Madness.
Posted on 12/12/2014 4:56:18 PM PST by BAW
The Obama administration will direct attorneys to not prevent Native American tribes on reservations from growing and selling marijuana even in states where pot is illegal, the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday. Some federal restrictions will still apply. Marijuana can't be sold to minors, grown on public land, fall into the hands of drug cartels, or systemically spread to states where the drug remains illegal.
It's unclear how many tribes will take advantage of the opportunity. Many are opposed to marijuana legalization.
The federal government will continue enforcing prohibition for those tribes, at their request, even in states where pot is legal.
The Justice Department guidance allows Native American tribes to enforce their own marijuana laws, regardless of what state law says. So tribes could set up schemes to grow and sell marijuana in states where it's illegal, or ban marijuana in states, such as Colorado, where it's legal.
The approach continues a longstanding legal tradition in the US, in which the federal government generally maintains more oversight of tribal lands than states — and has the authority to issue these types of regulations.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Except where the American Indians operate casinos near major metros, these people are in trouble. We keep shoveling federal money at them but little changes.
I understand.
Actually, I know quite a few computer experts in my tribe (I suppose I would be one of them, but I don’t like to refer to myself as an expert at anything). My tribe (Penobscot) even hold defense contracts including one to build Patriot Missile components.
That said, I was never happy in life until I started learning the “stone age stuff you seem to think we should get away from. Being able to make something useful from nothing but what you find in nature actually does quite a lot to dispell the mindset of dependence. Heck, there are plenty of non-indians that could benefit from it too, because living your whole life glued to electronics isn’t really that much different than being stuck on a reservation.
I’m thinking more along the lines from “Geronimo’s Cadillac”.
The Constitution delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes. The states have no authority in the matter to begin with.
SO..now they’ll be drunk AND stoned?
No good can come of this......
Madness.
Why not they are already drunk and running casinos why not allow them to sell drugs too.
Will probably be legal for them to sell to visitors on reservations, but be illegal for said visitors to leave the reservation with it...
So you were living in the 21st century and enjoyed learning the old ways. If you were living the old ways on the reservation you wouldn’t have enjoyed it. You’d be poor, despite having a casino. On the reservation tribalism equals entrapment. My comment is not anti-American Indian, just anti-backwardism.
The Penobscot Reservation situated in Maine has a per capita income of $13,704 while Maine has a per capita income of about $34,000. Note that liberals, progressives, et al are all interested in forcing people backwards - out of their houses, out of their cars, out of their modern lifestyles - yet, where poverty is worse, liberalism is practiced the most intensely. That same tribalism exists wherever you see intense poverty. That’s my point.
The Absolute Nuclear Family is an innovation.
You would need to read the treaty to learn what is and is not required or legal
The indians are sovereign within the limits of the specific treaty
The Hopi and Navajo do....... corn and sheep
Good point. I had forgotten that!
What law has Congress passed, then, regarding the issue? I am betting it isn’t to let Obama rule unilaterally.
My point remains that Obama wants to be a law unto himself, and prefers to ignore authorities outside himself. His actions and motivations are suspect in every respect.
I thought the communists have done away with “sovereignty”. We ALL belong to the UN now.
Name one civilized nation that has withstood the test of time half as long as the Bedouin, the Magyars, the Ju-Hoansi, the Australian Aborigines, the Innuit, the Maasai...
It is tribal families that endure; it is civilizations that are ephemeral.
How exactly are you defining the success you’re calling “the test of time”? A return to primitivism isn’t a success. It is not tribalism that leads to greatness, but the abandonment.
Are you aware of the critical distinctions and differences between the nuclear family, tribes, and the absolute nuclear family?
The Biblical standard of Genesis 4 that was never adopted. It is the essence of the Fifth Commandment: Honor your father and mother that your days will be long in the land. The idea was to build a nation upon the foundation of family. The entire architecture of the Mosaic Law was structured upon the ethics of pastoral nomadic tribes. The means of preserving the settled society was to periodically interrupt its destructive tendencies with the pattern of Sabbaths: weekly, the annual high holy days, the Sabbath for the Land, and the Yoveil. It was a form of inducing feed-forward stability into a settled culture with a propensity to catastrophic failure.
It never happened.
Are you aware of the critical distinctions and differences between the nuclear family, tribes, and the absolute nuclear family?
Oh please.
Family is the fundamental reason for the entire Ten Commandments. How do you define tribes, the nuclear family and the Absolute Nuclear Family? I often find definitions to be a major problem in communicating with FReepers. Once you clarify that, I'll present my arguments.
Family is the fundamental reason for the entire Ten Commandments.
Massively false.
How do you define tribes, the nuclear family and the Absolute Nuclear Family? I often find definitions to be a major problem in communicating with FReepers. Once you clarify that, I'll present my arguments.
You put it in caps as if the definition to which you refer is cast in stone and agreed upon by all, which it is obviously not. It may be from the authority you prefer, but without citation, the use of caps is bait. Non-argumentation from authority doesn't interest me. Nor do dishonest traps. So if you want a discussion you'll just have to present your case. If not, I'm not going to waste my Sabbath on it.
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.