• 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]

1: Yes
2: Do not care.

Given that resources, in the short term, are fixed. The more the feds arrest and prosecute cannabis users (note the feds are not the state), the less they can tend to cases involving murder, terrorism, abduction, etc.... Hence, to do so would be a painful misallocation of opportunnity costs.

How many murders, child abductions, etc... are you willing to ignore so that non violent pot users can be federally prosecuted?
 
Given that resources, in the short term, are fixed. The more the feds arrest and prosecute cannabis users (note the feds are not the state), the less they can tend to cases involving murder, terrorism, abduction, etc.... Hence, to do so would be a painful misallocation of opportunnity costs.

How many murders, child abductions, etc... are you willing to ignore so that non violent pot users can be federally prosecuted?
Did you see my response #2?

The law exists. I expect the CLEOUS to enforce it, as is his duty to do so.
 
Last edited:
Did you see my response #2?

The law exists. I expect the CLEOUS to enforce it, as is his duty to do so.

How cavalier!

The law is still being enforced, although the manner in which it is seems to have changed for the good.
 
What fools, holding the expectation that the President will enforce the law.

If you do not agree with how the President chooses to enforce the law, then let your logic speak for itself. However, if you are going to act like a partisian hack, and argue against anything Obama does, than expect your failure to be noted on a constant basis.

It makes little sense to use federal funds to arrest users, and state certified suppliers. In accordance, the federal policy on cannabis use, within medical marijuana states, will shift (and logically so) focus to those not obeying state law in regards to production.

Now; if you believe his doing so is in fact arbitrary, please explain your logic. There is nothing i love more than watching you backpeddle and shuffle your way through an argument:2wave:
 
If you do not agree with how the President chooses to enforce the law, then let your logic speak for itself.
Selectively enforcing the law, based on the subjective standard of what should and should not be illegal, as we have here, violates the 'faithful execution' clause of the oath of office.

That is, when the President does this, as He is now, he isnt doing his job.
 
Selectively enforcing the law, based on the subjective standard of what should and should not be illegal, as we have here, violates the 'faithful exectuion' clause of the oath of office.

That is, when the President does this, as He is now, he isnt doing his job.

And by your same token, the fact that Bush did not advocate federally prosecuting every single medical cannabis dispensary in the state of California proves he "violated" the faithful execution clause. :shock:

Sorry to break it to you, but Federal policy does not include arresting and prosecuting state certified pot users. In fact, i challenge you to find one case within the last 10 years in which the FBI, DEA, etc... has federally prosecuted someone on the basis of misdemeanor possession or public intoxication (in regards to cannabis).

For the FBI/DEA to do so would be as ridicules as your position on the matter. It is a misallocation of opportunity costs!
 
Last edited:
And by your same token, the fact that Bush did not advocate federally prosecuting every single medical cannabis dispensary in the state of California proves he "violated" the faithful execution clause. :shock:
Yes. So?
How does that invalidate my position?

Sorry to break it to you, but Federal policy does not include arresting and prosecuting state certified pot users.
So?
How does that invalidate my position?
 
Yes. So?
How does that invalidate my position?


So?
How does that invalidate my position?

Cannabis production is still being investigated, and prosecuted federally. You fail to address how his policy, in regards to cannabis prosecution, is in violation.
 
Cannabis production is still being investigated, and prosecuted federally. You fail to address how his policy, in regards to cannabis prosecution, is in violation.
This is either a lie, or a gross lack of reading comprehension, on your part.
 
I think ill do a bong hit don'tell feds mmmmkay..LOL
 
This is either a lie, or a gross lack of reading comprehension, on your part.

Truly??? The DEA will not investigate, arrest, and prosecute an unlicensed industrial farming opperation in the state of California?

FAIL
 
Just wondering here Goobieman.. what do you think of Montana's recent gun sale laws, and should the ATF enforce federal gun registration, background check, and dealer licensing rules laws despite it?
 
Yoda+That

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/18/us/AP-US-Medical-Marijuana.html?_r=2
 
Last edited:
Truly??? The DEA will not investigate, arrest, and prosecute an unlicensed industrial farming opperation in the state of California?
FAIL
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to gross lack of reading comprehension.

Now, I suspect that this failure of reading comprehension on your part is intentional, but that's just a suspicion -- it is entirely- possible that you, indeed, can not read, or that you are so self-absorbed that you arent capable of comprehending what other people are actually saying because you simply want to hear yourself speak.

Contrary to you claim, my position is -quite- clear:

Selectively enforcing the law, based on the subjective standard of what should and should not be illegal, as we have here, violates the 'faithful execution' clause of the oath of office.

That is, when the President does this, as He is now, he isnt doing his job.

Nothing you have said undermines this position.
 
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to gross lack of reading comprehension.

Now, I suspect that this failure of reading comprehension on your part is intentional, but that's just a suspicion -- it is entirely- possible that you, indeed, can not read, or that you are so self-absorbed that you arent capable of comprehending what other people are actually saying because you simply want to hear yourself speak.

Contrary to you claim, my position is -quite- clear:

Selectively enforcing the law, based on the subjective standard of what should and should not be illegal, as we have here, violates the 'faithful execution' clause of the oath of office.

That is, when the President does this, as He is now, he isnt doing his job.

Nothing you have said undermines this position.

And nothing you have stated, here, or otherwise serves as a premise for your position.

Again:
In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.

Now shuffle along Failman. Unless of course you would like to debate the "how" aspect.
 
Last edited:
Just wondering here Goobieman.. what do you think of Montana's recent gun sale laws, and should the ATF enforce federal gun registration, background check, and dealer licensing rules laws despite it?
While those laws are crap, and violate the constitution, if the USDoJ/USDoTreas is not enforcing the laws, then it isnt doing its job.

States can have whatever laws that want.
That they have whatever law they want in no way nullifies a federal law.
That is, something can be legal according to state law, but illegal under federal law; that someting is legal under state law in no way justifies the decision to not enforce the relevant federal law in that state.

The point of a federal law, after all, is that it applies everywhere, to everyone.
 
Last edited:
While those laws are crap, and violate the constitution, if the USDoJ/USDoTreas is not enforcing the laws, then it isnt doing its job.

States can have whatever laws that want.
That they have whatever law they want in no way nullifies a federal law.
That is, something that be legal according to state law, but illegal under federal law; that someting is legal under state law in no way justifies the decision to not enforce the relevant federal law in that state.

So when a department needs to allocate its resources to enforce these gun law cases, how many men and how many resources should be involved with making sure that people that violate a gun registration law get tracked down? minimal? or should it get a decently high priority since they are after all violating the law.
 
Again, more failure to comprehend on your part.

If my goal is to remove water from a pool, and after i am done, there are little droplets of water in the deepest end, have i not completed my job?

While technically, there is still water in the pool, the fact that someone would ever in their life, have the audacity to claim that "you have not drained the pool" due to 1/100000000000000 of the water still being present proves they are not interested in the topic at hand, and are serving an agenda.

Your agenda in regards to this particular topic is partisan hackery.
 
So when a department needs to allocate its resources to enforce these gun law cases, how many men and how many resources should be involved with making sure that people that violate a gun registration law get tracked down? minimal? or should it get a decently high priority since they are after all violating the law.
:confused:
They should all get the same priority as they all brike the same law.

Now, obvuously, you cannot investigate and prosecute all of them at the same time, so, like in anytng else, you do it in chronological order. If you find your backlog to be excessive, you allocate more resources.

But all of that is beside the point -- I'm not at all sure how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds any water whatseoever.

And I am -astounded- that someone would accept the idea that it is OK for the President to enforce the law based on what HE thinks should and should not be illegal.

Its amazing what a (D) next to your name will get you.
 
Now, obvuously, you cannot investigate and prosecute all of them at the same time, so, like in anytng else, you do it in priority ;-) order. If you find your backlog to be excessive, you allocate more resources.

Please provide a source where Obama has claimed his policy is represented by anything besides this respective quote? Where has he claimed he is advocating this policy because he believes cannabis should be legal?

Don't worry, i will not hold my breath.
 
Last edited:
:confused:
They should all get the same priority as they all brike the same law.

Now, obvuously, you cannot investigate and prosecute all of them at the same time, so, like in anytng else, you do it in chronological order. If you find your backlog to be excessive, you allocate more resources.

But all of that is beside the point -- I'm not at all sure how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds any water whatseoever.

And I am -astounded- that someone would accept the idea that it is OK for the President to enforce the law based on what HE thinks should and should not be illegal.

Its amazing what a (D) next to your name will get you.

In chronological order huh?? So someone kills 50 people on Tuesday, but we cannot investigate this yet because we are chasing someone who bought a gun and did not register it on monday?

Or should it be done on a priority basis (as Goldenboy219 fixed for you)?
 
Last edited:
In chronological order huh?? So someone kills 50 people on Tuesday, but we cannot investigate this yet because we are chasing someone who bought a gun and did not register it on monday?
You're discussing two different things -- investigation of violations of federal laws dealing with the purchase of firearms, and the investigation of murders.

Chances are, the murder investigation is a state, not federal, investgation; if it were a federal investigation, the FBI, not the BATF, would be in the lead.


But all of that is beside the point -- I'm not at all sure how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds any water whatseoever.

And I am -astounded- that someone would accept the idea that it is OK for the President to enforce the law based on what HE thinks should and should not be illegal.
 
Back
Top Bottom