Obama's War On Weed In California

[Althea]

Legalizing it increases their power to regulate it? What?

.

Yes...it does. See alcohol. The problem with legalizing weed, is that there will have to be restrictions with respect to driving, public intoxication, etc.

That means they will come up with testing to see if you are currently stoned. Once these tests are perfected, everyone will be succeptible to random stops/testing.


You can't just give everyone the right to smoke weed, and operate vehicles in public.

 

[Airstrip One]

They worked THC levels into the WA law for the purposes of DUI.

 

[Althea]

They worked THC levels into the WA law for the purposes of DUI.

In the blood, or urine?

 

[Timshel]

And now you make claims without providing evidence.

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?


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.

Just what are you asking me to prove? Do you know who Richard Lee is? Do you know that he was the one that bankrolled Prop 19? Do you know that he solicited and received support from many of the dispensaries and growers?

He said he would only go after those that violated the state laws. He did not swear a blood oath and most seasoned political activists, myself included, knew he was lying. You can split hairs all you like but he clearly gave misleading information on how he would respond.

The Constitution is based on moral premises.

No, my morals should not affect your life. That is a moral premise that does not conflict with what I stated about the inviolable rights of the individual. Society overwhlemingly agrees that it is immoral for you to kill another without just (moral) cause. So we have a law against murder based on moral premises.

I DON'T SUPPORT PROHIBITION! My name is up on several legalization sites as a founding member because I have put my money where my mouth is. I was in California during the push for Prop 19 and participated in some of the activism on the streets. I also contributed to Colorado's legalization efforts.

I am sorry but you are a confused moron with an incoherent world view. Your hippy dippy bullshit is why marijuana has not been legalized yet as you apparently include it in your culture war and railing against free markets.

 

[Timshel]

Yes...it does. See alcohol. The problem with legalizing weed, is that there will have to be restrictions with respect to driving, public intoxication, etc.

That means they will come up with testing to see if you are currently stoned. Once these tests are perfected, everyone will be succeptible to random stops/testing.

You can't just give everyone the right to smoke weed, and operate vehicles in public.

You can get a charge now for driving while high. They can test you for it with or without legalization of marijuana. Public intoxication could be prohibited with or without a general prohibition against alcohol.

They still have to have probable cause to take a sobriety test.

Now, how does legalization INCREASE their ability to regulate it? What exact legal framework do you suggest?

 

[Althea]

Just what are you asking me to prove? Do you know who Richard Lee is? Do you know that he was the one that bankrolled Prop 19? Do you know that he solicited and received support from many of the dispensaries and growers?

This, from one who demanded proof that growers voted against legalization. I don't care if you share anecdotes with us all day. The numbers speak for themselves. Growers don't want to change status quo.

He said he would only go after those that violated the state laws. He did not swear a blood oath and most seasoned political activists, myself included, knew he was lying. You can split hairs all you like but he clearly gave misleading information on how he would respond.

And the majority of those purchasing mm are violating state law. Would you rather he throw the potheads in jail, and leave the dispensaries alone?

The Constitution is based on moral premises.

And prohibition was based on morality

No, my morals should not affect your life. That is a moral premise that does not conflict with what I stated about the inviolable rights of the individual. Society overwhlemingly agrees that it is immoral for you to kill another without just (moral) cause. So we have a law against murder based on moral premises

. and yet, in many cases, (collective) "your" morals do indeed affect my life.

I DON'T SUPPORT PROHIBITION!

You do when you claim morality is a valid basis for passing laws.

My name is up on several legalization sites as a founding member because I have put my money where my mouth is. I was in California during the push for Prop 19 and participated in some of the activism on the streets. I also contributed to Colorado's legalization efforts.

All that makes you is a failure.

I am sorry but I am a confused moron with an incoherent world view

. don't be so hard on yourself. Confused? Yes. A moron? I haven't seen that yet.

You can get a charge now for driving while high. They can test you for it with or without legalization of marijuana. Public intoxication could be prohibited with or without a general prohibition against alcohol.

They still have to have probable cause to take a sobriety test.

Now. But if pot becomes legal, you will be subjected to sobriety stops during certain holidays, as they now have for alcohol. At that point, people will be tested for pot, as they are subjected to breathalizer tests now.

Now, how does legalization INCREASE their ability to regulate it? What exact legal framework do you suggest?

because they will develop a list of requirements. THC maximums in the product may be one. They can apply every regulation that is now related to alcohol. Driving under the influence will open up the floodgates to a plethora of new testing.


If you have problems securing weed now, then you aren't really trying. It's everywhere. Why do you need to legalize it?

 

[Timshel]

This, from one who demanded proof that growers voted against legalization. I don't care if you share anecdotes with us all day. The numbers speak for themselves. Growers don't want to change status quo.

So then you don't need me to offer any proof? I have asked you multiple times now what it is you feel I need to support. You are an incoherent mess and apparently unable to answer.

You don't have ANY numbers! You are just talking shit and making up facts.

And the majority of those purchasing mm are violating state law. Would you rather he throw the potheads in jail, and leave the dispensaries alone?

Again, here you make an assertion without any support. I would rather he follow what he said he would do. Better still, I would rather he try to reschedule marijuana so there is no conflict with Federal law.

But why do you believe he should affect the lives of those operating dispensaries with laws?

And prohibition was based on morality

So? The repeal of prohibition was based on morality. Not every moral premise is equal.

. and yet, in many cases, (collective) "your" morals do indeed affect my life.

Such as?

You do when you claim morality is a valid basis for passing laws.

Illogical nonsense.

What basis should be used? Can you name a law that is not based on morality?

Laws are based on morals. I am not saying that that should be. I am saying IT IS. Short of anarchy, which may be based on the moral premise that all laws are unjust, there is no avoiding it. You can have laws based on morality or no laws.

All that makes you is a failure.

Fuck you! It was successful in Colorado and that would not have been likely without the efforts in California. You don't know what you are talking about.

. don't be so hard on yourself. Confused? Yes. A moron? I haven't seen that yet.

No, YOU ARE glue.

Now. But if pot becomes legal, you will be subjected to sobriety stops during certain holidays, as they now have for alcohol. At that point, people will be tested for pot, as they are subjected to breathalizer tests now.

because they will develop a list of requirements. THC maximums in the product may be one. They can apply every regulation that is now related to alcohol. Driving under the influence will open up the floodgates to a plethora of new testing.

Again, that has nothing to do with legality. They could give you sobriety tests with it being illegal.

If you have problems securing weed now, then you aren't really trying. It's everywhere. Why do you need to legalize it?

To remove the possibility of criminal penalties and the problems that arise from the black market. Not every person that enjoys smoking is a loser like you. Some have jobs and don't feel they should have to put them at risk.

Again, you are a moron that has no coherent worldview. According to you, all laws are bad except the ones that Obama uses to punish the dispensaries. If anybody can make any sense of your position I would love to hear it. The only thing I can discern in it is cultish allegiance to Obama.

 

[Althea]

So then you don't need me to offer any proof? I have asked you multiple times now what it is you feel I need to support. You are an incoherent mess and apparently unable to answer.

You don't have ANY numbers! You are just talking shit and making up facts.



Again, here you make an assertion without any support. I would rather he follow what he said he would do. Better still, I would rather he try to reschedule marijuana so there is no conflict with Federal law.

But why do you believe he should affect the lives of those operating dispensaries with laws?



So? The repeal of prohibition was based on morality. Not every moral premise is equal.



Such as?



Illogical nonsense.

What basis should be used? Can you name a law that is not based on morality?

Laws are based on morals. I am not saying that that should be. I am saying IT IS. Short of anarchy, which may be based on the moral premise that all laws are unjust, there is no avoiding it. You can have laws based on morality or no laws.



Fuck you! It was successful in Colorado and that would not have been likely without the efforts in California. You don't know what you are talking about.




No, YOU ARE glue.



Again, that has nothing to do with legality. They could give you sobriety tests with it being illegal.



To remove the possibility of criminal penalties and the problems that arise from the black market. Not every person that enjoys smoking is a loser like you. Some have jobs and don't feel they should have to put them at risk.

Again, you are a moron that has no coherent worldview. According to you, all laws are bad except the ones that Obama uses to punish the dispensaries. If anybody can make any sense of your position I would love to hear it. The only thing I can discern in it is cultish allegiance to Obama.

To summarize:

You are a failure. Your hard work failed to get marijuana legalized for casual use. So now you blame the fed. govt. Meanwhile, you demand citation for commonly known facts re. growers' voting on the issue.

Contemporaneously, you refuse to provide facts to support your counter argument.

You ignore the fact that more than half the mm sold in Cal. is done so illegally. These 'patients' not only abuse the system by going to bogus doctors, but they are selling the weed on the streets.

And you whine about the feds cracking down.

You cannot see the difference between Colorado's laws, and Cal's. Maybe remedial reading is in your future?


Do your homework, or get any 10 year old to explain it to you.

I've done my best.