Buzzkill Scott Walker Would Go After States That Legalized Marijuana Until Federal Law Is Changed

originally posted by: introvert
The question he should be asked is if he would actively seek to change federal law. The answer to that is much more important.

He's against legalization, so I don't think he'd work to change the law. Right now, the feds are watching the states with legal pot to see how it's working.

a reply to: dreamingawake

But he didn't say whether or not he's against it.

He said it is currently against letting the states flaunt Federal Law. There is a difference. One of the problems with the current administration is that it HAS picked and chosen which laws it will and won't enforce setting up this situation.

You can b**** all you like, but the proper way to handle this is to get the Federal Law removed. Then it reverts to the states.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Guess it's time to bypass nature and rush soma to the market and be done with it

FTA:

I don’t think marijuana is something that should be legalized, I’ve opposed it at my own state because law enforcement in both political parties have warned me that that’s a gateway drug, they worry it would open the door to others out there.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dreamingawake

But he didn't say whether or not he's against it.

He said it is currently against letting the states flaunt Federal Law. There is a difference. One of the problems with the current administration is that it HAS picked and chosen which laws it will and won't enforce setting up this situation.

You can b**** all you like, but the proper way to handle this is to get the Federal Law removed. Then it reverts to the states.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes he did. See the OP:

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
He added that he was against the legalization of marijuana.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: introvert
The question he should be asked is if he would actively seek to change federal law. The answer to that is much more important.

He's against legalization, so I don't think he'd work to change the law. Right now, the feds are watching the states with legal pot to see how it's working.

Well, if he will not work to change the federal law can we assume that his only intent is to crack down?

That still doesn't mean he would veto any legislation that came over his desk although I'm against the wholesale recreation legalization myself.

I think we have a cultural framework for alcohol and even that breaks down, but we don't have one for marijuana. And honestly, I'm suspicious of the legalization crowd's seeming inability to even admit that there could possibly be any negatives to legalizing it. To hear many of you talk, there is nothing whatsoever that's negative to it, it might as well be health food, there is no disease it can't cure, it will clothe everyone, and it will save the entire economy.

When the sell is all pro, no drawback. I get suspicious.

Haven't you ever heard the saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is?

The man seriously needs a rug on that melon of his.

He has no chance...And if I have ever seen a person that should partake.

It's this clown and his loser buddy Lindsey Graham.

To deny people medication that helps millions of people.

That is what is criminal.

a reply to: ketsuko

There are negatives to almost everything. What happens if you drink too much coke, or eat too many candy bars? Of course there are negatives with pot as well.

The point that too many people miss is the freedom we have to do what we want with our bodies as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or infringe on their rights.

This is about freedom.

a reply to: introvert

If only we extended that thought process to other aspects of life.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You can b**** all you like, but the proper way to handle this is to get the Federal Law removed. Then it reverts to the states.

That's pretty disingenuous. In a world where Citizens United exists alongside the notion that $$$ = speech, just how would you propose that this happen?

In the end, the real problem with marijuana laws (or the "War on Drugs" farce in general):

- it defies logic in a stupendous fashion. Primary of which is that it takes an illness (addiction) and treats this illness with imprisonment.
- the government has been proven to be playing both sides of the court here. They are helping to supply the drugs that they are arresting people over. Our 3 letter agencies are the owners of the global drug trade. Anyone else who operates, does so with their approval. And when you step on their toes....well, El Chapo is a good example. He was head of the Sinaloa cartel, which was the cartel that came out of nowhere, with DEA/ICE/CIA support, to be the largest drug cartel on this side of the planet. Until 2012, when we reneged for some reason, and pulled support from Sinaloa. Not to mention the CIA Crack conspiracy, and the known trafficing in heroin during the VIetnam and Afghan wars.
- Its a legislation of morality
- Its created the most imprisoned populace on the planet. Both in volume, and in per capita incarceration
- Its a drain on taxes
- its a drain on the economy (3 million people out of the labor force, and not raising their kids)

Im sure others could add...but the point is, there is no good reason to continue down the path we are on. We all sit here unhappy about the general condition of our country. For the love of God, lets not fight to keep the status quo.

originally posted by: ketsuko
That still doesn't mean he would veto any legislation that came over his desk although I'm against the wholesale recreation legalization myself.

I think we have a cultural framework for alcohol and even that breaks down, but we don't have one for marijuana. And honestly, I'm suspicious of the legalization crowd's seeming inability to even admit that there could possibly be any negatives to legalizing it. To hear many of you talk, there is nothing whatsoever that's negative to it, it might as well be health food, there is no disease it can't cure, it will clothe everyone, and it will save the entire economy.

When the sell is all pro, no drawback. I get suspicious.

Haven't you ever heard the saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is?

So much for you attitude on individual rights.



Your no different than the soclists you hate that restrict soda drink sizes or school meals ect

Nevermind..this thread is now null and void!!!!!!!

www.latimes.com...

originally posted by: baddmove
Nevermind..this thread is now null and void!!!!!!!

www.latimes.com...

Nein.

That story is from last year, in December. They didn't change any laws....they just made a provision that expires in a couple of months.

ETA: one ATS thread on it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: introvert

Fair enough. The question he should be asked is if he would actively seek to change federal law. The answer to that is much more important.

I think this answers that question.
From the OP:

He added that he was against the legalization of marijuana.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And honestly, I'm suspicious of the legalization crowd's seeming inability to even admit that there could possibly be any negatives to legalizing it. To hear many of you talk, there is nothing whatsoever that's negative to it, it might as well be health food, there is no disease it can't cure, it will clothe everyone, and it will save the entire economy.

When the sell is all pro, no drawback. I get suspicious.

Haven't you ever heard the saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is?

For someone who is always complaining about the Government taking your money. It seems strange you wish to keep the worlds largest and most expensive prison system which cost $63.4 billion a year locking up non violent prisoners.

A report by the organization, "The Price of Prisons," states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. "In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it's anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000," he said.

source

a reply to: Nucleardoom

I think this answers that question.
From the OP:

I know that. It was rhetorical and intended to get people to realize that Walker is being disingenuous.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AlaskanDad

He's not wrong, if he?

It is a state issue, it should be.

Federal law makes it illegal, his job as President, is to make sure federal law is enforced.

I don't like it, but what he's saying isn't wrong.

Change the law. That's how it should work.

Yes, however, people can (and do) vote for Sheriff
because they will NOT enforce certain laws. That is
as it should be. Elected officials ought to represent
the people who voted for them. Sometimes that means
they people they vote for will not enforce stupid laws.

They goal ought be decentralization.

In Arizona there are Sheriffs who enforce the LAW
regarding immigration, that there are Sheriffs who
do not enforce the LAW. As long as they represent
those who elected them, it's all good.

a reply to: wasaka

I understand what you're saying, I do. My grandpa was a county sheriff during the roaring '20's and during Prohibition. The stories I heard growing up...whew.

There were laws on the books that he enforced and one's that he didn't. I understand that thinking.

That's a slippery slope though...deciding which laws you'll enforce, and which one's you won't. Not saying there's not a time and a place, but mmm...damned treacherous terrain.

a reply to: AlaskanDad