Fingon Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 With the California bill coming out ahead in the polls (if only slightly), and legalization having a healthy 10 point lead over prohibition in Colorado (according to a Rasmussen poll), the question then becomes... What will the Obama administration do if California and/or Colorado legalize marijuana? I can't imagine the DEA would be able to do anything to control the flood of marijuana that will be unleashed, as local and state law enforcement make up the bulk of the current enforcement. This issue will definitely be on the national forefront come November. It will be extremely interesting to see what the Obama administration does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 With the California bill coming out ahead in the polls (if only slightly), and legalization having a healthy 10 point lead over prohibition in Colorado (according to a Rasmussen poll), the question then becomes... What will the Obama administration do if California and/or Colorado legalize marijuana? I can't imagine the DEA would be able to do anything to control the flood of marijuana that will be unleashed, as local and state law enforcement make up the bulk of the current enforcement. This issue will definitely be on the national forefront come November. It will be extremely interesting to see what the Obama administration does. Dude, they already set the precedent when they ordered the DEA to stop the persecution and warrant-less searches of suspected weed shops. I think the issue should be on the national forefront come November, but I don't think at all it will be interesting to see what Obama does here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 It's already legal in some states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 26, 2010 Author Share Posted May 26, 2010 Dude, they already set the precedent when they ordered the DEA to stop the persecution and warrant-less searches of suspected weed shops. I think the issue should be on the national forefront come November, but I don't think at all it will be interesting to see what Obama does here. There is a huge difference between not raiding medical dispensaries and accepting the full blown legalization of marijuana. Also, if you don't think that legal marijuana will be all over the media come November, then you are wrong. Do you honestly think that El Rushbo, Hannity, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Maddow, etc.. will not be talking about the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 There is a huge difference between not raiding medical dispensaries and accepting the full blown legalization of marijuana. Look up the term precedent. The administration has more than hinted at their intention of not enforcing federal marijuana laws. Also, if you don't think that legal marijuana will be all over the media come November, then you are wrong. Do you honestly think that El Rushbo, Hannity, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Maddow, etc.. will not be talking about the issue? I literally agreed with this when you said it. Edit: I think the issue should be on the national forefront come November Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Good... Then the Fed will have to take it off our drug testing. Then people can actually say that I am on weed and have a valid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 26, 2010 Author Share Posted May 26, 2010 Look up the term precedent. The administration has more than hinted at their intention of not enforcing federal marijuana laws. I literally agreed with this when you said it. Edit: I understand the term precedent, however the two situations are very different, and I miss-interpreted your comment. I thought you were saying that it should be on the national forefront, but were implying that it won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 If you don't think this president sees the legalization of dope strictly as a brand new gushing revenue stream, you haven't been paying attention for the past year and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I understand the term precedent, however the two situations are very different, and I miss-interpreted your comment. I thought you were saying that it should be on the national forefront, but were implying that it won't be. Basically, by precedent I mean how they have something to go on if they choose not to interfere with the new state law. If they had continued DEA raids in California, accepting these new state laws would have no basis. Now it does. None of that means a damn though, since the whole reason that Obama will support the state laws is.... as a brand new gushing revenue stream I personally think that state rights clearly are aligned in our constitution to have their own drug laws. The federal legislation is a joke, and while the conservative belief is that pot is bad for the soul, I don't see why they would think that should infringe on my freedom to smoke it. Again, none of this matters since liberals will only use the legalization marches and steal the support of hippies and college kids to then pass the laws to get cigarette like tax revenue off of another product that they feel they're entitled to gouge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I hope they legalize it...then hopefully it will be decriminalized in Canada.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 while the conservative belief is that pot is bad for the soul Where'd you get that idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Where'd you get that idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBeane Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Oh yes, that haha. We all know that if you get stoned you are going to go insane and kill people!! It's just common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Who could possibly care. If it gets full blown legalized in 2 states, I suspect the DEA will breath a sigh of relief and ignore weed more than it already does. Weed is way down my list of substances I give a **** about controlling and no, I don't and have never tried it. But I could care less if people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Who cares? I will go out and have 2 or 12 drinks. This being one positive step in ending the ridiculous Prohibition...of Drugs, that has done nothing except for accomplish the very same thing the original Prohibition did = completely fail at stopping alcohol, get a lot of innocent, and guilty, people killed, make a lot of scumbags rich, marginalize the benefits of gaining an education and hard work, empower the criminal element far beyond their wildest dreams, and corrupt far too many of our politicians, judges, and officials. The mafia didn't become the mafia until Prohibition came along. This is history and common sense. And I will go as far as saying: the reason we haven't repealed this Prohibition is that many inner city politicians know their history all too well. After all, the Kennedy's would be just one more poor Irish family in Boston if it wasn't for Prohibition. Is it really that much of a stretch for us to think that they don't mind illegal drugs because it transfers wealth to their constituents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Never smoked it, never will. I have no interest in it. That said, I have no problem with it being legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Never smoked it, never will. I have no interest in it. That said, I have no problem with it being legal. /end_argument /winner = Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Never smoked it, never will. I have no interest in it. That said, I have no problem with it being legal. You are seriously missing out, but I respect the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 If you don't think this president sees the legalization of dope strictly as a brand new gushing revenue stream, you haven't been paying attention for the past year and a half. Barry could call all marijuana use "medical" and put the revenue towards lowering the $1.2T (and rising) cost of his health care debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Barry could call all marijuana use "medical" and put the revenue towards lowering the $1.2T (and rising) cost of his health care debacle. Umm you do realize that it is possible marijuana doesn't hurt anyone and saves us money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts