Police Unhappy with Holder's Decision on MJ

page: 2
67
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Holder will be gone in a very short time,freeing up the next regime to cash in by busting (harvesting) everyone who thinks they are legally safe. Holder can institute policy,not law.




posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The pigs should be concerned with protecting and serving the populace instead of trying to lock us up and make money off of it.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by abe froman
Holder will be gone in a very short time,freeing up the next regime to cash in by busting (harvesting) everyone who thinks they are legally safe. Holder can institute policy,not law.


That, RIGHT there is the WHOLE problem. All these royal decrees are worthless in the long term because nothing fundamentally changed here. As a friend reminded me very recently, this didn't even rise to the level of decriminalization at the federal level, let alone legalization.

@Thread

Now I'm not trying to get into the legal/not legal debate except for one BIG BIG point.

This isn't the ONLY issue Holder and the DOJ have done this on. They seem to just enforce the written law as it strikes their mood and whim, and that makes for not only an unfair but a fundamentally lawless society from the top down.

Many people happen to like the specific issue this is being done for, but again, unless the law is changed? It's still the basis of a list of Federal Felony crimes. They'll be JUST as illegal in just over 3 years. Holder did nothing but lessen the meaning of Law itself.
edit on 31-8-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Kind of like having 15 to 30 million illegals walking around in this country is lessening those laws? So you are saying they are just eroding the laws simply by not enforcing them this eventually leads to future policy changes or laws? This would be an interesting stealth tactic. Combine this with the releases of inmates back into the streets which while they may have gone in for minor drug offenses come out hardened super criminals soon to go back through the revolving door and lessening of mandatory minimums. An interesting picture forms. I could only see them allowing freedoms that they stand to profit from.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


I'm not sure I give them all the credit you do for thinking it out that much. They've opened the loopholes for enforcement discretion wide enough to literally just do what they want on this issue. Arbitrarily, as it happens.

Worst case? As Abe said above me, the backlash following Obama brings a law and order type that just wreaks true havoc in, oddly enough, much the same way Immigration IS used. (since you mention it). One administration may all but terrorize illegals from the border to the interior with strict enforcement, while another may quite literally come just short of running billboards to encourage more to come.

All the while, nothing changes and nothing improves, because no one in leadership has the interest OR courage to make a real stand EITHER way on a meaningful issue anymore. Politics means being able to flex both directions, and it shouldn't be what defines every issue and agency. Definitely not the DOJ, IMHO.

Change the law, or enforce the law. Just not 'what we feel like'.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jam321
 


Yeah sorry.

The, we get funding from throwing non violent folks in jail and seizing their property excuse isn't going to cut officers.

IMO you don't need that much funding for anything, you should be peace officers. No reason you need a new shiny car every damn year.

~Tenth


Im okay with the new car, its the tanks that worry me, less funding means a less militarized police force.




They don't have to prove a damn thing to seize property. You have to prove innocence -- an expensive proposition (if even possible) and clearly unconstitutional. The supreme court rubber stamped it -- and -- at a single stroke rendered themselves illegitimate. This was the start of the war on civil rights.

Those who make justice impossible, make revolution inevitable.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 





Has anyone tried challenging this reverse onus thing in supreme court?


Not that I am aware of. But there was a case,Alvarez v. Smith, in 2009 that the SCOTUS chose to hear concerning due process when property is taken by the police. Unfortunately, the case had already been settled so the SCOTUS did not give an opinion on it.

www.scotusblog.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 





They'll be JUST as illegal in just over 3 years. Holder did nothing but lessen the meaning of Law itself.


Very valid point you make. I also can't help but wonder why the sudden change of heart. Posturing for the 2014 elections? Distraction from issues?

Peace



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jam321
 


Yeah sorry.

The, we get funding from throwing non violent folks in jail and seizing their property excuse isn't going to cut officers.

IMO you don't need that much funding for anything, you should be peace officers. No reason you need a new shiny car every damn year.

~Tenth


Cheers! I would much rather be arrested by a friendly and intelligent neighborhood PEACE OFFICER than man handled by a vicious and unpredictable LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. New cars I do not mind. What I hate seeing is the police in military assault vehicles. Like sheriff Joe and his Armored Personnel Carrier.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I cannot believe that these brain-dead knuckle dragging drool monkey's who's IQ is in direct correlation with that of their sidearm calibers are against such measures to discontinue an absolutely out of control futile war on MJ. It blows my mind that so called "police" would be against freeing up more resources to battle *REAL* drugs like coc aine, heroin, crystal meth and the *massive* problem of pharmaceutical opioid abuse in Canada and the U.S. Here in Canada where I live opioid dependence is at record highs and I have seen *high school* kids standing outside the local methadone clinic seeking counseling and addiction treatment, it's extremely sad.

This has really opened my eyes to the fact that these ignorant parasites are merely interested in the all mighty dollar and not saving lives. There's not a person I know who doesn't make a sarcastic comment like "Oh, you hero's" when we see these ape like drones knocking down doors with military equipment and weaponry for nothing more than POT. No you simple minded throwbacks, you are nobody's hero except to yourselves and the rich rabid dogs that are pulling your strings, don't bother patting yourselves on the back, the majority of people think you're a joke.

edit on 31-8-2013 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
First of all, I just want to say that I do not partake in the drug nor do I enjoy the scent of it. However, I understand that it has its good uses medically and recreationally. Though I have seen it ruin peoples lives because of multiple reasons.

With that said, I think it's time to legalize it. There is no point in keeping it illegal. There are so many people who smoke it legally and illegally that it's time to just let it go. There have been too many people jailed over it costing tax payers money. Keeping people who have been convicted of having it in jail is a waste of money. In my opinion, it has been thoroughly proven that it is no more detrimental than alcohol, and possibly, safer for consumption (I am not a scientist, nor have I done studies, so I cannot speak but from what I have researched.)

I can say that there are cities (or at least one that I know of (Colorado Springs)) that have taken measures to limit the now legalized substance. Even though I don't really care for it, I think Americans should be able to use it both medically and recreationally in all legality. It's past time to make it legal.

However, in my study of law, I have found that the legalization of it to be unconstitutional. This is not from opinion, but from fact. This comes from legislation passed in years prior. I feel I should go in to detail about how I found this, but I have excuses (how many drinks have I had tonight?) as to why I can't quote it all right now. But I can say that it is a very deep delve in to law looking at the constitution and different laws and treaties signed over the years that has brought me to the conclusion. With enough gripe, and under previously exclaimed circumstances, the federal government could, if they wished, step in and nullify the legalization in those states. It would seem that if the police make a big enough gripe about it, they could get federal law makers to repeal those laws legalizing it in those states. Think of it in terms of the Arizona law that allowed officers to stop motorists they perceived to be illegals. While it is not the same in terms of "harmless use of a substance" versus "racial profiling," the idea, fact, opinion, etc. of it being unconstitutional is still there.

I hope things go for the best.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reminds me of somthing police like to say

'i dont make the laws i just enforce them' funny how this changed so quickly
also reminds me of a child



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Well tough cookies coppers, the law is the law, you wont be taking anyone elses stuff from now on, deal with it.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by christoph
reminds me of somthing police like to say

'i dont make the laws i just enforce them' funny how this changed so quickly
also reminds me of a child


exactly!!

it isn't the job of the police to make laws. if they really want a voice in what laws are written, they should run for a public office that allows them the voice in creating laws.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Just think, all of those wild eyed drugged up fiends will be on the streets... Pandemonium!



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by subfab

Originally posted by christoph
reminds me of somthing police like to say

'i dont make the laws i just enforce them' funny how this changed so quickly
also reminds me of a child


exactly!!

it isn't the job of the police to make laws. if they really want a voice in what laws are written, they should run for a public office that allows them the voice in creating laws.


Oh don't say that. You forget these folks are educated in "Criminal Justice" note the word criminal. Its not even Justice its "Criminal Justice." If anything we probably need more civilian folks to write laws and take up legislative seats. No military, no L.E no prosecutors, just normal people who can read and understand the constitution. In particular, folks who can understand the words Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Folks who don't think the founding fathers were "Extremists or Terrorists" or believe kids are suspect for walking down the street and are "suspicious criminals" that should be stopped, shook down and locked up for their whole lives for exercising personal liberties or civil disobedience.
Folks who dont think its ok to take your property for ANY reason, let alone make you pay for the home you own for the rest of your lives. People who believe privacy is a damn right not something in their way or something to be used to make money off of.

But you know, hey, yea, go encourage all those types (OTC-other than civilian) folks to run. See how "fun" life gets within a few months.
edit on 1-9-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Clark
Just think, all of those wild eyed drugged up fiends will be on the streets... Pandemonium!


Sure. But we've willingly built a whole nightlife institution around it for slurred-speeched, glassy-eyed, drunkards to shoot 8-ball and holler across the halls to their buddies or drown their sorrows over pitchers of beer untill they are numb and decide to stagger home to face the music from their disappointed wife who was hoping he wouldn't have drunken-up his paycheck.

A new era has arrived to give Joe Six-pack an option to preserve a shred of his dignity, stay at home and retire off to his study or garage, roll a custom cigarette and then mellow out to some tunes while he contemplates his days ahead and how to make the most of them.

Woe be to the body-shop guy that will not have to be straightening out Joe's mangled family sedan and banking the dough from those tasks as the streets become safer. Woe be to the police who may encounter the pothead in the street, put him through a series of sobriety tests while their would-be citizen prey asks if they would like those tasks performed while juggling or while kicking their hackey-sack in over-the-head shots while alternating feet as they walk that straight line. Those police will be faced with the task of treating them as human beings, which is bound to unsettle their violent propensities a mite.

Most of the clueless public bases their idea of a pot-user on their observations of alcohol inebriates. Heretofore we have not been able to broach the realities of these preconceptions but there are few popular substances that come anywhere close to delivering the debilitating effects of alcohol and instill the same boisterousness and hostilities. And for the pot-smoker he will no longer be facing persecution for his deeds, no longer have to deal with the mis-named "paranoia" which in actuality was just a heightened sense of the reality of it - people were out to take him for everything he's got and rob him of his freedom to carry himself in public without being a criminal.

Old-guard Americans will fight tooth and nail to keep liberty from creeping into the American landscape. It will benefit us all but won't become a reality without factions struggling to keep it from happening.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
"We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty here and across the world.
Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment.
Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us.

Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.
-George Bush Jr.

Fear of plants can go to hell. Ya buncha worryworts!
So long as you continue to be what was expected of you last century, there will be no progress. No advancement in the causes of Freedom and Liberty. No understanding, no mercy and no love for humankind. You'll continue to jail your children, any minority, any person with a tattooe or wild haircut. Anyone deemed "suspicious" right?

What are you really scared of though? A murderer? a terrorist? or a person who exercises Freedom and Liberty by attacking a bag of Doritos



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Since Holder has been in charge of the DOJ this is the only thing he has done right.

Do I expect that he will hold true to his word. I doubt it.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
reply to post by jam321
 


Since Holder has been in charge of the DOJ this is the only thing he has done right.

Do I expect that he will hold true to his word. I doubt it.


it is more likely that he will hold to his word. because: 1. he made this statement in public 2. he wouldn't have said it if there was any doubt the Department of Justice would continue to intervene on the state's rights.

only time will tell.





top topics
 
67
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join