• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

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.

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. :usflag2: (in favor of Iraq, think we should leave afghanistan)

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.
 
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."
:mrgreen:
 
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

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.
 
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.
 
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.

It's his discretion.
 
It's his discretion.
No, its not.
Outside his veto, what should and should not be illegal is not his call -- that's what Congress does. Once Congress declares something illegal, the President is to 'faithfully execute' the law.
 
No, its not.
Outside his veto, what should and should not be illegal is not his call -- that's what Congress does. Once Congress declares something illegal, the President is to 'faithfully execute' the law.

Oh, it's still illegal.
 
Oh, it's still illegal.
That's where "faithfully execute" comes in.

Not enforcing a law that makes something illegal because you don't think it should be illegal is not a faithful execution of the office.
 
That's where "faithfully execute" comes in.

Not enforcing a law that makes something illegal because you don't think it should be illegal is not a faithful execution of the office.

Sure. But not enforcing a law because you think your resources are better spent in a different manner is another thing entirely. It still maintains "faithful execution".
 
Sure. But not enforcing a law because you think your resources are better spent in a different manner is another thing entirely. It still maintains "faithful execution".
BUT... that's not the impetus.
The enforcement is based on if a state makes it illegal or not.
Thus, the enforcement is not tied to resources, but legality.
 
BUT... that's not the impetus.
The enforcement is based on if a state makes it illegal or not.
Thus, the enforcement is not tied to resources, but legality.

Good point.

What are the federal laws against drugs? Are they not under the Interstate Commerce Act? Pot grown in a state for use in that state wouldn't violate those laws would it?
 
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.


See it refers to federal resources...
 
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
See, it refers to legality....
 
Good point.
What are the federal laws against drugs? Are they not under the Interstate Commerce Act? Pot grown in a state for use in that state wouldn't violate those laws would it?
Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the federal government can force a farmer to sell his crop in its entirety, including the portion he might keep for himself.

Commerce need not cross state lines for the ICC to have a regulatory effect.
 
Last edited:
Under the Interstae Commerce Clause, the federal government can force a farmer to sell his crop in its entirety, including the portion he might keep for himself.

The Interstate Commerce Clause is one of the most abused, misused pieces of power the federal government wields. It needs to be severely limited in scope and power.
 
The Interstate Commerce Clause is one of the most abused, misused pieces of power the federal government wields. It needs to be severely limited in scope and power.
I certainly agree.
But, that's how it is now.
 
I certainly agree.
But, that's how it is now.

Oh I know that's how things are run. It's just the abuse of Interstate Commerce really pisses me off. I agree that the federal government has business in interstate business, but the abuse is unforgivable.
 
Are some people actually advocating that federal resources be used to arrest random medical pot smokers because the act of doing so goes against federal law?

Typical:rofl
 
Are some people actually advocating that federal resources be used to arrest random medical pot smokers because the act of doing so goes against federal law?

Typical:rofl

So much for States rights huh.;)
 
Are some people actually advocating that federal resources be used to arrest random medical pot smokers because the act of doing so goes against federal law?
Typical:rofl
What fools, holding the expectation that the President will enforce the law.
:roll:
 
What fools, holding the expectation that the President will enforce the law.
:roll:

Two questions: Do you support federal funds being used to arrest and prosecute cannabis users? Are you aware of the transactional cost associated with such policy?

**note** If your response is yes to the first question, my following response will pertain to the painful misallocation of opportunnity costs.
 
Two questions: Do you support federal funds being used to arrest and prosecute cannabis users? Are you aware of the transactional cost associated with such policy?
1: Yes
2: Do not care.
 
Back
Top Bottom