• CD Moderators: nepalnt21
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Weed is now LEGAL in CO and WA!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Effuzion said:
Those raids have nothing to do with Obama. And from that same article:



It sounds like there was a reason those medical dispensaries were being targeted: they were breaking zoning laws. Whether that's grounds for being raided or not is up for debate, but clearly Obama is not "ordering the feds to crack down" on medical marijuana.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you claimed that he was responsible for ordering federal authorities to "stop cracking down on the medicinal shops in California." I wasn't trying to claim that he ordered the raids, merely that he was allowing them to be carried on in his name (after all, he does kind of run what we're calling the federal government here).


[edit: I was about to add more articles of the past two months regarding separate raids in California, but decided I didn't want to hijack this thread into something it wasn't meant to be. Just google "california dispensary raids 2012" if you're interested.

Sorry for the tangent everybody.]
 
Jibult said:
I'm sorry, but you claimed that he was responsible for ordering federal authorities to "stop cracking down on the medicinal shops in California." I wasn't trying to claim that he ordered the raids, merely that he was allowing them to be carried on in his name (after all, he does kind of run what we're calling the federal government here).
Click to expand...

He did stop the feds from cracking down in the early part of his presidency (read my post above again with the quote from the article you linked). The fact that dispensaries are being shut down recently is unrelated to the illegality of marijuana at the federal level; they're being shut down because the dispensaries are breaking other laws.
 
Effuzion said:
Source? I'd be surprised if he did that, he was the one who stopped the feds from cracking down on the medicinal shops in California.

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets brought to the supreme court and shot down because federal law overrides state law. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the catalyst that leads to federal law being changed. Only good things can come out of this.

Now to legalize heroin.
Click to expand...

www.usatoday.com/story/dispatches/2...alize-recreational-marijuana-tourism/1689269/

"The Obama administration has recently pressed an enforcement crackdown against pot dispensaries and greenhouses deemed to be engaged in large-scale drug trade under the pretense of supplying medical cannabis patients in California and elsewhere, Reuters adds."

Its around the middle of the article.

edit: i guess he didn't do that today and just because of these states. i didn't read it thoroughly earlier but still...
 
Last edited:
obama was one of the biggest stoners within his group of friends growing up..and since he doesnt have to win anothe election i can see him doing things he wouldnt have ever dared to talk about during his first term

one of those things is nationally medical marijuana laws..with all this debt and deficits we have this is a way to get out of them

i mean colorado passed medical marijuana in 2000...and in that time they did the studies to realize that crime didnt go up and DUIs and traffic deathes didnt go up and that they are making millions of dollers in tax revenue and thats the most important thing..12 years and they are gonna make it legal for everyone cause they know how much more money they are gonna make and save by not having the courts and law enforcement waisting their time and money procecuting these cases

i have family in denver and i honestly might look to moving out there just for this reason
 
chinky said:
obama was one of the biggest stoners within his group of friends growing up..and since he doesnt have to win anothe election i can see him doing things he wouldnt have ever dared to talk about during his first term
Click to expand...

I wonder. Who will usher in the new legality in Washington? Will Obama have a spliff in public? If so, what the fuck are the feds going to do :D?
 
Re-distributed said:
I wonder. Who will usher in the new legality in Washington? Will Obama have a spliff in public? If so, what the fuck are the feds going to do :D?
Click to expand...

It's been a life long dream of mine to one day be able to go out in public, and enjoy a nice bowl without people thinking it's some horrible, reprehensible thing.

Thank you WA and CO, for making history and leading us into a new world!
 
yeah i never thought that the states would legalize before Canada, and im Canadian. Go figure.
 
Choosing_Positive said:
Says the dude in Scotland...:?
Click to expand...

Says the dude in America.... Loads of the labour safe seats are in scotland and the SNP are also pretty left wing, fucking dread to think what would happen to UK politics if scotland became independant... I mean the Torys would have power for the rest of eternity until there was nothing left of the NHS, every comprehensive school is an academy funded by churches. Also Scotland wants to have 100% renewable energy by 2020, so I ask the question what's wrong with scottish politics?
 
For people that are saying it's destined to fail, the law has only just passed. At least give it a chance!

That said, the drug czar has just explicitly said how they're going to try and stop it. I for one will be interested in seeing how it pans out because it could eventually have implications not just for america but for the rest of the world.

Apparently they are going to try to:

  • Sue to block parts of the measure.
  • Send threatening letters to marijuana shops.
  • Street level clampdowns.
  • Send warning letters to state's governors.
 
The United States is a signatory to the United Nations drug conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988. The treaties require signatory countries to "pass legislation" outlawing production, sale and trafficking in various psychotropic drugs. The U.S. Constitution states that our treaties also hold the force of law. These treaties are the source of the States vs. Feds issue with drug legalization in the United States. The treaties do not ask the signatory countries to honor their individual citizen's votes on the matter and of course Federal law trumps State law.

If the President does not "display" some effort to enforce the Federal drug laws, he will put the United States in violation of the various anti-drug treaties that have already been enacted.

IMO, the various drug legalization organizations need to more effectively lobby and influence the United Nations on this matter.

I am still very pleased that CO and WA legalized marijuana. It may still be "illegal" on the Federal level, but it is a good thing that state and local law enforcement will not be harassing pot users.
 
Since when has the US federal government been too worried about UN treaties? I'm pretty sure Guantanamo breaches more than one or two International laws.
 
Busty St Clare said:
Since when has the US federal government been too worried about UN treaties? I'm pretty sure Guantanamo breaches more than one or two International laws.
Click to expand...
Treaties are taken very seriously in the U.S. because they do hold the force of law. The President must show that he is enforcing the Federal drug laws, regardless of his personal opinion on the matter. He has been sworn to uphold the laws of the United States and that includes current Federal Drug law as well as U.N. Treaties which hold the force of law according to our Constitution.

If the U.N. Drug conventions were re-negotiated to allow the legalization of marijuana, and the Federal anti-marijuana laws were repealed, there would be no State vs. Federal conflict over the results in CO and WA.

BTW, this is off topic, but Guantanamo is the result of an intentional treaty technical work around. You will note that it is deliberately located in Cuba, not in the United States. While Guantanamo clearly violates international human rights law in spirit, my understanding is that it does not violate any law by a literal interpretation of the law. It may be technically "legal" but I totally agree that it is absolutely inhumane and immoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top