STOP my state, or the drug war is over.

I STILL don't know how you think they'd rule. Wanna share?

excon

They will rule with the Feds if it comes to it. Without reading the full text of the law I believe they will follow the example set and not disrupt federal law on prohibition. Just like they have done in California.

As always follow the money. Right now the economy stinks and the feds need an income. Look how much on local, State and federal monies come from the war on drugs.

Hello again, dad:

I STILL think you miss the magnitude of what my state did. I would agree with you if the law resulted from legislation... This resulted from a vote of the public..

Maybe there IS no difference. I think there is. Can you show me where the Supreme Court EVER overturned the VOTERS in a state? Look. There might be lots. I don't know.

excon

Hello again, dad:

. Can you show me where the Supreme Court EVER overturned the VOTERS in a state?? Look. There might be lots. I don't know.

excon

Sure I will post this link again. Its from CNN and talks of the SCOTUS decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/


(added after post)

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Hello again,

I'm traveling after the law goes into effect.. Can I take an ounce or less THROUGH the TSA screening and get on an airplane with it?

Would it matter that I'm going to Colorado, or not?

excon

Let us know how it works out.