Dude, like, we have a gate!
Posted on 10/31/2014 1:02:51 PM PDT by PROCON
In a referendum next week, voters in the US capital look likely to legalise marijuana
The fresh air of the White House’s rose garden may soon be fragrant with the smell of cannabis.
On November 4 - while other Americans are voting for their senators and congressman - residents of Washington DC are expected to vote overwhelmingly to legalise marijuana.
The referendum would go beyond decriminalisation and give the drug full legal status, meaning it may one day be possible to set up a dope shop across the street from the halls of Congress.
A yes vote in the US capital would be a hugely symbolic ripple in the wave of marijuana liberalisation sweeping America. =
Recreational cannabis is already on sale in Colorado and Washington state - where the laws are more relaxed than Amsterdam - and may soon be legal in Alaska and Oregon.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
They care about what is and isn’t legal?
They’re already drunks and to add to this they are all elitists academia dumb a##es, now they will be smoking to?
The funny thing is now there will be 1200 stoners jumping the WH fence : )
will Obama be the First to light up after he reaches the Podium ,rather than 5 minutes before he walks out to the Podium ?
“They care about what is and isn’t legal?”
Only for the serfs.
I never understand how this is happening.
Marijuana is still illegal under federal drug laws.
And we are told on issues such as abortion, and others, that federal law or court ruling override state and local laws.
But in the case of marijuana, we are told that states and DC can make their own laws in conflict with the federal laws.
Can anyone explain this contradiction? Do federal laws override state and local laws or not?
Or does it matter if the law is a liberal cause? Meaning that abortion being a liberal cause, then we say that federal court rulings trump everything? But in the case of marijuana legalization being pushed by liberals, we say that states have the rights to pass their own laws on that subject, regardless of the federal drug laws???
That is one place where it will make absolutely NO difference whatsoever.
We’ll definitely be able to tell because all our representatives will start acting really, really stupid.
It’s just to dope up the rest of the idiots. The lefties in congress are high all the time. Look at Pelosi as an example.
As if we don’t already have enough dopes in DC
My understanding is this: Liberals can do whatever they want, say whatever they want, and break whatever laws they want, with total impunity.
A conservative can do or say only what is in the confines of a politically correct straightjacket the liberals have set up for them. Violation of PC rules means your own personal destruction, regardless of how senseless it is.
Dude, like, we have a gate!
The feds can and do selectively enforce laws. Look at immigration.
The Kennedy clans joins Marion Barry in celebration but say the work is not done until crack cocaine and heroin usage becomes a victim less crime, citing the disproportionate hasseling of Kennedys and AA politicians as proof of the injustice.
That’s what I thought, that the liberal view of an issue determines the criteria for judging how it works.
So with marijuana, we will say that states are allowed to set their own laws, in spite of federal laws being contradictory to that.
On abortion, we say that federal courts and federal jurisdiction override any state laws on the subject.
On the subject of homosexual marriage, we say that federal courts are allowed to override all state laws on the subject of marriage.
So as to where federal laws or policies are paramount, and where states are allowed to make their own laws, you really have to know what the liberal view of the issue is, to determine whether federal jurisdiction or state jurisdiction is where the laws in that area will be made.
Marion Barry: ‘bout damned time!
Bitch set me up!
LOL!
There are two things at play; legalization and decriminalization. The regulations and tax collection will probably fail a ‘commerce clause’ test. However the feds have no mechanism for decriminalization; in other words a statute that no longer exists is not in conflict with federal law.
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.