Since several states have legalized marijuana, if the state police arrested Federal agents trying to shut down or arrest people for selling it, would you support the FBI or the local cops?
This is going to be a big issue next year- Obama has already said he will send troops to stop growers and sellers. He has shut down more medicinal marijuana shops than Bush.
The "safety commissioner" for Colorado (aka the top law enforcement guy in the state, FYI) has already said he will arrest any FED officer that tries to interfere. He said he will throw any federal agent in jail, and try them like any other citizen. The Obama admin has fired back that they would never allow that.
It's a pissing contest.
But, if it came to WAR, would you approve Colorado seceding from the union? Or should DC be allowed to kill anyone in Colofado to enforce federal laws?
"The drug war's a holocaust in slow-motion" and Obama, like every other president of the last 4 decades, will do nothing to ire the prison-industrial complex. I hope the states assert their rights and that all Americans watch this documentary:
Ok, well, a civil war over pot is not going to happen.
But I support marijuana legalization so I would support Colorado.
I actually support the break up of the United States altogether. The country is rapidly becoming ungovernable, so let all the states become their own separate republics and make the US like the EU, with a common currency and relatively open movement and commerce between their borders.
Open trade, R2- yes.
But why a common currency? Already we are killing the dollar.
If AZ, or CO, or ND decided to make gold or silver their currency, why not?
[quote]But, if it came to WAR, would you approve Colorado seceding from the union? Or should DC be allowed to kill anyone in Colofado to enforce federal laws?
It's not going to come to war, hippie.
If it did- if the people of Colorado decided to say NO! and fight the federal government...which side would you choose?
R4, you've posted on dozens of threads sucking the dick of the federal government. You've said that we all need to bow down to their wisdom when it comes to killing people overseas.
Now, I can ask you, yes or no, whether you would support a federal invasion of Colorado by DC.
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Oh, and R4 has posted on many other threads about how the Federal Reserve and Federal Government have the power to do ANYTHING THEY WANT.
Are you being ironic? Not in a "Buffy" way, but in a "Girls" way?
Because it don't work. It don't work no good at all.
I believe the Justice Department has said following the election that enforcement of marijuana laws is "not a priority." I don't think the Feds will get involved.
R3 and R5-8 are all the same person.
And, trust me, no one in this country is going to go to war over weed.
The Feds have raided Cali dispenseries. Obama has been worse than Bush in that area.
Colorado has said they will arrest any DEA agent that interferes with the law.
So, if CO arrests and imprisons DEA agents, and the Feds escalate...it could quickly become "war".
If so, WHICH SIDE WILL YOU CHOOSE?
[quote] if the state police arrested Federal agents trying to shut down or arrest people for selling it, would you support the FBI or the local cops?
This is going to be a big issue next year
What the hell have you been smoking? The conflict between federal drug law and state drug law has been going on since California originally legalized medical marijuana, and not one federal officer has been arrested by state law enforcement. This will not happen. Federal law enforcement will enforce federal law, and state law enforcement will enforce state law as is the current case.
Libertarians have been trolling this site hard the past week.
[quote]So, if CO arrests and imprisons DEA agents, and the Feds escalate...it could quickly become "war".
If so, WHICH SIDE WILL YOU CHOOSE?
This. Won't. Happen.
Don't be a tool, R15
IF they do, which side will you choose?
Fuck you, R14
You just show how ignorant you are by comparing this to NeoCon central (aka Free(sic)Republic(sic)) and trying to smear people that believe in gay rights, ending wars, and stopping the government bailouts of the banks and big corporations by linking them to shit like that.
Are you too stupid to see the difference?
[quote]Are you too stupid to see the difference?
Re-read this thread and tell me who the stupid one is here.
Libertarians haven't done a Goddamned thing for gay rights. "I think the government should stay out of the marriage business" and wanting to repeal any existing civil rights legislation because it infringes on the rights of business owners isn't supporting gay rights you moron.
But I wouldn't expect you to be able to think things through logically, after all, you think we're going to enter into a civil war over marijuana, lol, as if states and the federal government haven't had competing drug policies for a long time now without anything of the sort happening.
You do realize that marriage was a religious contract, and not even under the purview of the state, until the late 19th century when people got scared that white women would marry Ni&&ers and made it illegal, and forced them to get licenses from the government?
No, you didn't know that? How shocking- libertarians know that. Wow, how ignorant you must feel, supporting a system designed to keep Ni&&ers from marrying your white women. Racist fucker.
No, marriage as a civil institution predates marriage as a religious institution. Either you have no sense of history, you hate gay people, or both.
Either way, you're a fucking moron for thinking that Colorado's marijuana law will start a civil war, and for thinking that anyone expressing any disagreement with your ideology is somehow a racist.
Go back home to where you came from with your racist homophobic friends, you moron.
The freeper troll thinks marriage originated in the 19th century. That's adorable.
A reader sends along this link, and notes:
Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.
The linked article makes many points similar to those I made in my article from Friday. And it notes that:
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.
At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of "freedom." Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the "Negro agitatuhs" and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative "logic" at its best.
[quote]Libertarians have been trolling this site hard the past week.
It's actually just one troll. He has no job and lives with his parents, so he has nothing better to do than post on DL all day everyday. Libertarian troll finds propaganda soothing... it's easier than having to actually think for himself.
Ann Coulter, that warmongering demagogue of Conservatism, has declared war on Ron Paul. Naturally, she hates Paul because he stands for peace, free markets and the rule of law. Coulter hates of all of these things since she loves war, the police state, and the destruction of the constitution in pursuit of untrammeled political power for Conservative nationalists. In other words, like most Conservatives, she loves socialism, although she prefers to cloak her socialism in words like "national greatness," "secure borders" and "family values."
In a recent column, Coulter attacks Paul for a variety of his pro-freedom positions. In this column, however, I’ll focus only on her wildly inaccurate claims about how marriage is a "legal construct" and how every good American should insist that government maintain its death grip on the institution. She denounces Ron Paul for his insistence that marriage should not be controlled by government and that people should be free to contract with whomever they choose. Coulter of course insists that marriage should be socialized, regulated and controlled by government.
Coulter counters Paul with a claim that "there are reasons we have laws governing important institutions, such as marriage." Well she’s right there. There is a reason that governments regulate marriage: Governments couldn’t resist the urge to seize control of marriage which was a traditionally religious and non-governmental institution.
Let’s briefly examine the history and nature of marriage in the West and see just why we have laws. By "laws" of course, Coulter means secular civil laws. She’s not talking about Canon Law or Church Law, which is what governed marriage throughout most of the history of Christendom.
Being a sacrament, marriage was traditionally governed by religious law and was a religious matter. The Church recognized that with marriage being a sacrament, the state had no more right to regulate marriage than it had the right to regulate who could be baptized or who could be ordained a priest.
The group announced that it had organized at least 15 rallies in eight states designed to “draw attention to the Obama administration’s aggressive efforts to shut down legal medical marijuana dispensaries and obstruct the passages of laws that would regulate such activity.”
The Justice Department issued a memo in 2009 indicating that it would leave enforcement of medical-marijuana laws to state authorities, prompting a huge jump in the number of dispensaries in states like California and Colorado, where voters have approved marijuana for medicinal use.
Since then, however, the ASA says the Drug Enforcement Agency has conducted over 200 raids on pot shops in six states, or twice as many as were conducted during the Bush administration, resulting in more than 70 indictments.
There's going to be a lot of pissed off dealers in Colorado and Washington when they have to compete with all these mom & pop pot shops.
Marriage didn't exist as a sacrament until the Council of Trent. Are you really dumb enough to believe that marriage did not exist before the 16th century? Marriage was established in ancient times as a legal institution solving the problem of inheritance and division of property after death.
But enough of your obnoxious trolling, let's get back to the topic at hand: You're dumb enough to believe that marijuana is going to start a civil war in spite of state drug policy having been at odds with federal drug policy for years.
[quote]Since then, however, the ASA says the Drug Enforcement Agency has conducted over 200 raids on pot shops in six states, or twice as many as were conducted during the Bush administration, resulting in more than 70 indictments.
Less pot clubs when Bush was president so twice as many raids but on a greater number of pot clubs.
Hell, I remember when Bush shut down the L.A. pot club with 30 DEA agents raiding the place shortly after 9-11.
would you support the FBI or the local cops?
This would have to be on a case-by-case basis