Anaheim cuts power, water to shut down pot shops (California)

Associated Press ^ | Oct 14, 2014 3:24 PM EDT

[blackdog]

"Can you imagine...”City Cuts Power To Gun Shops”.

Yes I can, and just my point. Thank You for the perfect visual.

[Render]

The article does not say that NO small business political group is allowed. Very specifically, only marijuana dispensaries conservative political groups are targeted.

That's fun.. You can pretty much plug anything you want to into that sentence. Like they ever stop... It all starts somewhere.

[cport]

Did anyone notice in the article the businesses are illegal in that city? Would anyone have a problem if they were crack houses? Or brothels?

[Olog-hai]

That justifies any government calling anything “illegal” just because they passed a law making it so. What if Anaheim declared Christianity illegal?

[eyeamok]

Maybe we could do this for Lawyers

[Balding_Eagle]

I can’t speak for Oregon, but here in CO, like it or not, the law legalizing pot will be repealed.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

BFL

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw

[cport]

The Medicinal Marijuana amendment passed with the provision that local municipalities could decide wether they wanted to let the businesses in their cities or not. Think of it as a citywide zoning ordinance. You have cities that don't allow strip clubs and sex shops, because state law allows them to. It is rule of law, which is something I thought Freepers were behind. Don't like it, move to another city, or vote in city council members that will allow it. Personally, I think it is short sighted to miss out on all that tax revenue, but if that city wants to maintain a particular character and govern at a LOCAL LEVEL, then that is their perrogative. Again, another thing Freepers are supposed to like, local government control. I am actually surprised that the state ceded some local decision making to the townships and cities.

And there is a little thing called the Constitution that keeps cities from declaring Christianity illegal.

[cport]

Oops, my mistake, it was a proposition (215), not an amendment. Amendment was not what I meant :-)

[Olog-hai]

You seem to have forgotten the “republican form of government” clause of Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution as well. That means no other kind of government, especially authoritarian/socialist.

[Wolfie]

Yep, but people don’t understand slippery slopes.

[cport]

So now all duly elected city and town councils are invalid? Because they dont have their own bicameral legislature? My friend, I dont see how that applies. And arent we always complaining about how judges are always thwarting these propositions that are the will of the people? Well, this proposition included a proviso for local municipalities to opt out of having these co-ops and the element they attract. At the time, and I lived in San Diego then, it was the second or third time this prop was floated. The opt out was the only way that the more conservative areas like San Diego and Orange counties would be on board.

[Olog-hai]

So if someone is socialist and is “duly elected”, that’s valid? Come on now.

And where did “bicameral” come from? That’s not characteristic of republican government in particular. Lots of constitutional monarchies are bicameral; and one “democracy” in particular (India) is, per its own constitution, a "sovereign, socialist, secular democratic ‘republic’” with a bicameral legislature (which is why I must laugh when people think that Narendra Modi is any friend of the USA).

What with California’s being as liberal as it is, the definition of “conservative” there has to be like it is in places like New Jersey. Conservatives elsewhere in the country put strong emphasis on personal responsibility and private morality. And when it comes to cannabis in particular, the first major nationwide bans occurred under FDR. (BTW, prohibition, or the first instance of Sharia law in the USA, also had an eye towards preventing a certain "element" from proliferating, verbally that is.)

[cport]

I see, its a cannibas issue with you. The fact of the matter is, the city iswithin its rights by the law. Bad law, vote in the city council members to change it. Like I posted before, I suppose if this was a brothel, you wouldn't have raised a peep.

The medicinal aspect of prop 215 is a joke. As soon as the prop passed, the local liberal "independent" fish wrap had a ton of docs willing to provide a script for "back pain" for a small fee advertising in the personal ads.

[Olog-hai]

What law do you speak of?

Ever heard Tacitus’ famous statement on laws? “Laws were most numerous when the state was most corrupt.” Liberals and leftists allege sanctity of “laws”, “elections” and the “state” over other things.

When alcohol was illegal, that increased the level of a certain “element”. Just imagine banning tobacco sales and how big the “element” will get. And stop with the false arguments.

[cport]

What false argument, You brought up the cannabis aspect. So let’s see, The part of prop 215 that’s makes medicinal marijuana legal, good, The part that allows local munis to not have a co-op, and the element it attracts, bad, according to Olog-hai. Glad we have you as the arbiter of what laws we are to selectively enforce. Sounds like Obummer and his justice department.

[Olog-hai]

Eh? I did not “bring up the cannabis aspect”; that’s inherent in the article. I brought up the “too many laws” aspect, if anything, never mind the fact that it was liberals that banned the stuff in the first place, creating the “element”.

By that continued focus on “the element it attracts”, what follows that is the notion that alcohol prohibition should be re-established and tobacco become Schedule 1.

[cport]

My point exactly, some towns and neighborhoods have zoning ordinances that prohibit liquor stores because that community, voiced by their duly elected councils, does not desire then to be there. That is local control, not centralized control, something to be applauded.

[Olog-hai]

I think we’re on the same page on that score indeed.