Government allows Legal Weed

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CountryBobs, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. CountryBobs macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    #1
    Times, they are a changin'.
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    That sound you hear is the next domino falling.

    The next step is the federal government removing the classification of weed as Schedule 1 and leaving it up to the states to make their own decisions regarding recreational legality.

    This is a pretty big step though.
     
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests" What are these threats to public safety?
     
  4. astrorider macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #4
    Under what authority can the executive branch decide not to enforce federal law?
     
  5. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    I found that odd too. I thought they would have closed the thread with a banned OP.
     
  7. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #7
    Driving while under the influence? Sort of like alcohol.
     
  8. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #8
    Look at his profile: 81 posts. You are not allowed to post in PRSI with a count under 100, he must have hacked something.
     
  9. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #9
    There's rule for posting in PRSI?
     
  10. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #10
    Ah that was clever. I wouldn't have thought to check it.
     
  11. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #11
    That, 2nd hand smoke, and a shortage of Doritos and twinkies.
     
  12. skunk, Aug 29, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2013

    skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    An intelligent approach.

    I am indulging in some "marijuana-related conduct" right now. :)

    I mean, of course, that I'm posting in a thread about it ...
     
  13. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #13
    It wasn't originally posted in PRSI it was in the community area..

    Next guess?
     
  14. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
    The DOJ has lied about this before and they will do it again. Any tiny infraction will give them an excuse to go after them.

    "DOJ is reserving its right to file a preemption lawsuit at a later date, since the states' regulation of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act."

    I see it as a sort of entrapment scenario .
     
  15. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #15
    This. You may be in favor of a state's right to legalize marijuana for recreational use but how is it ok for the DOJ to pick and choose which federal laws it wants to enforce? This DOJ is so politically biased, it's a joke.
     
  16. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #16
    Wait I thought the right was all kind of enamored with states rights. You guys get a pants tent every time some yahoo governor says no to the ACA..


    These states chose to allow recreational bud but that's not OK? The Pres is just doing what you guys want. So states rights are limited?
     
  17. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #17
    Exactly. This is the same thing they are pulling with enforcing illegal aliens.
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    Another WTF? moment there. Is this about Area 51?
     
  19. edk99, Aug 29, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2013

    edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #19
    There is no WTF here. Just saying that this administration is picking and choosing what laws to enforce.
    Case in point Arizona. All they wanted to do was enforce federal law on illegals and Washington shut them down on it.

    Then there is this.
     
  20. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #20
    No, it's hypocritical for this administration to pick and choose which laws it wants to enforce. And even worse, to put restrictions on this as if to change the law as written. That's not the right of the executive branch.
     
  21. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #21
    But you're ok with states not implementing the OCA even though it has withstood the US Supreme Court ?
     
  22. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #22
    There are tons of laws that are not enforced.

    If you're going to advocate enforcing every law on the book, then we are all in trouble because there are laws banning oral sex, couples living together that are not married, etc.
     
  23. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #23
    Federal laws?

    ----------

    I didn't say I was ok with that. What's wrong with debating my statement on its own merits without assuming bias?
     
  24. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #24
    No it's called common sense application of the law. We should have a bit more of it at all levels.
     
  25. giantfan1224 macrumors 6502a

    giantfan1224

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #25
    Common sense based on who? Yeah, that would be a sticky mess.
     

Share This Page