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

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:29 AM

Hearing planned on state pot laws

Source: Politico

By SEUNG MIN KIM | 12/13/12 10:46 AM EST

The national spotlight on new state marijuana laws is making its way to Capitol Hill.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Thursday that he plans to hold a hearing next year to ask the administration how it plans to handle the differences in federal and state laws on marijuana policy.

Leahy also released a letter to Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, seeking similar information. “The Senate Judiciary Committee has a significant interest in the effect of these developments on federal drug control policy,” Leahy wrote to Kerlikowske.

“Legislative options exist to resolve the differences between federal and state law in this area and end the uncertainty that residents of Colorado and Washington now face. In order to give these options full consideration, the committee needs to understand how the administration intends to respond to the decision of the voters in Colorado and Washington. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.”

-30-

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/12/hearing-planned-on-state-pot-laws-151889.html

20 replies, 2114 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 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hearing planned on state pot laws (Original post)
DonViejo Dec 2012 OP
Garion_55 Dec 2012 #1
WestCoastLib Dec 2012 #2
Garion_55 Dec 2012 #6
WestCoastLib Dec 2012 #7
Garion_55 Dec 2012 #8
docgee Dec 2012 #12
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #13
Robb Dec 2012 #4
patrice Dec 2012 #5
think Dec 2012 #10
progressoid Dec 2012 #17
Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #19
patrice Dec 2012 #3
Scuba Dec 2012 #9
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #11
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #14
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #16
Swede Atlanta Dec 2012 #15
Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #20
Politicub Dec 2012 #18

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:37 AM

1. how about leaving pot smokers alone?

i swear if obama starts ramping up the war against pot in these states im going to seriously consider voting gop and letting the democrat party know exactly why and how they can win me back.

END THIS STUPID WAR!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garion_55 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:39 AM

2. You are an idiot if that's true

The GOP winning elections moves the Democratic party further to the Right, not the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WestCoastLib (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:46 AM

6. sorry but thats how i protest against

a political party that i am having huge disagreements with that i shouldnt be having because we should be on the same side. at the voting booth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garion_55 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:57 AM

7. Yes, and that makes you an idiot

Political Party 1 disagrees with you on Issue A.

So your theory is that you will vote for Political Party 2, who also disagrees with you on Issue A.

But Political party 1 agrees with you on Issues B, C & D

Political Party 2 also disagrees with you on Issues B, C & D.

It's called voting against your best interest (A.K.A. being a moron)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WestCoastLib (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:00 PM

8. so angry!

i usually get the namecalling from the other side lol

take a deep breath. it will all be ok lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WestCoastLib (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:32 PM

12. ^ Simple logic ^ nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WestCoastLib (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:41 PM

13. I'm afraid it's Obama that will be the idiot if he prosecutes these laws federally,

1) Hemp advocates are currently one of the most effective political elements of the Dem party (as evidenced by their 50 year fight for legalization that resulted in major wins).

2) Obama alienates this motivated and politically active section of the Dem base by prosecuting them federally.

3) Hemp advocates move to the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

Again, it's a no-brainer.

Leave hemp advocates alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Garion_55 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:44 AM

5. Word of advice: stay away from poker tables. You are likely to be a loser. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garion_55 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:10 PM

10. I would not vote for GOP over this issue but if Obama drops the ball on this

it would not surprise me to see the GOP figure out what math is once again like Obama should be in regards to legalization.

Obama has schooled the GOP with common sense and mathematics so far. Will the fear of political backlash from a dying cultural taboo overcome Obama's keen sense of math and objectivity? I guess we'll find out soon.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garion_55 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:25 PM

17. democrat party?

Here's a tip for you. If you are trying to pretend you are a Democrat, don't call us the "democrat party".

It's the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:52 PM

19. Busted

Nice catch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:41 AM

3. KICK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:09 PM

9. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:16 PM

11. This is necessary and I hope the federal government begins to adapt

a more functional and just approach to the issue of cannabis legalization or at the very least logical rescheduling of that most beneficial plant.

Thanks for the thread, DonViejo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:49 PM

14. "Legislative options exist" -- good! We really don't want to encourage the nullification numbskulls!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:08 PM

16. Jury nullification can be a useful tool when faced with absurd laws.

Ask Ed Forchion, the NJ Weedman, who was recently acquitted despite clearly being guilty.

Ask prosecutors in Missoula, Montana, who complain they can't find juries to sit on pot possession cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:57 PM

15. Suggest the states assert their authority....

They should arrest and incarcerate any DEA or other federal official attempting to interfere with state law in this regard. Period. Arrest their asses. The feds will not send in any troops to rescue these guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:54 PM

20. I want to see some governor

post the National Guard at marijuana retailers and force the issue with the feds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:45 PM

18. Hearings were bound to happen, but they're an important step in engaging

in dialogue.

While we all (or most of us) would like a blanket decriminalization of marijuana, it's not going to happen in a vacuum.

The legislative process needs to happen quickly before a case inevitably goes before the Supreme Court where an even stricter precedent could get set.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread