Obama Administration Won’t Prosecute Medical Marijuana Users Or Their Suppliers

This is long past due.
I’ve said for years that denying a cancer patient the simple solution of smoking or eating marijuana to increase appetite or ease nausea was blindly stupid to the point of cruelty. I’ve also said that the federal government should allow the individual states to choose their own policies in this matter and butt out if the states decided to sanction the stuff.
It looks like some steps are being taken in that direction:

WASHINGTON — Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department.
Under the policy spelled out in a three-page legal memo, federal prosecutors are being told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
The guidelines being issued by the department do, however, make it clear that federal agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes.

Fourteen states have some degree of legalization of medical marijuana:

Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

We waste billions of dollars every year on a pointless and utterly failed “war on drugs”. The federal government has actively prosecuted people who were in compliance with individual state laws. I think this is one small victory for the right of states to decide laws of their own without the feds over-riding them at their will. They’ve used interstate commerce laws as a justification for their enforcement and have accomplished nothing but put people in jail and wreck their lives for a relatively benign offense.
Not only that, medical issues aside, the fact that marijuana is illegal in the first place is, in my opinion, ridiculous. In twenty years as a street police officer I never saw anyone smoke a joint and beat his wife. On the other hand I’ve seen countless incidents of alcohol fueled violence including everything from bar fights to homicide. If bars offered weed instead of booze the only danger anyone would be in would be getting trampled in the stampede to the door when the pizza delivery guy arrived.
Anyway, like I said, this is a small step in the right direction. Will it be abused by some people? Sure. Will it ease the minds of those who have a legitimate need for it as an alternative to more severe forms of medications? Absolutely.
This is way, way past due.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array sayanything-1714

    You wouldnt’ know an honest and intelligent opponent if it bit you in the ass.

    Every time Kenny comes across someone who can deal with facts and logic he just denies the evidence and believes what he wants to believe inspire of the evidence.

    If they guy could separate opinion from facts and logic…..he would be one step behind a person who is fair and rational. But he cant manage any of them.

  • robert108

    “And….you just compared anti-marijuana laws with laws prohibiting murder? Good Lord.”

    I did no such thing. I compared the difference between freedom and license. Without personal responsibility, everyone is “free” to do anything they want, without fear of consequences. Laws are there to let us know what is OK and what is not OK.
    Confusing “freedom” with “license” is the road to anarchy.

    Again, I said nothing about banning anything else, so you just made that up, to try to distract from your inability to make a positive pot argument.
    If you don’t like the penalties, the remedy is not to throw out the law, but to make the penalties the way you want them. Duh.

    I never even said that we can or should elimiinate the choice to smoke pot; I said we should not excuse those who break that law from the consequences of their actions.

    You guys are sure twisting and spinning today. Why not just make a good argument, instead of trying to lie about what I say?

  • robert108

    Another false equivalence from you, Kenny. Now you try to equate having laws against pot use with slavery! I thought you were smarter than that.
    Right now, breaking the pot laws is one of the consequences of using it. That’s a true statement, whether you like it or not.
    Again, you fail to make an affirmative argument for changing present laws, and simply try lying smear.
    BTW, despite your stupid assertion, slaves weren’t “free”. It’s a definitional thing, in case you don’t know.
    Really, try to make some sort of factual or logical argument to support your position, will you?
    Pot smokers, again, are free to indulge in their behavior, unless they’re so stoned that they do it in front of a cop. Are you really going to try to deny that reality?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    People are already free to smoke pot; they just have to deal with the
    consequences.

    That doesn’t make any sense. We’re free to drink alcohol and live with the
    consequences but those consequences aren’t criminal penalties (for just
    drinking.)

    I think it’s entirely fair to debate whether or not the act of smoking
    marijuana creates enough harm to the rest of society to require society to
    prohibit the act. Reasonable people may disagree.

  • robert108

    It’s both, Rob; without the toxic substance, there’s nothing to abuse. I repeat: both pot and alcohol cause harm that is not involved in interaction with others.

    While we may not stop all stupid and destructive behavior, it is madness to encourage it by spreading false information about it, leading young people to think it’s OK.

    Again, prescription drugs, which actually help people, are illegal to use recreationally.
    What makes pot any different?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    And the amount of money to be gained by breaking the law.

  • sayanything-38

    You said:

    “I do think our permissive drug enforcement has had the result of increased violent gang activity coming into our country, but the solution is more vigorous border enforcement, not increased penalties on users.”

    So….you think all that weed people are using is coming across the border? The growers in California, Washington, Oregon, Kentucky, etc., will be glad to hear that. I agree, more border enforcement is needed, but not for that reason. All that would do would be to increase the market opportunities for domestic growers. Supply and demand. The demand won’t go away, so the supply will have to come from elsewhere.

    Two:

    “I have also advocated, many times, for users to be fined, with no imprisonment, at least for first offenders. People who think they can habitually break the law need to be removed from society, IMO, for the protection of the law-abiding people who keep the country going.”

    Yikes! Yep, let’s remove those people from society. Good idea. After that second misdemeanor they should be bundled off to re-education camps or a labor camp. Frackin’ scofflaws.

    I don’t suppose you have any idea what you just sounded like. Go back and read it aloud to yourself.

  • robert108

    No, I’m don’t mean what you made up. Try speaking for yourself, since you are not qualified to speak for me.
    Do you have any sort of argument for any position, or are you just sniping?

  • robert108

    I’m saying, over and over again, that it’s just stupid to add another intoxicant to the mix. We suffer enough from the ones that are already licensed.
    Do you think that abuse of prescription drugs should be legalized? It’s a parallel situation, unlike your straw man. If people really need pot for medicinal purposes, then put the same rules in place as we have for other prescription drugs, and penalize recreational use.
    Why do you have a problem with that?
    What’s your affirmative argument for recreational drug use?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    “In fact, it’s presently illegal, and the arguments needs to be made to
    change that status, so an affirmative argument for recreational use of post
    must be made first, then balanced against the argument against.”

    I would imagine that the burden of proof needs to be on the people who want
    to change the status quo. (as in me.)

    However that doesn’t mean I have to be penned in on my arguments. I’m not
    saying that people have a right to smoke pot. I’m saying they have a right
    to do whatever they want provided they don’t cause undue harm on the rest of
    society.

    Pot abuse doesn’t seem to rise to the level of government action to me. I
    don’t think there will be a great deal of benefit other than having drug
    dealers having one less revenue source and the fact that potheads will get
    hassled less.

    For the record, I’ve never tried it, nor any other illegal drug.

  • sayanything-70

    Amen!!!

  • robert108

    “I think it’s entirely fair to debate whether or not the act of smoking
    marijuana creates enough harm to the rest of society to require society to
    prohibit the act.”

    That isn’t an accurate description of the situation, TW. In fact, it’s presently illegal, and the arguments needs to be made to change that status, so an affirmative argument for recreational use of post must be made first, then balanced against the argument against. At least, that’s how resonable debate works.
    It is telling when the “affirmative argument” for reacreational pot consists of “it’s not as bad as alcohol”, don’t you think? If we make a calculation about the cost of legal alcohol, then make an estimation of how much less(if any) damage is done by recreational pot, then we have to projected cost of legalizing pot, and we can make an intelligent judgment about how many more people we can harm, to make getting the benefits worthwhile.
    In over two years of trying to have this debate on this blog, most of what i have received is lying smear personal attack, with no affirmative argument at all.
    Sad, but true.

  • sayanything-5371

    My wife works for the district attorny in our rural community. I’m here to tell you the medical marijuana program is a joke. All the pot-heads on it are involved in other drug use and related crimes. Its a bunch of slouchbag dopers who want to get high and get by and don’t pay attention to morals or ethics or many other societal norms. No one I know that is involved wtih meth or hard drugs started out on hard drugs. They all started out on weed.

  • jimmypop

    good. i hate drugs, but fighting certain kinds of them is freaking nuts. let people do what they want as long as it doesnt affect others. we will quickly find when the mystery is removed, people will use less.

    side note; dui penalties must become MASSIVE regardless of this kind of stuff.

  • robert108

    A stoned populace is a lot easier to fool. Licensing drug use is right in line with Obama’s agenda to subjugate us.

  • David M

    I would agree to some extent medical marijuana is a trojan horse, but I also do not care because I think it should be decriminalized wether medical or not.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    furthermore, there are people being prosecuted for following state law being
    charged under the federal law. That creates an unreasonable hardship.

  • robert108

    Both pot and alcohol cause physical harm, which has nothing to do with interaction with others. I think you are denying the effects of pot. Since its use is entirely recreational, except for a tiny minority of alleged medical use, pot is used for its ability to put us into an altered state. No pot smoker wants ineffective weed. Being stoned is essentially a sub lethal dose of a toxic alkaloid. It’s not benign.

  • robert108

    Get a clue, Rob; I know what I was talking about, even if your prejudice against me prevents you from seeing the obvious.

    Your namecalling demonstrates the level of your intellect on this subject.

  • robert108

    sorry for the typos

  • sayanything-7775

    I’ve never seen or heard of anyone after baked getting the munchies and heading to the produce department of the local grocery store.

    That’s because I do my grocery shopping on weekdays when I am already out and about, and I save my pot for the weekend when I can lounge and enjoy it. It becomes a hassle when you crave something and realize that you don’t already have it.

    Personally, I prefer to snack on fruits over junk food when I am baked. Not only do I get the satisfaction of eating something tasty, it also takes care of the dry mouth. It addition, it is a cheaper and healthier alternative.
    It helps to enjoy the “high” if you eat fruits regularly in your diet. They help to detoxify your body. Couple this with refraining from smoking during the week and you will notice a difference in your “productivity”. You will also smoke less pot and get more out of it. It’s all about moderation when it comes to vices.

    On the topic of Obama’s decision to honor State laws? It’s about time the Liberal party did something to appease “limited government”.
    If a State does not want the Federal Government to interfere with their laws (voted on by the people) then the Feds should oblige. Alternately, if the people of a State should choose to not allow marijuana, (medical or recreational) then they still have their right to enforce their laws. If they need the Feds to assist in apprehending suspects that violated their laws, then have at it.

    Sorry in advance for a long posting. I’d try and shorten it up a bit, but it would probably take more time in the long-term to explain my thoughts to certain people (just “poking your ribs”, you guys. I ain’t throwin punches). If I left something out, let me know.

  • robert108

    TW: Agreed. I think that if there are legitimate complaints about the present law enforcement tactics, the solution is to change the tactics, not abandon all law enforcement, which is what Rob really wants.
    More Trojan Horse tactics, since the “medical pot” tactic hasn’t been all that successful in forcing increased pot use on us.

    The long term problem with legalization is that it will morph into entitlement, and we will eventually end up paying for pot for the homeless and those who don’t want to work for what they get, just like all the rest of the entitlements.
    Then there’s the advertising and marketing to the young…

  • robert108

    Again, Kenny, you made a false equivalence, and are too blinkered to admit it.
    I feel sorry for you, and your feeble attempt at guilt by association is typical of you, as well.
    You just can’t seem to make a factual or logical argument, but you’re right up there when it comes to hatespew, just like the lefties.
    I haven’t called you any names in this thread, so you get it wrong again.
    If you really want to debate, make an affirmative argument for pot smoking.

  • sayanything-38

    r108 -

    Alcohol is legal and controlled. That makes it all better, right? I mean, the little stuff that goes along with it – traffic fatalities, DWI’s, domestic violence, liver disease, murder, property damage, and so on ad infinitum are are okay because it’s legal? Are you seriously saying that marijuana is as harmful as alcohol? Come on, man. I mean, dude.

  • robert108

    In order to have a debate, namecaller, you have to make an affirmative argument for your position, and then not try to intimidate or smear the guy who knocks it down. You have yet to do that, and have been unable to do so for at least two years.

    Unfortunately, if the feds stop “all drug enforcement”, we will have open borders. I never thought you were one of the “open borders” crowd, but nothing about you surprises me now.
    I what you really meant was local enforcement, I agreed with you on that a long time ago.

    By the way, after your lying smear about my having no principles, how do you explain your needing to smear me over my principle of requiring compelling reasons to change the status quo? My stand on your wish for drug proliferation is a principled one, even if you disagree. Your smear is nothing more than hyperbole, but when you can’t even make an affirmative argument for your own position, it’s understandable that you use the tactics you do here.

  • robert108

    I never said I wasn’t allowed to comment here, Rob, so don’t try to put words in my mouth. Your intolerance expresses yourself by your attacking me with lying smear when I disagree with you. You make false statements about what I represent, in an effort to discredit me, instead of offering your own argument. That is intolerance. You attack me for disagreeing with you, Rob, and have done so a great many times over the years.
    The purpose of such tactics is to destroy the opposition, just like the Obama administration is trying to do to Rush, Sarah and Fox News.

    I think it is admirable that you have moderated your stance on blanket legalization, though, and I hope that is a sincere position on your part.
    Despite your lies about me, I also favor less federal presence, and have said so in the past, but still want the drug gangs stopped at the borders, which is the job of the feds. I generally don’t think anyone should be able to import anything into this country with no limits.

    In my reality, drug use is destructive and stupid, but I would respect a vote on the real issue, not the faux “medical pot” Trojan Horse.

  • sayanything-70

    I agree with robert 108 on this one. Why legalize another killer? Isn’t alcohol enough? People can’t be depended upon to use good judgement with alcohol. So we add another evil? Pilgrim may not have seen a pot smoker beat his wife but that’s a pee poor argument. I know what pot has done to a goodly number of young Alaskans. I’ve personally seen what marijuana does to an individual. And what happened to the idea that you obey the law of the land. If its against the law don’t do it. If cancer patients need marijuana for whatever, make it available to them. But making it legal will send us further down the path to destruction. I am so disgusted.

  • Name

    Marijuana as a “gateway” drug has never been proven. It’s claim is taken from testimonial before congress in 1947 – and the claim was not made by a physician…if I remember correctly. Doctors testified against the ban – in favor of legalization – for medical purposes. I used to have the documents/transcripts – somewhere. Marijuana is about money – plain and simple. It’s not about “dopers” or any other “convenient” lie. It’s about money…Big Pharma, Big Cotton and Big Lumber/Forestry…period.

  • sayanything-38

    So, you’re waiting for my answer concerning why we should put another intoxicant of the “approved” list. Okay, here it is:

    It’s already in very widespread use. It’s there. And no amount of wishing or wanting or legislating will make it go away. Apparently you’re more comfortable with the idea of putting people in already overcrowded jails for the use of a relatively benign substance that millions use and enjoy than with legalizing and controlling it.

    There’s something wrong with that line of reasoning.

    It’s as clear as can be – draconian measures simply don’t work, and won’t work, unless they’re taken to the very extreme like in Indonesia or the Middle Eastern countries. Lock them up and throw away the key. Rip away their lives for – what?

    Is that what you’re advocating?

    By the way, non sequiter means something that doesn’t follow a linear line of thought. Any time you wish to cross intellectual swords with me you’re welcome to try.

  • robert108

    If I ever want a spokeswoman, I’ll let you know. Until then, you don’t speak for me, liar.

  • robert108

    “If we aren’t going to enforce the law, why have it on the books?”

    The problem isn’t with the law, it’s with the enforcement. The solution, therefore, is to ratchet up the enforcement, not cut and run from the law.
    Of course, we could always put it to a vote…

  • robert108

    I have done no “demonization” here; i simply stated that it takes a compelling argument to justify changing the law, especiall in light of the harm and lack of value of recreational drug use.
    Trying to invent a word that doesn’t correspond to anything said here is just dishonest.

    Why add another intoxicant to the “approved” list? How do you justify doing that?

  • robert108

    Surprisingly reasonable from you, Rob: Congratulations! The only flaw in that argument is that the feds are in charge of the borders, and are purposed to stop illegal importation. Do you really think the foreign drug gangs will suddenly become law abiding citizens? Except for outside pot, I favor pot laws to be a State matter, so that those of us who want to be free from the stupidity and destructiveness of recreational drug use can vote our preference, and move if necessary.
    If you think govt money will suddenly be returned to the taxpayers, Rob, I think you’re wrong, but that’s because it never happens. The spending levels will stay the same, IMO, and the money might go to a destructive purpose, rather than funding law enforcement.

    So, the same question just moves to the State level, then: What’s the affirmative argument for recreational pot use? Is the cost worth any possible benefit? The only real answer is in quantifying those two matters.

  • robert108

    “To go back to my cupcake argument, I don’t need your license to eat my cupcake. I’m not in the “license” business, Rob, so at least try to be honest. Your use of “freedom” to describe being free of responsibility for your actions is actually license. Since I don’t believe you to be that stupid, Rob, you are obviously trying to twist the meaning of what I said, which is par for the course for you, instead of making any sort of affirmative argument for your position. I don’t need to justify my wanting to eat it to you. Never asked you to. You’re constructing a straw man here, by twisting the meaning of license from a noun to a verb. At least, I shouldn’t have to in a free society.

    You want to grant be license to eat a cupcake Again, false; I said no such thing; in fact, I don’t care what you do. You have a very exaggerated idea of my concern for you. I just want you to stop lying about me., but not license to smoke pot. I reject that premise,It’s a false premise; you just made it up to distract from your lack of argument.and would say that I should be free to do both unless you can demonstrate that doing these things impacts your liberty or safety in some way. Since smoking pot is already illegal, and eating cupcakes isn’t, your equivalence is a false one. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is any reason to change the existing situation. Try persuasion instead of abuse.

    Which you can’t.”

    Again, Rob, you attack to distract. You seem so convinced of how right you are, but seem unable to make a convincing argument for it. Why is that?
    You’ve tried lies, smear, threats, abuse and changing the subject any number of times, but have yet to just make an honest argument in favor of this cause you believe in so much.
    How come?

  • robert108

    You might get a clue by the fact that neither of us mentioned the Obama administration, either, since we had moved on from that specific issue.

  • robert108

    TW: I never “penned” you in; I simply stated the basic principle in debate. One side makes an affirmative argument, the other side makes its affirmative argument, and the debate is over the validity of those arguments. You are right, in that the burden of proof is on the side that wants to make such a change.
    I think “rights” are only valid along with responbility; a “right” without responsibility is license.

    Of course, the “benefit” would have to accrue to society in general, not simply the selfish desires of a group of particular individuals. The present laws are societal laws, which we generally agree are worth any reduction in personal freedom because they prevent the depredations of lawless anarchy.
    What if a bank robber feels the same way you do? Many thieves and violent criminals rationalize their crimes by claiming that nobody who really matters is harmed by their activities.

    BTW, many Americans have tried it, found out what it’s really all about, and choose to abstain from it. Being stoned might be “cute” for twentysomethings, but it’s downright grotesque in mature adults.

  • Name

    I don’t have to ask anyone – I know plenty of people who use marijuana – and don’t touch anything else – you’re making massive assumptions here. I trust law enforcement and “lawyers” to tell the truth about as much as I trust a politician to tell the truth. Too many real life experience’s with both of them…lying, lying and more lying to “cover their asses”…and that is fact in my case…and I don’t even have a record!…never have.

  • robert108

    It used to be all imported, dd, and thus under the jurisdiction of the Feds.
    In fact, until early 1970, the federal laws were unConstitutional, and were overturned by a case involving Timothy Leary and his daughter. Within hours, Congress, with the urging of the American people, rewrote new legislation under Health and Safety.

    Before you attack, you might realize that I have researched this matter very thoroughly, and also have direct personal knowledge.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Wouldn’t Robert be saying you’re free to commit murder as long as you’re
    willing to face the consequences.

  • sayanything-5371

    Who needs “proof”? Anecdotal evidence is more than sufficient, as virtually all users of hard drugs also used marijuana first. Ask anyone in the courts or law enforcement.

  • robert108

    Your unproved claims are noted, as I have told you already. Pot for smoking is not the same as pot for hemp, and you should know at least that much to pose as an expert.

    Actually, the vast majority of Americans who are intelligent enough to avoid it are who is being protected.
    Nice denial, though.

  • robert108

    Being in show business, I’m sure Dennis Miller speaks from experience. That doesn’t mean that recreational drug use is OK, though. We’re not all druggies; some of us choose to not take drugs.

  • sayanything-38

    And that goes back to my argument that tendency to addiction is just that. It has nothing to do with any “gateway” drug”.

    Like I said before, for those with addictive tendencies it doesn’t matter whether it’s marijuana or prescription meds or booze. As was pointed out above, millions of people have tried or used weed and put it aside or else used it casually and responsibly.

    The demonization of the stuff is ridiculous.

  • robert108

    Thanks for sharing your delusions with us, Sparkie.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I think that Rob would generally be in favor of Federalism and respecting
    state laws within the state.

    I think that everything possible should be regulated by the states. If you
    don’t like your states laws you have the chance to move. It doesn’t work as
    well with leaving the US of A because frankly there isn’t any place better
    to go.

  • sayanything-38

    Actually, 108, in a strange twist I find myself agreeing with Sparkie on this.

    And….you just compared anti-marijuana laws with laws prohibiting murder? Good Lord.

    BUT – since you bring it up – I have seen people get more jail time for posessing a couple ounces of weed than some people would get if they hit you in the head with a baseball bat.

    How does that make sense? Know what we should outlaw? Skiing. Water and snow. People get hurt doing that. Choice? What difference does it make if it’s their choice or not whether to slide down a hill at breakneck speed. They’re looking for that adrenaline rush. Stop them, and stop them NOW. Oh, and skydiving. Playing football. And driving. THERE’S one. Driving. People get hurt driving every single day. This must be stopped. Bacon has to go, too. Nasty stuff, bacon.

    You’re quite a law-and-order guy there, 108. And you’re right. Just eliminate the choices people have and everything will be just fine and we’ll all live to be 1000 or so.

    Wish I’d thought of that.

  • robert108

    Kenny, you made the comparison, so why try to deny it? In any case, you still failed to make an affirmative argument for your position; instead you tried to attack my argument with a false equivalence.

    I tell you to use facts and logic, simply because it’s the adult way of debate. So far, you don’t choose to do that. When your childish insults and false equivalences rise to a certain level, I ignore you. If you start with facts and logic, I’ll stay right there with you, on the same basis, but you have already failed to do that in this discussion, and now you try to escalate your irrelevant insults, so I will ignore you, once again.

    BTW, I considered your “point” about pot laws being like slavery, and soundly refuted it. Your ego is unable to handle that, apparently.

  • sayanything-70

    As I said above. Marijuana is harmful. You can’t tell me it isn’t. Alcohol is controlled? My hind foot. Not when the justices feel an anonymous tip that is driver is drunk isn’t cause to stop a driver. I mean, dude, marijuana is as bad as alcohol. Marijuana is illegal. Drinking is legal. Drinking kills and destroys families. Why add pot to the mix.

  • robert108

    “I see your point Robert, it’s for the “greater good”.”

    That’s not my point. I was just informing you of the history.
    If you want to make things up, go ahead; just don’t try to put it on me.

    The facts are the facts, Spart; pot is illegal, and trying to go back in time just doesn’t work.
    As I said, there is no way to go back in time and unring that bell. If you want it legalized in the present situation, you need to make a compelling argument for doing that, and you still haven’t made that first step.

  • ;)

    I would say this is just adding to drug addiction. More people are gonna want to try it. boo.

  • robert108

    It’s not the dichotomy you describe, Rob; the real dichotomy is between right and wrong.
    Again, you confuse “liberty” with license.

  • robert108

    I don’t “favor” the fed involvement; but I accept that it’s a reality. The real task, IMO, is in dealing with the outlaw situation without cutting and running from the present societal situation. Soros is funding this effort, to spread drugs and drug use throughout our society, because he wants to tear us apart. The amount of hate directed at me and other rational people in this thread illustrates how successful he has been already in dividing Americans from each other, while his bot Obama takes us down the road to communism.
    Just get stoned, pot lovers, and you won’t notice a thing. Get your govt pot and don’t bother with what the govt is doing with your freedom.
    Associating pot smoking with freedom has got to be the most insane idea of all time.
    Drugs create slaves.
    I’m not directing this at you, Spart, because you essentially agree with me. Pay attention to what I say, not what Rob and the lefties say about me. They are trying to do to me what Obama is trying to do to Fox News, Rush and Sarah. They have no facts, so it’s wall to wall personal attack, while Soros chuckles in the background.

    http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/soros_behind_push_for_legal_pot/

    Check it out.

    By the way, if Anslinger hadn’t gone on his little trip of self aggrandizement, things would be different today, I’m sure. That’s not the reality we have to deal with, though.
    We have vicious, murdering drug gangs who aren’t going to go away if Soros engineers a surrender at the federal level to drug use. It will only get worse.

  • sayanything-38

    Precisely. I’ve said right here on SA in previous columns that legalization and control would cut the drug dealer’s legs right out from underneath them. Not only that the billionswe spend putting people in jail for weed could be spent elsewhere.

    The illustration of prohibition and the rise of violence that accomanied it is the perfect illustration. Alcohol was illegal. People still drand. People still wanted it. Tah-dah! Black markets arose and all the things that go with them.

  • robert108

    People are already free to smoke pot; they just have to deal with the consequences. This administration picking and choosing what laws they are willing to enforce is just political theater.

  • robert108

    So, why make it worse?
    You legalize it, then it becomes a “right”, then it becomes an entitlement. Why do that?

  • sayanything-38

    You mean like the way prescription drugs such as xanez and the various anti-depressants are pushed by the drug companies – with the approval of the FDA – right now? I submit to you that if you want to grouse about addictions, you should direct your attention that way instead of focusing on casual use of marijuana.

    Why is that worse that taling drugs that the very commercials will tell you can bring on an increased danger of suicide?

    Perspective, man, perspective.

  • robert108

    Murder is illegal, yet it still happens. By your logic, we should abandon the anti-murder laws, as well.
    What you ignore is that the laws against pot use hold down the demand. As Rob so wisely pointed out about lowering the cost of healthcare, such a move would increase demand, and lowering the cost of pot use by removing the cost of breaking the law will have the same effect. Are you OK with that?
    Again, you have yet to make and affirmative argument for pot use. You imply that it’s not that bad, and that somehow it would reduce crime, but present no factual or logical argument to prove that.
    As usual with advocates, you magnify the claim of benefits, while ignoring the increased cost of increased recreational use.
    In addition, if you really think the violent drug gangs will just give up because legalization is forced on us through the courts, you’re dreaming. They are criminals, and they will continue to be criminals.
    No matter how much you may wish it to be so, pot legalization is equivalent to a bag of magic beans, with no beanstalk in the future.

  • robert108

    “To put it bluntly, that argumant is bull.”

    I know you sincerely wish that to be true, but my own experience in the music business shows me otherwise. I know that doesn’t fit into your narrative, but there it is.

    I’m still waiting for your answer to my question as to why we should put another intoxicant to the “approved” list? Why add more harm to that already done by alcohol?

    “There are millions of people out there who smojke marijuana from time to time, yet who still go to work every day, take care of their families, go to church, and have good lives as decent people. No opium dens, no needles in the arm.”

    Unless you’re suggesting that those hypothetical people have better lives due to their pot usage, you have made no affirmative argument. If your point is that their pot smoking hasn’t harmed them, you would have to compare it to how they would be without the pot.
    You also don’t know their mental/emotional state, and how that affects them in the long run.
    I realize you passionately want to excuse pot smokers from legal consequences, but you still make no argument in favor of doing that.

    BTW, I don’t think “non sequitur” means what you think it means.

  • sayanything-106

    This is the first step in decriminalizing drug use. The left has said they wanted to do this. You watch.

  • robert108

    Wrong again! Rob and I were discussing getting rid of Federal antipot laws and turning it over to the States, and the subject was blanket legalization of recreational use; the Trojan Horse of “medical usage” had already been discussed, and we had moved on.
    You should learn to pay attention to context before you start sniping.

    My reference to putting it to a vote referred to blanket legalization, which is not what got voted on in CA.

  • robert108

    If there were really means testing to verify an actual medical need for pot, then OK, but the reality is that it’s just dealing drugs, in the vast majority of instances. Medical pot is a Trojan Horse.

  • robert108

    The CA voters didn’t vote for blanket legalization, Rob, and you know it.
    They thought they were voting for responsible medical use, and got deceived.

  • robert108

    Thanks for convicting yourself. Your creepy homo fantasies add nothing to the argument, and has nothing to do with any type of reasoning. Again, get help, sicko.

  • sayanything-38

    By the way, Suitepotato, I wrote the post, not Rob. Your attention to detail on this issue matches your cognitive abilities, it seems.

  • robert108

    Read up on Harry J. Anslinger, who wanted to enlarge his govt agency, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Before he started creating his phony “crisis”, very few people cared about pot. He created the demand, and now lots more fools think it’s wonderful.
    Taking shots at how it became illegal is not the same as making a positive argument for legalizing it under present circumstances.
    Without a time machine, we will never know if the problem would have ever grown to the size it is today without Harry, but that’s not reality.

  • robert108

    This discussion shifted a long time ago into a debate about blanket legalization of recreational pot smoking. In fact, the so-called “medical marijuana” programs are not subject to the same regulation as other prescription drugs, and are actually a Trojan Horse to get people to accept recreational use by the tactic of gradualism, which is the strategy lefties use for all their schemes to destroy our social fabric.
    Here’s the sequence of gradualism: First, legalization/decriminalization, then, under “equal protection”, it becomes a “right”, followed by public funding of pot for the poor and disadvantaged, thus depriving the non-drug users of the right to say “no”.

  • robert108

    Nobody is being “controlled”, Kenny; those who break the law suffer the consequences of their actions. Despite your hyperbolic rant, people are free to do pretty much whatever they want, they just aren’t excused from breaking the law.

    You’re still just in your adolescent rebellion stage. You’ll grow out of it, eventually. It’s the law abiding people who make this country work, not the dopers.
    This is why Soros is funding the pro-pot movement.

    http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/soros_behind_push_for_legal_pot/

    Read up.

  • robert108

    I’m sorry you’re so ignorant, but to make pot have a maximum THC content, the female plants are isolated and grown individually apart from each other. For maximum hemp production, the male plants are more valuable, and are grown close together for maximum fiber yield, and are allowed to grow to maximum height.
    It’s the same plant species, but different varieties and different cultivation, entirely.

    Before you attack someone who knows more about the subject than you do, try to educate yourself.
    I’m still waiting for an affirmative argument for pot smoking. What good is it?

  • robert108

    More creepy homo fantasies from you, with no redeeming value, as usual.
    Get help.

  • robert108

    Do you really think that Rob will accept it when States decide there is no compelling reason to change their present pot laws? He seems to be intolerant of any disagreement on this topic, so I would expect that eliminating federal pot laws would just be the camel’s nose under Rob’s “licensing pot use” tent.

  • Name

    Did you miss the part about curing cancer…and multitudes of other illness’s? And that’s just the “medical” side benefits. Think clothes, fuel and on and on…get a grip and start thinking for yourself…it would help if you started following the money. Banning marijuana/hemp (same thing – claiming that there is any difference is another scam people have been led to believe) is an outright fraud to protect a “few”.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    He’s like sending me pictures of her just to make me jealous.

    Here’s the infamous thread:

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/margaret_cho_naked/index.php

  • Christine

    What Robert really means is that he is uncomfortable with people making decisions for themselves. They might make the wrong ones, after all!

  • robert108

    Thanks for restating exactly what I said. We hope to discourage tax evasion by making it illegal. Ditto for recreational pot use.

  • sayanything-2227

    Completely 100% agree, well put Pilgrim.

    Que the refer madness crowd.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Nice point E.

    That hurt.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Apparently Rob doesn’t read my comments for fear of reading Margaret Cho’s
    name.

    It distracts him for the rest of the day you see.

  • robert108

    “License implies that some authorities needs to give me permission to do something.”

    False. That’s “a license”, and not what I said at all. Without responsibility for the consequences of your actions, it isn’t freedom, it’s license.
    You claim that you believe freedom ends at where harm is done to others, but then ignore some harmful aspects to your pet ideological issues. Very convenient for you.

    “License” is a state of being without any restraint, and is part of anarchy.

  • sayanything-43

    I suspect that medical marijuana is a fraud, but so what. If people are suffering and think it helps them then why should anyone intervene.

    But then I think we should legalize Pot because it doesn’t seem to rise to the level to justify interference by the government.

  • robert108

    Still no affirmative argument, I see.

  • robert108

    Thanks for sharing your delusions and fact-free personal attacks with us, Kenny.
    You have yet to make any affirmative argument for pot smoking. Lying about it is not an argument.
    All you have is desperate personal attack. It’s always a pleasure to smack you with the truth.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Twinkies are meat E?

  • robert108

    Not to mention “Screaming Yellow Zonkers”; the first advertising pitched to stoners.

  • robert108

    So, why add it to the “approved” list? You claim that pot is “relatively benign”(relative to what?), but offer no proof of that being true. In any case, why approve something.
    Again, we have laws against tax evasion, which don’t perfectly prevent tax evasion, but which do impose consequences on those who choose to do it. That is the purpose of laws, in general, to serve as guideposts for those who can’t figure out the difference between right and wrong in some situations.

    “Is that what you’re advocating?”

    No, never. In fact, my argument has always been, and continues to be, that we should have compelling reasons for changing the present situation. None of you has made that argument, which would begin with a position describing the affirmative argument for smoking pot. Still nothing on that front, but plenty of personal attacks on me for presenting my views on this subject.

    “Non sequitur” literally means “does not follow” in Latin, and signifies something that bears no relationship to what has come before. While you obviously disagreed with suite’s argument, it was not a “non sequitur”. You just don’t like what he said.

    I do think our permissive drug enforcement has had the result of increased violent gang activity coming into our country, but the solution is more vigorous border enforcement, not increased penalties on users.
    I have also advocated, many times, for users to be fined, with no imprisonment, at least for first offenders. People who think they can habitually break the law need to be removed from society, IMO, for the protection of the law-abiding people who keep the country going.

    I’m always glad to correct any mischaracterizations you have of me, and will continue as long as you keep using them to distract from your lack of honest debate on this, or any other issue.
    I’m just interested in the facts, not the feelings.

  • sayanything-38

    And like Dennis Miller said, if there were no drugs or alcohol people would go out in their front yards and spin around and around until they fell over.

  • robert108

    Back in the gutter, I see, Rob. Oh, well.
    I thought you were going to be intelligent here, but you have joined your leftie hater troll pals, usual.

    When you have no facts, it’s just more personal attack.

  • robert108

    That’s a fact, TW. I didn’t make it that way, but that’s how it is. If you want to try to twist and spin my words in some kind of “gotcha” game, I won’t be surprised, but you are still stuck with the truth of the matter.
    Or, just do the usual denial.

    Since we don’t have a police state, no matter what Rob claims, people are generally free to do what they want, so there is no real “freedom” issue; it’s all about being held responsible if you break the law.

  • Name

    Robert – Pot is Hemp. What are you trying to say exactly? If you’re making the argument that marijuana not smoked and used for clothing, fuel and many other purposes is not the same as smoking it to get high – that’s fine…make that argument – as week an argument as it is.

  • HG

    The fact is marijuana use is a choice most everyone faces before they graduate high school. Many try it once, some make recreational use of it, others abuse it, most grow up and put it completely aside never using it again. Legalising its use should not be without warning. I’m sure all of us are familiar with at least one person who abused it as a teen. Teen use should be illegal IMO. That won’t stop it’s use by teens but like alchohol it will limit access and quantity available. Legalizing marijuana comes with the legitmizing and societal approval of its use, that is a disturbing concept. The stigma tobacco has attached to it is a useful and objective concept for society. An even stronger stigma should follow marijuana. Sadly, the poorer communities will likely suffer the most harm from legalizing marijuana.

  • robert108

    Can you survive without it? Pot smoking, I mean. What does it do for you that you can’t do on your own?

  • sayanything-38

    So, Suitepotato – you know one guy whose whole life was changed because he smoked two joints. That led to a six-pack, and that led to a DWI, thus destroying his life because to the Devil Weed. Oooookaaaayyyy.

    As someone said in a early comment, let the Reefer Madness folks begin their rants.

    As far as weed being a gateway drug – people who tend to lean towards addictions will lean that way whether they start off with the evil devil weed marijuana or not. It’s accesibility and subsequent association and opportunity that enable them, not the fact that they smoked a joint and are suddenly pounding the piano keyboard with a wild look in their eyes and chasing women with evil intent. If it isn’t street drugs, it would be prescription drugs or alcohol. Addiction doesn’t care what brings you into its arms. And simply smoking weed won’t get you there unless you’re already inclined that way.

    To put it bluntly, that argumant is bull.

    You actually compare marijuana use with using cocaiune and sex with animals? You’ve often made reasonable and cognitive comments here, but based on this one I would tend to think yopu have a somewhat limited world experience.

    There are millions of people out there who smojke marijuana from time to time, yet who still go to work every day, take care of their families, go to church, and have good lives as decent people. No opium dens, no needles in the arm.

    Your argument is, in sum, a ridiculous non-sequiter.

  • robert108

    Best comment today, by far, suite.

    Trying to distract from the truth with “gotcha” games is the mark of those who can’t even defend their own position, no matter how passionately they believe in their ideology.
    Ideologues are simply hostile to everyone who refutes their ideology. They feel they shouldn’t even have to debate the matter, like Al Gore and AGW.

  • robert108

    “Marijuana cures cancer.” Now that would be an affirmative argument, depending upon its truthfulness.

  • sayanything-7775

    I was only quoting you to repute the stereotype that if you smoke pot you will become a lazy junk-food addicted slob (as some in the anti-pot crowd try to claim).

    Being a user of pot, I know many others. I could testify that the majority of them eat an unhealthy diet. I also know their “other” lives. They also fall into the category of the majority of Americans that are overweight. If it didn’t take them 30 minutes to get determined, and 5 minutes to get off the couch, they would have been stuffing their face for 35 minutes.

  • Name

    Marijuana cures cancer. The Feds said so in the early 70′s – then they basically reneged – however, through FOI the truth is there for all to see – the Govt’s own tests – that’s why pot is illegal…period…and for all who think it’s about the “smoking”…you don’t get the “cure” from smoking it.

  • robert108

    In reply to your attempt at McCarthyism, I’ll quote Rob from earlier:

    ” Rob [Moderator] Today 07:19 PM in reply to robert108
    {…}
    Ellinas is an imbecile and a troll, but even trolls are right sometimes. And you’re flat-out wrong here.”

    Just substitute “Hannitized” for “ellinas”, and you have a true statement. He’s rarely right, but he “skewered” you, as Rob inaccurately said about me.

  • AKA Sparkie

    At least on this ONE ISSUE Obama is not acting like a jackass, pissing away all our money enforcing asinine laws.

  • spartacus

    Read up on Harry J. Anslinger, who wanted to enlarge his govt agency, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Before he started creating his phony “crisis”, very few people cared about pot. He created the demand

    I see your point Robert, it’s for the “greater good”. But then why are you opposed the government bailouts that we’ve recently seen since they too are presented as being for the greater good? Different circumstances, but we’re still transferring more power to the fed….you’re either complicated of conflicted, IMO.

  • sayanything-277

    A even more interesting question is where does the Federal government get the constitutional authority to ban anything.

  • sayanything-453

    Rob…….Margaret Cho……Hmmmmm!!!!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    First, Suite, I didn’t write this post.

    Second, I said I did have a bit of a problem selectively enforcing the law in a comment above.

    I think the federal government should stop all drug enforcement and leave it to the states.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    That does seem to be the logical conclusion of what he’s arguing.

  • headward

    I’m for-against this. The executive branch can’t pick and choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce. I believe that it is unconstitutional for the feds to enforce these laws as long as the drug is grown, processed, and used in that state. There for bypassing the commerce clause. But that needs to be challenged in courts and deemed by the courts. Or just have Congress repeal the law all together.

    But we have to think what’s next? They decide that they are not to enforce immigration laws? I really think it’s funny because of the health care debate with the feds getting into more of the states’ business.

  • sayanything-453

    Hey! Watch it buddy!
    You don’t have to cave in when he is accusing you of “siding with your leftie hater troll pals,”

    What are you? A weakling or something?
    Stand by your man!

  • sayanything-1317

    It’s not about protection, it’s about control. The progressive movement used to believe that the person was nothing but an instrument or a tool of the state, and that, instead of self-determination, the only goal of the individual was to better the state. The Nazis didn’t ban cigarettes out of good will, but to keep their workers healthy. Banning “unpleasant” substances is, at its very nature, the subjugation of the populous.

    There’s very little difference between banning pot, banning soda, or banning transfats. But very few of the “I know best for you”-ers will ever admit that.

  • sayanything-453

    I said vegetarian. For the herbivores. Meat is for the carnivores.

  • sayanything-453

    Of course, we could always put it to a vote…

    We did in California. Were you asleep when the voting took place?

  • sayanything-1317

    I wasn’t comparing pot use to slavery. I was saying your argument was stupid. Because saying someone is free to do something, while ignoring that it lands them in jail is assinine.

    I have given affirmative arguments, and everytime I do, you disappear and then pretend the arguments were never made. It’s like debating a toddler. “Well, you didn’t say it today…”

    And stop telling me to use facts and logic. That holds as much water coming from you as an accusation of racism has from Hanni. Since you have never countered any of my points, I’ll just assume you can’t and move on to more honest and intelligent opponents.

  • spartacus

    Although, one time back in the day, I developed a terrible urge for sardines in mustard sauce.

  • spartacus

    “The demonization of the stuff is ridiculous.”

    Especially when you realize that orders of magnitude more people are addicted to tobacco and liquor.

    Even more so if you know the how’s and why’s behind the criminalization. The History channel aired a documentary about this a while back. The only reason it’s possession and use became illegal was purely for the political gain of a bureaucrat from New York that was facing a very tough election back in the ’20′s or ’30′s.

  • sayanything-81

    Anyone know a good croaker?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Intolerant of disagreement? Yeah, that’s why you’re still allowed to comment here.

    And I would respect state laws against pot use. Just as I respect federal laws about pot use (easy for me as I don’t use pot). But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t think the laws were silly and wrong.

    Certainly the federal government rescinding its power grab over drug enforcement would be an improvement, however.

  • sayanything-4808

    I love how selective certain people can be, when it is their pet that is under attack.

    Normally, Rob would be the FIRST person to state that it is entirely improper for the executive branch to selectively enforce laws passed by the legislative and formerly signed by the executive as nowhere in the constitution is that a right of the executive, and it breeds disrespect for the law by example when those whose duty it is to enforce it refuse to because they hold their whimsy as superior to the process of law.

    When it is marijuana, suddenly that falls to a distant third or fourth thought.

    I’d suggest that marijuana use was making you dishonest, but it ISN’T usage, but your IDEA of usage. You want it to be legal so you can do it at will so bad, you’re willing to choose when to hold to the standards you’ve created as part of your worldview.

    I see the exact thing on the part of people who want to legalize cocaine and other illegal drugs, prescription drugs, eliminate the age of consent, legalize sex with animals, and you can holler all you want that that is extreme, but the principle remains the same: you have a grossly romantic view of something, you’ve made up your mind to be in favor of it at all costs, and are dishonest with yourself when you set aside intellectualism in favor of emotionalism and turn aside all opposition without honest debate in your own mind.

    Come to think of it, it’s like flat Earth, black helicopter, Capricorn One, and other such conspiracy people. They too have an idea, they emotionally cling to it, and they will dance around the periphery of the intellectual points of it with emotional non-sequiturs. They will in their own minds avoid with frantic fanaticism anything that might lead to questioning their chosen supposition.

    (Unlike religion which is inherently a chosen belief for internal reasons, all the beliefs I speak of before are inherently subject to proof/disproof but are held to as tightly as any spiritual faith in defiance of their nature as temporal subjects, thus making a mockery of the claim by humans that they can separate the two. Not with their emotions such a vital part of them they can’t, but to not even try anymore…)

    Marijuana has numerous side effects, all documented by the medical field. The number of former users who will recount having moved from marijuana to harder drugs PRECISELY because of the wrongheaded assumption that it is not a gateway drug and that they can handle it, are legion. I’ve known dozens of those people. I’ve known marijuana smokers who have never done one thing wrong or conversely failed to do one right thing numbering exactly ONE up until last year when that individual smoked two joints, drank a six pack, and got nailed for driving under the influence. Did anyone say marijuana made people wise or smart? I hope they don’t say it to him after that go around with the system.

    As much as I’d love to believe that there’s someone who can handle it, my fairly broad knowledge of humans, their biology, sociology, psychology and history says the risk is tilted against their continuing safety much like a hippo on one plate and a feather on the other.

    You know, much the same arguments you make were made for opium. I recall those not matching reality too well either. Shiftless indolence is a malady every bit as odious as irrational violence and since you have to live in limited world with others, there are tradeoffs. As I’ve said before any sufficiently complex society will inevitably become an entity of its own more or less encompassing the most alike affects of the individuals that comprise it and whether you think it is fair or not, it has an instinct to drive it and an interest to protect and the power to make it so inevitably.

    Finally, as you yourself have observed, the people don’t pay close enough attention to the government, politics and the media and are often taken in by slick propaganda and overwhelming influence. If only they’d think for a minute, they might see the truth about liberalism and big government. I’m more than warm here going by the history of this site.

    What in all your experience says for one nanosecond that people already somewhat cognitively lackadaisical and value judgment challenged, barraged by a willing media and news establishment, fed nonsense and bribed with their own money by politicians even when those same politicians make it clear they are mortgaging their own children’s future, what on Earth makes you think they should be MORE hazy?

    r108 is entirely correct. You’re already free to do pot. You just have to live with the consequences. That is entirely the point of free will, organized society, and government and the rest. You can do anything you want, but ALL things have repercussions and it is unfair to you and others maybe, but that is the nature of the universe and life. You are free to say whatever you want at top volume. Say it to my face and you risk aggravating me and me assaulting you. So you are careful what you say. Just because the unlimited freedom to speech sounds so appealing, doesn’t mean you’re going to fight for it to that silly degree.

    But pot. Maybe that floats your boat more than speech. For some people it is guns, for others it is sex, and others it is hanging out on the street corner. BUT, everything has a price and you need to pick your fights in life very carefully because you get just ONE.

    As R108 pointed out, if you want to be ethically and morally not to mention philosophically consistent, then your energies must be directed at the constitutional propriety of overturning the law through the same method it was brought into the world by, the legislative. An end run has no more honor than the chicanery Obama wanted to use to end run the senate.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    My problem is that big 180 doesn’t ever make a compelling case to ban marijuana.

    Cupcakes aren’t good for me. There’s no really good reason why I should be allowed to eat cupcakes. Except that this is supposed to be a free country and I should be able to put in my body what I want so long as I’m not hurting anyone else.

    Neither cupcake use nor marijuana use hurts anyone else, the hyperventilations of authoritarians like 180 aside.

  • sayanything-453

    Cry us some more crocodilian tears.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Again, you confuse “liberty” with license.

    I don’t, actually. License implies that some authorities needs to give me permission to do something. My position is that people should have the liberty to do as they please as long as they’re not hurting someone else.

    What I oppose is you appointing yourself the arbiter of what should and should not be done.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Its not the substances. Its the abusers. Booze and weed don’t hurt people. People hurt people.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Oh we love having the debate big 180. We also enjoy laughing at your utter lack of principle or even consistency.

  • sayanything-2361

    “Couple this with refraining from smoking during the week and you will notice a difference in your “productivity”. You will also smoke less pot and get more out of it. It’s all about moderation when it comes to vices.”

    I do the same thing with coffee. Go off it a week, when you start back up it’s like a speedball. I’ve got to try upping the fruit to deal with the munchies and dry mouth I get from the coffee. Good ideas, all.

  • sayanything-81

    It strikes me that Bob A describes violence which is, in part, caused by the continued prohibition of marijuana.

    Carol wildly exaggerates by calling pot a killer.

    Also, r108 has no principles. He has no consistency. He has emotional feelings about various issues and he merely screeches and whines, pretending to be arguing from principles. Federalism clearly sides with the states on this one.

    Also, the idea that states will keep pot illegal is a joke. Without the federal laws, there is obviously a small contingent of states which would outright legalize it and an even larger contingent which would make it available for medical use. There is already what, almost ten, despite the federal laws.

    I side with Rob and Pil. The cupcake argument is a good one and r108 has no response without resorting to hypocritical parenting.

    Alcohol is much worse than pot and the original reason pot is illegal is the power of the synthetic oil and lumber lobby back in the 1930s.

    Seriously, why have booze legal and not pot? It’s asinine and arbitrary. What, the argument is that we have booze legal so pot must be worse? Come on.

    Lots of pathetic reasoning on display here.

  • sayanything-453

    robert108 16 minutes ago

    By the way, after your lying smear about my having no principles,

    Robert180′s main principle:

    Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

    robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

  • sayanything-453

    robert108 40 minutes ago in reply to Rob

    I favor pot laws to be a State matter, so that those of us who want to be free from the stupidity and destructiveness of recreational drug use can vote our preference, and move if necessary.

    I believe it is time for you to move. California voters already stated their preference.
    Please allow the door knob to hit you in the anal orifice.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I’m for-against this. The executive branch can’t pick and choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce.

    I agree with this, and would point out that it’s analogous to the illegal immigration situation. If we aren’t going to enforce the law, why have it on the books?

    Now, as far as illegal immigration goes, I’m for keeping it illegal for a variety of reasons (though I think we could and should make legal immigration easier). But on the marijuana side, let’s just get rid of the laws.

    And really, what right does the federal government have to dictate drug policy to the states? That’s not how this federalist stuff is supposed to work.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I don’t think there will be a great deal of benefit other than having drug
    dealers having one less revenue source and the fact that potheads will get
    hassled less.

    Legalizing it, or at least having the federal government turn the issue back over to the states, would have a major benefit to taxpayers who could see a good deal of law enforcement spending either go away or get re-purposed to things that might actually do us some good.

  • sayanything-453

    I have to say that, more often then not, r180 is using his anal opening as his mouth.
    Got to hold him accountable for blaring inaccuracies.
    I think both my answers were spot on.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Actually, 108, in a strange twist I find myself agreeing with Sparkie on this.

    He must be in between glue binges.

    You’re quite a law-and-order guy there, 108. And you’re right. Just eliminate the choices people have and everything will be just fine and we’ll all live to be 1000 or so.

    Well said.

  • sayanything-453

    LOL. What if thestoned person is vegetarian?

  • sayanything-453

    Thank you!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I think you’re overstating marijuana’s impact more than a little.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    No facts? Dude, Ellinas just skewered you.

    California voters, in your home state, voted against you. And now you’re saying i’m in the gutter and I’m a hater.

    Ellinas is an imbecile and a troll, but even trolls are right sometimes. And you’re flat-out wrong here.

  • sayanything-5621

    “Again, prescription drugs, which actually help people, are illegal to use recreationally.
    What makes pot any different?”

    In this case, the law change only effects marijuana used medicinally, not recreational use, and only in the handful of states that allow it. These states voted to allow this type of use, why should the federal government continue to prosecute people well within their state laws?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Obviously I don’t have any first hand experience, but as a cop I think I’d rather deal with the problems caused by abusers of things like alcohol or drugs than the problems caused by the organized crime syndicates that feed the blackmarkets for those things when they’re prohibited.

    As Jefferson once said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.”

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Best comment I’ve read all day.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Again, you confuse “liberty” with license.

    To go back to my cupcake argument, I don’t need your license to eat my cupcake. I don’t need to justify my wanting to eat it to you. At least, I shouldn’t have to in a free society.

    You want to grant be license to eat a cupcake, but not license to smoke pot. I reject that premise, and would say that I should be free to do both unless you can demonstrate that doing these things impacts your liberty or safety in some way.

    Which you can’t.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Prohibition of alcohol gave rise to game violence just as the prohibition of drugs has. As long as there is demand no amount of prohibition will matter. A blackmarket will exist to service that demand. How violent it is will depend on the level of prohibition.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You can say all the same things about alcohol.
    And fast food has a number of things in it that are also very unhealthy.

    And yea, the point of pot is an altered state. Same with booze and
    caffeine.

    You’re making my argument for me. The problem isn’t the substance. The
    problem is the people who abuse the substance.

  • spartacus

    I wonder if medically exempt users in states that have “junk food taxes” will get a tax exemption for twinkies? I’ve never seen or heard of anyone after baked getting the munchies and heading to the produce department of the local grocery store.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    People are already free to smoke pot; they just have to deal with the consequences.

    What a stupid thing to say.

    That’s like saying people are free to not pay taxes. They’ll just have to go to jail if they don’t.

  • sayanything-1317

    “People are free to smoke Marijuana, they just have to deal with the consequences.”

    Well, by that ridiculous caveat, the slaves were free too. They could leave any time they wanted, they just had to deal with the consequences…typically that they’d be hunted down, and perhaps killed. But if you ignore that hunting down thing, they were perfectly free!

    It’s rare that I agree with Obama, but if he’s going to stop putting people in jail who aren’t breaking the law, I think I’m ok with that.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Nice try, Ellinas, but the Big 180 only sees what he wants to see.

  • spartacus

    Get mad, right away Robert. I couldn’t give a fat rats ass less what they do about it, I used to smoke it years ago, considering you’re generation, I’m sure you’ve tried it too, nothing wrong with that. I’m just pointing out that you’re either a conflicted or a complex individual by favoring the feds involvement in one aspect of individuals lives while disapproving in another aspect.

    Personally I see big problems on the horizon with legalizing pot. Workplace safety and product quality issues. The norm is to drug test prior to hiring and to test upon workplace injuries. Alcohol abuse on the job is pretty obvious by the odor, however there is no test (to the best of my knowledge) that indicates whether or not a worker is working under the influence of pot, the tests only indicate that the individual is guilty of having used it recently. Companies have rules in place dealing with workplace alcoholic intoxication, how can they clearly identify an emplyoee that is currently stoned on the job?

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t want to have thoughts in the back of my mind like the guy that made the brake pads for my car might have been stoned and forgot something critical to me or my families safety. Legalizing is okay with me only after a system is in place to verify that it’s not being used in a way that may compromise the safety of others.

  • sayanything-81

    Dude!

    I seem to have spontaneously come down with severe back pain, sleeplessness, and a loss of appetite.

    What ever shall I do?

  • sayanything-277

    “The demonization of the stuff is ridiculous.”

    Especially when you realize that orders of magnitude more people are addicted to tobacco and liquor.

  • sayanything-3352

    STOCK IN FRITO-LAY SKYROCKETS ON OBAMA POLICY CHANGE! ;-)

  • sayanything-453

    robert108 21 minutes ago in reply to ellinas

    More creepy homo fantasies from you, with no redeeming value, as usual.
    Get help.

    I will let your own words convict you:
    …When you cast aspersions on the other person’s character, that is an attack that has nothing to do with their reasoning; it just expresses anger toward someone who disagrees with you. That is not an effective argument.

    robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 02:30 am

  • sayanything-1317

    Robert, you are a leftist. You lie and spin and lie and spin, and twist yourself into a logical pretzel when called on it. You called me an idiot twice before I called you names, so you’re really just a childish liar.

    And since I have made affirmative defenses and you run like a scalded dog, pardon me for not wasting my time. You’re unable to debate rationally, and having a conversation with you is akin to arguing with a brick wall. Any point you don’t like is dismissed, and the person is then accused of lying leftie lying leftist smear, and told they need to use facts and logic.

    No one here thinks you’re smart Robert, and you have no intellectual pedistal to look down on anyone.

  • sayanything-453

    robert108 19 minutes ago in reply to Rob

    The CA voters didn’t vote for blanket legalization, Rob, and you know it.
    They thought they were voting for responsible medical use, and got deceived.

    Earth to robert180, earth to robert180:

    Title of the thread and author:

    Obama Administration Won’t Prosecute Medical Marijuana Users Or Their Suppliers
    By Pilgrim on October 19, 2009 at 09:39 am

  • sayanything-1317

    Dude, you should see just how imbecilic you are by the fact that Hanni is siding with you. But of course you don’t.

    Sorry clown, you didn’t refute anything. Your point was dumb, and I called you on it. Pot smoking is not akin to slavery, but one is “free” to break the law just like the slaves were “free” to leave at any time.

    But if you EVER refute something I say, and actually use facts and logic, instead of childish name calling and simple “NOPE!” type statements, I will be more than happy to debate with you. Since you have never done so on this subject or any other, pardon me if I do not hold my breath.

    Oh, and by the way, since you know for a fact that I have, on more than 100 seperate occasions, provided a affirmative defense, you claiming I didn’t is…what’s that phrase again…oh right…Leftist lying leftie smear. Try the juggling again Robert…the circus doesn’t hire clowns who can’t juggle.

  • sayanything-453

    I hear you!

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development