Jump to content

Legalising Marijuana In California?


Recommended Posts

I said so amazing in there, didn't I?Of course I watch tv and movies, that's the labour of my people.
sonofabitch
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 412
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Canadian Sleeper Cell
At least we don't let them on our hit TV shows...
Moonwalking, doing the robot dance and singing a deliberately woeful version of Avril Lavigne's "Complicated" on TV's "Canadian Idol."Is that part of the profile of an alleged homegrown terrorist?Police won't confirm it is, but that was the picture being presented to Canadians in reports on one of three men accused of plotting attacks in the nation's capital.The picture that emerged Thursday of Khurram Sayed Sher was one of stark contrasts.The comic performance and an alleged terrorist."It's sort of absurd. It is a little weird," Jake Gold, a judge on "Idol" and music manager in Toronto, said of the allegations."He was a funny guy. At the same time, it's not a laughing matter."Sher, the alleged terrorist, is a father of three, a doctor who graduated from one of Canada's most prestigious medical schools, and an avid hockey player.He is someone police said conspired with others in a Canadian bomb plot, but also a doctor who went to Pakistan to help after an earthquake.
b160d5214088a1e86d7965b7dd5d.jpeg
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well I absentee voted last night, 3 times. My son in law let me vote for him, and the wife.Voted no on 19 three items.If it fails by 1-3 votes, your welcome hippy freaks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I absentee voted last night, 3 times. My son in law let me vote for him, and the wife.Voted no on 19 three items.If it fails by 1-3 votes, your welcome hippy freaks!
voter fraud is probably the only way you can stop this train. even if it fails now, it is only a matter of time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
voter fraud is probably the only way you can stop this train. even if it fails now, it is only a matter of time.
That and the federal government telling the voters of California that national drug laws supersedes all state drug laws and they will still prosecute fully all pot casesAnd the fact that most pot heads are too stoned to vote, let alone be registered.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That and the federal government telling the voters of California that national drug laws supersedes all state drug laws and they will still prosecute fully all pot casesAnd the fact that most pot heads are too stoned to vote, let alone be registered.
Too bad Pot Heads aren't the only ones that want to see this legalized ...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I absentee voted last night, 3 times. My son in law let me vote for him, and the wife.Voted no on 19 three items.If it fails by 1-3 votes, your welcome hippy freaks!
disappointing
Link to post
Share on other sites
That and the federal government telling the voters of California that national drug laws supersedes all state drug laws and they will still prosecute fully all pot cases
Sure they will. Maybe starting in 2016 if the GOP finds someone to run who can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure they will. Maybe starting in 2016 if the GOP finds someone to run who can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Why should the republicans have higher standards than the democrats?Besides being superior in all other areas I mean?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I absentee voted last night, 3 times. My son in law let me vote for him, and the wife.Voted no on 19 three items.If it fails by 1-3 votes, your welcome hippy freaks!
I hope this was one of those ballots where voting NO means you support the legalization. You really can never tell by reading the text on the ballot, so it takes a good deal of research beforehand. Something tells me you just quickly checked the NO box and lit a cigar.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That and the federal government telling the voters of California that national drug laws supersedes all state drug laws and they will still prosecute fully all pot cases
...and you support this? What happened to the whole "states should be able to govern themselves" motto? This is an honest question - I don't understand Republican support for this idea. Or did you guys cover this months ago?
Link to post
Share on other sites
...and you support this? What happened to the whole "states should be able to govern themselves" motto? This is an honest question - I don't understand Republican support for this idea. Or did you guys cover this months ago?
I am cool with states rights argument.But what about Nevada? If you legalize pot in CA, and we start shipping in trucks full of it from Mexico, how do you control the spread into neighboring states like Nevada?You in essence make Nevada have to pay for more enforcement costs because of our actions. Doesn't Nevada have a right to be in the argument? this makes it a federal issue.The Feds making this statement is just that, a clear statement that their rules apply here. How does one state have the right to tell all other states that their rules trump the feds rules? What if California said that there would no longer be any restrictions on air pollution? That effects more than California, that's why the feds step in.Here is a story about the Obama administration's stanceI'm against pot being legal but I don't think the world will end if it does. I suspect it will be made legal in my lifetime nationwide.But it is going to create problems people are not thinking about. From driving under influence, to taxes, to enforcement of no smoking laws etc.Doesn't matter what we vote anyway, one judge will overturn it and do what they want. Has happened for the last 3-4 big social issue propositions here, and it will happen for this one too.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, really disappointed that Holder (and therefore Obama) have stated that they'll enforce drug policy in California even if Californians vote to legalize the marijuana plant. And that can in the same week that Obama said he's fight the judge who was trying to end Don't ask-Don't tell. Is he actively trying to lose my support? These are among the easiest issues he'll face.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really, really disappointed that Holder (and therefore Obama) have stated that they'll enforce drug policy in California even if Californians vote to legalize the marijuana plant. And that can in the same week that Obama said he's fight the judge who was trying to end Don't ask-Don't tell. Is he actively trying to lose my support? These are among the easiest issues he'll face.
He knows that repealing DADT will have much more force and legitimacy if it comes from congress instead of the courts. It looks dumb but it is the right move; I dont doubt at all that he wants to repeal it.No idea why they are changing their pot policy all of a sudden but I'm not surprised, sadly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll beat BG to the punch.The author teaches at the U of British Columbia which means only one thing. He's a socialist pot head hippy.
You're: almost getting it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah Palin is in favor of legalizing, which makes her hotter.I didn't watch it; I just browsed some comments.
ok, I saw that before. If I remember right, she says she is not in favor of legalization but supports the idea that if police want to ignore recreational pot use and focus on other things, that is fine. So, she is a decriminalization proponent (and she admits to having used pot before).It made me dislike her slightly less.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...