Posted on 07/16/2014 11:04:48 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
In reaction to a proposed amendment to block decriminalization of marijuana in D.C., the White House Office of Management and Budget took a strong stance in favor of states’ rights.
Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland introduced an amendment that would prevent the D.C. Council from using any federal funds to enact pot policy changes, calling marijuana “poison to a teenager’s brain.” The D.C. Council has also released a statement condemning interference from Congress. The current legislation adopted by the Council replaces criminal penalties for marijuana usage with fines.
The marijuana amendment in the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill is just one of the reasons that the White House has announced its intentions to veto the whole bill if it ever passes through the Senate. The administration has previously refused to engage in legal action against Colorado or Washington for their legalization proposals, despite the fact that marijuana is still illegal on a federal level.
“The Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the district from using its own local funds to carry out locally-passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule. Furthermore, the language poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department’s enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District,” the Office of Management and Budget stated.
Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, noted that Rep. Andy Harris’ justification for hindering the D.C. Council’s marijuana proposals is irrelevant, as the measure does not allow for teen use of marijuana.
“Nobody wants teens using marijuana, but the measure adopted in DC does not allow for teen use. A majority of Americans think that making marijuana legal would be a better approach to preventing teen marijuana use. Prohibition has failed to prevent teens from accessing marijuana and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of responsible consumers being arrested,” Tvert told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“We certainly commend the White House for making it clear that states should have the ability to establish their own marijuana policies. They should not be forced to maintain our federal government’s failed policy of prohibition. Voters in the District of Columbia have made it clear that they support ending marijuana prohibition, and their elected officials have taken action to move in that direction. They should have every right to do so,” Tvert added.
0bama wears pants in public - is that part of his destructive plan?
I looked up some more:
‘A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of California found that cannabis use among those ages 16-20 over an 18 month period had a less negative effect on a teenager’s brain tissue than drinking alcohol.
‘For the study, researchers scanned the brains of 92 individuals ages 16-20, before and after an 18 month period. During the eighteen months, half of the teens used cannabis and alcohol in varying amounts, while the other half abstained or kept consumption minimal. Among those who consumed five or more drinks at least twice a week, researchers discovered reduced brain tissue health. Specifically, those consumption patterns compromised the integrity of white brain tissue in specific tracts, which could lead to declines in memory as well as decision-making ability. However, among those who used marijuana, there were no findings of ill effects on white tissue during the period of scanning.’
“Have you been under a rock? We have already been there for decades.”
Yes, I know, I just wanted to make a point to the other poster that his solution of burning marijuana fields and closing the border was short-sighted.
potheads enslave their freedom and intelligence to serve their feelings and emotions.
I don't necessarily disagree with that.
I assume by "cartels" you mean Mexican or other foreigners. But the Mexican cartels have largely abandoned bulky, smelly, low-profit marijuana for easier to transport & conceal, higher profit drugs like heroin.
And in places like Colorado, I'm guessing any foreign cartels have even less of a foothold.
So, I still don't see where any "cartels" are getting rich off marijuana when people can easily grow and/or sell in places like Colorado, even if it's technically illegal (but very few are getting prosecuted).
If Wickard goes down, the EPA goes with it.
Ditto for boozers - what ought we do about that?
So let's keep on throwing grenades into baby cribs in the middle of the night! Keep on doing the Nazi drug raids machine guns blazing! It's for their own good you murder and enslave them!
They're coming for you NEXT, and it isn't far off!
Not only the EPA, many other federal agencies… which is why they will never allow the possibility of it being overturned to enter into the general discourse.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
— CS Lewis
Sounds like a good candidate for a hashtag campaign.
It sounds like a good platform for a [presidential] candidate to me.
(Though I'm not sure how well-received the message would be.)
It would be fun to watch them try to figure out how to attack a message they don’t even want anyone talking about.
The key word is *regulated*. Given that the black market for pot is easily accessible, what kind of moron would pay taxes and other additional charges to buy weed legally? First time buyers might, but after that there would be another group of people who would buy weed: people who don’t want to risk getting caught under our current laws, but don’t mind purchasing things outside of the tax system. Additionally, licensing marijuana dispensers will narrow the legal suppliers, and consequently make it easy for cartels to have influence on those legal supplies.
Unregulated marijuana (economic wise) would be economically sound, and would be infinitely better than regulated marijuana. Regulating what age people could begin to purchase pot, how much pot people could purchase at one time, what times of the day at which purchasing pot is acceptable, and whether or not people on welfare and liberals can purchase it would all be fine, but those are not supply-side regulations.
In fact, if you could make it so people on welfare, liberals, and the mentally ill were not allowed to purchase pot, and you did not tax it in any way, I might actually support legalization of marijuana. Of course, since those stipulations are not possible under our current horrid political environment, taxpayers would have to fund the habits of idiot stoners, so no reasonable person can consequently support marijuana legalization at this moment.
Most of my argument is in comment 54 (there are very specific circumstances in which I would support marijuana legalization, and I do find it annoying how readily people defend alcohol but not marijuana).
On your first point, the liberty of some should not come at the expense of the liberty of others. With today’s idiotic welfare system and refusal to politically profile people, I would inevitably be paying taxes towards welfare queens’ drug habit. With today’s system, drug legalization is Marxist.
On anti-depressant drugs, I mistyped, sorry. Given that there is even more evidence for those causing mental illness, school shootings, and dependency than there is for marijuana causing those, would you argue for them remaining legal?
If the result of legalization is that I help fund degenerates with my tax dollars, then you are the nanny stater, not me. If we politically profiled people and didn’t allow welfare queens to smoke the drug, I might support legalization, but the liberals would never acquiesce to the taxpayers’ demands.
Also, I find it highly ironic you call me a Nazi, when National Pot Smoking Day was chosen on Hitler’s birthday. Hitler was also a nanny stater, just like you seem to be.
How are you gonna fund dirt, water, and sunshine? You're a real smart one aren't ya?
Har har, you know how to make puns. You should go on Bill Maher’s show, you seem to agree with his politics and he needs some comedians.
What would you have fedgov do about the way CO and WA are regulating mj?
The best solution for the federal government at this point is probably to ignore CO and WA until one of the other 48 states faces marijuana-related crime with direct connections to CO and WA. If that happens, Hickenlooper and/or Inslee can be tried in a federal court for their role in the crime.
I do respect the 10th Amendment on this issue. CO and WA have a right to burden their welfare systems through legalizing pot just like the other 48 states have the right to rid themselves of pot. However, the federal government should deny any federal funding of welfare benefits to CO and WA unless they have or maintain drug testing for welfare recipients. (Ideally, the federal government would just quit funding welfare entirely, but this is the federal government.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.