Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It's the old and thoroughly discredited gateway drug theory.
Spicer: States will likely see 'greater enforcement' of federal law against rec mj
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Except there are a lot of purple states where large majorities do care and even in a lot of deep red States the majority of people are pro pot.
If it weren't for the states, there would be no medical/legal weed.
It took a long time but organizations like NORMAL put on suits, put away the bhongs,and lobbied, lobbied
the states governments. It paid off.
They lobby in DC too -but no one in DC is responsive to anyone not in the elite power structure
It took a long time but organizations like NORMAL put on suits, put away the bhongs,and lobbied, lobbied
the states governments. It paid off.
They lobby in DC too -but no one in DC is responsive to anyone not in the elite power structure
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that only works with open minded and intelligent juries, something prosecutors and judges try to prohibit.
no, i did not vote for him. I voted for gary johnson (although I thought he was a dope too, I did it for strategic reasons to get the libertarians over 5%)
obama did jack shit for weed legalization rights and people were still getting the feds sicked on them. clinton would have sucked too. but yes overall I will grant you republicans are worse on this issue
"I wonder how much wall building money all this federal weed enforcement will require." N #24
President Trump likes having $money, and he likes spending $money, especially ours.
Luckily Trump is just a New York BS artist. His word is worth its weight in sawdust.
SY #29:
I deduce SY that you're not this stupid, but instead out of your superiority complex are testing me.
Splendid.
"so those signs that say 'we reserve the right to refuse service......' and 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' are illegal?" SY #29
1) “Those signs” are not illegal, because they do not discriminate based upon race, gender, gender identity, etc.
Instead they apply to everyone equally; thus BY DEFINITION are NOT discrimination.
2) There's nothing wrong with enforcing appropriate business standards. Glassware occasionally breaks in restaurants for example, and shards of glass on the floor could be a significant peril to a barefoot patron. That would expose the patron to medical risk, and the restauranteurs to legal risks.
You already knew that. Right?
"so when the USSC opined in the very beginning of our nations rule of law that 'the right to contract' is a fundamental right, they were kidding?" SY #29
ANY of those crimes could be perpetrated, UNDER CONTRACT, and thus would not be crimes at all.
You already knew that. Right?
"obama did jack shit for weed legalization rights and people were still getting the feds sicked on them. clinton would have sucked too." K #46
a) Before Trump was inaugurated, the most recent 3 U.S. presidents had all tried marijuana.
- Clinton went Alice B. Tokeless.
- Bush had his own more severe substance abuse issues, including cocaine according to his father the president.
- Obama reportedly smoked like a chimney for at least a while, and is reportedly the first president to have brewed beer in the white house.
b) President Obama was painfully aware of how his Republican opponents would have rallied against him as Black Doper, the first Black President, the first President to go soft on drug "criminals".
c) U.S. politicians are hopelessly trapped in their own “get tough on crime” rhetoric.
Here in New York State for example the Rockefeller Drug Laws have proved a net negative.
They punished the citizen.
BUT !!
They punished the government as well, and it turns out the government got the worse end of the deal.
Colorado is a useful economic model, but by no means the only one.
Amendments #18 & #21 (aka “Prohibition”) are perhaps the more certain model.
Uncle Sam didn't have amendment #21 ratified to be nice to the alcoholics.
The 21st amendment that ended Prohibition did so because Prohibition turned out to be worse FOR GOVERNMENT than the other thing.
And as it is for beer, wine, & liquor; so it is for pot, hashish, & cocaine.
President Trump likes having $money, and he likes spending $money, especially ours.
Luckily Trump is just a New York BS artist. His word is worth its weight in sawdust.
SY #29:
I deduce SY that you're not this stupid, but instead out of your superiority complex are testing me.
Splendid.
"so those signs that say 'we reserve the right to refuse service......' and 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' are illegal?" SY #29
1) “Those signs” are not illegal, because they do not discriminate based upon race, gender, gender identity, etc.
Instead they apply to everyone equally; thus BY DEFINITION are NOT discrimination.
2) There's nothing wrong with enforcing appropriate business standards. Glassware occasionally breaks in restaurants for example, and shards of glass on the floor could be a significant peril to a barefoot patron. That would expose the patron to medical risk, and the restauranteurs to legal risks.
You already knew that. Right?
"so when the USSC opined in the very beginning of our nations rule of law that 'the right to contract' is a fundamental right, they were kidding?" SY #29
Our limited legal right to go to contract is by absolute necessity a limited legal right. Were it otherwise laws against rape, murder, kidnapping, and even treason would be pointless.
ANY of those crimes could be perpetrated, UNDER CONTRACT, and thus would not be crimes at all.
You already knew that. Right?
"obama did jack shit for weed legalization rights and people were still getting the feds sicked on them. clinton would have sucked too." K #46
a) Before Trump was inaugurated, the most recent 3 U.S. presidents had all tried marijuana.
- Clinton went Alice B. Tokeless.
- Bush had his own more severe substance abuse issues, including cocaine according to his father the president.
- Obama reportedly smoked like a chimney for at least a while, and is reportedly the first president to have brewed beer in the white house.
b) President Obama was painfully aware of how his Republican opponents would have rallied against him as Black Doper, the first Black President, the first President to go soft on drug "criminals".
c) U.S. politicians are hopelessly trapped in their own “get tough on crime” rhetoric.
Here in New York State for example the Rockefeller Drug Laws have proved a net negative.
They punished the citizen.
BUT !!
They punished the government as well, and it turns out the government got the worse end of the deal.
Colorado is a useful economic model, but by no means the only one.
Amendments #18 & #21 (aka “Prohibition”) are perhaps the more certain model.
Uncle Sam didn't have amendment #21 ratified to be nice to the alcoholics.
The 21st amendment that ended Prohibition did so because Prohibition turned out to be worse FOR GOVERNMENT than the other thing.
And as it is for beer, wine, & liquor; so it is for pot, hashish, & cocaine.
i don't read sear posts.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I'm surprised that Trump would go for this. Ultimately, the bottom line is jobs - over 100,000 now in the U.S. and growing fast. That's a lot of small businesses and tax revenue.
Idiots! I'm really dismayed by this. Obama wasn't great, but at least huge changes were made under his admin. It feels like we're about to head backwards.
Idiots! I'm really dismayed by this. Obama wasn't great, but at least huge changes were made under his admin. It feels like we're about to head backwards.
Usually, I don't either.
“... Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:
- during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States. Of the 2.1 million, 1.8 million of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 months, in 8 years rather, net ...
more jobs have been created in the United States in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...
70 years since WWII. 36 years of Republican presidents, 34 years of Democratic presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created under Republican presidents ... a little over half the time. In 34 years there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some point the Democrats ought to be comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than have been the opposition.
...
It's 15 years since we've had 10 consecutive months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 million more jobs created in those 8 years, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields
Althea
Althea told me...
Agree with this, but disagree vehemently with this. The day after Obama announced that the Feds would not be busting cancer patients, the numbers of applications for MM shops in California exploded. There was a gross abuse of the industry both by sham doctors, and patients who were pretending to 'need' pot for a variety of bogus illnesses. Obama never busted down one pot head's door. They were shutting down bogus supposed 'medical marijuana' operations. Sure...they fought against the legalization for recreational use, which was silly. They also fought passively to make it almost impossible for MM shops to stay in business....also silly. Now we're setting the clocks back decades.
As to the irony of trump's wishy washy position on states' rights....that's evident.
My buddy has no problem obtaining MM in Massachusetts. There probably aren't a lot of shops, though
Althea
Althea told me...
This post supposes that trump really cares about jobs. He cares about jobs in the sectors where he's invested.
And maybe a touch in other industries, if those jobs will make his numbers look good.
The same numbers he disputed when Obama was in office.
Althea
Althea told me...
Republicans never like to address the uncomfortable fact that Reagan/Bush/Bush all increased public sector hiring in order to stave off unemployment. Only when a Dem is in the White House, do Republicans hate spending on the public sector.Usually, I don't either.
“... Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:
- during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States. Of the 2.1 million, 1.8 million of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 months, in 8 years rather, net ...
more jobs have been created in the United States in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...
70 years since WWII. 36 years of Republican presidents, 34 years of Democratic presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created under Republican presidents ... a little over half the time. In 34 years there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some point the Democrats ought to be comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than have been the opposition.
...
It's 15 years since we've had 10 consecutive months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 million more jobs created in those 8 years, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields
It's hard to give Clinton that much credit for a booming economy, given the tech boom after the birth of 'The Net'. At least he didn't screw it up.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
And yet, every hard drug addict that gets interviewed, will state that they began with using pot. That being said, end the drug war. Boys will be boys, and retarded proles will be retarded proles.
He did almost nothing to stop it, at least not after his first few years, and I doubt Hillary would have attempted to reverse his later policies. She couldn't have afforded to politically. I am not sure Donald can but thanks to Republican voters and dicksuckers like you, he might.
You are such a fraud. I think it is hilarious that you think there is equivalence between telling states to accommodate trans people and continuing the violent drug war in those states that have legalized it. It's not close to equivalent. One is a clear violation of individual liberty and clearly an attempt to further a national police state and the other is a directive to government agents to be nice to students. You don't give a shit about states' rights.
You got played! Lol
It's because Alaskans are libertarians, they just don't realize it.
or alcohol, or cigarettes, or pain pills, etc.. "gateway drug"is simply your fist drug -some go right into heroin.
There is no viable medical definition of what drug that is -it's as varied as drug abusers
"It's hard to give Clinton that much credit for a booming economy, given the tech boom after the birth of 'The Net'. At least he didn't screw it up." a #53
It's generally inaccurate to judge an 8 year presidential administration based upon any randomly selected 24 hr. period.
The more accurate assessment is determined by representative sampling, over substantial periods of time.
I haven't corroborated Mark Shields' numerical quantifications. But I've posted that quotation a dozen times in fora such as these, and never once has it ever been challenged.
The sanity check are presidential elections.
Statisticians claim to know which demographic voted for which candidate. And by & large, according to what I've been reading about since the 1970's, the so called "working class" and "middle class" seem to tend to vote Democrat.
Hillary won the vote. It's the election she lost.
It's generally inaccurate to judge an 8 year presidential administration based upon any randomly selected 24 hr. period.
The more accurate assessment is determined by representative sampling, over substantial periods of time.
I haven't corroborated Mark Shields' numerical quantifications. But I've posted that quotation a dozen times in fora such as these, and never once has it ever been challenged.
The sanity check are presidential elections.
Statisticians claim to know which demographic voted for which candidate. And by & large, according to what I've been reading about since the 1970's, the so called "working class" and "middle class" seem to tend to vote Democrat.
Hillary won the vote. It's the election she lost.
There is not even a good correlation, not any more than might exist between drinking coffee, alcohol, cigarettes, aspirin, ibuprofen, etc and using "hard drugs." You have already set up some sort of arbitrary standard with "hard drugs" anyway.
There is absolutely no doubt that there is a much stronger correlation between legal pain meds and illegal opioid use.