Obama's War On Weed In California

SuperstringTheory said:
Richard Lee of Oaksterdam bankrolled the effort to legalize. Do you need a link for that? I don't know of any sources that show how growers/dispensary operators voted or whether any others organized, other than the many that supported Lee. There really was not much of an organized opposition. There were some press reports of growers that grumbled that mm had lowered the price they could sale marijuana for and feared full legalization would too. But none of them were actually quoted that I recall. If others had become involved sooner California's referendum probably would have passed.
Click to expand...
You're still conflating legal growers, with guerilla growers. When you can accept that there is a difference, we can move forward on this point.



Potheads love their conspiracy theories almost as much as the conservadouches but the fact is that it failed in California because legalization advocates underestimated the support
Click to expand...
.I think you mean overestimated.

I am well aware of the shady doctors. I will trade our pill mills for California's kind. I don't like the idea of turning doctors into licensed drug dealers, but that is the position they are in thanks to federal laws and the FDA. California chose to change their laws in a specific way. There was nothing underhanded about it, nor was it all part of some dark conspiracy. It conflicts with Federal law the same as Colorado's does.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you or I think about the FDA, and the problem we have with pharma drugs in this country. Although, it bolsters my point about the need for potheads to talk with money, as opposed to just whining about Obama. The problem isn't the mm laws per se. It's the way they've now become a vehicle to skirt fed law.

Colorado is a different animal, and doesn't belong in this discussion. They made recreational pot legal. Cal. didn't. See the difference?


Obama's actions have not been directed by any moral premise that I can discern. He seems to be simply playing politics. Frankly, that is better than Romney. That douchebag seemed to feel morally empowered to continue the drug war.
Click to expand...
Great...now you think laws should be passed/enforced based on 'morals'.

I think that position lost big in the last election
 
I think I'm siding with majority of growers against legalization.
It's pure economics, Marlboro Man is taking over on approval.
100 percent of smokers are for legal!
 
Althea said:
You're still conflating legal growers, with guerilla growers. When you can accept that there is a difference, we can move forward on this point.



.I think you mean overestimated.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about the FDA, and the problem we have with pharma drugs in this country. Although, it bolsters my point about the need for potheads to talk with money, as opposed to just whining about Obama. The problem isn't the mm laws per se. It's the way they've now become a vehicle to skirt fed law.

Colorado is a different animal, and doesn't belong in this discussion. They made recreational pot legal. Cal. didn't. See the difference?


Great...now you think laws should be passed/enforced based on 'morals'.

I think that position lost big in the last election
Click to expand...

You are completely clueless.

You have no proof that there is consistent opposition from growers. How you can even pretend to establish it based on one vote is suspect.

Again, Colorado's law skirts fed law. What is the difference? You seem to be grasping for some way to defend Obama. He is a politician and that fully explains his actions.

The support was clearly underestimated. Many advocates of legalization did not join in the fight until polls showed the level of support was higher than expected. If they had become involved sooner it probably would have passed. The NAACP endorsement was huge but came late.

Can you read? I was clearly stating that Romney was worse. But absolutely I believe laws should be based on morality. One premised on self ownership and the inviolable rights of the individual.
 
Last edited:
SuperstringTheory said:
Not really. But do you know what decriminalization means? It's an improvement over criminalizing it but anything short of legalization is insufficient.
Click to expand...

negative. decriminalization means just that. it's no longer a criminal offense, which it should not be. the framers would have started another revolution if the feds told them they could regulate possession of a weed.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
negative. decriminalization means just that. it's no longer a criminal offense, which it should not be. the framers would have started another revolution if the feds told them they could regulate possession of a weed.
Click to expand...

Right, but they can still ticket you and it usually coincides with some sort of criminalization of larger quantities/trafficking. Fuck that, it should be legalized.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Right, but they can still ticket you and it usually coincides with some sort of criminalization of larger quantities/trafficking. Fuck that, it should be legalized.
Click to expand...
what law could you possibly be breaking if its decriminalized? legalizing it only gives credibility to the governments usurped power to regulate it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what law could you possibly be breaking if its decriminalized? legalizing it only gives credibility to the governments usurped power to regulate it.
Click to expand...

Legalizing it increases their power to regulate it? What?

Decriminalizing something means it is not longer a criminal act. But they can still prohibit it through fines, confiscation, requiring permits and all sorts of other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization

Decriminalization or Decriminalisation is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: Legalization). The reverse process is criminalization.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Legalizing it increases their power to regulate it? What?

Decriminalizing something means it is not longer a criminal act. But they can still prohibit it through fines, confiscation, requiring permits and all sorts of other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization

Decriminalization or Decriminalisation is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: Legalization). The reverse process is criminalization.
Click to expand...
what kind of orwellian bullshit definition is that?
 
SuperstringTheory said:
You are completely clueless.

You have no proof that there is consistent opposition from growers. How you can even pretend to establish it based on one vote is suspect.
Click to expand...
And yet, you claim the opposite based on one vote? How does that work?


Again, Colorado's law skirts fed law. What is the difference? You seem to be grasping for some way to defend Obama. He is a politician and that fully explains his actions
Click to expand...
.The difference is, Obama isn't going to interfere with state law....yet. It isn't that the feds don't want Cal. mm to be used. It's that the Cal. laws are being abused. I've explained this clearly enough for any idiot to make the connection. So I guess it is you who is clueless.

The support was clearly underestimated. Many advocates of legalization did not join in the fight until polls showed the level of support was higher than expected. If they had become involved sooner it probably would have passed. The NAACP endorsement was huge but came late.
Click to expand...
That's all very nice, but until Cal. legalizes weed for recreational use, the feds will crack down on the bogus mm industry.


Can you read? I was clearly stating that Romney was worse. But absolutely I believe laws should be based on morality. One premised on self ownership and the inviolable rights of the individual.
Click to expand...
Right...and others believe birth control is immoral.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what kind of orwellian bullshit definition is that?
Click to expand...

It's the one that has been in use your entire life and before that. Parking violations are not generally considered crimes even though you are doing something prohibited by law.

That was my point, decriminalization is not just a less controversial way to say you support legalization. You are implying something else.

I still don't know wtf you are talking about with saying it empowers them to regulate it.
 
Althea said:
And yet, you claim the opposite based on one vote? How does that work?


.The difference is, Obama isn't going to interfere with state law....yet. It isn't that the feds don't want Cal. mm to be used. It's that the Cal. laws are being abused. I've explained this clearly enough for any idiot to make the connection. So I guess it is you who is clueless.

That's all very nice, but until Cal. legalizes weed for recreational use, the feds will crack down on the bogus mm industry.


Right...and others believe birth control is immoral.
Click to expand...

I did not make a claim that growers consistently support or oppose legalization. Many legal growers were involved and supported Lee's group.

Bullshit, Obama has gone well beyond his promise to only target those violating state law. There are people that fully complied with the law that will likely spend the rest of their adult lives in prison.

Yes, some people believe birth control is immoral and some people believe murder is immoral. The difference is that one is based on a rational moral premises and the other is based on superstition and belief in superghosts. All laws are based on moral premises. That is unavoidable. My opposition to a law against birth control would be based on a moral premise. So?
 
SuperstringTheory said:
I did not make a claim that growers consistently support or oppose legalization. Many legal growers were involved and supported Lee's group.
Click to expand...
And now you make claims without providing evidence.

Bullshit, Obama has gone well beyond his promise to only target those violating state law. There are people that fully complied with the law that will likely spend the rest of their adult lives in prison.
Click to expand...
Obama never 'promised' anything. He simply stated that he has no interest in arresting cancer patients. The industry immediately increased 100 fold. Whereas the dispensaries may be acting in compliance with state laws, the industry is bogus.

I'd rather see the feds. target the doctors, but this is a kneejerk reaction to an explosion in what has become a bogus industry. Are you denying that there are probably 70% or more who are abusing the system?


Yes, some people believe birth control is immoral and some people believe murder is immoral. The difference is that one is based on a rational moral premises and the other is based on superstition and belief in superghosts. All laws are based on moral premises. That is unavoidable. My opposition to a law against birth control would be based on a moral premise. So?
Click to expand...
Laws are based on constitutionality of an issue. The laws that are based on morals are usually flawed.

Of course, those laws are also based on big money behind the scenes.

Your morality should not affect my life. Notice how well prohibition worked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top