BUCKET CLIPS 3 | A FLINTA Ski Mixtape

Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Washington gonna legalize...

profile picture
LiquorLanch
Posts: 1909 - Karma: 1,046
WEED.

Stoner tards have fun....

Oct 11 2012 7:17PM
4 1
profile picture
GANDALF
Posts: 6304 - Karma: 6,595
Click for larger image
Oct 15 2012 12:34AM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51738 - Karma: 163,438
Those are only relevant when you post something you expect people to read. They lose their thunder(I've always wanted to say that) if you over do it.


Oct 15 2012 12:40AM
0 0
profile picture
GANDALF
Posts: 6304 - Karma: 6,595
Click for larger image
Oct 15 2012 12:42AM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51738 - Karma: 163,438
Oct 15 2012 1:12AM
0 0
profile picture
whipple
Posts: 1415 - Karma: 5,167
just read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/dea-drug-czars-states-leg_n_1967363.html. I don't understand this country anymore, feds should not have authority over states laws. And I couldn't help but lol when the dea guy said "And there is a bigger danger that touches every one of us -- legalizing marijuana threatens public health and safety. In states that have legalized medical marijuana, drug driving arrests, accidents, and drug overdose deaths have skyrocketed. Drug treatment admissions are up and the number of teens using this gateway drug is up dramatically." Drug overdose deaths? thats hilarious
Oct 15 2012 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
RedEyeTheJedi
Posts: 443 - Karma: 30
In my senoir civics class we learned that states have the right to make their own laws, and the dea doesn't have the right to invade our states and steal our flowers. Yet they still do.

I really don't understand what the DEA is trying to do. They are fighting a war that they have already lost. And its a major waste of tax payer money.  
Oct 15 2012 11:35PM
0 0
profile picture
smooticus
Posts: 1798 - Karma: 27
No

Federal laws take precedence over state laws, and the DEA's jurisdiction crosses state lines. That's why we have them.

When people claim that the feds are acting illegally its essentially like a child complaining of their parents rule.
Oct 15 2012 11:51PM
0 0
profile picture
RedEyeTheJedi
Posts: 443 - Karma: 30
It is still a war that the dea has long lost.


 


Oct 15 2012 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
whipple
Posts: 1415 - Karma: 5,167
parents rule? I think the feds are the kids and the states are the parents. The people who founded this country intended for the power to stay with the states, and as time goes on the feds are taking more and more of it.

Click for larger image
Oct 16 2012 1:21AM
0 0
profile picture
Bodhisattva_
Posts: 5749 - Karma: 2,009
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."

Oct 16 2012 1:33AM
0 0
profile picture
papermache
Posts: 1097 - Karma: 616
The only thing that will be 'effectively ruined' is the dispensaries choke hold on the market. dispensaries will lose money and thats why their complaining, effectively, they contribute to pot staying illegal just as much as the DEA does now.
Oct 16 2012 1:58AM
0 0
profile picture
whipple
Posts: 1415 - Karma: 5,167
legalization of marijuana falls into this category?
Oct 16 2012 2:09AM
0 0
profile picture
Telscopic
Posts: 182 - Karma: 74
There's been a few who have tested the 5ng dui limit and they waited 12hrs, a full nights sleep, after smoking and still had over 10ng active in thier system. Not to mention the incredible restrictions on residential cultivation. When theres no plant/canopy limits ill take a look at it. Im no on 502 but i doesnt really matter, i dont live in WA.
Oct 16 2012 2:15AM
0 0
profile picture
RedEyeTheJedi
Posts: 443 - Karma: 30
I think there is a grey area. The tenth amendment says that government is not supposed to override  state law. That is to an extent. If the law takes away someones rights than that law is not able to pass. Just like how some states had lower drinking ages back in the 70's.

"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."


Because of the 10th amendment, when the federal government had wanted to outlaw alcohol in the early 20th century, it had to pass the 18th amendment, which gave the federal government the power to outlaw alcohol. Without the 18th amendment, the 10th amendment would have prevented the federal government from outlawing alcohol. The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919, and was later repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933

Basically the tenth amendment give the states the right to legalize laws that aren't necessarily legal federally. So the DEA should not be bothering California or any other state that legalizes marijuana or has medical dispensaries.
Oct 16 2012 3:52AM
0 0
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
went and saw Rick Steves talk about this last night!
Oct 16 2012 11:12AM
0 0
profile picture
Abu_Hajaar
Posts: 2751 - Karma: 3,907
Wait does this bill legalize or just decriminalize?
Oct 16 2012 11:44AM
0 0
profile picture
whipple
Posts: 1415 - Karma: 5,167
legalize ^
Oct 16 2012 11:46AM
0 0
profile picture
Bodhisattva_
Posts: 5749 - Karma: 2,009
Decriminalizes possesion of marijuana under 1oz for someone over 21 and lets marijuana be sold by private enterprises regulated by the government.
Oct 16 2012 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
RedEyeTheJedi
Posts: 443 - Karma: 30
It basically is legalization. But not full legalization. Soon my friends the time will come.
Oct 16 2012 1:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Bodhisattva_
Posts: 5749 - Karma: 2,009
Yeah but who's stopping them?
Oct 16 2012 1:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarbangalakazoo
Posts: 561 - Karma: 262
Actually, I'm willing to bet that if big corporations take over the marijuana industry they would decrease the levels of THC in the bud so that you would have to buy more to get as high, increasing there profit. The only way to go, I think, is decriminalization under federal law, and let the states make there own laws. That way, you can prevent it being taken over by big corporations ware they may use different chemicals to make it grow more and there would be less variety strain wise, I would assume. Keeping it decriminalized and allowing states to decide what to do would allow the states to tax it, helping out the community. Plus, less funding for the drug cartel.
Oct 16 2012 1:24PM
0 0
profile picture
RedEyeTheJedi
Posts: 443 - Karma: 30
The states should stop being pussies and stand up for them selves. The DEA comes in and says some stupid state law being broken they snag all the plants and weed, break things for no reason and the dispensary is up and running again a week later. Its bullshit. Anyone whether they are for or against legalization should ask, where is the dea getting us raiding dispensaries? They definitely are not putting a dent in abolishing medical marijuana. So the answer is they are getting nowhere.


Oct 16 2012 3:50PM
0 0
profile picture
-wakes-
Posts: 358 - Karma: 201
No no no. any power not specifically given to the Federal gov is delegated to the states. This isnt saying that if its not in the constitution the federal gov has no power over it. If that were the case we would have close to no federal laws or regulations.

take any government and you will realize that our gov does have the power and authority to make pot illegal, and that any state law that conflicts with a federal law is unconstitutional. But if this measure is passed, it will have to be taken through federal court systems before it can be repealed.
Oct 16 2012 4:34PM
0 0
profile picture
RedEyeTheJedi
Posts: 443 - Karma: 30
It isn't unconstitutional. Read the 10th amendment. States have the right to grant new freedoms and liberties that are not given federally. The thing they can not do is take away liberties that are stated in the constitution or bill or rights.
Oct 16 2012 5:24PM
0 0
profile picture
FrenchToastMafia
Posts: 2195 - Karma: 452
own this shirt /claim
Oct 16 2012 5:33PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51738 - Karma: 163,438
Do you really think the drug war is based on keeping people safe?
Oct 16 2012 6:10PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51738 - Karma: 163,438
So much WUT
Oct 16 2012 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51738 - Karma: 163,438
God fucking dammint If somebody makes this fucking argument again.
Click for larger image

Jesus Horatio Gonzalez Christ Almighty lll

The only way is to fucking legalize it. Especially in this case, if you leave it to the free market, things will be fine. If a company produces shitty weed to sell, they'll be competing against business selling better weed at the same price or better. It's not very hard to grow weed. If it's legal they won't be able to sell trash bud.

Keeping it decriminalized is the MOST RETARDED FUCKING THING. Hey we know there's nothing wrong with it, it makes no sense fo it to be illegal, and we know you're going to do it anyway. So lets keep it illegal but just lower the penalties on it. Lets just leave these big grey areas in the law, keep fucking people over, making money off fines instead of taxes, filling our prisons with people who shouldn't be there, wasting the time of police, having way too many police, and a bunch of other shit just because you're scared their going to put chemicals in the weed?


I mean fuck. You got people smoking shit like spice. You want to talk about people smoking chemicals, look right now. People are straight up smoking crazy fucking shit and thinking nothing of it.

Why the fuck would you want less variety strain wise? It's not going to happen anyway, but you suggest it as if it's a good thing.

"I would assume."

Please spare us and never do that again.

"Keeping it decriminalized and allowing states to decide what to do would allow the states to tax it"

How the fuck can you tax something you can't legally buy? When you go to a guy and buy and 8th he charges you an extra 5 bucks and drops it in a slot on the county building on the honor system?

" Plus, less funding for the drug cartel."

What the fuck are you talking about? As long as it's not legal, who the fuck do you think is making the money off it? The fucking drug cartels.


The only way to go, I think, is out that fucking door.
Oct 16 2012 6:28PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
you are a fool
Oct 16 2012 7:00PM
0 0
profile picture
RedEyeTheJedi
Posts: 443 - Karma: 30
Of course not. Thats why people need to pay attention to what the DEA is wasting our countries money on. Obviously there are much bigger issues like Afghanistan wasting our money but this is still an issue. People need to wake up. 
Oct 16 2012 8:13PM
0 0
profile picture
BmoChop
Posts: 2071 - Karma: 96
How am I a fool?
Oct 16 2012 8:26PM
0 0
profile picture
BlackCupid
Posts: 1533 - Karma: 9
It's because you're assuming that kids only smoke because it's illegal, which isn't true at all. Kids smoke marijuana because it makes them feel good, it's mostly harmless, and it's fairly inexpensive. MDMA doesn't fit the second two criteria. If you want to safely consume MDMA, you can't do it more than once a month which is an unattractive frequency for teens. Also, ecstasy is often cut with other drugs that are more dangerous than MDMA. A lot of people are uncomfortable with popping mystery pills like that.

If you think teens only smoke marijuana because it's illegal, why not make cauliflower illegal? By your logic, there would be a massive influx of teens eating cauliflower just because it's illegal. It would certainly be beneficial for their health.

Finally, legalizing marijuana does not legalize it for teenagers so this whole argument is irrelevant anyway.


Oct 16 2012 8:58PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51738 - Karma: 163,438
Word. It just seemed as though you were suggesting they realize they're wrong and stop which would mean that it was intended for something good. This post suggests that that's not what you meant which is good.

Had to ask though.
Oct 16 2012 9:04PM
0 0
profile picture
BmoChop
Posts: 2071 - Karma: 96
cool opinion.
Oct 16 2012 9:08PM
0 0
profile picture
papermache
Posts: 1097 - Karma: 616
How is this not full legalization?
Oct 16 2012 9:15PM
0 0
profile picture
BlackCupid
Posts: 1533 - Karma: 9
cool counter-argument.
Oct 16 2012 9:17PM
0 0
profile picture
papermache
Posts: 1097 - Karma: 616
If its decriminalized its still a crime....the drug cartels are still gonna be there. frankly id take my chances with corporations running the business than with the government anyday.
Oct 16 2012 9:18PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,684
The only reason I am voting for this is that all the stoners are against it.
Oct 16 2012 9:20PM
0 0
profile picture
BmoChop
Posts: 2071 - Karma: 96
I mean I had one written but then I realized that I had no reason to even bother because you were gonna go on thinking what you think and I'm gonna go on thinking what I think. I'm not saying it will become something kids do every day, but I think there would be an increase in mdma usage. But like I said, who gives a fuck.
Oct 16 2012 10:31PM
0 0
profile picture
BlackCupid
Posts: 1533 - Karma: 9
But you don't have any rationale for what you think....

How can you possibly consider this a two-sided argument when your "side" consists of nothing but hearsay? I could go spout off about how the Earth is actually a square, and my argument would have as much validity as yours.

But what really amazes me is that you think you can justify lying to people by saying you don't "give a fuck." Grow up, kid.
Oct 16 2012 11:30PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51738 - Karma: 163,438
I can pretty much guarantee there wouldn't be an increase in mdma usage because the amount of people doing mdma gets smaller every day.


Do you see what I did there?
Oct 17 2012 4:00AM
0 0
profile picture
beezey
Posts: 9027 - Karma: 427
i litterally live across a river from wa and im so excited
Oct 17 2012 11:24AM
0 0
profile picture
-wakes-
Posts: 358 - Karma: 201
read the supremacy clause or take a government class.

google "is a state law unconstitutional if it conflicts with a federal law"
click the first link
read first paragraph

or just read this...The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps anyconflicting state law.
Oct 17 2012 12:56PM
0 0
profile picture
papermache
Posts: 1097 - Karma: 616
you conveniently left out the key text that voids your entire argument. The ENTIRETY of the supremacy clause says this: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, The supremecy clause does not apply to unconstitutional laws written by the federal government. prohibition of marijuana is NOT in persuance thereof and should be nullified by the states.
Oct 17 2012 2:18PM
0 0
profile picture
-wakes-
Posts: 358 - Karma: 201
So i think i understand your point. You are calling the ban on weed unconstitutional? If that is the case someone has to challenge the law in the court system. IF the complaint manages to get to the supreme court they have the option to deem the law unconstitutional. But, until that happens it is still a federal law and therefore over rules state laws.
Oct 17 2012 9:45PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
Wrong. The "necessary and proper clause" gives the federal Congress the right to do anything they deem necessary and proper. If they think a ban on weed is necessary and proper then so be it. Federal drug laws will be constitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Oct 17 2012 10:31PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)