• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds oppose Calif. Prop 19 to legalize marijuana

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Feds oppose Calif. Prop 19 to legalize marijuana | TuscaloosaNews.com

Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot.
Click to expand...

Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will "vigorously enforce" against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.
Click to expand...

This has me fuming. I really question just what kind of freedom we have if I can't even enjoy a harmless joint without facing prison time. Polls indicate that Prop. 19 may very well pass so it will be interesting to see how the DEA acts.

Hopefully Obama will tell them to back off like he did with medical Marijuana. If the DEA goes ape **** and wastes billions of tax payer dollars on fighting the inevitable then I am gonna be upset.
 

My understanding is that even without Prop. 19, simple possession almost never leads to anything more serious than a small fine. In NYC, up to 25g is just a $100 "violation" - it's not even a crime.
 
Last edited:
Which is how it should be, several states have "decriminalized" Marijuana. Sadly in Alabama if I am caught with anything I'll be ,at the very least, arrested and receive some kind of probation.
 
The federal government needs to end the War on Drugs. It is intrusive, unconstitutional, and a waste of tax payer money. Just because marijuana doesn't have a powerful corporation lobbying for it's legalization doesn't mean it should be prohibited.
 
You wanna shrink the deficit, eliminate prohibition.
 
It's something that, at least on here, both parties agree on. Why is this such a slow moving process? Why are the politicians not doing something about this? Props to Cali people for actually getting this thing going.
 
Your Star said:
You wanna shrink the deficit, eliminate prohibition.
Click to expand...

An argument I hear from a lot of people,

Is that they'd rather pay more for weed, in taxes and price, just so they didn't have to go to some shady dealer.
 
I think it's unconstitutional for a state to break a federal law, being the Controlled Substances Act. I say raise the fines on marijuana with no jail time. Why tax it when you can impose serious fines? Marijuana isn't as " bad" as some other drugs, but it doesn't merit legalization. If AZ can't mirror a federal law, than CA shouldn't be allowed to literally break federal law.
 

Woh woh woh woh woh woh woh woh woh!

Digsbe. I love you bro but you just contradicted yourself in a massive way.

How can you say what you just said in this case, but say that it's not fair for the Federal Government to 'impose' same sex marriage on your state?
 
Jetboogieman said:
An argument I hear from a lot of people,

Is that they'd rather pay more for weed, in taxes and price, just so they didn't have to go to some shady dealer.
Click to expand...

Personally that's why I've never smoked weed. You have no way of knowing what is in it, plus I don't want some stupid drug charge on my record.
 

I seriously just said "Oh Snap" out loud. :mrgreen:
 

Because the federal government doesn't have Constitutional power over marriage. State's give the marriage certificates, not the feds. Currently the federal definition of marriage is under DOMA (only man and woman marriage). That doesn't get forced onto state's defining marriage either. It's in regards tot he Constitution and the separation of powers. If state's were the ones who decided on the criminal nature of marijuana then this would be ok, but the fact is that we have a federal law that prohibits certain drugs and legalizes certain controlled substances. The only way California can legally do this is if the Controlled Substances Act is ruled unconstitutional or overturned.

Btw, I love you too :mrgreen:eace
 
Last edited:

If it does pass, and it's enforced with the same vigor we enforce our immigration laws, I'd say no one in California has anything to worry about. ;-)
 

The Constitution does not grant the Feds the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Any law that legalizes simple possession or taxes small-quantity sale is inherently intrastate.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The Constitution does not grant the Feds the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Any law that legalizes simple possession or taxes small-quantity sale is inherently intrastate.
Click to expand...

However, the ruling by the 9th Circuit, sets the precedent that Federal law overrides state law.

Those damned unintended concequences!
 
apdst said:
However, the ruling by the 9th Circuit, sets the precedent that Federal law overrides state law.

Those damned unintended concequences!
Click to expand...

Yeah, except that there's a higher authority than the 9th Circuit.

Besides, what are the Feds going to do -- invade California? :lol:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yeah, except that there's a higher authority than the 9th Circuit.

Besides, what are the Feds going to do -- invade California? :lol:
Click to expand...

As much as I would love to see this pass, if the feds really want to be asses about it, they simply have to cut aid in an amount that would be detrimental to the state. Same as the promises to cut road funding if a state wouldn't change the drinking age to 21.
 
Well, if the Feds decide to pick on California for a matter that just became law, they're going to end up with a coastal state with a craptacular highway system. California won't be able (or for that matter, willing necessarily) to mobilize to reverse itself before things fall apart worse than they already have.

Dumb both for the state and for the country, but I guess that's never stopped the Feds before...
 
You want a drug to make illegal. Alcohol. As an EMT I see what is does and its awful. Marijuana is almost non existant as far as violent crimes are concerned. I have never used it but it appears you just get the munchies and want to be everyones friend.

I dont know how we can allow tobaco and alchohal legal and Marijuana illegal. It is just silly.
 
I suppose the people fighting hardest against legalizing pot are the people currently profiting from it today. That would be the big growers, organized crime, testing labs, and the US government, which has invested heavily in bodies and equipment in its War on Drugs.

 



There is no recorded actual case of anyone ever overdosing on pot and dying. If you smoke or eat too much in brownie form you simply go to sleep. I've seen it plenty of times.

I don't see the Feds being all that busy going after people in California hell they would have made thousands of arrests in the past few years for Medical pot sales but they only went after a few.

The new California law will include some kind of mark or stamp or some identifying system to show the tax was paid and your pot must be in an official container so I suggest you make one legal purchase then go back to your regular source and use the legal container until it wears out to avoid paying the ridiculous tax.


Legalizing will not effect the underground sales at all.

I am not a user and do not advocate the use on any currently illegal substances ever.
eace out dudes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…