Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 119

Thread: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

  1. #21
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,501

    re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    All laws must enumerate their purpose in some part of the literature of their drafting.
    According to what?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    No, it is the only logically possible means of processing phenomena for human beings. It is not a standard for anything. "Everything is subjective," is not a standard, because nothing can be measured against an absolute. It is a necessary condition of existence.
    I totally agree with this. I find I am getting into debates with people who want to push objectivity as the only moral choice. I don't think it exists. Can you say a few words?

    I am impressed that the tables are turned. You are a conservative in the position of defending the actions of Obama! LOL!

  3. #23
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Not a standard.
    No, it is the only logically possible means of processing phenomena for human beings. It is not a standard for anything. "Everything is subjective," is not a standard, because nothing can be measured against an absolute. It is a necessary condition of existence.
    Nothing here has negated the argument that the decision to not efnorce the law, based on the position that the act in question shoudl not be illegal, is subjective.

    That's one way of phrasing it, but it misrepresents the reality of the situation.
    On the contrary -- it fully represents your position.
    As such, it is absurd on its face.

    Based on the law's purpose. All laws must enumerate their purpose in some part of the literature of their drafting. The president can't deviate from that.
    Well then -- there's no excuse for not enforcing the law.
    So...?

    One of a broad category.
    The most optimal policy is rarely implemented because people don't know it or can't agree to it. However, you can get more or less close to it.
    You use the term "the only way".
    There is only one "only way".

    Only in the most abstract sense.
    You mean only in the most direct sense, given that this is what the Constitution says.

    Dont forget:
    The basis for non-enforcement is The Obama's position on if the act should or should not be illegal, as it is tied to state laws that run contrary to the federal law.

    Should/shoudl not be illegal is not a call the President gets to make.

  4. #24
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Nothing here has negated the argument that the decision to not efnorce the law, based on the position that the act in question shoudl not be illegal, is subjective.
    There has been no such argument. You are merely asserting it is the case. As it is, there is nothing Obama has done that is not legal under current Supreme Court understandings. Notice, not even George Bush was ever prosecuted for allegations that he disregarded the law.

    You use the term "the only way".
    There is only one "only way".
    Only way to get to a place, yes. The place in question would be 'effectiveness'. But there are many degrees in effectiveness. Therefore, multiple places to be, multiple ways of getting to them.

    I may only be able to get to the top floor of the Empire State Building by elevator, but I can move around the rooms on the floor in multiple ways.

    Well then -- there's no excuse for not enforcing the law.
    So...?
    So, what? I already gave you an explanation. It didn't appear in your quote. The President has to gravitate within parameters. He is in a state of enforcing the law so long as he is in those parameters. The one who decides he is not in those parameters is the Supreme Court. Obama is not being reckless in this decision, and is not stepping outside the bounds established by his predecessors and upheld by the Supreme Court. I don't think there will be much a problem.

    You mean only in the most direct sense, given that this is what the Constitution says.

    Dont forget:
    The basis for non-enforcement is The Obama's position on if the act should or should not be illegal, as it is tied to state laws that run contrary to the federal law.

    Should/shoudl not be illegal is not a call the President gets to make.
    Even if that is the reason, the president can make such a call, because relations with the states are part of the dynamic in his use of resources.

    Everyone can make such calls, actually, if the Supreme Court determines it is within their rights to do so. Variously, it has given such agenda-setting powers to the branches of federal government and to the states.

    I totally agree with this. I find I am getting into debates with people who want to push objectivity as the only moral choice. I don't think it exists. Can you say a few words?
    Objectivity is fine. It is even essential in debates so as to achieve clarity, but it has to be understood as a mental process -- a particular style of analysis -- and not a condition. 'Being objective' just means looking more closely at the contents of your consciousness, analyzing them closely for details and disparities and relating your observations to other people whose presence you are also experiencing subjectively. No one can ever actually make contact directly with the "real world." We can't come into contact, mentally, with objects -- only impressions of those objects by way of our sensations.

    I am impressed that the tables are turned. You are a conservative in the position of defending the actions of Obama! LOL!
    I'm only a liberal in the United States. Anywhere else I would be classified a moderate, because I am not a proponent of classical liberalism [libertarianism] or communism.

    If I ever criticized George Bush for such things, it would have been on grounds his movements lacked utility, not because I considered them illegal, at least not in American law. Accusations of illegality smack of hysteria and I use them sparingly -- hysteria is one way of losing your soul. Outside American law, I am somewhat indifferent, because while I respect the United Nations for some things, I only respect laws insofar as the powers behind them can mete out the penalties of breaching them. That said, international law still carries some weight, and I am disappointed in Bush's disregard of that.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-19-09 at 03:16 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  5. #25
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    There has been no such argument.
    Sure there has.
    To say otherwise it to simply show that you havent been paying attention.

    As it is, there is nothing Obama has done that is not legal under current Supreme Court understandings. Notice, not even George Bush was ever prosecuted for allegations that he disregarded the law.
    Red herring -- no one has asserted there is a illegality involved.
    A failure to live up to th eoath of office, yes, but not an illegality.
    A decision to decide for himself what is illegal or not, yes, but not an illegality.

    Only way to get to a place, yes. The place in question would be 'effectiveness'. But there are many degrees in effectiveness. Therefore, multiple places to be, multiple ways of getting to them.
    So them, The Obama's way is NOT the "only way". Thank you.

    So, what? I already gave you an explanation.
    I'm sorry -- you said that:

    All laws must enumerate their purpose in some part of the literature of their drafting. The president can't deviate from that.
    With the new policy to be announced, he IS deviating from that, by choosing to not enforce the law, any 'explanation' for that not withstanding.

    YOU said "he can't deviate from that", and how you're trying to make excuses for him doing so.

    Even if that is the reason, the president can make such a call, because relations with the states are part of the dynamic in his use of resources.
    Wrong. CONGRESS -writes- the laws, the President -enforces- them.
    In writing the laws, --Congress-- decides what is illegal and what is not, and then hands that declaration to the President to enforce. The President, the person that enforces, not writes the law, has NO say here (beying his veto).

    And, your 'relations with the states' arguiment is utter BS, given that federal law is the law of the land, with all less-restrictive state laws inferior to same.

    And so, we're back to the President sibjectively enforcing the law based on what HE thinks should be legal or illegal.

    Its no different than the President refusing to enforce a federal 'assault weapon' ban in states that do not have laws that ban such weapons.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Objectivity is fine. It is even essential in debates so as to achieve clarity, but it has to be understood as a mental process -- a particular style of analysis -- and not a condition. 'Being objective' just means looking more closely at the contents of your consciousness, analyzing them closely for details and disparities and relating your observations to other people whose presence you are also experiencing subjectively. No one can ever actually make contact directly with the "real world." We can't come into contact, mentally, with objects -- only impressions of those objects by way of our sensations.
    Yeah, it's confusing. 2 + 2 = 4 and seems an objective truth. Murder is bad may be subjective. I totally agree with what I bolded above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    I'm only a liberal in the United States. Anywhere else I would be classified a moderate, because I am not a proponent of classical liberalism [libertarianism] or communism.
    Oops! I thought I saw "Conservative" in your mini profile. Sorry. I am a self-described liberal neocon, who is evidently jingoistic to boot. (in favor of Iraq, think we should leave afghanistan)

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    If I ever criticized George Bush for such things, it would have been on grounds his movements lacked utility, not because I considered them illegal, at least not in American law. Accusations of illegality smack of hysteria and I use them sparingly -- hysteria is one way of losing your soul. Outside American law, I am somewhat indifferent, because while I respect the United Nations for some things, I only respect laws insofar as the powers behind them can mete out the penalties of breaching them. That said, international law still carries some weight, and I am disappointed in Bush's disregard of that.
    Being of the persuasion I am, I think international law, and especially entities like the UN, can limit our action. We should minimize the treaties we are a party to. I want to be able to act unilaterally.

    On topic, I am excited to see another plank removed from the ediface of illegal drugs.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Plain Jim View Post
    Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy


    WASHINGTON – Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

    Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy - Yahoo! News


    .
    Aw I was hoping that marijuana was finally legal in my state.

  8. #28
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

    Re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    I went to Target yesterday and there was a guy outside asking for signatures. Here is how it went down.

    Guy - "Help support California's largest cash crop".
    Me - "What is California's largest cash crop?".
    Guy - " It's not pineapples."
    Me - "Ok, what is it then?"
    Guy - "Marijuana" <he slightly braces for an attack>
    Me - "Sure I'll sign. I'm all for bringing a few billion dollars to the state economy."
    Guy - "Awesome."
    In Texas, it would have been different:

    Guy - "Help support California's largest cash crop".
    Texas guy - "What is California's largest cash crop?".
    Guy - " It's not pineapples."
    Texas guy - "Ok, what is it then?"
    Guy - "Marijuana" <he slightly braces for an attack>
    Texas guy- "Hey Billy Joe Jim Bob. Get that bonfire ready. We got us another witch to burn."
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And so, we're back to the President sibjectively enforcing the law based on what HE thinks should be legal or illegal.
    I guess you want all these enforced too then. lol:

    * In jasper, it is illigal for a husband to beat his wife with a stick larger in diameter than his thumb.
    * It is illigal to play Dominos on Sunday.
    * It is illigal top wear a dake moustache that causes laughter in church.
    * Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.

    Weird American Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Its no different than the President refusing to enforce a federal 'assault weapon' ban in states that do not have laws that ban such weapons.
    Sounds good to me - if someone was stupid enough to pass a law like that my hat would go off to the president for not being equally stupid enough to enforce it.

  10. #30
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Toothpicvic View Post
    I guess you want all these enforced too then.
    If you believe it is OK for the chief executive to only enforce the laws he likes, there might as well not be a legislature.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •