The 2 states I have a vested interest in, Alabama and Texas will do the same just as soon as icebergs start forming in hell.

bout freakin time

Now tax it and eliminate your money problems.

want to fix the usa economy

legalize
and tax

new greatest cash crop

want to fix the usa economy

legalize
and tax

new greatest cash crop

----

I always find it odd that people complain about having no money but can always seem to be able to pay for their vices.

Been there as an ex smoker.

pirate

right now i'm a bum:)

i can't even pay for the vices

but friends who smoke cigs

no matter how broke they are
they always have enough change to get a pack of cigs.

IN college, a friend (I swear it wasn't me)used to hang outside gas stations and ask everyone who came out for a cigarette and do that until he had a pack of 20.

Okay for small amounts but not larger amounts?

Isn't that like arresting the beer truck driver?

Sweetness and light!

Bout bloody time too.

Spud is go now to celebrate this excellent news with an obligatory...

** DB **

Be Well.

Isn't that like arresting the beer truck driver?

Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-05 03:42 PM | Reply

Not for Ted Kennedy. It would be like arresting the warehouse that the beer is stored at.

Larry

IN college, a friend (I swear it wasn't me)used to hang outside gas stations and ask everyone who came out for a cigarette and do that until he had a pack of 20.

#7 | Posted by kanrei

Dating myself but I had a girlfriend who was a skilled panhandler. She'd ask for a dime so she could call her mom, if the person said he only had a quarter she'd say, "That's okay, I can make change."

"Spud is go now to celebrate this excellent news..."

You go DETHSPUD!!!

Damn, and I just quit smoking this summer. Why is the world always a year or two behind me?

RIP Bob and Peter and Bunny.

OK, so Bunny's still around. I was BAKED!!

** DB **

Be Well.

#9 | Posted by dethspud

tater, you're a damned genious. and apparently you can read my mind. i was just thinkin'....

thinking is overrated....

"thinking is overrated...."

Posted by Lipzoidial

Okay for small amounts but not larger amounts?

Isn't that like arresting the beer truck driver?

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-05 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the difference between possession (assumed to be for personal use) and Possession with intent to distribute.

"It's the difference between possession (assumed to be for personal use) and Possession with intent to distribute."

I'm guessing the beer truck driver has an intent to distribute.

tater, you're a damned genius. and apparently you can read my mind.

~Lipz

Great minds toke alike!

If not now, when?
If not us, who?

Ha! Spud luffs using sound bites from recycled Reagan speeches to justify his blaze sessions.

/Is crunchier that way!

i was just thinkin'....

thinking is overrated....

Everything in moderation including moderation and that includes thinking.

Just enjoying life and just feeling good w/o overworking yer grey matter is part of that.

Woo Hoo!

You go DETHSPUD!!!

~Loonytarian

** Spud does the happyspud dance **

Go starchy
Go starchy
Go starchy tater, go!

** Spud stops **

/Blog-world should prolly feel a wave of relief that nobody had to witness that.
//The happyspud dance is made up of 99% enthusiasm 1% crazy and 0% talent.
///Is still plenty fun though!

Be Well.

"If they make it legal, there'll be more crime"

WWWWWWHHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTT????? ??

Yeah! Don't bogart that law Massachusetts!

It's the difference between possession (assumed to be for personal use) and Possession with intent to distribute.

By that logic, I can buy an ounce and not be arrested, but the guy who sold it to me is thrown in jail.

That's some damn fine law-making there, Lou.

Klif,

"want to fix the usa economy
legalize
and tax
new greatest cash crop"

And drug test every single driver the police pull over, as a common practice.

You ran a red light...blow into this.
Your tail light is out...blow into this.
You're speeding...blow into this.

I don't like to see anyone on the road under the influence.

You mean like they check every single driver they pull over for alcohol and prescription drugs? Don't be a kook.

I like me some freedom when its Skunky!

That's it, I'm moving to Boston.

"It's the difference between possession (assumed to be for personal use) and Possession with intent to distribute."

I'm guessing the beer truck driver has an intent to distribute.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-05 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

As soon as alcohol becomes illegal, you'll have a point.

By that logic, I can buy an ounce and not be arrested, but the guy who sold it to me is thrown in jail.

That's some damn fine law-making there, Lou.

#23 | Posted by Axiom at 2008-11-05 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

No. Buying it is still a crime, as is possession and use.

They simply reduced the penalty for being caught with it on your person.

Nothing more.

They should liberalize the hemp rules too.

LEGAL AS LETTUCE!

To HELL with taxing it!!

"As soon as alcohol becomes illegal, you'll have a point."

I have a point already. Allowing something to be possessed in small amounts, yet arresting them for having several small amounts is pandering. It's ignoring how commerce operates for the sake of politics.

They simply reduced the penalty for being caught with it on your person.

It's a start.

Police will still enforce it, they still do in Colorado even though they use it for medical purposes.

The federal law trumps state law as our medical patients have found out. At least the liberals have a way to spend their free time .

The federal law trumps state law as our medical patients have found out. At least the liberals have a way to spend their free time .

#34 | Posted by rick1234567890 at 2008-11-06 12:08 AM

Not true Federal Law does not trump state law. Only if you let them get away with it. Where I live in Northern California we politely but firmly told the feds to get lost after they offered to "help". We don't mind them coming in to make the big busts on the Mexican pot farmers who are armed and dangerous and are in it just for the profit but when it comes to arresting our law abiding citizens we JUST SAY NO! The problem is we are still in a gray area where the laws regarding cultivation and possession are slowly changing and evolving and are not written well yet. But, we are slowly learning and getting them more refined.

We also are in a transitional time where we have to teach the cops how to behave too as they are a bit arrest happy sometimes as most of them are basically rednecks anyway and they have to be educated to the new reality.

Michigan just voted to legalize it for medical purposes too, and about time! I'm so sick of how pharmaceutical companies push drugs for ridiculous uses, someimes with horrible side effects, and it's ok as long as it has a name printed on it and makes someone somwhere some cash. Hell, you can get THC with a prescription - it's called marinol, and it's synthesized, comes in pill form, and makes a drug company money, so it's legal. Smoke the source of said drug - which is, of course, not something dangerous and toxic like methamphetamine production, not even as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol, but is of course, marijuana, a fucking plant, and you can go to jail. Not a shock though, street dealers aren't making enough to pay lobbyists like pharm. companies are.

Of course, I'm sure this means that there will be a sudden unexplainable onset of glaucoma among our population, or something, but whatever. As long as people aren't driving under the influence, what's the worst that can happen? Couches get worn out a little faster? Fruit Loops, Doritos, and Mountain Dew stocks skyrocket?

Hell, even if people drive on it, it's not as bad as alcohol. As the joke goes, what's the difference between a drunk and a stoner at a stop sign? The drunk flies through it, while the stoner waits for it to turn green.

How the hell you gonna tax it when I can just grow it in the back yard next to the corn, onions, and garlic.

Hell, even if people drive on it, it's not as bad as alcohol.

I tend to believe that.. There is a huge percentage of pot smokers in Portland (and I mean HUGE).. I have never once heard of a DUI accident involving weed..

How the hell you gonna tax it when I can just grow it in the back yard next to the corn, onions, and garlic.

I would rather just buy it than become a farmer.. There will be a ballot initiative in Oregon in 2010 to completely legalize weed and sell it in liquor stores. It will legalize hemp as well... A similar vote will occur in Nevada in the same year. Both have a significant chance of winning.

Oregon was the first state to legalize assisted suicide and Washington followed in this recent election.. It is very possible!

Hell, even if people drive on it, it's not as bad as alcohol.

I tend to believe that.. There is a huge percentage of pot smokers in Portland (and I mean HUGE).. I have never once heard of a DUI accident involving weed..

dude your delusional. smoking pot seriously effects the motor reflexes and visual and hearing perceptions. from a website.

Question: How Does Marijuana Affect Driving?

Answer: Marijuana has serious harmful effects on the skills required to drive safely: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and the ability to react quickly. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.

Marijuana may play a role in car accidents. In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine.

Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink.

Having driven in all 3 states, under the influence of alcohol, under the influence of marijuana, and under the influence of both . . . okay, I guess if I drive straight, that's 4 states . . . still . . . I'd much rather be on the road with a stoned driver than a drunk one for my own personal safety. Stoned drivers aren't as aggressive and they tend to go a bit slower than everyone else.

I've never quite understood the logic of making a plant illegal. "We hereby declare this plant that grows on this planet now to be illegal."

Hmm . . . can you do that with nut grass? It's taking over my yard.

The problem with testing drivers for marijuana is that the stuff stays in your system for a month. All a positive test indicates is that you've been high sometime within that period.

Personally, I only get ticketed when I'm not.

dude your delusional.

Not at all.. I have never driven stoned.. I was merely commenting that not once in 20 years do I remember a report of a DUI person being stoned and not drunk. If you have never been to Portland, then you don't realize how significant that is.

Marijuana MAY play a role in car accidents.

Nice retort.. Alcohol DOES play a role in car accidents, so my OPINION might not be too crazy..

Now at least Theresa Kerry will be able to use a decriminalized drug before she has to get in bed with Lurch. pot works better that pherngern for controling vomiting.

"Not true Federal Law does not trump state law. Only if you let them get away with it. Where I live in Northern California we politely but firmly told the feds to get lost after they offered to "help". We don't mind them coming in to make the big busts on the Mexican pot farmers who are armed and dangerous and are in it just for the profit but when it comes to arresting our law abiding citizens we JUST SAY NO! "

#35 | Posted by donnerboy

Fed law does trump state law (as state law trumps city law, as was evidenced recently with the decriminalization of herb in the City of Denver). Simply because the Feds chose not to press their point does not invalidate their jurisdiction. At the very least, the Feds could cite and arrest a person who possesses herb for federal tax evasion if that person cannot produce a federally issued tax stamp commensurate with the amount in possession.

You can say no all you want. If the Feds want to charge you, they will charge you.

"Not true Federal Law does not trump state law."

I think the Federal troops sent to enforce desegregation of southern college campuses say otherwise.

"the stuff stays in your system for a month"

Technically, the cannaboids from herb are stored in the fat cells: the THC is washed out fairly quickly.
If one is an infrequent smoker, and depending on the test, one will pass. A standard urinalysis tests to 50 nanograms of cannaboids per liter. More stringent tests go to 25 nanograms. If one is an infrequent smoker, and depending on the test, one may pass the first, but probably not the second.

A judge stating that someone is still under the influence of herb 2 weeks after smoking is simply false.

Fed law does trump state law

It does, but according to the constitution it is not supposed to. The Constitution states:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
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.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the priveledge of banning or regulating substances that people ingest. Therefore, it is left to the states and the people.

"I think the Federal troops sent to enforce desegregation of southern college campuses say otherwise."

#46 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

That's a non sequitur. If you are referring to the Posse Comitatus Act, that is a statute. The PCA does place certain limitations, restrictions, and exclusions on the deployment of regular US military, but does not remove entirely the ability of the Feds to deploy certain elements of Federal forces, such as the Coast Guard, and the Fed can deploy regular military in specific circumstances. And being the the PCA is a statue, it can be revoked.

Go here for a good treatise on what the can and cannots of the PCA:

"Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
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.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the priveledge of banning or regulating substances that people ingest. Therefore, it is left to the states and the people."

#48 | Posted by jsprague

Nowhere in the Constitution do the Feds have the authority to tax you at the Federal level, and then establish an independent (rogue) agency, the IRS, to collect revenue and enforce the federal tax laws, and if you don't pay, levy interest and penalties, and have the authority to confiscate anything and everything you own. And you pay your fed taxes, right? Even though technically federal taxation is unconstitutional.

Herb is a federally controlled substance and has been made subject to not only possession laws but also tax laws.

"Nowhere in the Constitution do the Feds have the authority to tax you at the Federal level"

United States Constitution
Amendment 16
Ratified 2/3/1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

And you pay your fed taxes, right?

Yes, I do, because the penalty is too great.. I pay with protest, but I do vote accordingly.

The true anarchist simply ignores the government.

And you pay your fed taxes, right? Even though technically federal taxation is unconstitutional.
posted by ZOT

Lets not get into the tax legality debate though. If I remember correctly Taxman will go nuts.

The Constitution says the Fed does not trump the state. However it sure as hell doesn't stop the Fed from telling everyone that they do. The Federal government is drunk with power and has been for a long long time. Unfortunately a reality check isn't in the cards for the near future.

"some have refused and have won their day in court."

But NEVER on the issues, and never based on the unconstitutionality of income taxes.

The true anarchist simply ignores the government.

Most libertarians are not anarchists. I am not either.. I just believe what the forefathers did and what the Constitution says..

the federal government will tell Massachussettes that they will withhold all federal highway funds if they don't prosecute for possession.

Hasn't happened in California....is that news, HC, or opinion? Besides, doesn't Alaska and Oregon have basically the same law?

And.....if anyone owes the Fed highway funds, it's the home of the BIG DIG!

But NEVER on the issues, and never based on the unconstitutionality of income taxes.
posted by Danforth

Hasn't happened in California....is that news, HC, or opinion? Besides, doesn't Alaska and Oregon have basically the same law?

#58 | Posted by Snark_Needleton

you know what, you're right. I misrememberated how when Louisiana tried to lower their drinking age to 18 that was what the Federal government threatened them with.

Hasn't happened in California....is that news, HC, or opinion? Besides, doesn't Alaska and Oregon have basically the same law?

Not completely true.. While they have left us alone for the most part in Oregon, the FBI has shut down and arrested several legal growers in Northern California. Not to mention that there may still be attack on Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law if Ashcroft's successor gets around to pursuing it (likely not).

Misread the post. No, they have not threatened California with sanctions..

But, the federal gov has threatened numerous states for many reasons. To name a couple..

Montana would have lost all federal highway funding if they didn't comply with the federal speed limit. This was when they recently got rid of speed limits.

They threatened all states recently that their citizens would not be able to travel if they did not accept the national ID.. It remains to be seen what will happen with this as several states have rejected it..

There are many more examples..

Seems too simple to allow people to be left alone. I am all for taxing and regulating it like alcohol and tabacco.

"the federal government will tell Massachussettes that they will withhold all federal highway funds if they don't prosecute for possession."

That remains to be seen considering we will have a new president on Jan. 20. I have a feeling that things will be different under Obama.

JSP, I think the "national ID" has died. I can still travel.

As for this, they're still confiscating and fining for possession. I can't call this decriminalization.
A reduction in punishment for something that shouldn't be punished, perhaps.

Hey, wait one damned minute. Rush and Shawn said that every "liberal issue" everywhere was soundly rejected. Man, if we can't trust those guys to deliver the truth who can we trust?