Election Day Thread

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

The Justice Department may decide to sue. Many would say that was one of the intentions of passing this bill - baiting the feds into changing the classification of marijuana. But without suing, the feds will have a hard time forcing their hand - it's not like the FBI is going to be pulling people over and busting into homes with 5 plants. If that starts happening, they'll have a PR crisis on their hands.

Not necessarily. The feds can very easily force their hand without suing or busting into anyones home. You know how Congress got the drinking age to 21, don't you?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Not necessarily. The feds can very easily force their hand without suing or busting into anyones home. You know how Congress got the drinking age to 21, don't you?

Yeah I was wondering what road the Federal government would take. Considering it is a slap in the face, there could be a couple, but just withholding funding could be one of them.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

{snip} I'm convinced I'd have been on the losing end of this election but for the (my favorite phrase from last night) whackadoodle caucus of the Republican party. I am confident that the majority of Republicans are not crazy, but sane will lose if crazy is allowed to keep controlling the conversation.

I fervently hope this election brings about the end of the Republican Party as we have known it for the past several years. It would not surprise me to see it break into religious right, a libertarian, and an economics-first-to-hell-with-the-rest sects. Hey, one can dream.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How will law enforcement stop someone from obtaining 20lbs of MJ in Vancouver, WA and just driving south to Portland, OR and selling it on the streets? Or better yet, someone who's from CO drives down for a weekend in Santa Fe and gets pulled over by NM state trooper with a bag of MJ?

Wouldn't this scenario be the same for states where MJ is legal for medical use and then they drive to another state where it is illegal?

[PeppyGPhiB]

According to the feds, marijuana is as dangerous as meth and heroin. So why does it allow states to permit its use for medicinal purposes? It will be awkward for them to overturn recreational use without also overturning laws in the same states permitting medicinal use. Once that happens, maybe then people will get pissed enough to start demanding changes at DEA.

ETA: and I realize they don't acknowledge that medicinal use is legal at all, but since they've pretty much ignored it, they've implied endorsement. They don't want to do the unpopular thing and take away a drug that makes people with terminal illness feel a little better.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Mevara

Wouldn't this scenario be the same for states where MJ is legal for medical use and then they drive to another state where it is illegal?

Ah, but crossing state lines makes it a federal issue. What if the marijuana law is written so that it can't be transported across state lines?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I fervently hope this election brings about the end of the Republican Party as we have known it for the past several years. It would not surprise me to see it break into religious right, a libertarian, and an economics-first-to-hell-with-the-rest sects. Hey, one can dream.

I'm 33girl and I had a seance and contacted Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower and all 3 of us approve this message.

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

According to the feds, marijuana is as dangerous as meth and heroin. So why does it allow states to permit its use for medicinal purposes?

They may be saying this, but it's hooey. The biggest problems associated with marijuana are associated with production and sale of the substance. I am not a fan of lazing your life away baked, but I'm also not a fan of getting blotto on alcohol or toasting your lungs with tobacco. I really think the laws for marijuana need to be correlated with alcohol. Around the country. If you're a dry county now, great, keep marijuana illegal. But otherwise, regulate it, tax the crap out of it and move on. I don't particularly want to offend the believers that Reagan was a good guy, but pulling federal funding to force all the states to change their drinking laws was a terrible thing to do. So much for Republicans and States Rights.

I think these states are bellwethers. The primary people who will be against it are the ones who are in the incarceration business because it will keep a lot of people out of jail for petty crime.

Over the last few years it has become less taboo (even NOT taboo) for a politician to be on the side of legalization. Once that tide turned, the end was near. We're not there yet, but look how far we've come from Iowa legalizing gay marriage and how many states have it now? Marijuana will follow the same slow steady march toward legalization, probably with varying rules from state to state. But that's true of alcohol sale and use, so that's ok.

(sorry for the rambling stream of consciousness post here. I am apparently REALLY tired.)

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Ah, but crossing state lines makes it a federal issue. What if the marijuana law is written so that it can't be transported across state lines?

Does it really have to be that specific? Once you leave that state you are out of their jurisdiction so the laws no longer apply. I was just trying to make a point to PiKA2001 that whether or not MJ is recreational or medical the same rules of crossing state lines applies.

[Mevara]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I fervently hope this election brings about the end of the Republican Party as we have known it for the past several years. It would not surprise me to see it break into religious right, a libertarian, and an economics-first-to-hell-with-the-rest sects. Hey, one can dream.

From my local libertarian website:

"There are two kinds of Tea Partiers," said Benedict. "One kind is so blinded by its hatred of Obama and Democrats that it cannot see fault with Republicans. It's the other kind the Libertarian Party is reaching out to."

Looks like they are already trying to absorb Republicans.

[DubaiSis]

There is definitely a wing of the Libertarians I can relate to, but many people associate Libertarianism with the hard right. It can also be hard left. But I agree. My prediction for the next presidential is that there will be a 3rd party candidate who gets more than 10% of the vote. And the Libertarians seem like a good choice if they can make themselves seem like the "government out of your bedroom AND your wallet" party and not the "we hate 47% of America party."

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm 33girl and I had a seance and contacted Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower and all 3 of us approve this message.

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

The Republican Party, if it wants to remain nationally relevant in the 20th century, has to do a lot of work. Let's see if they actually do it.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

These are actually my views exactly. I classify myself as a republican because I'm extremely economically conservative.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

Well, there are the blue dog Democrats (with whom I identify in any ways), but the Tea Partiers and redistricting have made them an endangered species, st least in Washington.

[ASUADPi]

I really hope I'm not the only one who questions why we have a term on our President but we don't have terms on Senators and Representatives.

Some of those people in Congress need to get the hell out! Just like we get a new president every 4 to 8 years, we need some new blood in Congress!