or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Milton Friedman: Legalize It!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Milton Friedman: Legalize It! - Page 6

post #201 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
A lie?

Yes a lie, much like your post.
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
The Bush admin decided to send the feds to take these women's legal (according to state law) pot, and when the women tried to defend themselves in court, the Bush admin decided to pursue it to the Supreme Court rather than drop it.

Ashcroft is the USAG, charged with upholding the Law - Laws that the US Supreme Court has upheld. She also sued Asa Hutchinson head of the DEA (you know what that stands for?) who was also enforcing US Drug Law - Laws upheld by the US Supreme Court. So even though these people are indeed PART of the Bush admin, they are not THE Bush admin. These are two people with specific jobs that were fulfilling their duties. If not an outright lie, a definite distortion on your part.
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If you don't like the way I phrased it, how would you prefer it - "the Bush admin initiated the sequence of events?" The administration had to make a conscious decision to have a confrontation between federal and state law. They didn't have to do that.

Once again, referring to John and Asa as the Bush admin is disingenuous. John Ashcroft has a responsibility to uphold Federal Laws, so yes, yes he did have to do it.
post #202 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
So even though these people are indeed PART of the Bush admin, they are not THE Bush admin.



So at what point is critical mass reached where it goes from 'members of the bush administration' to 'the bush administration?' 7? 13? 4 cabinet secretaries, 2 senior advisors and the cook?
post #203 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by giant


So at what point is critical mass reached where it goes from 'members of the bush administration' to 'the bush administration?' 7? 13? 4 cabinet secretaries, 2 senior advisors and the cook?

Hey look, if you want to believe your own distortions, that's quite alright with me. But once again, words and specific groups of words have meaning to me.
post #204 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
John Ashcroft has a responsibility to uphold Federal Laws, so yes, yes he did have to do it.

Actually, that isn't technically true. The AG has the ability to choose which laws he wishes to enforce, and the laws chosen to be enforce are products of the administrations desires. The Bush Administration, in this case.

The AG isn't required by any law to enforce all federal statutes.

On semantics, we refer to the Bush Administration because either Bush is the leader of the Administration or he has no power; this means he is responsible for all acts committed by his administration in the name of this country.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #205 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
John Ashcroft has a responsibility to uphold Federal Laws, so yes, yes he did have to do it.

That's the key question: If they had no other choice but to send the DEA out, then you're right, and the Bush admin can't be blamed. If they did have a choice, and made a specific decision to pursue this case, then they can be blamed.

Here's a related case: Oregon's right-to-die statute.

Quote:
Granting a request by the Bush administration, the Supreme Court said yesterday that it will decide whether the Justice Department may bar Oregon doctors from prescribing lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients who have chosen to die under that state's 11-year-old Death With Dignity Act.

In a brief order, the court said it will review a lower court's decision preventing enforcement of a November 2001 statement of Justice Department policy by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. The directive said that assisting suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal drug-control law and that the Drug Enforcement Administration could strip the prescribing rights of any physician who authorized drugs to help someone die.

Ashcroft's directive overturned a 1998 decision by President Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, to permit Oregon doctors to assist in suicides.

It sure sounds to me like the Bush admin is making decisions to interpret federal law as trumping state law in these cases, where the Clinton admin decided the opposite. Read the whole article. Ashcroft spoke out against the Clinton admin ruling before he became AG. Note also that Aschroft made the decision about this in Nov. 2001, two months after 9/11.
post #206 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, that isn't technically true. The AG has the ability to choose which laws he wishes to enforce, and the laws chosen to be enforce are products of the administrations desires. The Bush Administration, in this case.

The AG isn't required by any law to enforce all federal statutes.

On semantics, we refer to the Bush Administration because either Bush is the leader of the Administration or he has no power; this means he is responsible for all acts committed by his administration in the name of this country.

Look, if you guys would quit making baseless claims and distorted statements, I will stop debunking them. But you wanna keep this up, that's fine with me.

From the DOJ's own website:

"Department of Justice Mission Statement


To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; to administer and enforce the Nation's immigration laws fairly and effectively; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."

From USDOJAG site:

"The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance."

It is a judgement call by the AG, no doubt. But that is his job.
post #207 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's the key question: If they had no other choice but to send the DEA out, then you're right, and the Bush admin can't be blamed. If they did have a choice, and made a specific decision to pursue this case, then they can be blamed.

Here's a related case: Oregon's right-to-die statute.



It sure sounds to me like the Bush admin is making decisions to interpret federal law as trumping state law in these cases, where the Clinton admin decided the opposite. Read the whole article. Ashcroft spoke out against the Clinton admin ruling before he became AG. Note also that Aschroft made the decision about this in Nov. 2001, two months after 9/11.

Common Practice. What is the problem here?

So now you are tying this all in with 9/11? Right-to-Die?

What is your point? You are all over the place.

So, let me get this straight... because the Bush admin at one point requested the Supreme Court Review a case, that means that the Bush admin had anything to do with a case brought by two California women against the DEA and Ashcroft?

I will grant that it possibly was reviewed by the admin, but they did not bring this case on.

Talk about ssstttrreeetccchh-ing.
post #208 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It is a judgement call by the AG, no doubt. But that is his job.

Well if bush has lost control of his AGs wouldn't that mean we have even bigger things to worry about?


Quote:
Look, if you guys would quit making baseless claims and distorted statements, I will stop debunking them.

post #209 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Common Practice. What is the problem here?

What is common practice?
Quote:
So now you are tying this all in with 9/11? Right-to-Die?

What is your point? You are all over the place.

The right-to-die case involved the exact same federal law - the controlled substances act - and the Bush admin's decision to use it to essentially overrule the state laws. It's the same issue as in this pot case.

About 9/11, I just find it sad that they decided to pursue this stuff in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. You'd think they would have had better things to focus on at the time.

Quote:
So, let me get this straight... because the Bush admin at one point requested the Supreme Court Review a case, that means that the Bush admin had anything to do with a case brought by two California women against the DEA and Ashcroft?

The Bush admin sent the feds out to get the two women in the first place! The DEA had to get by the local CA police who tried to stop them! This was a new interpretation of the federal drug law that the Bush admin. used, reversing the interpretation of the Clinton admin!

I don't get it Naples - this is a decision by the Bush admin that you have said you agree with. Why are you trying to distance them from their decisions?
post #210 of 368
One thing this MJ SCOTUS decision makes pretty clear: Most so-called conservatives don't really give a damn about "states' rights". States' rights are only important when the "rights" in question are being flexed to establish a conservative agenda.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #211 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
One thing this MJ SCOTUS decision makes pretty clear: Most so-called conservatives don't really give a damn about "states; rights". States' rights are only important when the "rights" in question are being flexed to establish a conservative agenda.

Yup. And the irony is that the only time conservatives support states' rights is when the states want to limit individual rights.
post #212 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
You live in California hence a certain "lifestyle" and drive a leaky old Jeep hence you are not entitled to open this thread.

Besides some drugs are legal so they all should be legal to be consistent.

Can't judge which drugs are legal and not right ole Dumpet?

Otherwise you are just another judge and jury imposing your crap onto others because you are a fascist.

Fellows

I never thought I would ever say this - but I honestly think you've gotten worse. Maybe it's time to take a break?
post #213 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
One thing this MJ SCOTUS decision makes pretty clear: Most so-called conservatives don't really give a damn about "states' rights". States' rights are only important when the "rights" in question are being flexed to establish a conservative agenda.

And that differs from the liberal approach how?
post #214 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What is common practice?

A president asking the supreme court to review a case.
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
The right-to-die case involved the exact same federal law - the controlled substances act - and the Bush admin's decision to use it to essentially overrule the state laws. It's the same issue as in this pot case.

Because the state laws undermined the Federal Laws. If you look you will find this is a constant back and forth between Federal and State governments, has been for quite a while. So what?

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
About 9/11, I just find it sad that they decided to pursue this stuff in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. You'd think they would have had better things to focus on at the time.

Dishonesty meter is in the RED. This is not the only thing that was concentrated on. It would be a great point if the premise was true.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
The Bush admin sent the feds out to get the two women in the first place! The DEA had to get by the local CA police who tried to stop them! This was a new interpretation of the federal drug law that the Bush admin. used, reversing the interpretation of the Clinton admin!

It appears they were right. Once again interpretations of laws change. What can I tell you?
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't get it Naples - this is a decision by the Bush admin that you have said you agree with. Why are you trying to distance them from their decisions?

Once again, whomever in the Bush admin that made the decision, was within their rights to do so. John Ashcroft was simply doing his job. The ladies flexed their right to sue and lost. The final decision was up to the SC. They sided with the current laws.

You seem to be going in circles here. i think we've covered it enough, no?
post #215 of 368
I want to apologize up front for not having read this entire thread, but I do want to get my 2 cents in.

If you have not seen Reefer Madness, you do not understand our govt's official position on 'narcotics'. You also do not understand that, on occasion, our govt will lie to us.

Pot, like wheat, POTatoes, corn, tomatoes, etc. has been around for K's of years, but the shit did not hit the fan in Americal until Gene Krupa got sloppy drunk/stoned/coked up during a gig on Ed Sullivan in front of the entire US public. (I was shamed by this ONLY BECAUSE I am a pro musican and a drummer. Not cool to frick up in front of your audience)

DO NOT LEGALIZE POT, fa getta bout it! Decriminalize it.

Legalizing alcohol has done nothing to stem the tide our youngsters are from suffering from alcohol abuse. Legalize pot and the same thing will happen. More underage abuse, more overage abuse. It won't make things better.

The war on drugs is a farce to keep beauracrats and prisons working, and do-gooders, fundies and liberals happy. Follow the money. It makes my head throb to think that my govt says it's OK to be BAD/EVIL as long as I send tax money to the govt?? Hey, I can get 6 years in prison for shooting my wife, but 20 years for being caught with a little smoke?? God, my brain is throbbing again.

Right-To-Die is certainly pertinent to this thread. It is exactly the same issue, as is the issue of a woman controlling her own reproductive rights. Surely some individual rights should trump state or federal rights.
But, my brain is throbbing again. (I feel like I am in a screen test for the old movie 'Scanners's) The only thing I MUST DO, the only thing all of you MUST DO is to die. The only thing, but we have to whine for our 'right' to do this? I need frickin PERMISSION FROM THE GOVT TO DIE??????????

Shit, I'm gonna pop a beer in the freezer to cool while I roll a hooter. Gotta get my fly rod and walk down the bluff to the creek and exercise my fly-rod, or do I need someone's permission for that?

Paz
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #216 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
And that differs from the liberal approach how?

Your response is complete nonsense unless what you call the 'liberal approach' pretends state's right is a central part of the ideology while increasing the power of the federal government.
post #217 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Your response is complete nonsense unless what you call the 'liberal approach' pretends state's right is a central part of the ideology while increasing the power of the federal government.

Look, liberals have for years tried and succeeded in stacking the court bench with liberal Judges. By doing so they have attempted and oft succeeded in legislating from the bench. Thusly they have increased the government's (state and federal) role in each and every one of our lives which equals taking away personal liberties.

Let's be honest. That's why we have this whole hubbub about the president's judicial nominations.
post #218 of 368
Not only should everyone see Reefer Madness but also Penn & Teller did a show on it, Anyone watch Bullshit? It was a informing episode and at the end they concluded The Fedearal Drug laws on Marijuana are B.S.!Penn & Teller dont use it but whats really sad is the Fed has been giving joints to 7 people in the U.S for years for their medical conditions...........Hypocrits......then they want to spin it has no medicinal value. Pure B.S from our Govt of lies.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #219 of 368
Naples, your uninformed opinions about that have nothing to with shetline's point that so many "so-called conservatives don't really give a damn about 'states' rights.'"
post #220 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look, liberals have for years tried and succeeded in stacking the court bench with liberal Judges. By doing so they have attempted and oft succeeded in legislating from the bench. Thusly they have increased the government's (state and federal) role in each and every one of our lives which equals taking away personal liberties.

1. We've only had a Democratic president for 8 of the last 25 years. Seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. It's true that FDR packed the court, but that was a long time ago and none of those judges are still around.

2. In every single case of judicial activism, judges have interpreted the constitution as giving more individual rights than conservatives want them to. Every single case. The definition of judicial activism is a judge expanding individual liberties in a way that social conservatives don't like. Abortion, gay marriage, sodomy, etc,: social conservatives want the government to stop those things, and "judicial activists" have said no, they're individual liberties that can't be voted away.

If you like individual liberties and don't like a nosy government, you're on the wrong side, pal. I invite you to come over, it's a big tent.
post #221 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
1. We've only had a Democratic president for 8 of the last 25 years. Seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. It's true that FDR packed the court, but that was a long time ago and none of those judges are still around.

2. In every single case of judicial activism, judges have interpreted the constitution as giving more individual rights than conservatives want them to. Every single case. The definition of judicial activism is a judge expanding individual liberties in a way that social conservatives don't like. Abortion, gay marriage, sodomy, etc,: social conservatives want the government to stop those things, and "judicial activists" have said no, they're individual liberties that can't be voted away.

If you like individual liberties and don't like a nosy government, you're on the wrong side, pal. I invite you to come over, it's a big tent.

My point really was that each side sees things differently. When the left feels it is protecting someone, then they have excuses why they need to take freedoms or liberties or customs away. The right does the same.

You will never hear me fight against smaller less intrusive government. I am all for making the laws more equitible. The thing I am railing against is dishonesty here. Some here spew constant opinions and conjectures and third party observations and on and on, until they cannot tell truth from fiction, nor can they explain or document how they arrived at any given conclusion. And hey that's fine with me, just don't be dishonest in my presence, or I'll point it out to you.

Honesty should not be a partisan thing. We all should be striving towards it. However when every thread here contains statements like "just another example of the Bush admin's willingness to (insert whatever accusation you like)", then dishonesty is afoot. It is not possible that Bush is responsible or even liable for every wrong in the Universe. When all you can say is "Bush lies" when even those in your party of favor are currently and freely lying to you, your view proves fundamentally dishonest and disingenuous. But here in PO it would appear that common sense does not apply.

I'm frankly sick of it and have taken it upon myself to point out dishonesty. I will freely admit that I have conservative leanings, but that does not mean I can't smell shit, coming from either side of the isle.
post #222 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I'm frankly sick of it and have taken it upon myself to point out dishonesty...

...by example.
post #223 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
My point really was that each side sees things differently. When the left feels it is protecting someone, then they have excuses why they need to take freedoms or liberties or customs away. The right does the same.

You will never hear me fight against smaller less intrusive government. I am all for making the laws more equitible. The thing I am railing against is dishonesty here. Some here spew constant opinions and conjectures and third party observations and on and on, until they cannot tell truth from fiction, nor can they explain or document how they arrived at any given conclusion. And hey that's fine with me, just don't be dishonest in my presence, or I'll point it out to you.

Honesty should not be a partisan thing. We all should be striving towards it. However when every thread here contains statements like "just another example of the Bush admin's willingness to (insert whatever accusation you like)", then dishonesty is afoot. It is not possible that Bush is responsible or even liable for every wrong in the Universe. When all you can say is "Bush lies" when even those in your party of favor are currently and freely lying to you, your view proves fundamentally dishonest and disingenuous. But here in PO it would appear that common sense does not apply.

I'm frankly sick of it and have taken it upon myself to point out dishonesty. I will freely admit that I have conservative leanings, but that does not mean I can't smell shit, coming from either side of the isle.

I'm glad to hear that you don't believe in intrusive government. I'm not sure how you can support the feds going after cancer patients exercising their rights under state law, but I guess we just have different definitions of intrusive government.

You've said that I'm being dishonest for saying that the Bush admin. is responsible for this situation. But I've provided you with evidence that the Clinton admin. had a different policy on this and that Ashcroft changed the policy. I'm not sure what else you want. Maybe it was Ashcroft rather than Bush; I'd be willing to believe that since Ashcroft spoke out against the Clinton policy on this stuff before he became AG. I don't think I ever personalized it to Bush. But I think it's fair to refer to "the Bush administration" in this context.
post #224 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
But here in [ALL OF MY POSTS] it would appear that common sense does not apply.

Yeah, that is evident.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #225 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm glad to hear that you don't believe in intrusive government. I'm not sure how you can support the feds going after cancer patients exercising their rights under state law, but I guess we just have different definitions of intrusive government.

You've said that I'm being dishonest for saying that the Bush admin. is responsible for this situation. But I've provided you with evidence that the Clinton admin. had a different policy on this and that Ashcroft changed the policy. I'm not sure what else you want. Maybe it was Ashcroft rather than Bush; I'd be willing to believe that since Ashcroft spoke out against the Clinton policy on this stuff before he became AG. I don't think I ever personalized it to Bush. But I think it's fair to refer to "the Bush administration" in this context.

I can follow that logic.

I personally don't have a problem with the Feds going after the people in California that are pot users, because that system is being abused. These two or so people have been caught in between the California and the US governments. This is an ongoing thing and tough to rectify with everyone.

The point is the system worked. It may not have worked in this woman's favor. But it worked. The US government enforced laws that it felt were enforceable. The US supreme court upheld the US law.

I think it removes a loophole. I am not sure that it really does anything to make the government more intrusive, since we're talking about an existing law.
post #226 of 368
Quote:
I personally don't have a problem with the Feds going after the people in California that are pot users, because that system is being abused.

More dishonesty.

The two women in the case are truly ill and are legitimate medical users of marijuana (that is not questioned by either side). How exactly are THEY abusing the system?

Are you saying that it's OK to take away the rights of these two women, because you (apparently) believe that other people in CA are faking glaucoma or something to get access to legal pot?

It's also nice how you managed to completely ignore the state law vs. federal law question.

Would it be possible for you to answer the following:

Why is it OK for the Feds to ignore, preempt, and circumvent a legitimate state law?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #227 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The point is the system worked. It may not have worked in this woman's favor. But it worked. The US government enforced laws that it felt were enforceable. The US supreme court upheld the US law.

I couldn't agree more.

We ALL know these women were knee deep in interstate commerce violations doing what they were doing, and the Supreme Court rightly concluded these harlets should be dealt with accordingly. How? By allowing the Feds to usurp state law as they see fit and commit as many resources as possible to lock up those people that TRULY constitute the dregs of our society.

Way to go courts!



Meanwhile tens of thousands of people crossed our borders illegally today, airport security still sucks (despite the fun of being felt up), and our dependence on foreign oil is, quite correctly, being dealt with by stockpiling a bunch of barrels of the stuff in the desert and drilling fresh new holes for sulfur rich crude in Alaska. That'll teach 'em!

Is it unreasonable to expect proper resource allocation from the G? Or for them to stay out of legitimate state business?

Of course it is rageous, you goof.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #228 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look, liberals have for years tried and succeeded in stacking the court bench with liberal Judges.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
We've only had a Democratic president for 8 of the last 25 years. Seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. It's true that FDR packed the court, but that was a long time ago and none of those judges are still around.

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
*crickets* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

When Conservatives get caught spreading lies, why doesn't anyone ever say anything?

Fact: Many people believe that "Liberals" have packed the Supreme Court.

Why is that? Easy answer. Conservatives keep lying, and keep repeating lies often enough, that they become "truths". NaplesX honestly thought what he was saying was true. Why? Because other conservatives told him it was. Spreading of lies. That's all it is.

Like the "liberal" media.

And how Iraq was involved in 9/11.

And how Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the US.

And how Iraq would be, to use a term from the eerily similar Vietnam War, "a walk in the park".

And how Iraqis would be dancing in the streets.

And how the Iraq war would pay for itself.

And how it was "Mission Accomplished".

And how Zarqawi is behind ALL of the insurgent attacks.

And how bombing Fallujah would solve all the problems in Iraq.

And how Iran is a threat.

And how Syria is a threat.

And how Iraqi weapons were smuggled into Syria.

And how Syria is "sending" fighters into Iraq.

It's all lies. And it's disgusting. And amazing that so many people are stupid enough to fall for ALL of them.
post #229 of 368
It's all liberals damn it. It's all 'libruls'.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #230 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
More dishonesty.

Please read this article:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/13/pot.club.closures/

and then the las paragraph of this one:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/15/marijuana.club/index.html

The California state laws were passed after the Federal laws were, so this conflict was no surprise to anyone.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
The two women in the case are truly ill and are legitimate medical users of marijuana (that is not questioned by either side). How exactly are THEY abusing the system?

Well if you read into this a bit you will understand that the Feds are not picking on this woman, rather they are cracking down on these MJ Clubs that have multiplied like rabbits in California, where much fraud and illegal activity have taken place.

"The appeals court disagreed. The only way patients can access marijuana legally is to grow it or have an individual -- not a commercial enterprise -- grow it for them, the court said." - first link

http://www.budlife420.com/pg4/v2e7index.html

This from budlife420.com obvious supporters:

"When federal officials shut down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in 1998, Angel McClary Raich faced what she considered a "life-threatening situation."

"I could die in 45 days without medical marijuana. It literally keeps me alive," said Raich, 37, an Oakland resident who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor, seizures, wasting syndrome and chronic pain.

For Raich, it wasn't difficult to find another source for the marijuana she relies on daily to quiet her pain and seizures and stimulate her appetite. What was harder, she said, was to quell the fear that federal agents would break down her door, seize her stash and even jail her."

http://www.marijuana.org/OaklandTrib7-01-04.htm

Read that and tell me it's not out of hand.

""That place is so medical. It is so medical," said Angel McClary Raich, a medical marijuana advocate and user who worked on the Oakland law. "The people that were involved in that were basically getting the blessing of the city. The California Highway Patrol should not have just busted through the door."

The Highway Patrol did just that shortly after 2 p.m. following a traffic stop two hours earlier -- and three blocks away -- that resulted in an officer finding 88 marijuana plants in the back of what was described as a U-Haul truck.

The officer stopped the truck after its driver made an illegal turn, police said. As he walked up to the truck, the officer smelled marijuana, conducted a search and found the plants and "documentation" that led officers to the warehouse at 2638 Market St., police said.

Once there, officers saw three people run from the building. They caught all three, went inside to search for more suspects and found almost 2,000 plants worth "several millions of dollars," police said."

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Are you saying that it's OK to take away the rights of these two women, because you (apparently) believe that other people in CA are faking glaucoma or something to get access to legal pot?

Um, considering there are any number of known drugs that could help her that are legal, I am not sure how here rights are being taken away. She is free to pursue any other avenue of relief.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
It's also nice how you managed to completely ignore the state law vs. federal law question.

No I did not. Try reading my post again. Besides, the Fed law was in place long before the state one.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Would it be possible for you to answer the following:

Why is it OK for the Feds to ignore, preempt, and circumvent a legitimate state law?

In this case I think it is. Why is it OK for the state to ignore, preempt, and circumvent a legitimate Federal law?
post #231 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
When Conservatives get caught spreading lies, why doesn't anyone ever say anything?

Fact: Many people believe that "Liberals" have packed the Supreme Court.

Why is that? Easy answer. Conservatives keep lying, and keep repeating lies often enough, that they become "truths". NaplesX honestly thought what he was saying was true. Why? Because other conservatives told him it was. Spreading of lies. That's all it is.

well this was reported by CBS back in 1996 right before Clinton's second term:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/judges.html
"By this point in his presidency, Mr. Clinton has appointed 1/4 of the judges in the federal court"

I am not sure what the total was by 2000. Do you?

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Like the "liberal" media.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbas...ome.asp#public

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Lie made up by the left. I never believed that. I do believe it is a possibility, but it hasn't been proven. Although ties to AQ have been proven.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the US.

"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds." - SH himself Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Iraq would be, to use a term from the eerily similar Vietnam War, "a walk in the park".

Iraqi freedom was the quickest advance of a heavily armored column in military history. It's a little hard to argue with that.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Iraqis would be dancing in the streets.

you mean like the Kurds:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/132410.asp
or when they captured SH:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...raqi.reaction/
or after the elections:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2112885/

You mean like that?

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how the Iraq war would pay for itself.

Another liberal notion.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how it was "Mission Accomplished".

It was for those sailors coming home.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Zarqawi is behind ALL of the insurgent attacks.

Who said that?

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how bombing Fallujah would solve all the problems in Iraq.

I don't remember that, Care to back that up? If that was claimed, they were wrong near term anyway.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Iran is a threat.

It is.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Syria is a threat.

It is.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Iraqi weapons were smuggled into Syria.

you mean like the half a dozen credible reports even before the war began:
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?i...storyid=670123

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Syria is "sending" fighters into Iraq.

You mean like reported on 2/12/04:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
post #232 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why is it OK for the state to ignore, preempt, and circumvent a legitimate Federal law?

Because that's what the 10th Amendment to the Constitution says.

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #233 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And how Syria is "sending" fighters into Iraq.

It's all lies. And it's disgusting. And amazing that so many people are stupid enough to fall for ALL of them.

I wanted to point you to a new thread I started on this subject, so not to further derail this one.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=54978
post #234 of 368
Quote:

Heh. I love their about page:

Quote:
On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).

Edit: It's the definition of begging the question.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #235 of 368
What are 'traditional American values' ?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #236 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What are 'traditional American values' ?

They exist. They are a fact. They are clearly capable of being defined. And if you question this, you're a damned hippie librul revisionist historian who hates Freedom and Halliburton.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #237 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It was for those sailors coming home.

It takes a lot of sauce to claim you're standing up for honesty and then post this. Really.

Because this is dishonest. 'Mission Accomplished' followed the fall of Baghdad. George Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier in a jet fighter to declare it to the world.

If you're trying to pretend, I don't know, that he went to all that trouble to welcome back a single aircraft carrier or something, you've just made yourself look like a proper charlie.
post #238 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It takes a lot of sauce to claim you're standing up for honesty and then post this. Really.

Because this is dishonest. 'Mission Accomplished' followed the fall of Baghdad. George Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier in a jet fighter to declare it to the world.

If you're trying to pretend, I don't know, that he went to all that trouble to welcome back a single aircraft carrier or something, you've just made yourself look like a proper charlie.

Fair enough. But if you don't see the fall of Bagdad as a huge milestone, or the historic march there, you are being disingenuous. It was.

If the mission was to topple SH, and it was, and if that mission was accomplished, and it was, what are we talking about?

In his speech aboard that aircraft, he says, and I quote, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people."

The toppling of SH was the mission and it was accomplished, I am not sure what you snivelers are whining about, the banner did not say "The War Is Over!", either did the president in the speech in front of the banner.

Get a grip.
post #239 of 368
very interesting. i'd like to mention that I'm not a pothead. I am a productive member of society. I have a job I've maintained and advanced in for several years. I regularly buy goods and services and do my part in moving the economy. From time to time, I like to go out after work for a few drinks with the fellas. Other times, I prefer to smoke marijuana. I don't think I should be restricted in this regard. Truly, I am not very restricted (I smoke pot pretty regularly, without consequence); but there is a lingering fear of arrest, a ticket (assuming local authorities), or pound-me-in-the-ass jail (if federal authorities).

I think the illegality of marijuana does more harm than good. I think the punishments far outweigh something which shouldn't be a crime. I believe that when I do something in the privacy of my own home, and maintain myself without harming others, I should not be restricted by the government, particularly not the FEDERAL government.

anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and probably mentally deficient.
post #240 of 368
Quote:
anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and probably mentally deficient

Here's to you and Here's to me
and may we never disagree
But if we do, then to hell with you
and here's to me.

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Milton Friedman: Legalize It!