Jump to content

.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would imagine if the feds tried to get into enforcing their law, the courts would end up swamped until eventually the SCOTUS would side with the states and the only winners would be lawyers, again.

I understand the SCOTUS has already sided with the feds when it comes to national vs state legislation. However, it's one thing to have the legislative authority. It's quite another to use that legislative authority on a state where the local population has clearly expressed its wishes. The Republican base has a lot of states rights activists so it remains to be seen whether a Republican president would really expend political capital by pushing this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying you think Wa. state hasn't legalized pot?

That's exactly what he's saying and as proof, he linked an article that repeatedly says that pot is legal in the state of Washington. And then, when I called him on it, he said that the authors of the article that he linked to prove his point don't know what they're talking about.

It all makes perfect sense.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Can you perform one?

No. Nor is that relevant.

Guns are legal in Canada - subject to limits and regulations.

Alcohol is legal in Canada - subject to limits and regulations.

Prescription drugs are legal in Canada - subject to limits and regulations.

See how that works?

All of those things are illegal in various circumstances. See how that works? Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the SCOTUS has already sided with the feds when it comes to national vs state legislation. However, it's one thing to have the legislative authority. It's quite another to use that legislative authority on a state where the local population has clearly expressed its wishes. The Republican base has a lot of states rights activists so it remains to be seen whether a Republican president would really expend political capital by pushing this issue.

What I find indicative is that it's been ~3 years since Wa. and Colo. passed their law and so far nobody has bothered to challenge it. Of course they could have Donald as the next pres. and then who the hell knows what fun we might see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now I'm curious. What is your position on marijuana and which party best represents that position?

I'm for regulated production and sale. No restrictions on personal consumption and personal crops under a small number of plants. Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Nor is that relevant.

All of those things are illegal in various circumstances. See how that works?

You're making up your own language, here. And using it in a way that is inconsistent with the way the parties use it and the way that it's commonly used.

If someone from a distant country inquired whether alcohol was legal in Canada, would you really answer "no, it's just decriminalized"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for regulated production and sale. No restrictions on personal consumption and personal crops under a small number of plants.

So, your position is consistent with the Green Party and the Liberal Party.

Both of whom are on the record as supporting legalization.

Edited by ReeferMadness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what he's saying and as proof, he linked an article that repeatedly says that pot is legal in the state of Washington. And then, when I called him on it, he said that the authors of the article that he linked to prove his point don't know what they're talking about.

The article DOES prove what I'm saying. It details all of the ways that pot is controlled, and all of the ways that using, buying or growing it is still completely illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's legal so long as you are 21 or over.

There are more regulations that that.

You can't smoke in any public place. You can't grow it yourself. You can't sell it without a license. You can't take it out of state. You can't buy as much as you want. No edibles are allowed. etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he has given us clear options if we overlook the terminology.

Sure, but, then again, words are pretty important. Selecting decriminalization implies that I prefer the approach of the NDP, when I actually prefer the approach of the Liberals and deplore the approach of the Conservatives.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,722
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    phoenyx75
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User went up a rank
      Contributor
    • User earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Fluffypants earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • User went up a rank
      Explorer
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...