+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Marijuana is LEGAL! (Sort of)

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410

    Marijuana is LEGAL! (Sort of)

    The federal government has decided that marijuana is legal, sort of. The federal government has decided to not enforce federal prohibitions on possession of marijuana in states where the trade and consumption of marijuana has been legalized under state law. A handful of people at the top of the federal government just decided that some laws, in some places, is not worth enforcing. I have a problem with that.

    I don't have a problem with selective prosecution, I see the merits in having a certain level of discretion in whether or not a law is enforced on a case by case basis. What I have a problem with is that the federal government has made a blanket decision to no longer enforce a law based on where the offender is located.

    Where this started goes back to when the government, by executive order, decided that the law against the trade on certain substances now applies to mere possession. I believe this goes back to President Reagan and his wife's "Just Say No!" campaign. Pay close attention the next time you hear or read in the news about someone getting arrested for a drug offense, it will inevitably be something like "possession with intent to deliver". That part about "intent to deliver" is important because the laws do not state that possession alone is illegal, the law prohibits the trade of controlled substances.

    The powers that be have decided that possessing any detectable amount of a controlled substance implies that one is intending to sell it. Before this legal fiction came about the prosecutors had to prove that the person possessing the controlled substance did in fact intend to sell it to someone else. Somehow the judicial system was convinced to play along with this.

    Now what has happened is that the federal government has decided to dispose of this legal fiction that possession implies intent to sell. That's a good thing, the executive branch decided to enforce the legislation as written. The bad thing is that the federal government is not enforcing laws on trade in this same substances, in open opposition of legislation.

    Now, even though the federal government has decided to allow citizens free trade in marijuana it will not be so accommodating when it comes to our rights as protected under the Second Amendment. Licensed firearm dealers have been instructed to not transfer firearms to people that have a history of using marijuana.

    The question is then how is the FFL supposed to know if the person buying a firearm has used marijuana? Well, they don't. People that have been issued a medical marijuana license have been instructed to not show their license to the FFL when buying, and to lie when completing the 4473. Who instructed people to do this? As far as I can tell it's been a whole bunch of people, generally medical marijuana advocates.

    The powers that be in the federal government seem to be generally okay with marijuana, but will still use it as an excuse to deny our right to arm ourselves. Generally I see that the federal government will use any excuse to prevent us from arming ourselves.

    What this comes down to is that the federal government has placed itself in an interesting position. They have decided that marijuana is okay but gun ownership is not. As I understand the law it is well within the power of the executive branch to reclassify marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. This authority includes removing a substance from the scheduled list. Again, that is how I understand it, I could be wrong.

    It is my belief that the powers that be in the federal government have decided that they will make this compromise in how they enforce prohibitions on marijuana because they know a certain number of people will make it politically dangerous to take the step of reclassifying marijuana. It would also be politically dangerous for them because of those that wish to disarm the public. They are damned if they change the regulation to reflect policy, and they are damned if policy is to enforce the regulation as written. So they've come up with a policy that pleases neither but has so far remained under the radar of most.

    The status quo on this cannot continue forever. The people that made these decisions on marijuana and gun control will not be in office forever. It is my prediction that marijuana will be legalized federally within five years. The alternative is that a whole lot of people in 20 states and the District of Columbia will have to go to prison.

    With states now acting in open violation of prohibitions on marijuana trade, and the federal government allowing it to happen, we've past a point of no return. I expect that the powers that be in the federal government know this. However, the political climate prevents them from recognizing this openly. Marijuana has already been legalized, the federal government just won't admit it yet.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-05-03
    Location
    Orlando - Y'all keep coming down on vacation and paying my taxes!
    Posts
    938
    So the federal government decides to look the other way when states pass laws to legalize marijuana.

    And yet they sue the hell our of states who pass laws that try and prevent illegals from destroying their state.

    Makes perfect sense to me.
    PRC (AW) USN (Ret) 1973 - 1995
    "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"; The oath I took doesn't have an expiration date.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkDido View Post
    So the federal government decides to look the other way when states pass laws to legalize marijuana.

    And yet they sue the hell our of states who pass laws that try and prevent illegals from destroying their state.

    Makes perfect sense to me.
    Of course it does. There is an element within the Democrat party that wants to consolidate power into the Executive branch. I'm not sure where legalizing marijuana falls into this. Best guess I have is it allows the President and Attorney General to show they they can apply the laws as they please. They know they can charge these people under federal crimes but perhaps choose not to until they do something that may be in open opposition of the Democrats. Democrats have a history of marijuana use and have supported legalization, just not always openly.

    I try to not delve too deeply into the dark and twisted mind that these... I'm searching for a good word to describe them. Tyrants, that is what they are. These tyrants play a long game and so their methods may appear as madness until the pattern presents itself.

    I think we are getting closer and closer to a constitutional convention. The federal government is really pissing off the states with unfunded mandates, increasing taxation, job killing policies, and just general bloat of the federal government.

    Marijuana is a small part of this. States rights are at issue. The last time this happened it was the states wanting the right to keep slaves. This time the fight will be over our guns, bibles, marijuana, healthcare, our food, our children's education.

    I expect direct taxation being one of the federal powers to get taken back. That would mean a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. There are so many things that the government can tell us to do because of the tax code. They can direct us on what we can buy through tax incentives, cars, toilets, home insulation, light bulbs, homes, shoes, cosmetics, food, entertainment.

    I suspect the issue of direct election of US Senators will come up. For state governments to have a voice in the federal government it would make sense to return to the days when state legislatures appointed the Senators.

    The states are not liking how much the federal government is prying into matters states view as internal. Marijuana trade is just one. Elections is another. Much of this rides on the whims of the Attorney General. The states themselves may not be able to remove such people from office directly but the states have the authority to alter or abolish the federal government as it wishes by means of a convention.

    I know history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. I feel I've heard this tune before. I'm still wondering which will come first, an election or the threat of a convention of the states. An actually convention could take years to play out to completion. In the past a threat of a convention has got the federal government to play along. I don't think the threat will be enough, only real amending the US Constitution will have to happen to please the states.

    That's all in my humble opinion of course.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-08
    Location
    Miami Beach,Florida
    Posts
    12,836
    All this could change with next Administration, or even before that, the next Attorney General.

    I really have to laugh about the marijuana insanity. IMO, compared to alcohol, the plant is quite benign.

    In comparison, the 16th and 17th Amendments have come close to destroying America. Both are pure evil, and after 101 years are long overdue for the graveyard.

    I will not live to see them put in the ground, but I can pray that my grandchildren do. That is a thought worth sharing.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

    'Harry Callahan' Magnum Force 1973

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-10-05
    Location
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Posts
    5,672
    My hometown legalized fireworks a couple of years ago.

    People could, and did, buy professional grade fireworks and went ape stuffing crazy that 4th of July after years of no legal fireworks.

    Aerial rocket displays rained shards of paper and sticks (and sparks) on neighbors' roofs.

    Full percussion salutes had dogs and cats cowering together under porches or even under couches indoors.

    Mass hysterical pandemonium. Pent up repression unleashed.

    And a reinstatement of the prohibition on private fireworks in the city. Back to bootlegging and furtive quick displays. If there had been a limitation like no firework display that could not be confined to your own property (no professional grade mortars or rockets) the repeal might have been a good thing.
    Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-10-05
    Location
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Posts
    5,672
    Compared to abuse of alcohol, abuse of marihauna is relatively benign. But the prohibitions have proven equally harmful, and did not stop problems with abuse.

    ADDED: I am well aware that no one has died of a overdose of marihauna; however, I have known people harmed by bad judgement while high.
    Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl N. Brown View Post
    I am well aware that no one has died of a overdose of marihauna; however, I have known people harmed by bad judgement while high.
    Let's compare that with...
    I am well aware that no one has died of a overdose of Benadryl (diphenhydramine); however, I have known people harmed by bad judgement while using it.

    Does that mean we ban Benadryl?

    Every drug that has desired effects on the body will have some some undesired effects, we typically call them side effects. These side effects can mean direct harm to the body or it can mean indirect harm because of impaired judgement or reduced physical capability.

    The problem I see is that the government prohibition is a cure that is worse than the disease. We tried prohibitions before. What we got were gang wars, sometimes resulting in gunfights in crowded city centers. It appears we have not learned from our own history because prohibition of another substance is again resulting in people ending up dead in open gang warfare.

    We call them gangs now, we called them mobs or mafia then. Whatever we call them the result is the same, innocent people end up dead.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  8. #8
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    11-19-03
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    13,086
    The theory behind the two actions, (legalize one, criminalize the other), is very easy - stoned, unarmed people are easy to control. Armed free and sober citizens are much more difficult to control.
    If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

    http://czforumsite.info/

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    Quote Originally Posted by armoredman View Post
    Armed free and sober citizens are much more difficult to control.
    No doubt. I just see this policy of quasi-legalization of marijuana being something that cannot continue. At some point the federal government will have to decide whether or not marijuana is legal or not. They can use the prohibition on marijuana to disarm people for only so long.

    At some point someone is going to challenge this quasi-legalization of marijuana. If marijuana is made legal then they cannot use a history of marijuana use a a means to disarm people. If the federal government decides to enforce the prohibitions on marijuana then they are going to have a lot of pissed off, and armed, Coloradans disputing that enforcement.

    I see marijuana legalization as nearly inevitable. Once that happens then millions of people will have their legal prohibitions on possessing firearms lifted. I say millions of people because I recall that an estimated 30 million people will admit to having used marijuana. There is an estimated 100 million armed people in this nation. I suspect the two populations have some overlap. If the federal government wants to take both the guns and the marijuana from this population then I suspect "come and take them" will take on a new meaning.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410

    NFL Steelers admit to smoking marijuana

    While checking on the news I came across the following article.
    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/...my-team-smoke/

    NFL players openly admit to using marijuana. I find this strange in a way. Who would admit to committing a federal felony? I mean if someone admitted to killing an American Eagle then they might find themselves with fewer friends. Same with someone that admitted to vandalizing federal property, or forging currency, or stabbing a police officer. No one wants to hang around those people. But someone that admits to smoking marijuana will often get a response of, "Yep, I did that too."

    There always was a portion of the population that viewed smoking marijuana as acceptable behavior. Part of this was the counter culture "sticking it to the man" and violating the laws they felt were unjust. Well these people that were the counter culture grew up, cleaned up, and were elected to public office. They are now the "man" they were so opposed to forty years ago.

    The children of these pot smoking counter culture types are playing professional sports. Now we have players openly admitting to using marijuana.

    This is going to get very interesting real fast.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-08
    Location
    Miami Beach,Florida
    Posts
    12,836
    ^ The Steelers have never been the sharpest tools in the NFL shed!



    Terry Bradshaw,circa 1970. Phil Robertson's backup QB at Louisiana Tech,1967-68.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

    'Harry Callahan' Magnum Force 1973

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-12-09
    Location
    Suburban Wasteland of NC
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by armoredman View Post
    The theory behind the two actions, (legalize one, criminalize the other), is very easy - stoned, unarmed people are easy to control. Armed free and sober citizens are much more difficult to control.
    I've long suspected that The War on Drugs was started by meddling do gooders, but it's continued to this day by more behind the scenes forces that are making money off things like asset forfeiture. IMHO The War on Drugs isn't about the drugs, it's about the war.

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-01-08
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,925
    What I have a problem with is that the federal government has made a blanket decision to no longer enforce a law based on where the offender is located.
    So... the feds should not defer to the states in any sphere? That seems to be unconstitutional (see Amendment 10). In fact the entire War on Drugs is a violation of the 10th Amendment. This decision you are talking about is merely a decision to not violate it quite so much as formerly.

    The bad thing is that the federal government is not enforcing laws on trade in this same substances, in open opposition of legislation.
    When Congress violates the Constitution, is the President obligated to do so also? Somehow I don't think so. Of course the whole concept of constitutional government is a fantasy; but we are talking here about "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts"...

    The powers that be in the federal government seem to be generally okay with marijuana, but will still use it as an excuse to deny our right to arm ourselves.
    One shouldn't expect consistency from government.

    It is my prediction that marijuana will be legalized federally within five years. The alternative is that a whole lot of people in 20 states and the District of Columbia will have to go to prison.
    People in government have no problem with that! I think your prediction is true only if the economy (and government) crashes, as so many expect. If not, it will continue on, because it is good for those in government, the only ones who matter in the decision.

    Part of what drives this is that the feds are getting nervous about nullification. It's not good for them when states stop paying attention to their dictates, so they try to find some way to placate them for a while.

    And a reinstatement of the prohibition on private fireworks in the city. Back to bootlegging and furtive quick displays.
    One wonders if a simple appeal to be careful about fire danger, rather than a command from one's betters, might not have a more positive effect. I am a great fan of illegal fireworks displays, particularly on the 4th of July. It means people still retain the spirit of rebellion.

    By the way, one of the greatest appeals of pot smoking is that the rulers prohibit it. So if it is ever decriminalized, that appeal will sadly be lost.

    stoned, unarmed people are easy to control. Armed free and sober citizens are much more difficult to control.
    How about stoned, armed people?

    I've long suspected that The War on Drugs was started by meddling do gooders, but it's continued to this day by more behind the scenes forces that are making money off things like asset forfeiture.
    Yep, same as Alcohol Prohibition.

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul47 View Post
    So... the feds should not defer to the states in any sphere?
    No, if an act is in violation of federal law then it should be enforced equally throughout the federation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul47 View Post
    That seems to be unconstitutional (see Amendment 10). In fact the entire War on Drugs is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
    Agreed. I'll go a step further and suggest that states do not have the authority to enforce most existing drug laws under the US Constitution. The US Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee each state has a republican form of government. I believe most every drug law that exists is incompatible with a republican form of government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paul47 View Post
    When Congress violates the Constitution, is the President obligated to do so also?
    No, but the President is required to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. Arbitrary enforcement of the law is practically the definition of tyranny. The President just decided he didn't like a law so he simply chose not to enforce it. His decision to not enforce laws is becoming quite the habit, but that is a discussion for another time and place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul47 View Post
    One shouldn't expect consistency from government.
    Well, we should expect it. It's just that the inconsistency in enforcing law is become more... consistent.

    The laws we are expected to obey have become so complex that it is impossible for anyone to comply. The inconsistency of enforcement makes this even more complex. I don't know if we are heading toward anarchy or tyranny.

    I'm not saying anarchy is necessarily a bad thing. Anarchy just means no one rules over anyone else. If the government is not enforcing the law then that equates to greater freedoms, and freedom is what we want, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul47 View Post
    Part of what drives this is that the feds are getting nervous about nullification. It's not good for them when states stop paying attention to their dictates, so they try to find some way to placate them for a while.
    I agree that the federal government fears nullification. The states have enormous powers to nullify federal law. That is a feature of the US Constitution. The states have the authority to alter, or abolish, the federal government if it wishes. The federal government does not have that power over the states, a state government can only be altered or abolished by the citizens of that state.

    I believe that federal overreach into state issues has progressed to a point that the states will feel compelled to nullify a great many federal laws, policies, and regulations. This will take years to play out as governments move at their own pace. I suspect more than one federal agency will be abolished or rendered effectively powerless real soon. It's just a guess which one will get the axe first.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul47 View Post
    Yep, same as Alcohol Prohibition.
    Like the first war on some drugs this one will end much the same way. Back then it started with states deciding to no longer enforce it. The same reasons for doing so also seem to apply. There is a low public approval for the prohibition. The economy is in the dumps, that means low tax revenue and reduced money to enforce the prohibition. People see the black market trade in the prohibited items as a potential source for business and taxes.

    A strong economy can support a large government which can enable luxuries like removing certain undesirable people from society. When that economy weakens those undesirable people tend to look less undesirable and more like an idle workforce.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    US Representatives have penned a letter to POTUS urging a rescheduling of marijuana.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2t88LbIU4

    Given the small number of people that signed the letter I don't expect much to come of it anytime soon. What it does do is establish a trend that legislators are willing to state openly their desire to reschedule marijuana. Congress granted the executive branch the authority to define how certain substances are regulated. What Congress granted they can take away.

    Right now legislators are asking POTUS what to do about marijuana. There may come a day where they order POTUS to act.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-31-08
    Location
    Illiana
    Posts
    5,655
    I have been quietly thinking about this topic (with no one to debate - I have been recovering from a surgery at home and my wife and dogs won't talk politics and policy with me).

    The analogies between the war on drugs and prohibition are strong. Just like prohibition, the war on drugs has eroded many people's respect for law and law enforcement, contributed to the corruption of many law enforcement agencies, and helped to make an illegal business more profitable though more risky. Sounds stupid.

    On the other hand, I have seen what meth, crack, and heroin can do. That stuff is pure poison.

    As often happens in our large and diverse country, a few places have formally legalized mary jane, and the feds have decided not to fight their WoD battles in those spaces. Legally questionable, perhaps, but maybe tactically very smart.

    The undoing of prohibition wasn't an instant, national thing either. Prohibition was pretty popular in large parts of the country. But it never made it the big cities, where it was treated as a joke by the general populace. (My dad as a teenager used to go to the speakeasy to pick up the beer for his dad's Saturday night poker games -- these guys weren't mobsters, they were upstanding business folks, a couple of whose names would be widely recognized.)

    I think that will happen here. Not in my lifetime, but in my kids', the prohibition on marijuana will gradually fade away. Laws and law enforcement will gradually adjust. Just like it took prohibition 30 to 50 years to fade in parts of the rural south (hell, there are still a lot of "dry" counties in KY and TN and MS -- dry in that liquor is not sold there, but I assure you it is consumed there.)

    There will be political theatre as some have strong personal opinions, and some will see advantage in campaigning on the issue. But I expect many perhaps most will try to make as little fuss as possible, seeing no benefit in getting in a fight that can only make them look bad. Decades of legislation haven't done much about what people think.... and they will act as they choose.
    Paul
    People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.

  17. #17
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410

    Tax revenue from marijuana sales exceeds expectations

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/color...-spending-plan

    The governor predicted sales and excise taxes next fiscal year would produce some $98 million, well above a $70 million annual estimate given to voters when they approved the pot taxes last year.
    Interesting, the Colorado government did not foresee this kind of revenue from marijuana. This will undoubtedly make other states take another look.

    Another interesting economic implication that Colorado marijuana legalization has had is on the property loan market.

    Meanwhile, The Denver Post reported Wednesday that banks holding commercial loans on properties that lease to Colorado marijuana businesses say they don't plan to refinance those loans when they come due. Bankers say property used as collateral for those loans theoretically is subject to federal drug-seizure laws, which makes the loans a risk.
    I suspect that at some point this will spill over into residential loans as well. I'd think that a bank might be nervous about a loan for a home where a medical marijuana user resides. The permits to possess marijuana is a government record, it should not be inconceivable for a federal government agency getting access to these records and doing raids based on those records. This cannot be good for the bank that holds the mortgage for that home.

    I suspect there will be a movement in the banking industry to either change the seizure laws or legalize marijuana federally.

    The banks are losing money on having to refuse these loans. They will also lose money in having to go through the extra effort to make sure that the people that do ask for loans do not possess marijuana.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  18. #18
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    While I'm talking about the economic implications of legal marijuana I thought I'd add this cute story.

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...246452511.html

    What's cooler than a Girl Scout selling cookies?

    A business-savvy Girl Scout who sets up shop outside a cannabis clinic to rev up her sales skills.
    That is a smart young lady.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  19. #19
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    11-19-03
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    13,086
    IA, that's an interesting take on it - I never thought about the asset forfeiture laws used that way. Perhaps they could seize the Colorado State Capitol as an accessory to distribute an illegal drug?
    If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

    http://czforumsite.info/

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    Quote Originally Posted by armoredman View Post
    IA, that's an interesting take on it - I never thought about the asset forfeiture laws used that way. Perhaps they could seize the Colorado State Capitol as an accessory to distribute an illegal drug?
    Asset forfeiture laws are quite curious. I recall a very interesting story that may or may not be true but does demonstrate the absurdity of the laws accurately.

    The story goes of a Florida man that is both a bit of a tobacco snob and someone that does research in hybrid plants. In his hobby of smoking tobacco he had hand carved pipes and rolling papers for his tobacco. He'd keep them in his home, office and vehicle.

    One day his son is pulled over for some minor traffic violation and the officer discovers what was described as "illicit drug paraphernalia" in the family minivan. The rolling papers and smoking pipes was enough cause for the police to seize the vehicle.

    The man fought the charges as best he could but came up at a loss. To demonstrate both the outlandish laws and his frustration for the significant financial loss it caused he did something very legal but also devious.

    This man used his knowledge of the law, and of breeding oranges, to create an orange with a significant THC content. As I recall the content was such that eating three slices of the orange would give the same high as a high dollar marijuana joint.

    He then advertised the seeds as a gift to anyone that would send him a self addressed stamped envelope. I don't recall exactly where he posted the advertising, I'm guessing High Times magazine or similar. There were no records kept on who received the seeds, and it is not unusual for people in Florida to have an orange tree growing in their yard.

    If this story is true then there are people in Florida getting just blasted from eating THC laced oranges growing in their backyard and there is nothing that law enforcement can do about it. All of it thanks to the law stealing a minivan from the wrong man.

    I will repeat that I cannot verify this story. What is true about the story is that is how the law works and I've been told it is technically possible to breed oranges that contain THC. It is possible for law enforcement to seize items that they believe were used in trafficking illicit drugs and then force the owner to prove it did not. I cannot recall how many news articles I've read of people having large sums of cash stolen, or nearly so, from them by police because the people that owned the cash could not prove they had obtained it legally.

    If we take this to it's logical conclusion then, yes, the federal government could seize the Colorado state capitol because it was involved with the trade in illicit drugs.

    I've already gone on at considerable length here but I'll add one more tidbit. There have been numerous cases where cash has been seized because there were traces of cocaine on them. This continued until is has been proven that nearly all cash contains traces of cocaine on them. The argument from now on is if the judge rules in favor of seizing cash because it shows traces of cocaine on the surface then the cash in the pocket of the judge can also be seized for the same reason.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  21. #21
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-01-08
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,925
    No, but the President is required to enforce the laws enacted by Congress.
    No, he's not! If he thinks something is unconstitutional he can state that and not enforce it. Even if a court says otherwise he has a choice. The only thing Congress can do about it is try to impeach him. Attempting that over a President's refusal to enforce marijuana prohibition is a loser if I ever heard of one, and Congress would not attempt it because they would look stupid.

    Anyway I thought it was not all that uncommon for Presidents to allocate zero funds to this or that?

    On the other hand, I have seen what meth, crack, and heroin can do. That stuff is pure poison.
    Yeah, and a prison sentence ain't a heck of a lot better.

    Not that anybody at that level of government gives a damn about what happens to the peons...

    Interesting, the Colorado government did not foresee this kind of revenue from marijuana.
    There is one school of thought that says the REAL reason alcohol prohibition ended is because governments during the Depression were frantically looking anywhere they could for sources of revenue.

    As to asset forfeiture laws (aka theft), remember when those first came in? It was Nixon I think, and he soothed the skittish congresscritters by promising it would only be used against "drug kingpins". Yeah, right. Now every podunk PD steals money from tourists driving through town; the assets usually go directly to the PD. The local PD had a Corvette with cop lightbars on top and D.A.R.E. stickers all over it. Find (or plant evidence of) a pot plant, steal a Corvette, cool! Such is policing today.

    People in Oregon got so mad about it they passed a prohibition on it via initiative (forfeiture could only happen if there was a conviction). The cops got most of that overturned in subsequent elections though.
    https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-oregon

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-12-09
    Location
    Suburban Wasteland of NC
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul47 View Post
    As to asset forfeiture laws (aka theft), remember when those first came in? It was Nixon I think, and he soothed the skittish congresscritters by promising it would only be used against "drug kingpins". Yeah, right. Now every podunk PD steals money from tourists driving through town; the assets usually go directly to the PD.
    Forbes just recently ran an article about exactly that kind of abuse: http://www.forbes.com/sites/institut...-with-a-crime/. Apparently the cops had even seized the money from a Church's offering plate that was on its way to the bank.

  23. #23
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,410
    Speaking of seizure laws I was listening to Tom Gresham give an interesting analogy. What if the DEA executed a raid on a marijuana retailer just as the ATF just did on a firearm accessories store. It's worse than that, what the ATF seized was not considered a firearm only weeks ago, the determination that they are even firearms is still in question. These firearm parts are legal items in California but not by federal law.

    How would this correlate to marijuana law and seizure by the DEA? Perhaps a strain of marijuana that had no recreational use, maybe not even a medical use, but useful only for hemp rope. Perhaps the DEA seized something that was not a marijuana plant but something that could become one. Like seeds, cuttings, or something.

    Anyway, imagine the mainstream news outrage if the DEA came into Colorado and seized thousands of dollars of merchandise from a small marijuana dealer. Perhaps the shop didn't even sell marijuana but sold "paraphernalia". Wouldn't we see outrage?

    I think we would coverage of this in all kinds of news sources but the federal government didn't take marijuana, it took firearm parts. No one seems concerned about this in the media excepting places like NRA News and The Blaze.

    We are seeing an interesting dynamic between state and federal governments here. When enough states stand up to the federal government they have to back down. There are some states in this federation just baiting the feds to come in to take their guns but they don't. ATF is testing the waters in friendly California. The friendly major news outlets are ignoring this.

    Gun control is not going well for the Democrats, as evidenced by the talk over a gun grabbing Surgeon General. A Democrat controlled Senate won't confirm him.

    If the Democrats think they can get away with the gun grab they are doing right now then they might push it again with marijuana. These are interesting times.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  24. #24
    New Member  
    Join Date
    10-12-20
    Posts
    11
    As a cosmetic product, this cream is now # 1 for me. In winter, my face and hands are slightly flaky. All creams, even good ones, are chemistry for me, and I am for naturalness, so I chose Blessed CBD cream. I suffered for a long time until I discovered this cream. Very well absorbed, gentle, does not leave greasy on the skin and practically no smell. He smeared it on and went.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •