My God, you are an idiot.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which means it's wise for Obama/Holder to back track on prior statements to direct resources toward an already failed war on drugs?

Exactly. And to direct resources to something that the people of the state have decided they want.

What I read is that they were targeting for profit Med Pot dealers. Under CA law, you can't distribute for profit, but you can distribute as a collective (or something like that). But in going after the for profit guys, they have sent notices to all landlords that basically says that if they don't shut down their tenants, the Fed will confiscate the landlord's building per the Fed drug laws.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

And.... you really don't understand?

What did you get a prescription for?

Leave aside that big-time marijuana dealers are not exactly the most wonderful folk (the 60s being long over, and Weeds being fiction). Do you think the Obama Admin has a vested interest in not suggesting that states can decide when to ignore federal law? Particularly when a state's rationale is "health" based?

I don't have a prescription and haven't smoked in prolly a decade. But I am 100% in favor of legalization and think the G should tax the shit out of it. Talking about balancing the budgets . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which means it's wise for Obama/Holder to back track on prior statements to direct resources toward an already failed war on drugs?

Why start honoring shit he said to get elected now?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which means it's wise for Obama/Holder to back track on prior statements to direct resources toward an already failed war on drugs?

Obama and Holder promised not to go after major marijuana distributors who abused a questionable state law?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Obama and Holder promised not to go after major marijuana distributors who abused a questionable state law?

They said they were going to stay out of it if people were complying with state law. Which everyone read as they will stay out of it.

Now it seems they meant what they said about the state law bit. I'm not sure why they think enforcing state law is their bailiwick, but I do know it looks bad politically and is a questionable use of resources.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

having ran all jews out, our friends in Egypt are now killing Christians, denying it, but military trucks are running over Copts. When is our next aid check going?

Right after Bahrain's and Pakistan's. Realpolitik is real, and stinks. Where is my German passport?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

They said they were going to stay out of it if people were complying with state law. Which everyone read as they will stay out of it.

Now it seems they meant what they said about the state law bit.

So, when you were criticizing Obama and Holder for "back track[ing] on earlier statements," you meant to criticize them for "doing what they said they would do, but in a way that is inconsistent with what I assumed they actually meant and what I will claim "everyone" understood."

Got it.

not sure why they think enforcing state law is their bailiwick, but I do know it looks bad politically and is a questionable use of resources.

They aren't enforcing state law. They are enforcing federal law. They were willing to make a narrow exception, and to exercise prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the federal law against people who were complying with the medical marijuana law. But once people blew that -- once people started treating state law as a blank check to ignore the federal drug law -- they clamped down.

I'm not particularly anti-legalization, nor particularly pro-legalization. What I don't like is the backdoor approach to legalization -- we'll pretend that it's for medical use, but really it's throwing the doors open..... but, because it's still illegal, we're unable to regulate it in the ways that are needed. If people want to legalize, we should discuss legalization.

As for questionable use of resources, I'd give it about a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 for federal spending.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

What I don't like is the backdoor approach to legalization -- we'll pretend that it's for medical use, but really it's throwing the doors open..... but, because it's still illegal, we're unable to regulate it in the ways that are needed. If people want to legalize, we should discuss legalization.

Yes, because how change happens is everyone just gets in a circle and talks about it and hen 50% of the group changes their mind and viola! new policy.

Or, in other words, yeah, it's be great to just "talk about" legalizing it, but the "back door" is how social change actually happens.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, because how change happens is everyone just gets in a circle and talks about it and hen 50% of the group changes their mind and viola! new policy.

Or, in other words, yeah, it's be great to just "talk about" legalizing it, but the "back door" is how social change actually happens.

Can you give me an example of a controlled substance becoming generally legal after a few years of being available for medical use? If that's "how social change actually happens," you should be able to. Assuming you can't point to any such thing, then what other example of "social change" do you think is analogous to this?

Social change often happens incrementally, but there is a difference between incrementalism and false pretext. Medical pot has largely been the latter.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Can you give me an example of a controlled substance becoming generally legal after a few years of being available for medical use? If that's "how social change actually happens," you should be able to. Assuming you can't point to any such thing, then what other example of "social change" do you think is analogous to this?

This is stupid and you know it.

Social change often happens incrementally

See, told you.

but there is a difference between incrementalism and false pretext..

There is?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

They aren't enforcing state law. They are enforcing federal law. They were willing to make a narrow exception, and to exercise prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the federal law against people who were complying with the medical marijuana law. But once people blew that -- once people started treating state law as a blank check to ignore the federal drug law -- they clamped down.

They are enforcing federal law in an area that traditionally has been primary regulated by the states and in states where the state does not appear to have a strong interest in enforcement.

I'm not particularly anti-legalization, nor particularly pro-legalization. What I don't like is the backdoor approach to legalization -- we'll pretend that it's for medical use, but really it's throwing the doors open..... but, because it's still illegal, we're unable to regulate it in the ways that are needed. If people want to legalize, we should discuss legalization.

As for questionable use of resources, I'd give it about a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 for federal spending.

Are you just making a process argument here?

The policy of drug enforcement is a total failure and has been a total failure for generations. The toll the drug war has taken on this country far outweighs the purported paternalistic benefits. We have wasted countless dollars, strained our prison systems, destroyed countless families (especially low income), criminally branded countless men, perpetuated criminal lifestyles, supported the rise of criminal empires, etc., and have not made even a tiny dent in the problem. All for something that is not per se immoral.

It is quite likely the most asinine policy ever.

Here's a thought. Maybe we regulate it, tax it (yes, I said it), put money behind rehab treatment centers, unburden our prison systems and, most importantly, return some civil liberties to our citizens.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is stupid and you know it.

Translation: You have no support for your statement. When you declared how social change happens, you were as full of shit as you were when you said Obama and Holder were backtracking on what they said (by, uh, doing exactly what they said).

See, told you.

Now, this is stupid.

There is?

Yes, there is. If the goal is broad-based legalization of pot, you don't get to that goal by treating pot as a prescription medicine. Opiates have been used for medicine for how long? And where are they generally legal?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

They are enforcing federal law in an area that traditionally has been primary regulated by the states and in states where the state does not appear to have a strong interest in enforcement.

Drug law has not traditionally been regulated by the state. Not even close.

Are you just making a process argument here?

No, a substance argument. I think people have this fuzzy-eyed notion of what big-time pot dealers are like -- remember people (Adder?) whining on the FB about the notion that a person who discovered a pot farm in a national park might call the police about it?

Medical pot has been a farce. Rather than creating an avenue for the legitimate use of pot as a treatment device, which it really could be, it's become a front. I'd rather pot use were broadly legal and intelligently regulated, but the middle-position is ridiculous.

The policy of drug enforcement is a total failure and has been a total failure for generations. The toll the drug war has taken on this country far outweighs the purported paternalistic benefits. We have wasted countless dollars, strained our prison systems, destroyed countless families (especially low income), criminally branded countless men, perpetuated criminal lifestyles, supported the rise of criminal empires, etc., and have not made even a tiny dent in the problem. All for something that is not per se immoral.

It is quite likely the most asinine policy ever.

Here's a thought. Maybe we regulate it, tax it (yes, I said it), put money behind rehab treatment centers, unburden our prison systems and, most importantly, return some civil liberties to our citizens.

I'm perfectly happy with your last paragraph.

On the earlier paragraphs -- med pot appears to be contributing to the criminal empire thing, not taking away from it.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Social change often happens incrementally, but there is a difference between incrementalism and false pretext. Medical pot has largely been the latter.

That's the unfortunate thing. You read accounts of people who are undergoing chemo, none of the antinausea drugs work for them, and pot is the only way they can eat and keep their strength up.

And then there's my uncle's on/off partner who has a prescription and there's nothing wrong with him (other than being an ass but the pot doesn't seem to change that). Seems like a medical marijuana statute should have some more objective guidelines for who gets a prescription.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Can you give me an example of a controlled substance becoming generally legal after a few years of being available for medical use? If that's "how social change actually happens," you should be able to. Assuming you can't point to any such thing, then what other example of "social change" do you think is analogous to this?

Social change often happens incrementally, but there is a difference between incrementalism and false pretext. Medical pot has largely been the latter.

I see this very similar to the gay rights and gay marriage movements. Once the issue got to the political level, mindsets began to change. It took some time to get initiatives on the ballot, but slowly but surely they did. Then it took some time to pass them in, but slowly but surely they passed. All along, the public became more tolerant and accepting. Then the Fed stepped in, again to an area that historically has been in the purview of the states, and tried to fuck things up. But it was too late. The people (of many states at least) had moved beyond. Now we are just wasting time and money and fucking with the rights and lives of people.