londonfog
Well-Known Member
Never said it was a Federal law, but ok I will play... so as you stated a child can drink alcohol in California with parental approval...do you think that a child should be able to smoke weed the same ??
Penn To Obama on Marijuana "he would not be president under his policies"
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
DelSlow
Well-Known Member
Don't be silly, marijuana is illegal and dangerous!
londonfog
Well-Known Member
it's illegal, but not dangerous...now it can be a down-side if you are not mature enough to understand when and how to use it.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
lol, you think you sound smart. you're a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. he never said what you claim above, as you said earlier, it was to not be made a "focus".
it's shorthand. whatever the memo was called it was issued by holder. just like people refer to the PPACA as 'obamacare'. it's shorthand.
the fact that you have to harp on this so much reveals how weak your hand is.
imagine that. it's as if they were politicians
yep... still got it twisted.
Roosevelt STILL ISNT USING THE WORD PROGRESSIVE THE WAY YOU DO!!!!! Repeating your assretion doesnt make Theodore Roosevelt into the successor to Marx or a contemporary of Lenin TR was an opponant of trusts, and the abuses of power (like the federal reserve act) that occurred while he was retired from public life, so he came back to straighten shit up! He may have certain poicies and quotes which are popular with lefties today, but so does Ronald Reagan. TR was shot by a would-be assassin who was a Communist, not a Rockerfeller! He is still not your kind of progressive, just like Mussolini was probably also not your kind of progressive. The word has been used by many movements in the last 150 years. they are not all the same, and many of them are diametrically opposed.
Back to the subject at hand.
obama clearly declared in his campaign that he was not going to use the DOJ (including the fbi dea and other justice dept agencies) to prosecute patients and providers in states with medical cannabis laws.
deputy AG OGDEN dropped a memo saying dont focus on patients and providers in states with medical cannabis laws
deputy AG COLE declared that they WILL focus on anyone who is using growing or trafficking in marijuana because its a dangerous narcotic, and that any and all violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of federal law regardless of any state laws to the contrary
deputy AGs around the country then began threatening officials in states with prosecution as marijuana traffickers if they did their job as state officials.
Obama meanwhile hasnt done shit about holder and DOJ refusing to follow his directions, not their trafficking of guns into mexico in violation of US and mexican law. By his inaction, obama has tacitly approved holder's actions. as holder's direct superior, obama is responsible for the DOJ's unconstitutional violations, and illegal prosecutions.
these are facts. deal with them or not. either way, my jimmies aint rustled. im just puttin the record straight.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and how do you know what i mean when i say "progressive"?
dude, you are so LOL. sometimes you have a good point here or there, but this hill ain't worth it. teddy was a progressive, deal with it.
i slipped in two very important words that your silly ass has been dancing around and omitting like crazy.
there's really no reason for you to even be saying one word on this issue, as you have stated your preference for romney (LOL!).
yep, if you want someone that doesn't lie to your face, go with romney!
you woke up on the stupid side of the bed today. maybe take a nap and try again.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Again, twisted. TR was and is still the greatest president in our history. after his two terms he left the country in fine shape to his VP Taft. who then proceeded to fuck shit up royally, including presiding over the bullshit of the income tax and the never actually ratified, obviously flawed and totally unconstitutional sixteenth amendment. the institution of the debilitating taxes on poor folks while just skimming a little off the top of the rich offended his sensibilities. the vagaries of language from 100 years ago create the creases and fold in which you conceal your falsehoods. Theodore Roosevelt was never a "progressive" as the word is used in political context today (liberal, democratic socialist, socialist etc...) he was in fact almost the opposite of his nephew Franklin Roosevelt (who was what we would call a progressive today) in his policies. Repeating you line about how the bull moose party was called progressive is simply untrue, and i doubt you are unclear about the facts. Most likely you are attempting to gain some internet points by "winning" an argument. I am not however arguing. im stating facts. solid historical facts.
Had Theodore Roosevelt won in 1912, the country would be much better off today. Taft's successor Woodrow Wilson, who pushed for and signed the federal reserve act was an unmitigated failure who saddled the US with the rampant bureaucracy that currently allows for the country to be turned upside down over a pair of fucking MEMOS from a couple deputy AGs in a pissing match over whether weed should be allowed in states that allow it. Thats the fruits of your kind of rhetorical brinksmanship and political name calling Uncle Buck. Our country is now ruled by faceless mandarins, jackbooted federal thugs with itchy trigger fingers, morons who think the smell of cannabis flowers might be carcinogenic, dimwits who believe every lie Anslinger ever barfed up after an evening of opium smoking and nailing underage male prostitutes with J Edgar Hoover. and corporate flunkies who only see profit potential from water bucket sales when their own house is on fire.
catch a clue Uncle Buck. When you lobby for, and demand more of the same, then thats what youll get. more of the same. calling dissenters names and insulting the truth with outright falsehoods is a game you cant win. Not everybody sees the world how you do.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Still got it all twisted up Buck. Heres the pertenant files:
Odgen 2009 memo http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/medical-marijuana.pdf
Cole 2011 memo http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/Cole-memo.pdf
you slipped in two words that are meaningless in the context of the debate at hand. the ogden memo set forth a series of tests for prosecutors and investigator to use to determine whether a particular suspected individual or enterprise was compliant with the various state laws.
"...Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:
unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
violence;
sales to minors;
financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
ties to other criminal enterprises. ..."
the cole memo simply declares drug are bad mmmkay! and anyone may be prosecuted regardless of any state laws.
In regards to jurisdictions where state and local agencies have set up regulation, licensing and taxation ordinances and laws regarding cannabis cultivation, and distribution solely within the borders of the state (no state is mentioned, but california is implied) Cole proceeds to share his opinion that these operations (farms and clinics, no matter how carefully controlled by local authorities) are "criminal enterprises under the controlled substances act.
"... The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.
The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority."
Let me run that by you again Uncle Buck.
"...State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law..."
If the feds decide your gam-gam's 4 plants in a closet are a target, they will bust her, and charge her, regardless of state laws. thats the facts. it's all laid out in black and white. federal law and regulation is supreme, and state laws can pound sand.
many people in my area have been rousted, busted bailed out and are back in their dispensaries with federal charges pending, but nary a peep from the sheriff or local cops. They continue providing their medical cannabis within state guidelines (such as they are) and under supervision of the county and city authorities, paying taxes, and keeping immaculate records. The feds are trying to make examples of people such as tommy chong, and a few of my local chaps (who shall remain nameless) while you Uncle Buck continue tilting at windmills and throwing out legalistic arguments about how maybe they werent "fully compliant with state law" when in most cases they were, and still are, in full co-operation wit the local sheriffs, and local ordinances.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
I'll decline to play semantic games with you. when you declare something to be "the law in the USA" you imply federal legislation or regulation, or at the very least encourage the inference of same. heres a quick rundown:
"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 withholds revenue from states that allow the purchase of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21. Prior to the effective date of that Act, the drinking age varied from state to state. Some states do not allow those under the legal drinking age to be present in liquor stores or in bars (usually, the difference between a bar and a restaurant is that food is served only in the latter). Contrary to popular belief, since the act went into law, only a few states prohibit minors and young adults from consuming alcohol in private settings. As of January 1, 2010, 15 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 17 states do not ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. Federal law explicitly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage possession laws. However, non-alcoholic beer in many (but not all) states, such as Idaho, Texas, and Maryland, is considered legal for minors (those under the age of 21).[SUP][16][/SUP]
By a judge's ruling, South Carolina appears to allow the possession and consumption of alcohol by those 18 to 20 years of age, but a circuit court judge said otherwise.[SUP][17][/SUP]
The State of Wisconsin allows the consumption of alcohol in the presence of parents. Some U.S. States have legislation that make providing to and possession of alcohol by minors (persons under 21) a gross misdemeanor with a potential of $5,000 and a year in jail (or more)" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age
Yes. i personally believe parents may use their judgement in allowing or forbidding various things for their children, including alcohol, tobacco, firearms, narcotics, cannabis, vegetarian diets, vitamin pills, vaccinations, sex education, religious teachings, and riding a bicycle without a helmet. The government has very little place in my house, and i have no interest in increasing their interference in my personal affairs, including the raising of any theoretical children i may someday spawn. If and when i have any kids they may ride horses without safety harnesses, bicycles and motorcycles without helmets, ride in cars truck or tractors without child safety seats, and use a tire swing which might not be up to ansi standards at my local swimmin hole. theres too many7 regulations in our lives, and most of em come from the douchery of the political class from the 60's forward. when i was a kid, we wnt barefoot everywhere because we liked it, had no antibacterial soaps or alcohol hand sanitizers, rode bikes with no helmets, and drank soda pop from reused glass bottles. amazingly, we didnt all die from dread diseases and accidental kiddiepool drownings.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
quotes below are called socialism by today's idiotic standards. i call them progressivism.
"We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.""The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."
City streets are unsatisfactory playgrounds for children because of the danger, because most good games are against the law, because they are too hot in summer, and because in crowded sections of the city they are apt to be schools of crime. Neither do small back yards nor ornamental grass plots meet the needs of any but the very small children. Older children who would play vigorous games must have places especially set aside for them; and, since play is a fundamental need, playgrounds should be provided for every child as much as schools. This means that they must be distributed over the cities in such a way as to be within walking distance of every boy and girl, as most children can not afford to pay carfare.
"Be practical as well as generous in your ideals. Keep your eyes on the stars, but remember to keep your feet on the ground."
"The object of government is the welfare of the people."
"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in."
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you mean federal law trumps all?
wow, educate me some more, you genius of a man! your big brain astounds!
LOL!
more like, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. hence the long winded replies that can be succinctly paired down to their one sentence essence.
obama has done what he could, but he can't ignore completely congressionally passed, standing federal law. and the evidence is in the huge explosion of new dispensaries. we're doing better than ever before.
so go vote for willard and leave your long winded replies for your daily diary.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
You show me where I said "the law in the USA" or you lie...I stand by what I said. To drink in USA the age is 21..Every State makes it so...and if you think its ok to give a minor drink then good luck with that, just keep it in your family and don't put it on youtube or facebook
londonfog
Well-Known Member
did you eat lead paint off the walls too ???
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
What you call long winded is the voluminous detail demanded by persons like yourself who will re-interperet short unambiguous statements for their own ends.
and you once again display your ignorance to all and sundry. Federal Law doesn't Trump Shit!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." source 10th amendment to the US constitution.
nowhere in the constitution does the federal government receive the power to tax cannabis into illegality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937) nor the power to regulate commerce WITHIN a state (section 5 commerce clause), nor the power to ban particular substances based on the lies of Ainslinger. That the supreme court has made such rulings and the feds have passed such laws doesnt make it fact. it makes it bad law, just like Dred Scott, or is that good law too Uncle Buck, why do you hate black people?
Or perhaps the Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 is also good law, Why Uncle Buck do you hate chinese people?
Or when President Franklin Roosevelt gave us Executive Order 9066, in 1941 which authorized rounding up and imprisoning innocent japanese americans? Why do you hate asian people so much Uncle Buck?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
matter of fact the house i grew up in was painted with lead paint since it was built in 1901. my cars all ran on leaded gasoline till 1992 when i bought a new truck and stopped buyin lead additives, I eat food that was killed with lead slugs, and i been shooting and reloading cartridges with significant quantities of lead in em every month for 20 years. My last checkup didnt show any elevated lead in my blood, nor any lead poisoning in my brain. sorry, troll harder.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Now I'm starting to understand why you are having problems comprehending and why you remain childless
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
"you do know the law for alcohol in the USA is 21 not 18...so you want it to be allowed at 18 ??? You also insinuate that with parental supervision that it could be smoked at the age of 10... is this correct ??? "
source: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/531583-penn-obama-marijuana-he-would-5.html
posted by Londonfog at 05-26-2012, 11:34 AM
DelSlow
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, I think Mr Neutron is talking about the drinking age in Mexico.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
again where in the USA can someone get a drink under 21... Every State now makes it 21 not 18...so once again you do know the law for alcohol in the USA is 21 not 18... name me one state in the 50 of the United States of America this is not true.???"you do know the law for alcohol in the USA is 21 not 18...so you want it to be allowed at 18 ??? You also insinuate that with parental supervision that it could be smoked at the age of 10... is this correct ??? "
source: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/531583-penn-obama-marijuana-he-would-5.html
posted by Londonfog at 05-26-2012, 11:34 AM
londonfog
Well-Known Member
maybe he got confused with Mexico, for I don't understand why he would be talking about Mexico's laws in a thread about Obama