Pot Criminalization: Up in Smoke?

[Cracker]

Apparently, pretty stupid. The "boss" sits around painting her fingernails.
An office full of stupid, non productive people.

I don't think she's the industrial standard...just an office full of lazy people who do nothing all day long. Seems like it would make the day last forever.

Can you imagine the stupid shit they talk about all day? I would stab myself in the neck with a pen and just end it. I really hope there isn't one lone intelligent person who has to deal with that because they need the money.

If I see a cow party, I don't even approach. If you get too close, they will fence you in by surrounding you with their largeness. You have to touch fat and inhale flowery perfumes to get away.

[Ma Huang Sor]

Apparently, pretty stupid. The "boss" sits around painting her fingernails.
An office full of stupid, non productive people.

I don't think she's the industrial standard...just an office full of lazy people who do nothing all day long. Seems like it would make the day last forever.

I would stab myself in the neck with a pen

Man, that's fucking HAWT!

[HairOfTheDog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14...95849.html

Snip:
The goal of the Justice Department's effort, part of a crackdown announced last October, is to fight the medical marijuana industry, estimated at $1.7 billion annually, without confronting it head-on with costly and potentially embarrassing criminal prosecutions, industry sources and legal experts said.

"Filing asset-forfeiture lawsuits against these commercial properties is a very clever way to handle an otherwise horribly difficult and controversial situation," said Greg Baldwin, a partner at the Miami law firm Holland & Knight and a former federal prosecutor.

"If you bring criminal charges against these medical marijuana businesses, the federal government gets pilloried in the press for attacking California law and sick people."

Baldwin, who specializes in complex commercial litigation and white-collar criminal defense, added that with all four U.S. attorneys in California employing the same strategy, it is clearly official Justice Department policy rather than an anomaly involving rogue prosecutors.
===================================

This is so screwed up, imo. The US Justice Department should respect the States' rights regarding legalization of medicinal marijuana. It's chicken-shit to use the 40 year old federal Substance Abuse Act to strong arm landlords into evicting perfectly legal distributors using threat of civil action. It seems to be working though, according to the article. It's too costly for landlords to fight the Fed in court, so they're evicting medicinal marijuana distributors, who then find another building (until its landlord receives its warning letter from the Fed).

This really rubs me the wrong way as a small business owner with a leased office, as a California resident, and as a US citizen.

If I was a regular smoker with access, I'd light up right now and it might bother me less (or not).

[IMaDick]

You can't have a dictatorship if you're going to let the people decide anything for themselves.

It's like New York trying to decide what size soft drink you can buy and what size pop corn theaters can sell.

That pesky Constitution has to go.

[HairOfTheDog]

You can't have a dictatorship if you're going to let the people decide anything for themselves.

It's like New York trying to decide what size soft drink you can buy and what size pop corn theaters can sell.

That pesky Constitution has to go.

I just wish the US Justice Department would respect the states' rights and focus on matters that truly need to be addressed at a federal level; there's a plethora. If they have to use sneaky civil tactics to accomplish their goals and not cause a political stir, those goals should be re-examined imo.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we've got a dictatorship going on, but I do think we have too many conflicts between the states rights under the Constitution and the Fed's intervention.

[IMaDick]

I wouldn't go so far as to say we've got a dictatorship going on, but I do think we have too many conflicts between the states rights under the Constitution and the Fed's intervention.

Please name a freedom that is not regulated at the federal level.

Thanks.

[HairOfTheDog]

I wouldn't go so far as to say we've got a dictatorship going on, but I do think we have too many conflicts between the states rights under the Constitution and the Fed's intervention.

Please name a freedom that is not regulated at the federal level.

Thanks.

Okay, Dick, off the top of my head, I can't think of any that aren't regulated or banned on some level and don't have time right now to research. But, you know I'll scour around later.

I think I get your point though? It's not the way the founding fathers intended when they established a federal republic and signed off on the Constitution, largely giving states' rights to govern themselves. I'd still argue that the US is a far cry from operating as a dictatorship because we elect (via our state electoral college reps) the President and we enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc...

[IMaDick]

I wouldn't go so far as to say we've got a dictatorship going on, but I do think we have too many conflicts between the states rights under the Constitution and the Fed's intervention.

Please name a freedom that is not regulated at the federal level.

Thanks.

Okay, Dick, off the top of my head, I can't think of any that aren't regulated or banned on some level and don't have time right now to research. But, you know I'll scour around later.

I think I get your point though? It's not the way the founding fathers intended when they established a federal republic and signed off on the Constitution, largely giving states' rights to govern themselves. I'd still argue that the US is a far cry from operating as a dictatorship because we elect (via our state electoral college reps) the President and we enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc...

Freedom simply cannot be described as something you pay for,or that is regulated by law to inhibit the free exercise thereof.

Religion is definitely regulated,speech has been defined and is regulated,You have the right to vote for one party or the other.

The only right I can think of that is not regulated is the "right to Remain Silent"

Good luck on your search.

By the way I noticed the change from freedom to right in your thought process, should we confuse the 2 ?

[HairOfTheDog]

[Freedom simply cannot be described as something you pay for,or that is regulated by law to inhibit the free exercise thereof.

Religion is definitely regulated,speech has been defined and is regulated,You have the right to vote for one party or the other.

The only right I can think of that is not regulated is the "right to Remain Silent"

Good luck on your search.

By the way I noticed the change from freedom to right in your thought process, should we confuse the 2 ?

I'm exercising my right to remain silent on the topic of rights and freedoms not currently regulated at a federal level til I'm less ignorant on the matter (a right that I cherish and exercise often). I'll research for individual and states' rights that currently have no federal regulation or intervention, not as a challenge, but because you've got me curious. We can talk about it at the campfire, if you're up for it.

And, yep, you're right; "freedom" and "right" are different. They are not interchangeable. I didn't change up my wording intentionally, but I stand corrected. I see a "right" as having the ability or authorization to perform some sort of activity and "freedom" as the exercising of that right. I searched quickly for some verification of my understanding, and the sources were inconsistent. What say you on the difference?

[HairOfTheDog]

The proposal to decriminalize minor marijuana possession in NY was addressed by the state's Assembly today. While the proposal was strongly advocated by Governor Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg, law enforcement, and a good deal of Democratic officials, the Republican-controlled Senate quashed the proposal (it was expected to pass).

Reasons cited as to why the Republican's killed the proposal:

- gateway drug (geesh)
- objection to 25 grams (estimated as 63 joints) being too large an amount to possess without arrest
- a belief by older conservative Senators that it would encourage everyone to go around smoking pot

The decriminalization measure could have prevented 50,000 low-level "stop and frisk"-generated marijuana arrests (with citations given instead) in New York State, based on last year's number. Of these arrests, 9 of 10 occurred in the city. The article touches on the challenges when NYC is pushing hard for legislation that largely affects the city, but the power/decision-making lies upstate in Albany.

Ah well, it'll hit the floor again next year, imo. Maybe with a reduction in the number of grams that can be possessed without arrest.

Disappointed.

Reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/nyregi...ition.html

[IMaDick]

Don't worry the dictator will just do it by executive order one day.

The people could use the petition and ballot initiative method and vote on it themselves.

[Donovan]

Not for nothing, but if they do decriminalize pot they better rethink that whole "limit munchie sizes" stance.

There could be riots.

[Ma Huang Sor]

wish i could get 63 joints out of a little less than an ounce...

[HairOfTheDog]

Don't worry the dictator will just do it by executive order one day.

The people could use the petition and ballot initiative method and vote on it themselves.

I'm not sure the measure would pass even if the people petitioned and voted on it themselves. In New York City, seems it would be a slam dunk in favor of decriminalizing. As for the whole of the state, unclear. Anyway, Gov. Cuomo insists that it's the right thing to do (not just a political strategy to bridge his perceived gap with blacks and Latinos) and that he'll keep pushing. Might also make a difference if the measure is taken to vote in Albany in a non-election year?

[HairOfTheDog]

Not for nothing, but if they do decriminalize pot they better rethink that whole "limit munchie sizes" stance.

There could be riots.

Heh. If a fat tax was placed on those munchie snacks in tandem with pot decriminalization, could be a good revenue-generator?

Seriously, I don't think there would be more people smoking more pot if public possession of less than 25 grams was decriminalized; just fewer arrests. Apparently, the Republican officials don't share my opinion. Gateway drug and all. Buzz kills.

wish i could get 63 joints out of a little less than an ounce...

You can, 63 one hit wonders.

[IMaDick]

Don't worry the dictator will just do it by executive order one day.

The people could use the petition and ballot initiative method and vote on it themselves.

I'm not sure the measure would pass even if the people petitioned and voted on it themselves. In New York City, seems it would be a slam dunk in favor of decriminalizing. As for the whole of the state, unclear. Anyway, Gov. Cuomo insists that it's the right thing to do (not just a political strategy to bridge his perceived gap with blacks and Latinos) and that he'll keep pushing. Might also make a difference if the measure is taken to vote in Albany in a non-election year?

The state will never know if they keep it in the government sector and refuse to let the people have a voice.

It's a damn shame people are so fucking complacent.

[HairOfTheDog]

The state will never know if they keep it in the government sector and refuse to let the people have a voice.

It's a damn shame people are so fucking complacent.

Typically, I sense that you're a Constitutionalist. But, on some matters you seem to support more of democratic than republic system. You want the electoral college done away with and direct population vote on some (or all?) Federal and State legislation, right? The framers of the Constitution are essentially noted as saying that the general public is not qualified to make wise decisions on their own.

Anyway, I don't think the marijuana possession issue is a big enough concern for the majority of voters to petition outside of their elected officials, but another issue that affected a great number of people more directly might.

[IMaDick]

The state will never know if they keep it in the government sector and refuse to let the people have a voice.

It's a damn shame people are so fucking complacent.

Typically, I sense that you're a Constitutionalist. But, on some matters you seem to support more of democratic than republic system. You want the electoral college done away with and direct population vote on some (or all?) Federal and State legislation, right? The framers of the Constitution are essentially noted as saying that the general public is not qualified to make wise decisions on their own.

I don't think the marijuana possession issue is a big enough concern for the majority of voters to petition outside of their elected officials, but another issue that affected a great number of people more directly might.

I think when the Government is taking from the people it's the peoples responsibility to tell them to fuck off.

Please show me the quote from the founders you referenced.

Typically I will always and have always believed the people are supposed to control the government, not the government control the people and keep them mute in the process.

[Donovan]

Dick is confusing democracy with anarchy. "No rules" is not the same thing as "civil rights protected by government." The very fact that he is allowed to go on the internet, announce he's a dick, and begin preaching anti-government diatribes defeats his ludicrous claims of oppressive dictatorship. The basic flaw in his reasoning, that there should be no government interference in the affairs of men, is the assumption that most people in situations with no consequences or repercussions WILL INDEPENDENTLY CHOOSE TO BEHAVE THEMSELVES and respect their neighbors' right to do the same. We all know this is not true. Hell, Dick himself had the opportunity to practice his stated belief of "mind your own bjsiness" in the debate over gay marriage and couldn't manage to keep his nose out of it. Man doesnt even have government ties or lawmaking duties, and STILL he felt entitled to tell others what to do.

I'm not singling Dick out, I'm just pointing out the folly of thinking any political party, system, or method of civilization will EVER be able to avoid dictating rules to the governed

[Donovan]

We're a species of buttinskis and busybodies. It's time we faced that and stopped pretending otherwise. Nosy fuckers.