Complete about face......... Guy says one thing then changes his mind faster than you can change ya undies.

Oh wait...kinda like my wife :rotf2:


Federal officials begin major crackdown on marijuana operations - latimes.com (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/federal-officials-begin-major-crackdown-marijuana-operations.html)

Canada is looking better all the time

So it's legal to sell it medicinally but not legal to grow it commercially in CA under federal statutes. Makes total sense
:smash:

the most insane part of government
supports this hypocracy

Wake me up when you want to talk about a real issue...

Did I miss something :huh:......when did Obama say he was all for the Illegal distribution of Marijuana.

o"bama did say he was not going to waste federal resources on this, he instructed his gestapo not do do anything. now he says take em out.

So they did their Job and you're pissed.......would you prefer we just paid them to file paperwork in the office all day. That's their job.....

so if a tree falls in the Forest....is it Obama's Fault?

Wake me up when you want to talk about a real issue...

:btu:



so if a tree falls in the Forest....is it Obama's Fault?

Only if it lands on a Bush.

ARE YOU F-ing kidding me...

first of all it was created ...this whole BLACK MARKET

by the government during Nixon's Administration
based on false DATA and it has been expanded to
the point of a world war of enforcement by the DEA squads
spending a trillion TAX dollars of USA citizens MONEY

That makes it a REAL issue.....

if you have ever taken the time to read the comments
after a internet piece you'd realize that there is no more
controversial subject on the planet....

if you have ever taken the time to read the comments after a internet piece you'd realize that there is no more
controversial subject on the planet....

Or, the pro-pot crowd has more time on their hands to comment on internet pieces....

There is no federal law permitting pot use of any kind, including medical. Abosolutely none.
Some STATES have passed laws but these are in conflict with the Fed law. The Feds can bust it any time, any place.

Or, the pro-pot crowd has more time on their hands to comment on internet pieces....

there are MORE anti legalization/ anti all drugs people online
than there are pro pot people....

they (usa people) are balking right now about the war in Afghanistan
going on for ten years.... (when to get out)

and totally forgetting about the 50 year war on Pot
that isn't even denting it @1 % confiscation rates
while totally ignoring the money going back over the border
to buy more weapons to increase the network of violence...

is all i'm saying... not to mention the escalation of atrocities
happening just across the border dumping 30 bodies in broad daylight.

they need to end prohibition because of all the blood being spilled
and admit that their plan isn't working well enough to continue it.

i shake my head when i watch border patrol agents putting 60 lb back packs
of worthless weed on their backs.... doing exactly what they want them to do....

ARE YOU F-ing kidding me...

first of all it was created ...this whole BLACK MARKET

by the government during Nixon's Administration
based on false DATA and it has been expanded to
the point of a world war of enforcement by the DEA squads
spending a trillion TAX dollars of USA citizens MONEY

That makes it a REAL issue.....

if you have ever taken the time to read the comments
after a internet piece you'd realize that there is no more
controversial subject on the planet....

The real issue goes even deeper. This is another instance of the Federal Government usurping State's power through the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution. In the 2005 (Gonzales v. Raich) the Supreme Court upheld (6 to 3) Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce in drugs licit or illicit, extending even to small homegrown quantities of marijuana including even doctor-recommended marijuana.

John Paul Stevens in writing for the majority said the Court had no choice but to uphold Congress's "firmly established" power to regulate "purely local activities . . . that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." He said that the Court was still bound by a 1942 SC decision that defined interstate commerce "broadly" to include even subsistence wheat farming (Wickard v. Filburn). In his dissent, Justice Thomas said "If Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause, than it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

A thorough reading of the original Constitutional debates and of the the founders comments pre, post, and during the Constitutional convention shows that such an interpretation and the power that it gives to the Federal Government was not intended. Those Justices in 1942 surely also knew that. The FDR braintrust knew it. And FDR picked Justices that would decide against the Constitution to support his ideas of social justice. We have had, because of Stare decisis, to live with the consequences ever since.

The upcoming SC decision on the Health Care Bill may be a corrective if the 5 so-called conservative Justices have the courage to uphold the Constitution as it was written and intended. If they fall back on the easy path of precedence the Constitution, instead of a guaranty of individual freedoms, will become an instrument of unlimited Federal power.