Obama Administration/Medical Marijuana=Federal Prison

[green punk]

I have already watched family (brothers, cousins and in laws) go down under your girl Nancy's CAMP 1988. When there was no such medicinal on books anywhere.

 

[FiveAM]

My question is, why does everyone seem to think they need to wave an elbow in the air every time they want to talk about pot?

If you want attention, you're going to get it. But, you won't be able to control where that attention comes from. So everyone from you're nosy neighbors, to the kids waiting at the bus stop, to the stupid ass youtube video you put up, or the cops just looking to make a mark in his cop shop..they gonna see your dumbass waving your stuff around.

The united states is a free* country, but it comes at a huge price, you better think about that price and what it really means.

Then ask yourself, am I willing to pay that price??

just my 2cents..peace

 

[SoCal 420]

I have already watched family (brothers, cousins and in laws) go down under your girl Nancy's CAMP 1988. When there was no such medicinal on books anywhere.

My girl Nancy??? If your talking about Pelosi? she should have been put to pasture long ago... I've voiced my "Dislike" of her on numerous occasions... Her views are older than dirt and I don't see how she lasted as long as she has, but rumors are, she has huge political pull (friends in high places) and that is the only reason she has survived...

 

[green punk]

Reagan, Brah, Reagan. Study up on CAMP for a few....

 

[squiggly]

Held accountable yes...THE lawmaker of the US...no! POTUS' first responsibility is the execution of federal law..can he change the law on his own..no....BUT he did promise innocent Americans that MMJ would be low priority and the raids would stop.

If you want to hold POTUS to his words--you should know what they were dude.

I understand you're not a hater. If that's true then you will go back and see what he actually said and make your determinations only after you've done so.

He did not say that raids would stop. He was sure to emphasize clearly that he was not saying that.

What he did say was that both medical patients and individual users would not be targeted by the DEA. They have not been. I can't stress that enough. Where such people may have been prosecuted is where they crossed over and were doing something beyond consumption in a fashion not in congruence with state law--such as cultivating too many plants, or selling to someone without a card, etc.

Patients were fair game under Bush (although still somewhat de-emphasized) and have not been under Obama.


He never said that raids would end--and in fact said that raids would be carried out against people not cultivating within the confines of their state law. The DEA has, in all cases that we currently have information on (and presumably the ones to come) provided evidence that state and not federal law had been breached as a preamble to the federal charges which were levied.

So yes, the prosecution has been federal--but that response has only come down on those who have failed to comply with state law (although it does need to be known that they aren't being charged under state, but rather federal, law which is significantly worse).

As someone has already mentioned, most of the people who are getting popped are asking for it. Posing with weapons and MJ grows? Come on! I LOVE this website, I'm a moderator here--and I don't even post pictures of ANYTHING here.

Obama gave a set of clear guidelines--and the cries AT THAT TIME were that "these measures don't go far enough, we should be talking about de-facto legalization and no interference from the government."

Why were people saying that if he in fact had gone far enough with his claims as you say he had?

The fact is he never did. He was careful to say the he can't circumvent federal law. He is able to save face by deferring to state law, but when that line is crossed something must be done. That has been clear since day one.


Now, I'm sure there have been some folks who have gone down that damn well shouldn't have. I don't think any of them should really--but we need to hold the lawmakers responsible!

What do you think is more likely, and answer truthfully:

1. The congress changes no laws and the president rules like a tyrant over cannabis cultivators.

OR

2. The congress fully legalizes marijuana and the president rules like a tyrant over cannabis cultivators.


Seriously. If they legalized it there would be no issue. That is the solution. It is their job. The constitution says so. Obama wouldn't be trying to perpetrate raids if congress took up the issue and agreed on it (which behind closed doors they mostly do). Talking about the executive branch over a legislative branch issues muddies the dog shit out of the water.

It's not his job to write and change laws--especially when a record low number of bills are crossing his desk. It's a waste of time to point the finger at him.

Furthermore it's not his job even to keep Leonhart from upholding her LEGISLATIVELY DEFINED POSITION and its LINE BY LINE description of its duties.

If we're being honest, even though I think Leonhart is a dick bag--she really is not upholding her position to the full extent of the law. She should be trying to shut everything down, all of it--with extreme prejudice.

People have gotten letters, and they've closed and been raided--but there are still businesses and caregivers and patients. It is still a very alive community even if it's taken damage.

Believe you me--the DEA could trample this shit under foot (and they could have under Bush as well--so he deserves a measure of credit for allowing the states to develop their own path in large part) if they so chose.

Leonhart isn't doing that right now--and she's not doing it because Obama asked her to follow a directive and she mostly has. She does not have to do that. She has been confirmed by congress and for all intents and purposes cannot be fired except through congressional hearing.

We're NOT by any means in an ideal situation--but the reality is that we're very far from the situation you describe wherein the president said one thing and did another.

What REALLY happened is this:

1. The president said something.

2. No one liked it then.

3. He did the thing he said.

4. People still didn't like it.

5. People accused him of going back on a promise he never made--the absence of which was wholly the basis for not liking his original statement--because they didn't like him then and they don't now.

6. Profit?

No.



The laws are what encumber us. Now, as ever. Congress is the vehicle of change here, both state and federal.

Now if they send him a bill and he doesn't sign--that's another thing.

Let' see them send a bill or two before we get going down that path though. I'd rather see education reform or something like that before they get to pot if I'm being totally honest.

 

[SoCal 420]

If Obama can issue executive orders to legalize millions of illegal aliens, he could issue an order to not go after those who are following state laws on cannabis (like he promised)

Its about holding a man to his word.

Summed it all up in A nutshell in two sentences... You "Cort" are A very "Wise" man...

 

[caregiverken]

You called me a troll when I was merely replying to you.

In reality this should've been deleted as well. I didn't do that because you would cry foul and "censorship". As I said I won't give you the satisfaction.

I'm done, like I said just keep it up--you'll get yourself banned.

If I overstepped the line here, it will be corrected and I will be chastised for it I'm sure--but what will keep me from being banned (as you one day will be if you continue on with your bullshit), is that I actually contribute things to this community instead of grandstanding about bullshit all day and then flaming and trolling people who reply to me.

I unignored you when I became a moderator. Not so I could see your posts and "moderate" you--but so that I could start fresh in the community with the new responsibility.

I actually take this forum seriously, something it's clear you do not do.

Unfortunately, that sensibility led me astray here. I can see now that unignoring you was a mistake. It's one which has been corrected presently.

I hope your life ends up every bit as terrible as you expect it to be--and that all of your various paranoias keep you awake at night.

I hope that your shit logic and idiot mouth earn for you everything you deserve in this life and more.

I'll leave you to the other mods--I'm sure it won't be long before your mouth writes a check your ass can't cash if history is to be any indicator.

Let me the 1st to " chastise" you...:nurse:

Bad Mod. :writing:


Watch it next time! :cool:

 

[SoCal 420]

I would just like to say "Thank You" I think the rest is up to everyone to decide for their selves...

 

[Natural]

If you want to hold POTUS to his words--you should know what they were dude.

I understand you're not a hater. If that's true then you will go back and see what he actually said and make your determinations only after you've done so.

He did not say that raids would stop. He was sure to emphasize clearly that he was not saying that.

What he did say was that both medical patients and individual users would not be targeted by the DEA. They have not been. I can't stress that enough. Where such people may have been prosecuted is where they crossed over and were doing something beyond consumption in a fashion not in congruence with state law--such as cultivating too many plants, or selling to someone without a card, etc.

Patients were fair game under Bush (although still somewhat de-emphasized) and have not been under Obama.


He never said that raids would end--and in fact said that raids would be carried out against people not cultivating within the confines of their state law. The DEA has, in all cases that we currently have information on (and presumably the ones to come) provided evidence that state and not federal law had been breached as a preamble to the federal charges which were levied.

So yes, the prosecution has been federal--but that response has only come down on those who have failed to comply with state law (although it does need to be known that they aren't being charged under state, but rather federal, law which is significantly worse).

As someone has already mentioned, most of the people who are getting popped are asking for it. Posing with weapons and MJ grows? Come on! I LOVE this website, I'm a moderator here--and I don't even post pictures of ANYTHING here.

Obama gave a set of clear guidelines--and the cries AT THAT TIME were that "these measures don't go far enough, we should be talking about de-facto legalization and no interference from the government."

Why were people saying that if he in fact had gone far enough with his claims as you say he had?

The fact is he never did. He was careful to say the he can't circumvent federal law. He is able to save face by deferring to state law, but when that line is crossed something must be done. That has been clear since day one.


Now, I'm sure there have been some folks who have gone down that damn well shouldn't have. I don't think any of them should really--but we need to hold the lawmakers responsible!

What do you think is more likely, and answer truthfully:

1. The congress changes no laws and the president rules like a tyrant over cannabis cultivators.

OR

2. The congress fully legalizes marijuana and the president rules like a tyrant over cannabis cultivators.


Seriously. If they legalized it there would be no issue. That is the solution. It is their job. The constitution says so. Obama wouldn't be trying to perpetrate raids if congress took up the issue and agreed on it (which behind closed doors they mostly do). Talking about the executive branch over a legislative branch issues muddies the dog shit out of the water.

It's not his job to write and change laws--especially when a record low number of bills are crossing his desk. It's a waste of time to point the finger at him.

Furthermore it's not his job even to keep Leonhart from upholding her LEGISLATIVELY DEFINED POSITION and its LINE BY LINE description of its duties.

If we're being honest, even though I think Leonhart is a dick bag--she really is not upholding her position to the full extent of the law. She should be trying to shut everything down, all of it--with extreme prejudice.

People have gotten letters, and they've closed and been raided--but there are still businesses and caregivers and patients. It is still a very alive community even if it's taken damage.

Believe you me--the DEA could trample this shit under foot (and they could have under Bush as well--so he deserves a measure of credit for allowing the states to develop their own path in large part) if they so chose.

Leonhart isn't doing that right now--and she's not doing it because Obama asked her to follow a directive and she mostly has. She does not have to do that. She has been confirmed by congress and for all intents and purposes cannot be fired except through congressional hearing.

We're NOT by any means in an ideal situation--but the reality is that we're very far from the situation you describe wherein the president said one thing and did another.

What REALLY happened is this:

1. The president said something.

2. No one liked it then.

3. He did the thing he said.

4. People still didn't like it.

5. People accused him of going back on a promise he never made--the absence of which was wholly the basis for not liking his original statement--because they didn't like him then and they don't now.

6. Profit?

No.



The laws are what encumber us. Now, as ever. Congress is the vehicle of change here, both state and federal.

Now if they send him a bill and he doesn't sign--that's another thing.

Let' see them send a bill or two before we get going down that path though. I'd rather see education reform or something like that before they get to pot if I'm being totally honest.

Fed policy has everything to do with incentive for Lawmakers to change the Law. Especially when they are getting direct threats from the DOJ that they are not immune from Fed prosecution for trying.
I think you over-estimate Fed resources and Obama's willingness to let the Law change.
The Obama Administration's position/policy/control of the Marijuana Movement is staying very congruent with International Law i.e. NATO's policy. This is quite over-looked by many, especially when considering polls suggest 70% US voters favor Legalization.

Even here recently U.S. A.G. Holder mentions "international law" in his quote,

"You will hear soon," Holder said in response to a question from Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. "We’re in the last stages of that review, and we’re trying to make a determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are -- there are a whole variety of things that go into this determination -- but the people of [Colorado] and Washington deserve an answer, and you will have one soon.”


I won't risk my life by entrusting my privacy to State Law regarding MMJ until Fed Law improves.
As for Leonhart, she is solely responsible under the Controlled Substances Act for denying decade long petitions by CRC (Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis), which is far more damaging than any one Federal raid, or all of them for that matter.

On a personal note, I take offense to your bullying of the OP. IMVHO, the language of your previous posts are unbecoming of a Forum Moderator. Perhaps your efforts would be better vested in an "Obama's Not So Bad" thread of your own.

 

[squiggly]

I think you over-estimate Fed resources and Obama's willingness to let the Law change.
The Obama Administration's position/policy/control of the Marijuana Movement is staying very congruent with International Law i.e. NATO's policy.

You may very well be right on that. I admit I'm being optimistic at best here. The treaties are really a huge stumbling block for this policy. We have held our allies to this stuff VERY stringently for a long time running and it would be bad for us to be like "Psyche".

It needs to happen, but yeah I see your point there.

I won't risk my life by entrusting my privacy to State Law regarding MMJ until Fed Law improves.

I don't blame you there at all.

As for Leonhart, she is solely responsible under the Controlled Substances Act for denying decade long petitions by CRC (Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis), which is far more damaging than any one Federal raid, or all of them for that matter.

Agree, as I said I think she's a dickbag.

On a personal note, I take offense to your bullying of the OP. IMVHO, the language of your previous posts are unbecoming of a Forum Moderator. Perhaps your efforts would be better vested in an "Obama's Not So Bad" thread of your own.

I really must disagree that I bullied him. I feel like it was a mutual affair taking place between the two of us.

I agree I overstepped the line in terms of what my role should have been and as you have already been made aware, its something which has been discussed with me. I offer no excuse for it.

I apologize for going that far, and go a step further in guaranteeing that it won't happen again. (If it does you can bet your ass I won't be a mod anymore in any case).

I take full responsibility for taking part in a thread that i flatly knew couldn't be productive with my input, and for making statements that I knew I shouldn't have.

That's about all I can say.

I am ashamed of what I said and humbled by the mere fact that probably one of the only logical points the people I so fervently disagree with could make is that I'm an asshole.

It sucks to realize that and I'll fix it. Consider it fixed already, it won't be happening again--even if I still have to struggle with my urge to talk shit in response to shit talk.

 

[SoCal 420]

What it "Really" boils down to is you have "Stepped Over the Line" to even "Assume" you have the "Authority" to determine What Is "Shit Talk" as you put it... When by your definition this happens to be "that which "You" don't agree with" in most cases...

 

[Natural]

His apology is a a pretty big move SoCal...and you demonstrated great patience in not blowing a fuse in response. I think we all agree a political discussion can get heated with emotions. A thread topic not exactly suited for a Moderator to show opposition...but debate is the food for change and intelligent discussion, no matter how one-sided it may seem, it keeps topics "on-the-table".
I, for one, would hate to see topics/threads like this disappear for any reason let alone for one man's opinion.

 

[squiggly]

His apology is a a pretty big move SoCal...and you demonstrated great patience in not blowing a fuse in response. I think we all agree a political discussion can get heated with emotions. A thread topic not exactly suited for a Moderator to show opposition...but debate is the food for change and intelligent discussion, no matter how one-sided it may seem, it keeps topics "on-the-table".
I, for one, would hate to see topics/threads like this disappear for any reason let alone for one man's opinion.

I have to admit the main thing that convinced me to apologize was going back and realizing that he didn't blow up at me.

I give him credit for that definitely.

From my point of view I felt attacked, (I.E. "you're a troill" and all that). I overreacted, there is no question. I didn't realize till I went back and re-read and it was way too late by then obviously.

My apology was warranted and sincere. I'm going to continue to ignore SoCal because he just pushes my buttons and it's a bad plan to leave that door open--but I respect him for keeping his cool.

The mistake was mine in "feeling" like he lost it on me when he really hadn't. As you say Natural, politics can get us emotional sometimes. I suppose that what I like least about SoCal is I feel his viewpoint is so one-sided, and that fruststrates the hell out of me--there are two sides to every story.

In any case, that's no excuse for losing my cool like that--and it's something I'll approach differently from now on.

 

[SoCal 420]

Apology Accepted... The reason I made the comment that "Natural" (Thanks Again!) responded to is because the apology seamed more directed towards him? (If that makes sense...) I'm really not one to hold A grudge or sweat the details... No Worries! This whole thing just "Needs" to be done...
In the Famous words of the late, great, Rodney King... "Can't we all Just Get Along?"

 

[caveman4.20]

https://www.thcfarmer.com/community...t-off-schedule-i-category.69995/#post-1396365
Quick email may make a difference