HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Administration Weighs Leg...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:49 AM

Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use

Source: New York Times

Senior White House and Justice Department officials are considering plans for legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in those states, according to several people familiar with the deliberations.

... Marijuana use in both states continues to be illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. One option is to sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by federal law. Should the Justice Department prevail, it would raise the possibility of striking down the entire initiatives on the theory that voters would not have approved legalizing the drug without tight regulations and licensing similar to controls on hard alcohol.

... One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.

... Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html

121 replies, 16208 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 121 replies Author Time Post
Reply Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use (Original post)
Newsjock Dec 2012 OP
Ed Suspicious Dec 2012 #1
RevStPatrick Dec 2012 #2
jody Dec 2012 #3
denverbill Dec 2012 #4
former9thward Dec 2012 #89
SCVDem Dec 2012 #5
RussBLib Dec 2012 #6
0rganism Dec 2012 #18
Volaris Dec 2012 #84
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #23
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2012 #46
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #47
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2012 #55
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #58
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #67
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2012 #74
Fuddnik Dec 2012 #71
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #75
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #121
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #94
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #105
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #81
calimary Dec 2012 #102
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #82
hobbit709 Dec 2012 #7
villager Dec 2012 #11
jody Dec 2012 #13
think Dec 2012 #15
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #48
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2012 #65
John2 Dec 2012 #8
former9thward Dec 2012 #100
John2 Dec 2012 #103
bl968 Dec 2012 #107
nolabear Dec 2012 #9
John2 Dec 2012 #10
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #25
Volaris Dec 2012 #87
progressoid Dec 2012 #40
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2012 #56
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #114
Gregorian Dec 2012 #12
think Dec 2012 #14
0rganism Dec 2012 #19
GodlessBiker Dec 2012 #31
MediaMan Dec 2012 #16
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #28
maxsolomon Dec 2012 #17
Swede Atlanta Dec 2012 #20
SoapBox Dec 2012 #21
Ezlivin Dec 2012 #22
SHRED Dec 2012 #24
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #60
John2 Dec 2012 #108
Ash_F Dec 2012 #26
SugarShack Dec 2012 #57
Joey Liberal Dec 2012 #27
villager Dec 2012 #52
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #115
mike_c Dec 2012 #29
SHRED Dec 2012 #30
greyghost Dec 2012 #32
MADem Dec 2012 #33
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #38
SHRED Dec 2012 #34
DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #77
SHRED Dec 2012 #86
Ter Dec 2012 #35
Arugula Latte Dec 2012 #36
Ccarmona Dec 2012 #37
bakpakr Dec 2012 #39
socialindependocrat Dec 2012 #41
marlakay Dec 2012 #42
green for victory Dec 2012 #53
AndyTiedye Dec 2012 #70
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #78
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #43
dorkulon Dec 2012 #44
AAO Dec 2012 #69
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #116
DeSwiss Dec 2012 #45
Hotler Dec 2012 #49
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #50
CreekDog Dec 2012 #51
David__77 Dec 2012 #54
neffernin Dec 2012 #59
JimDandy Dec 2012 #61
_ed_ Dec 2012 #62
heaven05 Dec 2012 #63
green for victory Dec 2012 #66
neffernin Dec 2012 #73
heaven05 Dec 2012 #79
heaven05 Dec 2012 #76
nolabels Dec 2012 #64
AAO Dec 2012 #68
JudyM Dec 2012 #113
SoCalMusicLover Dec 2012 #72
heaven05 Dec 2012 #80
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #117
LiberalEsto Dec 2012 #83
BobbyBoring Dec 2012 #85
musiclawyer Dec 2012 #90
CrispyQ Dec 2012 #88
wildbilln864 Dec 2012 #91
union_maid Dec 2012 #92
Hydra Dec 2012 #97
colsohlibgal Dec 2012 #93
frylock Dec 2012 #95
marlakay Dec 2012 #96
cilla4progress Dec 2012 #109
marlakay Dec 2012 #110
Hestia Dec 2012 #98
elbloggoZY27 Dec 2012 #99
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #101
fascisthunter Dec 2012 #104
FiveGoodMen Dec 2012 #106
yardwork Dec 2012 #111
jsr Dec 2012 #112
JackRiddler Dec 2012 #118
DiverDave Dec 2012 #119
harun Dec 2012 #120

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:51 AM

1. Or the feds could fuck off and waste our money on something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:56 AM

2. Or better yet... Not waste it at all?

 

Yeah, like that's going to happen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:56 AM

3. CO & WA laws are instances of nullification proposed in Jefferson & Madison’s 1798 KY & VA

 

resolutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:58 AM

4. Legislatures can't restore Colorado's anti-marijuana law. It's in the constitution.

Federal prosecutors can bring cases, but that doesn't mean state and local cops will enforce their Federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denverbill (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:14 PM

89. The federal government has every police department on the hook.

They all receive significant federal grants. They can threaten to withhold those if they refuse to enforce. Federal money always has conditions and strings attached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:02 PM

5. Balance the budget

End the insane war on drugs.

We can't even eliminate dandelions which nobody wants.

What lunacy makes them think they can win against plants we do?

Oh yeah! The for profit prison system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:02 PM

6. Anyone know how we can strongly and effectively communicate a "hands-off" message?

My Congresscritter is a Tea Party Repug so that's useless....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RussBLib (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:42 PM

18. try the "states' rights" angle

this is a rare instance where the "tea party" republicans' knee-jerk impulse to destroy the federal government could work in our favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:05 PM

84. Another possibility...

what say you to the idea that the entirety of the Sovereign State Government Beaurracry (as the functional proxy of the Will of The People) of Colorado and Washington are engaging in an overt act of Civil Disobedience, on behalf of the People? Yes, the Governer could, in theory, be arrested for breaking the law and leading others to follow his example, but really, is Holder dumb enough to try it? I know it begs the questions "Can an entire organization be engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience, AND do States possess the same Rights to PEACEFUL Protest as any other sovereign agent (you and me)?"

It might could work....If I were the Governor of Colorado I'd do it...I'd DARE the atty. gen. to come up here and arrest me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RussBLib (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:50 PM

23. Why would it matter that your "Congresscritter is a Tea Party Repug"? Holder (D) is a Democrat.

 

He's a special type of Democrat, a DC Democrat.

In contrast to those of us who are registered as Democrats, make campaign contributions to Democrats, and who vote for Democrats, Holder is a Washington, DC Democrat who will do whatever he wants regardless of whatever communications that he receives from us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:13 PM

46. Holder can't act...

without his bosses say so. Not for long, anyway. He is doing what he is told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:19 PM

47. "Not for long, anyway"? Why would you say that? As long as he doesn't prosecute banksters

 

and goes after state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries, why wouldn't he have job security as the U.S. Attorney General?

Or are you saying that he has plans to cash in on his Attorney General status and move on to further help the super-rich as one of their employees?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:28 PM

55. What I am saying is he won't...

be going after pot smokers unless that is what his boss wants him to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:31 PM

58. I believe that the DoJ is separate from the Executive.

In fact, as we can recall in the Clinton days, the DoJ can and will prosecute a sitting president, so your assertion that Holder can't act without permission from the president is ill-informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:50 PM

67. If Obama did not want Holder to go after state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries,

 

(1) he could pick up the phone and inform Holder of that,
(2) he could call a press conference and make his views known to the public, and
(3) he could choose to not re-appoint Holder as the Attorney General.

The DOJ, as you say, "can and will prosecute a sitting president."

Have you noticed that Holder did not prosecute former Vice-President Cheney who went on television and openly admitted his participation in war crimes by being involved in the water torture (nominally called "water-boarding")?

Have you noticed that Holder did not prosecute other war criminals?

And that he has not gone after banksters?

Holder and Obama are in alignment on those policies. Holder is doing exactly what Obama wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:02 PM

74. Bingo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:53 PM

71. You would be wrong.

DOJ is a part of the Executive.

And, it was a Special Prosecutor, independent from the DOJ, Ken Starr who prosecuted Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:03 PM

75. Ah, another good story ruined by the facts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:10 PM

121. No. History shows clearly, I am CORRECT. You're wrong.

Janet Reno hired the Special Prosecutor Robert B. Fiske to investigate President Clinton in January 1994.

And after Congress passed the Independent Counsel law in 1994, Robert B. Fiske was replaced with Kenneth Starr in August 1994.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:57 PM

94. There are three branches of government. Which one do you think the DoJ reports to?

My guess is that it isnt the legislative branch that MAKES the laws.

My guess is that it isnt the judicial branch that INTERPRETS the laws.

My guess is that it is the executive branch that ENFORCES the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:51 PM

105. Yes. Keywords:

enforces the law.

Ya'll forgot when the DoJ went after Clinton? Are you now of the opinion President Clinton wanted to be persecuted by the DoJ?

And since when did Democrats and Liberals become such fans of sovereign state's rights? Only when it comes to legalizing weed? Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RussBLib (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:22 PM

81. Try the "you're going to cost us the 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 elections" angle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:40 PM

102. We have a winner!

If anything's gonna turn off the younger voters, fighting them on pot legalization would. And WILL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RussBLib (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:47 PM

82. From an organizing point of view, the "Congresscritter...Tea Party" fellow might be the

a most passionate advocate, with a lot less to lose. How badly does one want to win? A bonus, it might do the racists among them some good to associate with others for awhile, see another way to live.

(Our state rep just won again. He got popped a while back for pulling a gun on an unarmed man in a road rage incident, but it doesn't seem to have impacted his popularity. I bet he wouldn't like this AT ALL, though I haven't heard his opinion on the weed vote.)

There is a huge group with interests all over the place here who could be organized among, to support the person who gets arrested by the feds with a 1/4 ounce on state or private property.

I wonder what they would do if 5 or 6 hundred thousand people (of the potentially millions interested) in a couple cities started showing up on state land around their nice federal offices, sitting down until they are arrested for the joint they have in their hand too? Well, ok, the roach. It would shut the justice system down and create a huge crisis. They want to send 60 new coal trains through here every day, for China. Imagine those folks just go sit on the tracks until their vote is respected. Because if we are gonna be railroaded, we might as sit on real tracks.

Big place, lots of people, and the IWW did some good work and dying here. Some people just don't take being dictated to well.

That whole demographic change that is pointed to in the last election is what carried these initiatives, I think. Those are the same ones that might get this thrown back in their face, so I don't know how wise it might be to pursue this. 2014 and 2016 need to be kept in mind, with 4 more years of 10,000 people a day turning 65 and economic conditions that may not be markedly different than they are now.

It will be interesting to watch the organizing, if any.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:02 PM

7. Let it go to trial and see what a jury in that state says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:21 PM

11. The method of jury nullification will have to be used, over and over

...until the Administration drops these insane, excessive policies.

People need to be taught about jury nullification, and prosecutors in these states need to learn they will no longer be able to get convictions on these ridiculous charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:24 PM

13. What villager said.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:26 PM

15. Agree!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:20 PM

48. That's not cheap nor free.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:47 PM

65. What about the poor slob who gets a "law and order" jury.

My public defender friend says that's who usually shows up. He goes absolutely insane when he hears his liberal friends talk about avoiding jury duty.

The feds are brutal in their prosecution. I would hate to see someone end up with 10 years in the federal clink. Would YOU want to risk it?

You would have to file a motion to dismiss. Absent victory based on that, you would have to plea bargain to avoid serious time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:03 PM

8. Why don't

 

groups come back and sue the Congress and the Justice Department, on the grounds that they made marijuana a class level one drug period? Get it into a forum with competing experts. Then go to the issues of Constitutionality. Let Congress and the Justice Department prove why it should be illegal. Take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if you have to. I don't think Congress or the Justice Department can win this issue with the current research on marijuana. They had none of that in 1930.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:32 PM

100. You can only sue on grounds of Unconstitutionality.

What section of the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a law and the President from signing a law making MJ a class one drug?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:04 PM

103. They

 

have the right to do that, under the right definition of MJ, but their evidence is weak about the characterization of MJ. If Congress has no evidence to prove what they are characterizing should be restricted, then they can basically make anything illegal, even a glass of milk.

That is where the fight meeds to be. MJ has been falsely characterized. How can this be a Level one drug when it is useful for medical purposes? The evidence did not exist at the time of its useful purposes. Now there is evidence. MJ was Labeled a narcotic under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. It was also painted as addictive. A lot of successful people have smoked it and led successful careers. You get rid of the myths, then Congress has no reason to mis characterize it. When medical marijuana reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintive used the Commerce Clause and lost the case 5-4. All the lIberals on the court voted against using medical marijuana, but the conservatives voted for except Scalia, who voted concurred. The case needs to be argued on different grounds. I think at the lower level, the labeling of marijuana by Congress needs to be challenged with scientific evidence by experts. The proponents need to show cases of harmful effects, such as addiction. I just don't think the Federal Government can prove it's case now. That needs to be re litigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #103)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:48 AM

107. Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment

Actually the Federal Government can't, they are limited by the Commerce clause and the 10th amendment. As long as the states are using home grown pot, and only allowing it to be distributed in their borders, the DOJ is likely powerless, and they know it which is why they have resorted to threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:07 PM

9. OFFS. I can't believe the admin. would waste it's time on this. Why aren't States' Rights Advocates

howling their heads off about THIS one? Hmmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:18 PM

10. Maybe it

 

inteferes with their religious Manifesto of Hypocrasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:04 PM

25. Because they're not really for "States Rights" that's just a wedge issue used by them to further

or maintain personal and/or party power.

They're for "big government" they just want a different type of "big government" one that will readily invade the privacy/sanctity of your home, bedroom and body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:09 PM

87. you get the gold star for today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:41 PM

40. The President has decided not to enforce DOMA and let states decide marriage equality.

But I guess pot is different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:29 PM

56. You can support...

the prison industrial complex by locking people up for pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:56 AM

114. Pot, the cash crop for the Private Prison Complex. States' rights be damned on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:23 PM

12. Bongs Away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:25 PM

14. This is a clear case of ignoring science and math. Pathetic.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

19. they're also ignoring democracy

which might be the most pathetic part of this whole pathetic mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:15 PM

31. "Pathetic" is an understatement. A fucking waste of time and money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:34 PM

16. Obama may be a NARC, but Jimmy Carter wants to toke up

Even as high officials within the Obama administration reportedly weigh action against two states which legalized use of marijuana, a number of other politicians and celebrities — including a former president — are pushing for wider international reform of drug laws.

Former president Jimmy Carter signed onto a declaration to “Governments and Parliaments” to begin re-examining the existing stringent criminalization of drug use worldwide. Carter was joined as a signatory by a number of current and former global presidents, including those from Mexico, Columbia, Guatemala, Poland and elsewhere. George Schultz, a secretary of state for President Ronald Reagan, also lent his support, as did Hollywood stars such as musicians Sting and Yoko Ono and director Bernardo Bertolucci — as well as many others.

- See more at: http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2012/12/07/pols-celebs-push-for-further-drug-reform/#sthash.Q5LA7CEN.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MediaMan (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:07 PM

28. Kudos to Jimmy Carter; a great statesman, in many ways ahead of his time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:41 PM

17. Inevitable & neccessary step

I called this months ago - WA state will never get to the point where state stores are opened to legally sell MJ.

The Feds will step in with an injunction as soon as the state Liquor Control Board issues its proposed regulations in Sept 2013, if not sooner.

This HAS to go through the federal court system sooner or later. Since we've all been used to MJ being a Schedule 1 narcotic for our entire lives, might as well be sooner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:47 PM

20. This is one time when the feds need to keep their noses to themselves.....

 

The states are slowly waking up to the fact that the war on drugs is unnecessary and a waste of resources.

Although I do not smoke MJ, I don't believe its effects are any more destructive than those of alcohol.

If MJ is legal the state can license and TAX it. No more 3 strikes you are out for minor drug offenses. Selling MJ outside of the scope of the state licensing protocol becomes just that, a violation of the state licensing code (just like alcohol) and nothing more.

I am not so naive to believe that licensing MJ will significantly reduce the criminality associated with more substantive drugs such as Crack, Heroin, etc.

But this is a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:48 PM

21. President Obama...take notice and leave it alone.

Period.

Go prosecute some of those wack job military types, that gunned down women and children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:49 PM

22. Bring 'em on!

I'd much rather face these drug-warriors in court when public opinion is decidedly swinging in our favor.

If we can have open hearings where scientific evidence is utilized, we have a chance at making some fundamental, science-based changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:02 PM

24. WTF has Obama got to lose by advocating a rescheduling of Marijuana?


Schedule 1 is obscene.

--

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:34 PM

60. Only Congress can do that. Obama is the president. Different branch. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:24 AM

108. Ok,

 

I've been convinced to join yall side in this fight. Obama needs to back off and join the right side. They need to help the states that have legalized marijuana and down grade the classification also. That is where DOJ needs to be. They need to get the research and join these states against those advocates, against marijuana. Put it in the politcal arena and see who wins the fight. I'm on the side of legalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:05 PM

26. Time to get rid of Holder. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:31 PM

57. Holder was a HUGE disappointment and should have been axed. Many wanted Jennifer Granholm

 

OR anyone else! Holder is doing exactly what he spent the last term doing, going after states rights. Enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:05 PM

27. This would be Obama turning his back on us.

Bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joey Liberal (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:26 PM

52. Again, you mean?

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:00 AM

115. Always. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:11 PM

29. the prison industrial complex demands it....

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:12 PM

30. Marijuana listed as a Schedule 1 narcotic is obscene

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:16 PM

32. Remember...

The states are picking up the tab for trials and incarcerations, lets see if the Feds want to start picking up the tab on the National level. The issue has finally reached the tipping point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:18 PM

33. Sort of like the "Drive 55" federal requirement that tied highway funds to lowering the speed limit?

That's how that worked, even though many states didn't like doing it.

I think "federal officials" ought to wake up, smell the coffee, and see the light of damn day.

How long can Big Pharma and the prison industry and liquor producers' lobbyists push them around?

It's a frigging WEED that grows WILD, fachrissake.

It is used as an ornamental plant all over the middle east--it used to grow outside the police station and my bank in Iran. My neighbor had a MASSIVE bush of the stuff, that he shaped to make it look like a giant Christmas-like, pine tree. It added a lot of green to a brown land. They'd cut the worst part of the plant (the thick, woody stem), dry it, and add it to their flavored tobacco in the hookahs for a bit of added relaxation. They'd take the seeds and toast them in sesame oil and salt 'em--in pre-Khomeini Iran, those were sometimes found in downtown bars as a freebie snack, like popcorn or pretzels in USA. No one gave a shit.

The world won't end if the feds just let this go. And if the booze industry and the pharma industry had a brain, they'd start figuring out how to jump on the bandwagon, and create delivery systems that are more efficient than growing/rolling one's own, that would enable them to "get a piece of the pie." Because, in truth, that's what this objection is all about--some businesses will LOSE money if this legalization (of a frigging WEED) is allowed to, forgive the pun, take root.

I hope they "consider" the plan to crack down, and find it wanting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:26 PM

38. I heard something to that effect talked about on one of the morning programs.

They had Bush's AT Gonzalez on to discuss the issue and he mentioned the possibility of the federal government withholding health care dollars to the state of Washington as smoking cannabis might have a detrimental effect on health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:18 PM

34. Two words: "Jury Nullification"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:05 PM

77. Two more words: "Good luck"

finding spontaneous (since you can't argue for it) jury nullification from a federal criminal jury. The Feds have been prosecuting people for federal crimes related to medical cannabis that would be otherwise legal in California for several years now. We certainly haven't seen any jury nullification out there. That's a nice thought, and something we all would hope for, but it's not really part of the solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #77)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:06 PM

86. the 60 Minutes piece said Denver citizens are doing it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:18 PM

35. Try it feds, and states will secede

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:21 PM

36. Oh Jesus Christ on a cracker.

What a waste of time, energy and money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:22 PM

37. The Ironic Thing

is that I know growers in California who have told me they would make more money if the Feds crack down. If they are forced to go back underground, the demand for their product would increase from them directly and then they will be able to raise their prices from what they are currently getting from selling to the medical marijuana clinics in Cali.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:35 PM

39. Know what chaps arse

I have always been taught that we the people run this country, not the politicians. Yes we elect them to represent us but at the end of the day we run this country. The will of the people trumps everything and every law of the land. We get enough citizens to either vote for or against a law or idea once the votes are cast and counted whichever way the chips fall that is the end of the story, period. So when the government advocates against a legally resolved issue by way of vote they are going against the will of the people. Thus they need to shown the error of their ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:00 PM

41. Why can't the state use it's National Guard to block the Narcs? - Seriously!

Why does the Federal agency get to act within a state without notification?

If the feds want to trump the state then, why can't the state trump the feds by using the National guard?

Might makes right?

This whole thing is so stupid.
It just amounts to a power play between two factions who are too stupid to talk thru a solution to the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:01 PM

42. I just read article in Rolling Stone

That said Joe Biden was the reason Obama is taking such a tough stance. Is that so?

I had no idea...we need to work on Joe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:26 PM

53. good luck with that-he helped create the drug czar

 

As chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus, Biden wrote the laws that created the U.S. "Drug Czar", who oversees and coordinates national drug control policy. In April 2003, he introduced the controversial Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

Joe Biden's Awful Record on Drug Policy

Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress.Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about).

Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act....

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/aug/24/joe_bidens_awful_record_drug_pol

f biden the drug warrior

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:51 PM

70. Biden Also Pushed Through the "Rave Act" in the Dead of Night

in the conference committee, so that neither house actually ever got to vote on it by itself.

They consider our petitions, phone calls, and protests merely as evidence of the size of "the problem", and something to be worked around.
They would not ever consider actually listening to us on this issue.

The war on pot is the most sacred cow in Washington. They'll take away our Social Security and Medicare to fund it if necessary. They have been stealing resources from DoD for this for some time. (The fighter planes that were supposed to guard against a 9/11-style attack were diverted by then Atty General John Ashcroft to look for pot in mid 2001).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:08 PM

78. Didn't he also vote to make student loans nondischargeable in bankrupty? What a populist.

 

Can we hear the story again about he used to ride the train? I kinda miss that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:03 PM

43. Huh. They want to treat voters like Michigan treats unions. n/t


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:05 PM

44. Obama smoked pot. Bush smoked pot. Clinton Smoked pot.

When will the bizarre, in-our-face hypocrisy end?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:51 PM

69. What a damn minute! Clinton NEVER INHALED!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:14 AM

116. Drug laws for only for the little people, much like taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:06 PM

45. K&R

"The war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws… we need to rethink how we operate the drug wars." Barack Obama, January 21, 2004

"As for medical marijuana ... I'm not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed, but I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate. ... I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue." ~Barack Obama, The Mail Tribune March 23, 2008



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:22 PM

49. The DOJ is wasting effort on pot smokers........

They turned a blind eye to Wall St. crooks. Fucking rat bastards. I hope you're reading this agent Mike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:23 PM

50. Well, there goes all beliefs that I had he'd be different in the 2nd term...

 

Off to find a big, juicy crow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:25 PM

51. whatever, then make it a finable offense, 1 penny, to be paid, when you get around to it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:27 PM

54. I wouldn't legalize it at the state-level, I'd just change the penality to a 1 cent fine.

That would obviate the possibility of federal-state wrangling. Let the federal powers deal with enforcement effort and expense if they want to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:34 PM

59. Nothing but kudos for obama but...

I gotta say this one issue would probably make me lose respect; regardless of the reasons. I can't help but feel our government is more and more broken; congress can't get @#$@# done anymore and all politicians treat us Americans like we are ignorant trash with misleading campaign ads, tons of lies spoken in public but never challenged. I feel the blame is on the republicans for much of this; but this side of the coin still gets lobbied and tailors towards special interests.

Lets do simple chart here:

Worst drugs in US by classification:
Herion. Crack. Meth. Pot.

Second tier:
Opium. Cocaine. Morphene. Methadone.

Gotta say, whoever had it out for MJ was more than successful at making it illegal as @#$@#; as it carries worse penalties than coke?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:37 PM

61. This option doesn't seem viable:


"waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one."

If the case was brought in a state court, how can the feds force state courts to enforce a federal law. I think the case would have to be dropped by the state and then brought to federal court by federal attorneys. Maybe a lawyer who is good with jurisdictional issues could weigh in on that?

Another problem with that is defendants are not having to petition for dismissals; county prosecutors in both states are dismissing the cases preemptively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:38 PM

62. Hope for change

Keep hoping, because it ain't coming. The Big Pharma monopolists that own Barack Obama and the rest of Washington don't want it legalized. Neither do the corporate interests that push alcohol on you. Same as Obamacare: selling out to corporate interests is the answer, no matter what the question was.

Oh, and remind me again whether or not Obama smoked pot and did coke... And Bush ... And Clinton ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:41 PM

63. ???

Not as progressive or liberal as I thought. Is it Holder, Obama, Michelle? Who in this administration is pushing this 'reefer madness' BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!! If I in smoking a joint from a plant that I grew for personal use and am not hurting anyone, the feds need to fuck off. IDIOTS!!!! Go find a war to stop. Stop rethug thuggery. Stop the sale of all liquor, it destroys livers, kidneys, stomachs and causes untold death on the highway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #63)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:48 PM

66. Stop the sale of all liquor? You must be joking

 

but I can't tell anymore

in case you're not, they tried that before

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:01 PM

73. I think

he was speaking to the fact that medically, Alcohol has been proving to be more damaging. If only this argument were that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neffernin (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:09 PM

79. it's

not, I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:04 PM

76. being

very sarcastic. I get frustrated by these people who call themselves Justice Department??? personnel. Not one wall street crook in jail, yet years in prison for a joint. This is insane! Yeah, yeah I know about prohibition, just trying to make a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:41 PM

64. When is someone going to take legal action against stupidity?

Like you can grow the stuff anywhere. The legal drug cartels and many other interests have a large investment in trying to keep the stuff illegal and off the over the counter market or any kind of other market

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:51 PM

68. Why don't they go after REAL criminals like Bush & CHEEEEney!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:00 AM

113. Exactly my thought. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:58 PM

72. You're Welcome Mr. Obama

Now you can resume your thug tactics against marijuana.

Time to repay all those drug company donors who contributed so handsomely to your campaign.

But I guess that's what happens in a 2-Party system, where one of the parties is a complete AHole, and the other is pretty much a constant disappointment, no matter what benefit of the doubt you give them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalMusicLover (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:11 PM

80. yep

with actions like holder's et al, not hard to think this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalMusicLover (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:22 AM

117. Constant disappointment....Obama aims to please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:50 PM

83. Here they go, flushing OUR tax dollars down the toilet

Don't the feds have anything better to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:06 PM

85. As A person that did time for pot

I am so fucking sick of this! We have money problems I hear. Legalize it and tax it. The two BIG obstacles, Big Pharma and the prison industrial complex will be hard to overcome. Still, the money legal weed would generate should have at least someones attention!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BobbyBoring (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:27 PM

90. Exactly what I said in another thread

Cracking down on WA. and CO is guaranteed losing house seats in '14
Letting the states be guarantees the young and the activists are rewarded and they turn out and good chance of flipping the house

There must be mobilization here. Any ideas ? Pissing on your base is wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:13 PM

88. Do they want a repeat of 2010?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:29 PM

91. JURY NULLIFICATION!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:39 PM

92. I think there are a lot of questions

If the feds leave this alone without changing federal laws does it set some kind of a precedent regarding other types of laws? Just asking, because I don't have a clue. But would having a policy of selective enforcement of laws open the door to successful challenges of civil rights laws if states wanted to pass laws which violate various civil rights, for example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:41 PM

97. In theory, yes

The Feds should be enforcing all the laws on their books regardless of any interference on any level above or below them.

Theory in this case is bull though. Bush/Cheney and cronies are still running free, and so are Goldman Sachs and the other professional looters. That proves selective enforcement.

If we have selective enforcement...why are victimless crimes being pursued more zealously than crimes against humanity, treason or grand theft treasury??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:54 PM

93. So Telling and So Dumb

Where was this initiative with Wall Street fraud? They broke the law, textbook fraud, trashed pension funds and other funds and where is the move to hold them accountable? It's nowhere but Obama just may go all Nancy Reagan and crack down on pot in these states.

Yet Obama is still getting ripped on the right for being a socialist. Sigh, America 2012 going on 2013 and the going gets stranger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:10 PM

95. “In Colorado, Pot Got 50,000 More Votes Than Obama”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #95)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:40 PM

96. I live in a red county in WA

And pot got more votes than Obama here too...Enough to pass it in my area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #96)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:34 PM

109. Howdy again,

neighbor!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #109)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:57 PM

110. Howdy back

We will meet soon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:14 PM

98. Back in the day, cannabis was decriminalized in OR, WA, AK

then Raygun came along and held highway funding over those states heads, oh, around 1985. It has been done before as a precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:31 PM

99. Lets Stop the War

 

There was Prohibition and it was a disaster. Alcohol is now legal.

The DRUG WAR is a total failure and we now need total decriminalization

It's a new day and lets hope we do not regress.

DECRIMINALIZE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:41 PM

101. grrrr

The President needs to put a stop to this. He would never be where he is if HE had gotten caught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:08 PM

104. stupid, but for all politicians it's, "Whose your daddy?"

follow the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:07 PM

106. It's a good thing that we aren't stuck with Romney

It's a bad thing that Obama was our only other choice.

Not on our side.

Never was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:07 PM

111. This would be a very stupid thing for the Obama administration to do.

I hope that they don't do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:25 PM

112. This is the most pressing problem facing our nation today

I applaud President Obama for weighing legal action against those who have killed tens of thousands and caused the collapse of our economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:48 PM

118. Nauseating!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:04 PM

119. Lets see who the government works for

these guys:

http://www.alternet.org/11-enemies-marijuana-legalization

Or us.

I'm pretty sure I know who it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DiverDave (Reply #119)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:48 AM

120. We all know who it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread