Should we have picked our own damn cotton?

Originally Posted by desert dude

The president could remove cannabis from the controlled substances act this afternoon and end federal involvement in federal cannabis prohibition today. Leave it to the states. If your state wants to put you in prison for the rest of your life for smoking a joint that is their business, not the feds.

Apparently Obama feels that soda bans should be left up to the states so they can decide for themselves. But when it comes to things like healthcare and treating illegal aliens like illegal aliens and marijuana laws, then one size fits all and your local policy will be dictated to you by the feds.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

I know you mean that poster as an insult, but that is actually a pretty good summary of the US constitution. The tenth amendment spells it out pretty clearly. The poster makes it clear that it is government's de-facto function to fuck people over. I would rather have states, with their limited resources, as evil actors in my life than a federal government, with its ability to print money and wage wars. Who is likely to be more accountable to me in California, my state senator or the US Senator from Rhode Island?

A weak federal government is the design of our republic. What our republic has become is a monstrosity; see the drug war as a prime example.

Originally Posted by Illegal Smile

Let me help you nimrods - this is a choice between the moral and the pragmatic. The moral position being that slavery is always wrong and can never be justified. The pragmatic being that if a race is greatly elevated over time as a result of slavery, then that slavery must be viewed as positive. Conservatives never have a problem with this, they say slavery was wrong. That puts liberals in the position of saying that the conservatives are saying slavery was wrong only because it means the black race never happens in America, and they, being conservatives, are racists. But it also puts liberals in the position of saying that without slavery we would have no blacks, no Obama, no fundamental justification for liberalism, therefore no - they wouldn't go back and eradicate slavery if they could.

What this very old question really does is force the respondent to closely examine his beliefs (or cowardly not respond). Conservatives take a simple moral view and they don't have to think about it. Liberals have to agonize with "oh no if I say that it means.... b-but if I say that it sounds like..... oh my! oh my!" And that's the difference between conservatives and liberals - genuine core values.

You should only use force when force is being used against you. There is no way you can force an entire race to do something and claim you helped them. All force does is make people angry. I forbid you to smoke weed so you'll be a better person. I forbid you to marry outside of your race, it'll make you a better person. I forbid you to teach the earth is round, it'll make you a better person.

Originally Posted by Parker

You should only use force when force is being used against you. There is no way you can force an entire race to do something and claim you helped them. All force does is make people angry. I forbid you to smoke weed so you'll be a better person. I forbid you to marry outside of your race, it'll make you a better person. I forbid you to teach the earth is round, it'll make you a better person.

WTF are you talking about? Who said anything about force, except in the context of a "forced choice?"

Originally Posted by abandonconflict

The link did not cite even a single anecdote. You CAN NOT show proof can you? Direct challenge, show me direct even a couple anecdotal cases to back this claim so they may be explicated, if it is found that "people are being busted despite being state compliant", you will see me accept it as a truth. That is plural, so please, two clear cut cases of a violation of the holder memo that can't be attributed to actual crimes.

I will keep trying to pry your head out of Obama's ass, even though I know it is a futile enterprise:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steph-...b_1579419.html

"For the past 8 months, all four U.S. Attorneys in California have taken a keen interest in undermining the state's medical marijuana laws by forcing the closure of more than 300 dispensaries. It's simply not believable that all of these tax-paying businesses were operating in violation of state law. If they were, why didn't the state take part in the raids? Why didn't the state or local authorities issue arrest warrants? Why would state and local politicians stand up for businesses breaking state and local laws? In Colorado, the U.S. Attorney launched his assault by shutting down businesses within 1,000 feet of a public school -- explicitly citing only federal law. He did so publicly, and with great media fanfare. It's hard to believe Holder was unaware of this fact when he told Congress the precise opposite."

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/08/er...mmentcontainer

Here is another quote from the HuffPo article:

"In San Francisco, five city-permitted dispensaries were forced to close over the last few months, despite full support from the Board of Supervisors and state lawmakers. Other San Francisco dispensaries have also been threatened by U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag and feel terrorized for conduct they have been engaged in for years without incident. The public and local officials alike are puzzled by this stance especially because it contradicts the Obama Administration's purported policy -- the same policy that Holder repeated to Congress."

I remember films on tv news of clinics in LA being busted and everything be carried out and owners arrested. All by DEA agents.