Yea I get sick of the picking and choosing when it comes to Federal and State laws. It seems to me if the Feds are going to crack down on States that have legalized weed they should be cracking down on everything else eapecially immigration. It is mind boggling how the rules are different for different issues.
I am fine with the States deciding. I still find it retarded that weed is illegal and hard liquor is not.
Yea I get sick of the picking and choosing when it comes to Federal and State laws. It seems to me if the Feds are going to crack down on States that have legalized weed they should be cracking down on everything else eapecially immigration. It is mind boggling how the rules are different for different issues.
I am fine with the States deciding. I still find it retarded that weed is illegal and hard liquor is not.
I think it was Henry Ford who said a great business leader surrounds himself with great people,(not verbatim). Why Trump keeps that little weasel Sessions on board is beyond me. If your gonna hammer down on States that feel they can circumvent Federal law,and our Constitution, then they should do it to all of them, and show no bias. Sessions is a tool and a snake in the grass, imo.
Its a felony to enforce federal gun law in KS, but a guy from Chanute is fighting federal charges anyway. The agents who arrested him and the lawyers prosecuting him have not been charged. Still have to get federal permission to buy a firearm from a store. I doubt WY arrests and charges any feds or foregoes the background check either.
Even though the SCOTUS has weighed in on this I still don't believe the feds have Constitutional authority in cases like this.
It's predicated on the commerce clause in the Constitution. When you look back at the horrible usurpations of power the federal government has perpetrated...many..if not most, stem from the commerce clause.
I for one am sure hoping that the guy in KS wins and the states right not to allow a federal tax on an item manufactured in KS that does not leave KS leaves the fed with no way to impose a tax on it.
if he looses , the fed could impose a sales tax on anything they wanted , next up could be milk .
the KS case is not a gun issue as it is a TAX issue if the fed does not have the right to tax a product that does not cross state lines , then GCA of 1934 can go away with local manufacture.
as taxing it was a shady way to begin with , and should have and would have never passes if this country wasn't neck deep in the great depression and the people been able to be informed before the vote was taken
I can't believe Trump would break a campaign promise. Shocking. So much for all of those sick people he knows who really benefit from medical marijuana......
Even though the SCOTUS has weighed in on this I still don't believe the feds have Constitutional authority in cases like this.
It's predicated on the commerce clause in the Constitution. When you look back at the horrible usurpations of power the federal government has perpetrated...many..if not most, stem from the commerce clause.
Could you explain your stance further white. I am all about freedom. However I always thought that States rights were their own if it didn't go opposite of federal law or the Constitution. If federal law stipulates weed is illegal, how can State rights trump that?
Even though Filburn..a farmer...was growing wheat on his own land and feeding it to livestock...and selling some to his neighbors....SCOTUS found that he was violating the law. Why ? because his wheat COULD have entered interstate commerce and affected the price....even though it didn't. This increased federal power over just about every decision in our lives !
Remember when Justice Roberts didn't want to rule on Odungocare relative to the commerce clause ? So he made it a tax issue instead ? That's because he did not want to tamper with previous SCOTUS rulings on the commerce clause.
Unfamiliar with that case, thanks a lot for giving me more to read lol! But, yep there's a but lol, How, according to case law and the Constitution, can State law successfully give the finger to the Fed's when it comes to weed??
Even though, IMHO, that ruling was clearly an over reach of authority. The person entering said wheat into the interstate market needed to pay the tax, not Filburn. That was a political expansion of power that has been horking us ever since.
The GCA of 1934 came right after the end of prohibition in 1933. Many many federal agents would've been let go to find real jobs. Let's put them to work chasing guns. If our drug war ended it makes me wonder what the next invented crisis would be.
Even though, IMHO, that ruling was clearly an over reach of authority. The person entering said wheat into the interstate market needed to pay the tax, not Filburn. That was a political expansion of power that has been horking us ever since.
Exactly !!
It seems to me that what needs to happen is a Constitutional amendment that either gives the feds authority or prohibits it. Where do we stop with that before we run into the 10th amendment ??
Does the federal government have a legitimate interest in regulating interstate commerce ? I think so. But if something does NOT enter interstate commerce, where does the federal government get the authority ?
But the current state of SCOTUS decisions on this subject give the feds far too much power ( as opposed to authority) to tell people what they can do with their own property or possessions.
Its a felony to enforce federal gun law in KS, but a guy from Chanute is fighting federal charges anyway. The agents who arrested him and the lawyers prosecuting him have not been charged. Still have to get federal permission to buy a firearm from a store. I doubt WY arrests and charges any feds or foregoes the background check either.
Are the Kansas taxpayers at least paying to have a state attorney represent this guy in federal court? If not, then the fluff law of the state isn't worth the paper it's written on.
When trial proceedings in the criminal case began, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt filed a motion to intervene in the case if the situation arose that the constitutionality of the Second Amendment Protection Act was called into question.
According to the Motion to Intervene filed in the case by the attorney general's office, the state attorney general must defend the law's constitutionality and validity.
According to a press release from Schmidt's office, the Attorney General's office cannot provide defense for individual criminal defendants even in cases of such conflicts between federal and state law.
I don't want my federal tax money going to help for example like CA to fix their problems with legalizing the weed. The federal gov. better step in and these states should be on their own and not get federal money for a problem that is their problem.
Feds aren't going to crack down on anything. States and local governments are continually looking for ways to bleed its citizens . They have found a way through legalization to create a " tax boom " ( greater than any gold rush ) . Apparently in successful ( legalization) states most of its citizens don't oppose . It's not about giving lidividual freedom back to its people , it's about growing and feeding the government monster. These enormous higher than expected unopposed funds help a multitude of social programs typically covered by federal dollars . With the Feds ( Trump) looking to cut spending I doubt they will mess with such a massive revenue stream. Just my opinion of course.
Even if luvguv's opinion is correct in that legalization has nothing to do with individual rights but only taxation, it is still a net positive for those that do not smoke weed in that the cost of enforcement, prosecution and treatment for weed will reduce. Besides, any weed smoker worth his salt should grow his own anyway and circumvent the taxes. It's the American way.
Reality will soon hit when businesses leave the state because they can't find "insurable" workers. The unemployment burden alone will cause that fire hose of taxes to slow to a trickle. lol
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: States Rights and Weed - 01/05/1812:35 AM
Originally Posted By: walleyed
About Time They Cracked Down On The Potheads, Dopers, and Rope Smokers !!
The Lefties Won't Be Happy Until The Country's Entire Populous Is Dumbed Down And Stoned Out On The Couch !!
w
I'm mentally disabled and weed helps my mind relax so I got a "food stamp" for medical weed
Reality will soon hit when businesses leave the state because they can't find "insurable" workers. The unemployment burden alone will cause that fire hose of taxes to slow to a trickle. lol
Either that or, yknow, find a different insurance company. Much easier to pack up the whole operation and move to the land of the uptight do-gooders where nobody smokes pot because it's illegal tho.
Besides; business and insurance should have no bearing on what is a personal choice. Choices. Smoke weed, job or not-employ or not. Insurance is a tertiary thing so far removed from the issue it's hardly worth mentioning.
May be however most likely there is something in the policy where such would relieve the company from responsibility and the employee would end up being the lone defendant. I bet they are standing in line to end up there.
Courts are to about to get real busy as well as lawyers. Picture the dogs in the gate at the dog track hearing that "rabbit" coming.
Don't kid yourself. There are going to be winners and losers and the one with the munchies is going to be the latter more times than not.
Weed smokers are already losers at all levels at it is now. At least with legalization they won't be harassed and harangued before they actually do anything 'wrong'.Non agression principal. Look it up.
I don't see this as an issue of...is pot good or bad. Should people use it or not. It's a bigger issue IMO. The correct thing to debate is...does the 10th amendment mean what it says ? Doesn't matter what it is about.
In keeping with that , I don't see a contradiction between this and what candidate Trump said in the video above. Maybe, hopefully, this is his way to force Congress to deal with reconciling this issue and the overreach under the commerce clause, and the egregious rulings from SCOTUS over the last 60-70 years.
Weed smokers are already losers at all levels at it is now. At least with legalization they won't be harassed and harangued before they actually do anything 'wrong'.Non agression principal. Look it up.
The smokers will not be the only losers. The unintended losers will be numerous and the state will end up with the tab.
When that happens who will they turn to, others states in the same boat or the fed? Guess what the fed is going to say. lol
So much confusion, I remember those coon trails through the ditch weed,..nowadays,.coon,weed,coon.weed,..so many choices,and to think I could be ahead of the game!
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: States Rights and Weed - 01/05/1801:44 AM
Originally Posted By: snowy
I don't want my federal tax money going to help for example like CA to fix their problems with legalizing the weed. The federal gov. better step in and these states should be on their own and not get federal money for a problem that is their problem.
X2. I believe the State should have the right to decide but the Fed shouldn't be obligated to fund any part(policing,health cost,etc) of what is deemed illegal under Federal law. That being said the Fed should not receive any revenue(taxes) from product sells. Those revenues should only be received by the State.
That begs the question.....is the federal government going to accept taxes paid BY LEGAL pot dealers in states like CO or will they refuse to take it because pot is an illegal product federally ? I think we all know the answer to that
That begs the question.....is the federal government going to accept taxes paid BY LEGAL pot dealers in states like CO or will they refuse to take it because pot is an illegal product federally ? I think we all know the answer to that
Exactly ! A huge payroll tax revenue stream from those who would normally stay home ..........eating chips and playing video games
Now smoking/smoke is good for you and these states that fight the smokers now it is ok to smoke. I don't get it with the health issues from smoke now just pass a law and smoke till you choke. LOL Who the blank is going to pay for all that mess??
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: States Rights and Weed - 01/05/1802:05 AM
If the State legalized it then the State should. Montana shouldn't have to pay for California's pot habit.
Now smoking/smoke is good for you and these states that fight the smokers now it is ok to smoke. I don't get it with the health issues from smoke now just pass a law and smoke till you choke. LOL Who the blank is going to pay for all that mess??
The money grabbers will peel off a few greenbacks to show their concern for the ill consequences
Colorado taxes are paid in cash, how can the Feds collect taxes but don't believe the business is legit. The biggest problem I see is, " Hey man, where'd we park the armored car".
About Time They Cracked Down On The Potheads, Dopers, and Rope Smokers !!
The Lefties Won't Be Happy Until The Country's Entire Populous Is Dumbed Down And Stoned Out On The Couch !!
w
Lots of people say the same thing about the hunters and trappers. Be careful celebrating the Feds cracking down on one group because you don't like the way they demonstrate their individual liberty-in their home state. Don't give them more power than they have already grabbed under the guise of the Constitution.
That begs the question.....is the federal government going to accept taxes paid BY LEGAL pot dealers in states like CO or will they refuse to take it because pot is an illegal product federally ? I think we all know the answer to that
If the Federal government does accept those taxes does that open the door for Federal legalization? Would the Federal government be seen legally as legitimizing pot sells by accepting these taxes?
Your idea of what a conservative is is skewed bowhunter. Conservative's don't like the government telling us how to live, remember? Save your authoritarianism for those those in your own sphere of influence. Also remember that just because government 'allows' or has no opinion on an action that it is NOT a societal endorsement of the activities.
I don't want my federal tax money going to help for example like CA to fix their problems with legalizing the weed. The federal gov. better step in and these states should be on their own and not get federal money for a problem that is their problem.
There shouldn't be any federal money to give away. Each state should take care of itself. The only thing the fed's should be doing is international agreements and treaties. The state's were originally sovereign except for international trade and defense. The intent of the commerce clause was to keep states from levying import fees on products from other states.
Your idea of what a conservative is is skewed bowhunter. Conservative's don't like the government telling us how to live, remember? Save your authoritarianism for those those in your own sphere of influence. Also remember that just because government 'allows' or has no opinion on an action that it is NOT a societal endorsement of the activities.
If you are insinuating that the present day society would "self regulate", I got to disagree. Too many leeches and dead beats out there that vote.
.
Options for the leeches and dead beats would be get on board or die off, become efficient criminals and kill off those who have the things they desire.
If you actually believe we can regulate or make enough laws (or even back up the number of useless laws we have now) to cure the deadbeats and leech issue in society you are part of the problem, not the solution.
I for one am sure hoping that the guy in KS wins and the states right not to allow a federal tax on an item manufactured in KS that does not leave KS leaves the fed with no way to impose a tax on it.
if he looses , the fed could impose a sales tax on anything they wanted , next up could be milk .
the KS case is not a gun issue as it is a TAX issue if the fed does not have the right to tax a product that does not cross state lines , then GCA of 1934 can go away with local manufacture.
as taxing it was a shady way to begin with , and should have and would have never passes if this country wasn't neck deep in the great depression and the people been able to be informed before the vote was taken
The GCA of 1934 was passed because Hollywood had trailers in a couple of very popular movies about the gangsters and bank robbers of the day out gunning the police and the need for new gun laws. People went to the movies and watched the news reels and trailers and that was the equvilant of todays TV newscasts. All the bank robbers and bootleggers wars were fresh in peoples minds and I think they might have been more informed than you think. That said I would love to see the GCA abolished tomorrow.
When I was younger drinkers would go out of State to buy cheap booze because WA had such high alcohol taxes. Taxes on spirits haven't went down but now WA takes in more tax revenue from Marijuana sales then from hard liquor. Do you think the politicians want to give that up? I bet all the State Houses are salivating over that money.
That begs the question.....is the federal government going to accept taxes paid BY LEGAL pot dealers in states like CO or will they refuse to take it because pot is an illegal product federally ? I think we all know the answer to that
Absolutely they expect the pot operations to pay taxes. I watched an interesting program on NatGeo once about the pot business and their relationship with banks and the IRS.
The banks wont take their business because it's federally illegal so the businesses have to deal in cash and money orders and although the banks won't deal with them the IRS expects their cut?
Don't forget that Al Capone was finally put away on tax evasion charges. Taxes that he didn't pay on an illegal enterprise.
That begs the question.....is the federal government going to accept taxes paid BY LEGAL pot dealers in states like CO or will they refuse to take it because pot is an illegal product federally ? I think we all know the answer to that
Didn't the Feds get Al Capone on tax evasion on income from illegal activities?
I own a couple firearms. I don't smoke pot. I want KS gun law to be recognized.
Biggest problem I have with pot is all the animal rights people indulge. I'd become a letter writing advocate if they also supported my right to liberty.
Weed is illegal in NE but there used to be...maybe still is...a fine for not having a tax stamp. Not sure how that worked. It is humorous how proponents of alcohol talk about how many problems weed will cause down the road......okay.....
I own a couple firearms. I don't smoke pot. I want KS gun law to be recognized.
Biggest problem I have with pot is all the animal rights people indulge. I'd become a letter writing advocate if they also supported my right to liberty.
Like an act of kindness, it probably isn't necessary or proper to expect reciprocation. It surely won't advance the total cause of freedom to not support a freedom issue that you don't partake in by waiting for someone who is more clueless about freedom issues to make the first move and embrace your views. No sense both groups sitting at a pity party because of stubbornness.
CBD is usually produced from hemp. Depends if you believe in the argument that hemp and weed are separate plants. THC is what gets you high. CBD is used for medical applications only.
I live in a huge hemp producing area, and a PhD has his "mother plants" across the road in greenhouses. According to him, CBD is hot enough to not pass a whiz quiz for your CDL license. CBD still contains traces of THC.
I don't see this as an issue of...is pot good or bad. Should people use it or not. It's a bigger issue IMO. The correct thing to debate is...does the 10th amendment mean what it says ? Doesn't matter what it is about.
In keeping with that , I don't see a contradiction between this and what candidate Trump said in the video above. Maybe, hopefully, this is his way to force Congress to deal with reconciling this issue and the overreach under the commerce clause, and the egregious rulings from SCOTUS over the last 60-70 years.
Exactly. What's the point of the 10th Amendment ? Might as well not wasted the ink. Much like most of the rest of the Constitution these days.
Undermining the Constitution is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time and we can now see the results.
I own a couple firearms. I don't smoke pot. I want KS gun law to be recognized.
Biggest problem I have with pot is all the animal rights people indulge. I'd become a letter writing advocate if they also supported my right to liberty.
Maybe you should be the bigger person and take the first step.
I will point out 60% of the American population believe weed should be legal. Congress and Session's know this and what they are doing is clearly against the will of the people. That's where the government is at these day's,they don't serve the people on anything. They serve special interest.
I will point out 60% of the American population believe weed should be legal. Congress and Session's know this and what they are doing is clearly against the will of the people. That's where the government is at these day's,they don't serve the people on anything. They serve special interest.
Thank God.
76% of "The People" think animal rights are as important as people's rights.
I don't see this as an issue of...is pot good or bad. Should people use it or not. It's a bigger issue IMO. The correct thing to debate is...does the 10th amendment mean what it says ? Doesn't matter what it is about.
In keeping with that , I don't see a contradiction between this and what candidate Trump said in the video above. Maybe, hopefully, this is his way to force Congress to deal with reconciling this issue and the overreach under the commerce clause, and the egregious rulings from SCOTUS over the last 60-70 years.
Exactly. What's the point of the 10th Amendment ? Might as well not wasted the ink. Much like most of the rest of the Constitution these days.
Undermining the Constitution is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time and we can now see the results.
I've been doing some reading on the tenth, not finished yet, really just getting started. The case white brought up is interesting,(Wickard v Filburn) more interesting to me is the Gonzales v Raich case which was the Filburn case all over again in 2005. I couldn't believe when I read it that Scalia was of the majority opinion. Him, being a textual Constitutionalist. I liked Thomas' dissent and here's a snipet of it.
Cant figure out why the country needs to be on pot, we allready got every body on welfare and nobodys working, do we really need every body high now.
Isn't unemployment at historic lows right now?
on paper it is, in our town we have one big business left the other 10 have gone. no body is on unemployment here because its all drawed out for them . so i guess thats why the state and gov. is wanting to keep every body stoned.
I will point out 60% of the American population believe weed should be legal. Congress and Session's know this and what they are doing is clearly against the will of the people. That's where the government is at these day's,they don't serve the people on anything. They serve special interest.
Thank God.
76% of "The People" think animal rights are as important as people's rights.
Not a true number.More like about 1/3 so the America people still get it right ! As they usually do, especially when they have all the fact's.
I will point out 60% of the American population believe weed should be legal. Congress and Session's know this and what they are doing is clearly against the will of the people. That's where the government is at these day's,they don't serve the people on anything. They serve special interest.
Thank God.
76% of "The People" think animal rights are as important as people's rights.
And therein lies the problem in this country...
My neighbor sitting in his garage getting baked and listening to Steppenwolfe has zero effect on me.
My trapping of beaver has zero effect on him.
Yet we both pursue to criminalize the other's activity while ardently defending our own.
This country must've been a beautiful place before everyone decided they knew what was best for everyone else.
I will point out 60% of the American population believe weed should be legal. Congress and Session's know this and what they are doing is clearly against the will of the people. That's where the government is at these day's,they don't serve the people on anything. They serve special interest.
Thank God.
76% of "The People" think animal rights are as important as people's rights.
My neighbor sitting in his garage getting baked and listening to Steppenwolfe has zero effect on me.As long as he stays in his garage and not on the road.
My trapping of beaver has zero effect on him. Unless that beaver dam is improving the water quality in that creek he fishes in the summer time.
Yet we both pursue to criminalize the other's activity while ardently defending our own.
This country must've been a beautiful place before everyone decided they knew what was best for everyone else.
There is always an exception, guy driving drunk, girl driving high, bonehead not watching where his gun is pointed. Fortunately most people are responsible.
My neighbor sitting in his garage getting baked and listening to Steppenwolfe has zero effect on me.As long as he stays in his garage and not on the road.
My trapping of beaver has zero effect on him. Unless that beaver dam is improving the water quality in that creek he fishes in the summer time.
Yet we both pursue to criminalize the other's activity while ardently defending our own.
This country must've been a beautiful place before everyone decided they knew what was best for everyone else.
Mike
Do you mean to tell me that legal activities can have disastrous consequences when someone is irresponsible?
I know a lot of people who smoke pot and that is up to them but as far as I am concerned it should never be legal in any form. In my oppinion it makes people stupid and lazy..... Again, that is my oppinion.
Lebowski I meant losers at all levels of societal concern, i.e. government, employment, insurance. There are probably many upstanding people who smoke weed.
weed is a big business, ie a Billion dollar business!
I bet the alcohol business is more and so is the business of keeping weed illegal.The cost to tax payer's alone is 20 billion a year.That would cover some of Trumps tax cut.
I think he put bong water in his rice krispies this morning, he is even further out in left field than usual.
That stuff is nasty.
I'm full circle on your concept, all or nothing. If we are going to make things legal and leave it to everybody being responsible then all things should be legal. Responsible people will act responsibly in every situation after all.
It would sure save me a lot of aggravation and money on licenses and insurance just to drive a truck up and down the road not to mention hunting, trapping and fishing.
Dang now I've flipped 180 degrees too. I think unless every activity I don't partake in is run through my morality filter i want it to be illegal because someone might do something harmful.
It would sure save me a lot of aggravation and money on licenses and insurance just to drive a truck up and down the road not to mention hunting, trapping and fishing.
Here we go... The straw man argument. If we make something legal we should make everything legal to the Nth degree... Making something legal is the end of common sense regulation.
How's this?
Marriage is legal. And because marriage is legal you'll have people lining up to get married to their daughters. So we better go ahead and just make all marriage illegal.
It would sure save me a lot of aggravation and money on licenses and insurance just to drive a truck up and down the road not to mention hunting, trapping and fishing.
Here we go... The straw man argument. If we make something legal we should make everything legal to the Nth degree... Making something legal is the end of common sense regulation.
How's this?
Marriage is legal. And because marriage is legal you'll have people lining up to get married to their daughters. So we better go ahead and just make all marriage illegal.
Good Lord.
Mike
Whose moral compass are we using to decide? Most of the people? Some of the people?
Back on the tax issue with the Feds and weed, just my thoughts here but I think it is pretty accurate but then again who am I? lol.
The product a person sells whether it is legal or illegal is indifferent to the federal wage tax, if a person brings in actual income then that income is subject to federal wage tax and the Feds should get their share of taxes based on the wage tax system and that is how they got Capone on tax evasion since he did not pay any federal wage taxes on the millions he brought in on the illegal sales of liquor and not the sales tax evasion.
The same would apply to pot businesses, the sales may be illegal by federal law but the person earning their income by working in the legal pot trade in their home state still has to pay their federal wage tax. The Feds have no claim on any sales tax of an illegal substance or they would have gone after the cartels for sales tax evasion, technically speaking they could prosecute wage tax evasion for every drug dealer out there but that would cost billions more than throwing them in jail not to mention trying to prove how much taxes they would owe.
There is more money in it for the Federal government and corporation's to keep it illegal. Plain and simple.If it was the other way around you would see billboard's everywhere that would say thing's like "What weed can do for you".
There is no other reason to go against the will of the people.
There is more money in it for the Federal government and corporation's to keep it illegal. Plain and simple.If it was the other way around you would see billboard's everywhere that would say thing's like "What weed can do for you".
There is no other reason to go against the will of the people.
You seem to know a lot about money? Are you wealthy?
There is more money in it for the Federal government and corporation's to keep it illegal. Plain and simple.If it was the other way around you would see billboard's everywhere that would say thing's like "What weed can do for you".
There is no other reason to go against the will of the people.
You seem to know a lot about money? Are you wealthy?
Whose moral compass are we using to decide? Most of the people? Some of the people?
Perhaps the same moral compass that lets individuals who are of consenting age decide for themselves what alcohol, if any, they decide to ingest. Or Cheetos, or soft drinks, or any other of a host of unhealthy choices.
Is government mandate the only thing that keeps you from making a ruin of yourself?
Jesus was a Capricorn He ate organic food. He believed in love and peace And never wore no shoes Long hair beard and sandals And a bunch of funky friends I reckon they'd just hang him up If he came down again
Jesus was a Capricorn He ate organic food. He believed in love and peace And never wore no shoes Long hair beard and sandals And a bunch of funky friends I reckon they'd just hang him up I he came down again
Whose moral compass are we using to decide? Most of the people? Some of the people?
Is government mandate the only thing that keeps you from making a ruin of yourself?
Mike
Is it so difficult to believe that the answer to that question is yes for some people?
Is it so hard to believe that life is about choices? There are winners and losers in all aspects of life. Should I be forced to fund a "war" on their bad choices?
A war which has overstepped its original intent and continuously violates the rights of those who have no part in it.
That makes no sense whatsoever. There was a highly functional society of anarchists who lived relatively peacefully after the fall of the Russian tsar in 1918 to about 1922. Their downfall was allying with the bolshiviks to fight the whites. Once the whites were fought the commies ate them for lunch. No sense dismissing the historical facts about functionality of anarchy. It wouldn't work for us, but perhaps some ideas could be utilized.
Is it so hard to believe that life is about choices? There are winners and losers in all aspects of life. Should I be forced to fund a "war" on their bad choices?
A war which has overstepped its original intent and continuously violates the rights of those who have no part in it.
Mike
It's about time to figure this "War on Drugs" has been a HORRIBLE failure. More people are dying from illicit drugs than ever before. The junkies are dropping like flies in Appalachia.
That makes no sense whatsoever. There was a highly functional society of anarchists who lived relatively peacefully after the fall of the Russian tsar in 1918 to about 1922. Their downfall was allying with the bolshiviks to fight the whites. Once the whites were fought the commies ate them for lunch. No sense dismissing the historical facts about functionality of anarchy. It wouldn't work for us, but perhaps some ideas could be utilized.
And that's why a buncha gol-darn dumb anarchists can be excused from this discussion.
[/quote] Jesus was a Capricorn He ate organic food. He believed in love and peace And never wore no shoes Long hair beard and sandals And a bunch of funky friends I reckon they'd just hang him up If he came down again [/quote] I believe the same could be said for about 1/12 th of the population back then. If he came back today I believe he would be wearing Bluejeans, nikes, a carhart jacket and maybe even a red tie.
Weed is now a cash crop for several states, and one of those states is really a problem for our administration. What I herd on the radio sounded like the administration was flexing. The feds have every right to raid those dispenseries any day, and if all the states play nice, they may get to keep their cash cow for a while. If they keep attacking the administration I'm sure they will find the resources to raid them all the same day.
That begs the question.....is the federal government going to accept taxes paid BY LEGAL pot dealers in states like CO or will they refuse to take it because pot is an illegal product federally ? I think we all know the answer to that
can you claim income from federally illegal activities? youre screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.
transactions are in cash, banking is even screwy.
lots of ways for the feds to cause crap.... seizing accounts, "structuring" deposit accusations and seizures, etc...
its also discrimination to only legalize weed, reducing jailtime and crimes for certain income range and ethnicities.
to be fair, they should legalize Cocaine, so that upper middle class and up, white people can enjoy recreation without worry about jail.
I think the country could be run just fine on one book of laws. I don't think you could put all the laws we have now into a basketball arena if it was normal sized print. Murder theft and rape need to stay illegal. The rest IMO are all up for debate. Whole tax code could be done with one paragraph.
I don't recall advocating for dissolution of government. That wouldn't help at all. But the current stance on this issue is an abyssmal and expensive failure.
Prohibition didn't stop Cletis from making, drinking, and selling mash. Once alcohol was legalised again the government was able to regulate the activity... And prescribe punishments for those who use it irresponsibly.
More people are dying from illicit drugs than ever before. The junkies are dropping like flies in Appalachia.
I cant tell if youre saying that's a bad thing or a positive?
I think its positive... self correcting problem the way I see it...
That was in reference to the war on drugs. If you feel that more people dying from drugs is a sign we are winning that war you are probably in the minority.
Hobbie is lacking a fundamental understanding of economic principal. Shooting of drug dealers only signals the market that their is a new business opportunity and that the temporary shortage of product delivery has increased prices. The personal risk also increased prices. However, there is still a demand for the drug .
Lol. And according to SCOTUS, and their rulings on the tenth, well, the Commerce Clause, the fed's have every right to drop the hammer on States that legalize weed. But I wouldn't worry about it happening soon cause weasel Sessions is focused on Bundy now lol.
The war on drugs is being fought much like the war on terror and hat is why it is a failure.
War is something you should be ALL in or ALL out.
They don't want to stop the drugs no more than they want to stop all the so called terrorist. That would put them out of business and no longer would they have a reason to steal anymore tax dollars.
That begs the question.....is the federal government going to accept taxes paid BY LEGAL pot dealers in states like CO or will they refuse to take it because pot is an illegal product federally ? I think we all know the answer to that
can you claim income from federally illegal activities? youre screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.
transactions are in cash, banking is even screwy.
lots of ways for the feds to cause crap.... seizing accounts, "structuring" deposit accusations and seizures, etc...
its also discrimination to only legalize weed, reducing jailtime and crimes for certain income range and ethnicities.
to be fair, they should legalize Cocaine, so that upper middle class and up, white people can enjoy recreation without worry about jail.
Then is it not discrimination that alchohol and tobacco are legal ? If marijuana is no more or less dangerous and 60% of the people are behind leagalization then we know what the right thing to do here is. Now if you want to argue for legalizing cocaine and heroin we can do that seperatly,run a poll for both drugs to see where the people stand on it.
If the people believe it should be legal then legal it should be ! You can't save people from themselves and have a free nation in the same hand.
If we just give the war on drugs another year or two I bet it will work lol. Good post Rivers.
There is no such thing as a war on drugs it's an inanimate object just like a gun. It's a war on people who use drugs,the Constitution and the tax payer.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: States Rights and Weed - 01/05/1811:59 PM
Muddy your making a mistake on your reliance on polls. Just ask Hilary......
I've read 1/5th of our incarcerated citizens are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. If one owned stock in private prison industry those are weak numbers and need to upped in order for dividends tonincrease.
Seattle has a soda tax of 1.75 cents an ounce as of January 1 to save everyone there !
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: States Rights and Weed - 01/06/1812:49 AM
Originally Posted By: Mike in A-town
The federal and state government will let you...
· Buy and drink enough booze to float a battleship.
· Buy enough cigarettes to give the whole planet cancer.
· Blow your whole paycheck on the lottery or at a casino.
· Buy and eat your weight in Little Debbie cakes.
Thank goodness the government is here to protect me from my poor decisions. And it has only cost us how much in enforcement and incarceration?
Mike
In each case these products are legal which for many makes them legitimate. I've always thought that on many things,pot included, instead of making it legal how about we just make it not illegal. Keep it in that grey area.
Although it would be nice to be able to legislate morality, it's impossible to do. People always have the free will to make both bad and good choices.
War on drugs is worse than a joke. Its used as an excuse to constantly push up against my liberty. Our government allows Afghanistan to produce most of the worlds opium in order to keep some influence there. We didn't have a problem with "organized crime" until alcohol prohibition. Then came narcotic prohibition and the booze pirates just changed drugs. Its not working and is the catalyst for a lot of government, judicial and law enforcement corruption. Its also very very very lucrative.
In each case these products are legal which for many makes them legitimate. I've always thought that on many things,pot included, instead of making it legal how about we just make it not illegal. Keep it in that grey area.
[/quote] I didn't know there was a gray area between legal and not illegal? Please explain.
Mike [/quote]In each case these products are legal which for many makes them legitimate. I've always thought that on many things,pot included, instead of making it legal how about we just make it not illegal. Keep it in that grey area.
I didn't know there was a gray area between legal and not illegal? Please explain. [/quote] That's like being almost pregnant lol. And spot on danny.
Legal .........comes with a multitude of stipulations
Not illegal ........no harm no foul ........move on to something else
That's quite an interesting way of looking at the world. It doesn't make any sense, but it is interesting. This opinion explains quite a bit about the Republican philosophy on government and life itself.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: States Rights and Weed - 01/06/1801:16 AM
What was pot before it was illegal? No law on the books suggesting it's legality or illegality. That's the grey area I'm referring to. In AR a trapper could use a 660 style trap for beaver trapping 10 years ago. Someone inquired about their legality and now they are illegal to use. Loose lips, sink ships!
Legal .........comes with a multitude of stipulations
Not illegal ........no harm no foul ........move on to something else
That's quite an interesting way of looking at the world. It doesn't make any sense, but it is interesting. This opinion explains quite a bit about the Republican philosophy on government and life itself.
I wouldn't expect it to make sense in your delusional bubble
If the feds aren't cracking down on every state that made it legal, I would say their turning the cheek and it's in the gray then . Legal in the state ,illegal in the fed , right in the middle of both .
Like other products before, people want to make it legal to be a legitimate product as many states are doing .
The assumption that making something that was once illegal, legal, would come with a multitude of stipulations is unique to those belonging to political parties that can't help themselves but to limit the freedom of others. It is a philosophy that goes much deeper than this weed issue. It should make one wary of any attempt by either party to repeal any unnecessary law or regulation because at face value it cannot be a full repeal, only legal with stipulations.
Perhaps the conversation should shift as to why we leave it to government to signal to us what a 'legitimate' product is? Shouldn't that be left to the agreement made between the buyer and the seller? Does government need to be involved in every transaction we ever make?
The assumption that making something that was once illegal, legal, would come with a multitude of stipulations is unique to those belonging to political parties that can't help themselves but to limit the freedom of others. It is a philosophy that goes much deeper than this weed issue. It should make one wary of any attempt by either party to repeal any unnecessary law or regulation because at face value it cannot be a full repeal, only legal with stipulations.
What's worse is your infinite struggle to differentiate reality from fantasy
Hard to find concrete workers as it is If they put every concrete worker around here in prison for smoking pot, there would not hardly be anybody left to work concrete at all No joke
Hard to find concrete workers as it is If they put every concrete worker around here in prison for smoking pot, there would not hardly be anybody left to work concrete at all No joke
Guy I went to school with won a bid to pour concrete in the oil fields. The customer demanded pee tests. He lost his whole crew over it.
I will point out 60% of the American population believe weed should be legal. Congress and Session's know this and what they are doing is clearly against the will of the people. That's where the government is at these day's,they don't serve the people on anything. They serve special interest.
If you still believe polling numbers your the last one
We vote on our state question to approve Medical Marijuana on June 26. It's about time and I expect it will pass. I have an old knee injury that needs treatment.
It will be interesting to see what Sessions actually does regarding federal enforcement. Trump has hung Sessions out before and the reversal of the Cole Memo stance smells like a political stunt.
In the summer of 2017 a Jeff Sessions led Drug Enforcement Agency decided that hemp (the same plant grown for fiber by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) is a schedule 1 drug just like marijuana. Lucky that our founding fathers are long since dead so they won't face federal prosecution!
On one of the weed shows on TV, they said legally one of the two strains is not considered punishable in California , don't remember if it was Sativa or Indica .
Easiest thing to do would be take it off schedule 1 .
I believe the Federal government should have less power than it does. I believe the states that legalized weed even though it was a federal law were wrong. Why aint we building that wall right now ? I think that states should legalize marijuana and tax it and the money should go to schools and Emergency Medical Services both are underfunded or no funds exist for it.
We used to drain oil out of pans right on the ground. That's illegal now. Good thing I don't work in construction any more.
lol
Do you think construction workers who smoke pot are a recent development?
Mike
Wasn't that one of the reasons it was initially listed? The "man" didn't like seeing the dock workers getting high enjoying themselves, felt threatened.
I live in the original weed state. The Federal government are morons for not jumping on the weed bandwagon, it is a license to print money.
Once dead Colorado towns are thriving because of tax revenues. Weed is more expensive now then when it wasn't legal. And sit by a weed store and watch who comes and go. Majority of people are over the age of 60, and women.
Millionaires have been made overnight. The commerce chain is long, from the irrigation companys selling supplies, to lighting stores,to security, and even the lowly wildlife control guy who has to protect the green gold from wildlife.
I don't like to be judged by others, so I try not to make it a point to judge myself. If burning a big one floats your boat, letr rip tater chip.
Apparently they were having problems with the "itinerant" farm hands sticking around and stealing jobs after the harvest was in... Poor schmucks didn't know they were supposed to go home. Lol
Of course if they had handed out all the freebies back then they wouldn't have been snatching up all the jobs.
Waay back when it (the prohibition of hemp) was put at DuPont's nylon to replace hemp in military supplies and Intn.Paper not wanting cheap hemp paper on the market. Believe they financed Reefer Madness, or so I read once.
The only way states rights work is if the states refuse Federal money, so long as they take the money they will be coerced into relinquishing their rights.
Jesus was a Capricorn He ate organic food. He believed in love and peace And never wore no shoes Long hair beard and sandals And a bunch of funky friends I reckon they'd just hang him up I he came down again
Waay back when it (the prohibition of hemp) was put at DuPont's nylon to replace hemp in military supplies and Intn.Paper not wanting cheap hemp paper on the market. Believe they financed Reefer Madness, or so I read once.
The only way states rights work is if the states refuse Federal money, so long as they take the money they will be coerced into relinquishing their rights.
That may work on other things but with how SCOTUS has ruled on the Commerce Clause, I don't think it will work on weed.
So if weed growers don't pay federal taxes on their federally illegal business (would be self incriminating) does that mean their income wouldn't be counted in order to get federal benefits such as SNAP and MA?
Waay back when it (the prohibition of hemp) was put at DuPont's nylon to replace hemp in military supplies and Intn.Paper not wanting cheap hemp paper on the market. Believe they financed Reefer Madness, or so I read once.
The only way states rights work is if the states refuse Federal money, so long as they take the money they will be coerced into relinquishing their rights.
And the Fed has an unlimited money printing machine called the Federal Reserve Bank that is not Federal at all ! And illegal under the Constitution.That's why they are not dependent on the tax money they bring in,they just print the rest of what they want. Maybe it's the Fed who needs to be brought up on charges and not the people.
The more they print the less the dollar is worth and the more debt they put us and the future into. Not to mention the economic danger it creates that they lie about every day on the mainstream media.
More than likely if Congress votes to decriminalize,legalize or reduce the scheduling of weed there will be a lot of new faces in the next election as corporation's pull campaign financing from those who voted against their wishes.
That's what the real deal is.And if that's not the definition of fascism i don't know what is.
I guess what was kind of getting at is, can weed producers use the 5th to circumvent fed taxes.
Pleading the 5th, for what that is worth, only works in court. The IRS don't give a hoot about self incrimination. I would guess the IRS would use the fact that the state income tax records show you are a sellin dank and didn't give the fed extortionist's their cut if it ever made it to court. I would guses IRS would just size your assets and sell them to another idiot if you didn't pay the extortion money.
More than likely if Congress votes to decriminalize,legalize or reduce the scheduling of weed there will be a lot of new faces in the next election as corporation's pull campaign financing from those who voted against their wishes.
That's what the real deal is.And if that's not the definition of fascism i don't know what is.
Do you patronize businesses that don't share your view of how the world should be?
As stated earlier, Colorado pays all the same taxes as any other business in the state, they just pay in cash. The Government is getting their cut. I think I read somewhere that Colorado took in 500 million in taxes in one year.
I guess what was kind of getting at is, can weed producers use the 5th to circumvent fed taxes.
Pleading the 5th, for what that is worth, only works in court. The IRS don't give a hoot about self incrimination. I would guess the IRS would use the fact that the state income tax records show you are a sellin dank and didn't give the fed extortionist's their cut if it ever made it to court. I would guses IRS would just size your assets and sell them to another idiot if you didn't pay the extortion money.
I guess what was kind of getting at is, can weed producers use the 5th to circumvent fed taxes.
Pleading the 5th, for what that is worth, only works in court. The IRS don't give a hoot about self incrimination. I would guess the IRS would use the fact that the state income tax records show you are a sellin dank and didn't give the fed extortionist's their cut if it ever made it to court. I would guses IRS would just size your assets and sell them to another idiot if you didn't pay the extortion money.
I could be way off here, and hopefully Blaine County or Pass-thru will correct my mistake, BUT........ I don't believe you have constitutional rights in tax court. You don't enjoy the presumption of innocence. In order to claim 5th amendment protections you must get your case into the criminal court system ...title 18 I think.
Made in the USA business success story if there ever was one.
Lots of new jobs and R&D going on to make new strains and develop new growing techniques.
100% for it myself!
Originally Posted By: coloradocat
I live in the original weed state. The Federal government are morons for not jumping on the weed bandwagon, it is a license to print money.
Once dead Colorado towns are thriving because of tax revenues. Weed is more expensive now then when it wasn't legal. And sit by a weed store and watch who comes and go. Majority of people are over the age of 60, and women.
Millionaires have been made overnight. The commerce chain is long, from the irrigation companys selling supplies, to lighting stores,to security, and even the lowly wildlife control guy who has to protect the green gold from wildlife.
I don't like to be judged by others, so I try not to make it a point to judge myself. If burning a big one floats your boat, letr rip tater chip.
What kind of ticks me off is the feds claim that marijuana has no medical value but will not allow any studies to be done to prove if that is true or not. Anecdotal evidence is pretty strong that pot (in particular the CBD strains that don't get you high) have a lot of medical benefits.
So now you wish you were a little girl ? ..................put the pipe down man !
Come on Gov, that was classy man. I agree with the Finn as far as to say his point of view is as it should be, but without considering how things actually are, with no bridge to get us there. If that makes sense.
I explained the political philosophy of those like lovgov earlier. It is unfathomable to most republican's to simply let be. To go from having power (power over anything, even something as mundane as a naturally occurring plant) to simply having no opinion is beyond comprehension. When there is only minutes of angle difference between demos and repubs, letting go of anything is considered crazy talk. Sad really.
I explained the political philosophy of those like lovgov earlier. It is unfathomable to most republican's to simply let be. To go from having power (power over anything, even something as mundane as a naturally occurring plant) to simply having no opinion is beyond comprehension. When there is only minutes of angle difference between demos and repubs, letting go of anything is considered crazy talk. Sad really.
Like I said before , your reckless imagination leaves no room for reality
I could be way off here, and hopefully Blaine County or Pass-thru will correct my mistake, BUT........ I don't believe you have constitutional rights in tax court. You don't enjoy the presumption of innocence. In order to claim 5th Amendment protections you must get your case into the criminal court system ...title 18 I think.
You can claim 5th Amendment protection when dealing with the IRS, but it will ultimately get you in front of a judge via an information request. You will have to produce records (even if you remain silent pleading the 5th) under the required records doctrine. The doctrine acts as an exception to the 5th Amendment protections because the government requires you to keep certain records-even if your activities are illegal and the documents are incriminating. District courts have routinely sided with the IRS on this issue.
I could be way off here, and hopefully Blaine County or Pass-thru will correct my mistake, BUT........ I don't believe you have constitutional rights in tax court. You don't enjoy the presumption of innocence. In order to claim 5th Amendment protections you must get your case into the criminal court system ...title 18 I think.
You can claim 5th Amendment protection when dealing with the IRS, but it will ultimately get you in front of a judge via an information request. You will have to produce records (even if you remain silent pleading the 5th) under the required records doctrine. The doctrine acts as an exception to the 5th Amendment protections because the government requires you to keep certain records-even if your activities are illegal and the documents are incriminating. District courts have routinely sided with the IRS on this issue.
