Let's All Smoke Out on a 1/2 Pound
- Thread starter NasD
- Start date
SilentBob187
Well-known member
always does
NasD
Member
lmfao...this is true. When was prohibition again? The gov't seems to calm down when they can get their cut (taxes) so I think one day, not soon, something like this may pass and then they will move on to taxing it and be fat, dumb and happy.
CDB
Registered User
The only thing interesting here is the relative stature of the people making the proposal. Barney Frank is an active career politician at the congressional level. To see this kind of legislation being proposed by someone at his level is interesting, it could possibly mean the subject is losing it's third rail status. To see it get support, even from CA reps, and Ron Paul who would have thrown in regardless, is even better. I'm not totally sure since I haven't been on the activist side of this issue in a while, but I think this might be the most significant federal level legislation moving away from prohibition in decades.
The sad part is the DEA and all the nitwits who say the science isn't settled would get destroyed in a debate were they ever to have one, which is why you never see them advance their 'facts' in an uncontrolled forum.
And now the fun begins. I give it less than 24 hours before some dipshit legislators says, "If we make marijuana legal, what's next, rape and murder?" Just don't know who will be the stooge who says it. I would have bet on Rick Santorum but I think he's out of the game these days.
shaddow
Well-known member
We'll see what happens when Obama gets into office. He has stated publicly on several occasions that he is for the decriminalization of marijuana. I think that there stands a pretty good chance of it at least being decriminalized for medical purposes in the near future under his tenure.
Nightwanderer
Well-known member
honestly, 1/4 lb. is more than enough for anyone's personal use at any given time, I'd be happy even if it were limited to an oz.
Think of all the money we'd save as a country by taxing south america and canada for importing their weed instead of trying to stop the flow? Try to smuggle it in to avoid taxes? Gov't could just take it and sell it instead of destroy it.
Think of all the money we'd save as a country by taxing south america and canada for importing their weed instead of trying to stop the flow? Try to smuggle it in to avoid taxes? Gov't could just take it and sell it instead of destroy it.
Usf97j4x4
CEL Rep (Z's lacky)
Thats great and all...
But you wouldnt have the money to buy weed if he was president. He'd have all your "change."
Usf97j4x4
CEL Rep (Z's lacky)
You get an ounce of some fire it will definitely last a long time.
I'd legalize or at least decriminalize it but i'd make it a felony to sell or distribute to anyone under the age of 18. And by felony I mean immediately 6 month jail sentance that you can't plead out of... kind of like the law if you use your permitted concealed weapon for leverage you get a mandatory 5.
My problem is younger kids smoking it tend to lose their motivation and creativity... we simply can't allow that with the way our society is already degenerating.
shaddow
Well-known member
I agree, an ounce is more than enough to be carrying around anywhere, really. I wouldn't wanna risk getting robbed for a QP. F that.
I do have to question why the hell anyone would import it when it could be cultivated here in higher quality though. I could, however, see it working a lot like it does in California with dispensaries and what not...
shaddow
Well-known member
Oh, right. Because I'm so filthy rich right now with Bush in office... And McCain also looks so promising. :think:
shaddow
Well-known member
I agree with everything in there except the creativity part. I think you've got that part backwards.
NasD
Member
Just imagine...you could buy "bulk" weed (like on the street today)for the cheap (up to 1/2 lb) or buy it neatly rolled in cartons like regular cigarettes.
On the Cali comment, you have to be some sort of "registered" medical user for the dispensaries so that it's all controlled? That the way it works?
On the Cali comment, you have to be some sort of "registered" medical user for the dispensaries so that it's all controlled? That the way it works?
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
This is currently the magnitude of decriminalization in Canada. Surprise, surprise, there isn't a linear relationship between marijuana and deviant crime!
Usf97j4x4
CEL Rep (Z's lacky)
Nightwanderer
Well-known member
yes,
but you'd be surprised how easy it is to get a medical id card for use. You can pretty much go to down town oakland and pay a number of doctors $100 cash. Now, I do have an obvious disability, so in fairness it would be easier for me, but still, I've seen the paperwork, and it's a lot like the paperwork for an HRT clinic, you can honestly say you just don't feel 100% happy and perfect every moment of every day of your life, and should the dr be so inclined, he'd sign off on it for you.
The problem with this way of doing things for california is that federal law over rules state law. So, as has already happened, cops can still break down the doors to the cannabis clubs and raid when they feel they need to. So, a lot of people like me don't wish to have their names and photographs (and I believe prints now too) on file as valid patients, because unfortunately it boils down to the discretion of the police officer
as to whether or not he feels like arresting you. In my case, a few officers have come up to me, and kindly but quietly told me things along the lines of:
'This isn't a big thing, pot's not a big thing, but I can't let you smoke around here. So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to take this away from you / make you throw it away. I don't want to see you around here looking for it if I come back.'
and of course they know if you gave up anything substantial that you'd be coming back for it. Then of course you have the guys who view you as a degenerate regardless of circumstance, in which case your card does you no good whatsoever.
NasD
Member
Yeah I hear ya and unfortunately, this is the case all too often in a multitude of circumstances...
CDB
Registered User
I think with a change to the laws the discretion of the police would be better relied on. A couple other comments:
1) The weight limitation is idiotic. Either legalize or don't. This half asses nonsense of legalizing x amount, all it does is keep costs high by imposing restrictions on legal transportation.
2) Derrivative of that, legalization of possession and use while growth, sale and distribution are still illegal is moronic. Legalize or don't. Either adults are free to put in their bodies what they choose, in which case the growth or sale of the stuff should also not be illegal, and limitation of its transportation and legal possession amounts no more than a half assed attempt to control buying patterns, or they aren't free to chose.
3) It's time to stop lying and, at least with weed, just come out of the damn closet and says, "Yes, it should be legal." Enough of this BS about getting grandma her arthritus 'medication'. Sure, weed can help some sick people and may help more in the future if doctors can figure out where it's anti cancer properties come from, however this medical marijuana cover is wearing thing. It's time to stand up and say, "I smoke weed, and I don't belong in prison because of it. I don't deserve to be fined because of it, or limited to a certain amount. I deserve to be left the **** alone as a matter of fact."
Omen
Banned
My friend once said "Marijuana will be legal once they figure out a way to prove intoxication immediately like alcohol so they can make money off DUI's"
I think that with other reasons are true, the government will not legalize Marijuana just because you want them to, they could give a rats ass about what you think or want, if Marijuana is legalized there must be a lot profit for "them" for it to be legalized.
In Criminology courses they told us to say why DARE is a good drug program, after my research I'm the only one that had balls to say it INCREASED drug use in kids participating in the DARE program backed by research from the government and other "credible" sources by legal standards while everyone else said it decreased drug use without any research whatsoever, I got a C and almost everyone who supported it got an A, and I got an A in every other class I took that year, 95%+.
Do whatever you want as long as you don't harm other people, if you want to harm yourself that's up to you too, no one has the right to tell you, threaten you by confinement or force you by confinement to do what they think you should do, you were born free only governed by natural laws and you will die free governed by natural laws, follow only man made laws that serve to better yourself and others, dismiss ones that don't or infringe on your freedom.
This is clearly against Amendment X, but just like firearms and concealed permits, where it's a state thing, or should be, congress says it's federal because it can affect commerce....
More info:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana, citing the Wickard v. Filburn decision. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen. :lol::FUfinger: It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.
Federal funding
Another controversial technique used by Congress has been to deny federal funding to states when certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, the national 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limit and the national 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
Invalid Link Removed
I think that with other reasons are true, the government will not legalize Marijuana just because you want them to, they could give a rats ass about what you think or want, if Marijuana is legalized there must be a lot profit for "them" for it to be legalized.
In Criminology courses they told us to say why DARE is a good drug program, after my research I'm the only one that had balls to say it INCREASED drug use in kids participating in the DARE program backed by research from the government and other "credible" sources by legal standards while everyone else said it decreased drug use without any research whatsoever, I got a C and almost everyone who supported it got an A, and I got an A in every other class I took that year, 95%+.
Do whatever you want as long as you don't harm other people, if you want to harm yourself that's up to you too, no one has the right to tell you, threaten you by confinement or force you by confinement to do what they think you should do, you were born free only governed by natural laws and you will die free governed by natural laws, follow only man made laws that serve to better yourself and others, dismiss ones that don't or infringe on your freedom.
This is clearly against Amendment X, but just like firearms and concealed permits, where it's a state thing, or should be, congress says it's federal because it can affect commerce....
More info:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana, citing the Wickard v. Filburn decision. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen. :lol::FUfinger: It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.
Federal funding
Another controversial technique used by Congress has been to deny federal funding to states when certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, the national 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limit and the national 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
Invalid Link Removed