“Choom Gang” alumnus thinking of overriding states that legalized marijuana use

posted at 6:59 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

Baffling, but leave it to O to pursue terrible big-government policies even in a rare case where his base would prefer a lighter federal touch.

Congress says marijuana is dangerous and illegal, voters in Washington and Colorado say it isn’t. What’s a recently reelected pothead-turned-POTUS (who won both states) to do?

Even as marijuana legalization supporters are celebrating their victories in the two states, the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings since the election to debate the response of federal law enforcement agencies to the decriminalization efforts…

One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.

A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be “severed” from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.

Part of what’s amazing about this is that they don’t need to file a preemption suit to go on busting marijuana users in those states. Federal law already gives the local U.S. Attorney the authority he/she needs to prosecute. Their problem, I think, boils down to manpower: The feds depend heavily on local cops to enforce drug laws, but now that federal law and state law in Washington and Colorado conflict, it’s inevitable that there’ll be fewer arrests by local police. Doesn’t matter that local cops are sworn to uphold federal law too. Because of the confusion over marijuana laws, you’re bound to see sympathetic officers looking the other way more often at federal infractions. O has two obvious ways to eliminate that confusion: Either he can declare that the DOJ will make federal marijuana laws a low priority for enforcement in states that have legalized weed or he can try to torpedo those state laws and thereby nudge local cops back into the practice of more rigorous enforcement. Go figure that he chose the more imperious approach.

The other amazing part, and the part that baffles me, is that he has plenty of political cover to lighten up on this. He’s a lame duck; the young voters who guaranteed him a second term would be grateful; the polls are trending towards legalization; he could even tout it as some sort of budgetary measure in the midst of fiscal-cliff negotiations, saving money on prosecutions of minor drug infractions. The politics are similar in many ways to the politics of his “evolution” on gay marriage, replete with liberals wink-winking before the election that Obama will feel differently about this subject in time. From a basic cultural standpoint, it’s almost impossible to believe that a doctrinaire upper-middle class liberal intellectual like O thinks prosecuting people for weed is a good idea, especially when pot and coke were no barrier to him winning the presidency. And it can’t be a matter of him insisting on prosecuting people on principle, because he swore to enforce all federal laws. He told his DOJ not to enforce DOMA and that’s still valid federal law (for the moment). Maybe, for whatever reason, he feels he can’t confront marijuana-law hawks in the DEA and anti-drug lobby, but he’s got as much political capital at the moment as he’s ever likely to have again. If not now, when?

Exit question: Isn’t this a rather sweet political opportunity for the GOP? They’re desperate for ways to earn some goodwill with young voters and minorities. Opposing prosecutions for weed is an easy way to do it, and thanks to Washington and Colorado voters, they wouldn’t have to do it on the merits if they so chose. They could do it purely on federalism grounds — i.e. while opinions on marijuana may differ, it’s disgraceful that Congress would trump the considered judgment of a sovereign state on what its citizens should and shouldn’t be allowed to ingest. I doubt you’d lose many anti-marijuana seniors with a principled argument like that and it would change the framework of this debate enough that it might allow for a bolder decriminalization debate later.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“Choom Gang” alumnus thinking of overriding states that legalized marijuana use

Meh, why not, It’s like the only thing Barack Obama knows how to do is choose the wrong choice when offered a choice. No point in his starting to make the right decisions now.

Why the Obama Administration keeps misreading the Arab spring.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 7:04 PM

So lets get this straight, Arizona gets sued by Holder for upholding federal law in the process of trying to protect its borders and people…

States wanting to get stoned and legalize it are going to be sued by Washington because it is against federal law….

Time for my 2nd gin and tonic…

Tilly on December 7, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Exit question: Isn’t this a rather sweet political opportunity for the GOP? They’re desperate for ways to earn some goodwill with young voters and minorities. Opposing prosecutions for weed is an easy way to do it

I do love your humor. The GOP getting behind opposing prosecution for weed… you slay me.

beatcanvas on December 7, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Its absurd we’re still putting people in jail for this, but its even more absurd that we’re asking our southern neighbors to fight heavily-armed drug cartels that make a lot of their money trafficking marijuana to our country, despite the fact that several of our states have outright decriminalized the drug.

Lawdawg86 on December 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Tilly on December 7, 2012 at 7:05 PM

States trying to enforce federal law is bad, but states acting in violation of federal laws is good?

Make mine a Tanqueray, will ya? :-)

coldwarrior on December 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

make it legal, tax, blah blah blah. it still doesn’t change my opinion that you have to be a complete and total loser to smoke pot to get your jollies on.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM

More federalism showdowns, please. Win or lose (for the states), these are battles that need to be fought.

Jeddite on December 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Excellent idea Allahpundit regarding federalism. Unfortunately the GOP is the party of STUPID. It’s just too big and complex a political concept for GOP leadership to grasp.

JB-STLMO on December 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Republican in Colorado, here. I voted for Amendment 64, although I generally vote against amendments because I think they should be legislated. It is indeed a federalism issue.

rginco on December 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM

I should perhaps add that I expect those of us in safety sensitive employment to continue to be randomly tested for drug use, and penalties applied for use.

rginco on December 7, 2012 at 7:20 PM

It’s time the GOP, particularly conservatives, cieze the states rights issue here and publicly recognize whatever an individual state wants to do on gay marriage and marijuana. See liberals, big government isn’t so fun when it targets you, is it?

Daemonocracy on December 7, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Why not? You have nothing to lose. Pot is more dangerous than we have been led to believe, but if it was legalized I am sure we would then get to have the anti-smoking laws stop it from being smoked anywhere outside your home.

As long as the youngsters also realize employers aren’t going to stop testing and firing for being under the influence of it.

Zomcon JEM on December 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM

And since there currently isn’t a test for your degree of being “stoned” that means last weekends party may still get you in trouble.

Zomcon JEM on December 7, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I would favor a constitutional amendment “Congress shall make no law infringing on a persons right to be a stupid loser”

halfbaked on December 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

“Baffling” that “he chose the more imperious approach”? What’s baffling to me is that anyone would find his control freaking about this to be baffling! :)

make it legal, tax, blah blah blah. it still doesn’t change my opinion that you have to be a complete and total loser to smoke pot to get your jollies on.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I hope you are consistent, and have the same opinion of those who drink to feel the full effect of alcohol – otherwise, you sound like a complete and total loser yourself.

Anti-Control on December 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Maybe, for whatever reason, he feels he can’t confront marijuana-law hawks in the DEA

Maybe they have an interesting file on him?

Realist on December 7, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I would like to see the stats on how many people are in jail/prison for MJ “use”, v. how many are incarcerated for “trafficking”, or for crimes to raise the funds to feed their habits; which I think are more the case.

Perhaps we need a State of Marijuana, where pot use is completely legal under both state and federal law; and we could encourage all the Pot-Heads to relocate there?

Another Drew on December 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Congress says marijuana is dangerous and illegal,

That is true. MJ is at least as dangerous as tobacco and alcohol. That isn’t a reason to ban it though. People have the choice to do a lot of dangerous things just add this to the least and change the federal laws.

chemman on December 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM

inb4 alcohol is worse.

pauljc on December 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Crap, too late.

pauljc on December 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Washington and Colorado made a couple of headlines in Spanish media and in Mexico. They felt that this was a decision which should have been discussed with them (50,000/60,000 Mexicans dead in drug war and US changes policy overnight without talking?).

Could Obama be looking at this through foreign policy?

El_Terrible on December 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I hope you are consistent, and have the same opinion of those who drink to feel the full effect of alcohol – otherwise, you sound like a complete and total loser yourself.

Anti-Control on December 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Consistency not required for real conservatives. Learn that.

Pick your favorite rallying-cry. Pretend it’s a conservative issue. Ignore all hints of Liberty. What do you have?

Tea Party II

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

It’s Pearl Harbor Day.

Akzed on December 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings

Pun intended?

50sGuy on December 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Doesn’t matter that local cops are sworn to uphold federal law too.

Wait, I thought it was racist for state an local authorities to help the federal authorities enforce federal law.

forest on December 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

You really can’t figure out why the president is against this?
.
If the state gets the tax money from weed, what’s the Feds cut?
Oh there isn’t a cut for the Fed?
Sounds illegal to me.

LincolntheHun on December 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

News Flash Allah! Local cops don’t enforce Federal drug laws, they enforce related state laws. Local cops assigend to the DEA are sworn in as federal officers………and that’s a whole other ball game.

GarandFan on December 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Except local law enforcement officers aren’t supposed to worry about federal law, right, when it’s related to illegal immigration. Gotta figure out which way you want it, Barry.

IndieDogg on December 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I hope you are consistent, and have the same opinion of those who drink to feel the full effect of alcohol – otherwise, you sound like a complete and total loser yourself.

Anti-Control on December 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

don’t get your panties in a bunch. i’m all for legalizing the stuff. and my opinion of those who partake in it stands. and yes, anyone who has a hobby of “elevating” themselves with alcohol, weed, etc. is a loser. but everyone has something they need to de-stress themselves. with the idiot in the white house, and the millions of idiots that have climbed up his a-hole, i can’t really blame people for wanting to “check out” for a bit. now go enjoy your weed. and the bag of cheetos.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Excellent idea Allahpundit regarding federalism. Unfortunately the GOP is the party of STUPID. It’s just too big and complex a political concept for GOP leadership to grasp.

JB-STLMO on December 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Oh, they grasp the concept alright, they just oppose it. They want everybody in the nation to answer to them and will not tolerate dissent. This is further verified by Boehner’s purging of conservatives, for example. If all the states are allowed to do their own thing and they followed the constitution then all the cronies would have to corrupt our government one state and locality at a time and all the money would evacuate Washington DC where the elites want it to stay, centralized under their D/R control mechanism.

FloatingRock on December 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

wassup Allah… welcome back

ted c on December 7, 2012 at 7:40 PM

No big deal, it’s only a matter of time before choom is added to the list of items required to be offered “free” under Obamacare, like BC pills and contraceptives, etc. After all, what good is it to provide the latter if you can’t get the girl “high” beforehand.

TXUS on December 7, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Republican in Colorado, here. I voted for Amendment 64, although I generally vote against amendments because I think they should be legislated. It is indeed a federalism issue.

rginco on December 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM

How many others who (presumably) don’t smoke support states’ rights to decriminalize this plant? Keep in mind the plant grows wild and is consumable (edible, smokable, salve, tinctures, etc) upon harvest unlike poisonous tobacco.

Nanny-staters how do you square the undeniably-deadly effects of alcohol and alcholism as acceptable with your fear of pot?

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 7:40 PM

By the way, I am now officially reversing my opinion on second-hand smoke. Bring it on!!

IndieDogg on December 7, 2012 at 7:41 PM

The Republican party on a national scale needs to realize that the senior population in all of the states is from the Woodstock generation and all that that entails.I was a card carrying Woodstocker and remember what the movement was then as do alot of you on this blog.Serving in 4 wars made me a hard core conservative but working with the new generation before retirement gave me incite into their thinking.The dems have it figured out.The repubs need to get on their Woodstock hats and think with some flower power about some of these issues.Rant over.

docflash on December 7, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Yes, it’s a great opportunity for the GOP, which means they will stay quiet and blow it.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:43 PM

don’t get your panties in a bunch. i’m all for legalizing the stuff. and my opinion of those who partake in it stands. and yes, anyone who has a hobby of “elevating” themselves with alcohol, weed, etc. is a loser. but everyone has something they need to de-stress themselves. with the idiot in the white house, and the millions of idiots that have climbed up his a-hole, i can’t really blame people for wanting to “check out” for a bit. now go enjoy your weed. and the bag of cheetos.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

That’s a good one! Actually, however, the only way to “check out” from the next four years under this bastard’s second term probably will require something along the lines of morphine.

TXUS on December 7, 2012 at 7:44 PM

GOP politicians are so afraid of the nuts in the base that they can’t even admit that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Why should we expect them to stand up for the principle of federalism with respect to marijuana laws?

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

The GOP has a great opportunity with the copyright issue too. Blowing it.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM

AG Alberto Gonzales supports a state’s right to decriminalize weed. He is strikingly sober on the issue.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM

don’t get your panties in a bunch. i’m all for legalizing the stuff. and my opinion of those who partake in it stands. and yes, anyone who has a hobby of “elevating” themselves with alcohol, weed, etc. is a loser. but everyone has something they need to de-stress themselves. with the idiot in the white house, and the millions of idiots that have climbed up his a-hole, i can’t really blame people for wanting to “check out” for a bit. now go enjoy your weed. and the bag of cheetos.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I use weed?

After reading your overemotional and unintentionally funny post here, I can tell you with absolute authority that you should try taking your own advice first before giving it out to others so that you don’t look so dumb, which my experience with easily excitable people like you tells me won’t be happening anytime soon!

Anti-Control on December 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Legalize marijuana, ban Cheetos…

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM

The GOP has a great opportunity with the copyright issue too. Blowing it.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM

+1

This. This. This. Did you read the memo by Derek Khanna?

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Of course Obama is doing this. How are they going to ban fast food (and other “bad” things) for being bad for you if they won’t ban marijuana. I would not be surprised if the statist progressives don’t start pushing for prohibition of alcohol (again) and tobacco at the federal level at some point.

Now that would be hilarious.

It will all be in the name of cutting health costs…

William Eaton on December 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Legalize marijuana, ban Cheetos…

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM

No. No. Cheetos are the key to ending voter-fraud — orange fingers.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 7:53 PM

The GOP has a great opportunity with the copyright issue too. Blowing it.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM

+1

This. This. This. Did you read the memo by Derek Khanna?

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Which opportunity with the copyright’s is this?

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Bwahahaha do it Obama! Tick off the young hippies that went for you in droves! I live in useless WA state and the Seattle PD have been ordered to IGNORE public marijuana use. The law says it must be done privately but the cops dont give a crap. The hippies were out in full force toking it up at the space needle the other night.

Jack_Burton on December 7, 2012 at 7:53 PM

This. This. This. Did you read the memo by Derek Khanna?

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Yes. He got fired because of it. Horrible.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Has anybody at Hot Air blogged about the copyright memo and fallout? If they did, I missed it. If not, somebody should.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Baffling, but leave it to O to pursue terrible big-government policies even in a rare case where his base would prefer a lighter federal touch.

So true. It’s the O’s war on federalism.

petefrt on December 7, 2012 at 7:56 PM

I use weed?

After reading your overemotional and unintentionally funny post here, I can tell you with absolute authority that you should try taking your own advice first before giving it out to others so that you don’t look so dumb, which my experience with easily excitable people like you tells me won’t be happening anytime soon!

Anti-Control on December 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Damn girl, all i siad was enjoy your weed and cheetos. it’s not like i assumed you f-ck your dog.

AND I’M THE EXCITABLE ONE????

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:58 PM

There is a huge bureaucracy dependent on the war on drugs, many thousands of federal employees, most of them unionized. Billions of taxpayer dollars are distributed as the administration sees fit.

It is a fundamental principle of The Chicago Way and Democrats generally that you simply do not shrink programs that direct tax dollars into supporters pockets. Period.

Preezie ChoomBro might very well personally favor legalization and wish he could be the first President to toke up (legally) in the Oval Office. But business is business.

novaculus on December 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Has anybody at Hot Air blogged about the copyright memo and fallout? If they did, I missed it. If not, somebody should.

Mark1971 on December 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Have you ever created any intellectual property, do you now or have you ever held any copyrights?

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I dare you to say that to my top-driver. He’s a known partier. He likes to let loose on weekends. He never drives drunk because he can afford to take a cab. He’s been married for 10+ years and is a great dad. He’s NEVER been late for work unless it was scheduled. I trust him immensely.

There are many soldiers and cops in the same boat. You gonna dog on them too?

The idea that people who enjoy a drink or two or relax with a joint are losers is absurd. I think abusers are losers. But I also know that many need help.

I would never hire someone who is currently abusing drugs or alcohol. But I have hired many a reformed addict. And I’m sure a couple of these boys get kinda wild on the weekends.

Are you free from harmful substances? Are you overweight? What’s your vice? Let’s pick you apart.

Personally, I don’t smoke anything. I do not drink alcohol. I don’t even like chocolate. My vice is caffeine, you know the stuff you find in many painkillers.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 8:03 PM

o/t

Pic of the Day: To Obama, From Egypt…With Love

AN. ABSOLUTE. MUST. SEE.

“I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently…If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view…My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world…then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer…”

- Barack Obama, 21 November 2007

NOT!!!

Resist We Much on December 7, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Anyone else getting confused? They don’t want the local cops help with illegal aliens but they do want their help with pot laws? Tall me again how this idiot got re-elected?

devan95 on December 7, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Have you ever created any intellectual property, do you now or have you ever held any copyrights?

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

We’ve all created IP. The only difference is in whether and how we seek to protect it.

Please read the Khanna memo. I know that you will be able to bend your mind around it. You strike me as Libertarian/gun-nut. That’s not an insult, not in the least.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 8:08 PM

devan95 on December 7, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Nice.

+1

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Tall me again how this idiot got re-elected?

devan95 on December 7, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Do the words, Marxism and Free Shit mean anything to you?

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Damn girl, all i siad was enjoy your weed and cheetos. it’s not like i assumed you f-ck your dog.

AND I’M THE EXCITABLE ONE????

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 7:58 PM

No, no, Mr. CAPS, you have it right – not only can you trust yourself that you aren’t the excitable and defensive one between us, you should trust me when I tell you I agree with you about that, too!

Anti-Control on December 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM

We’ve all created IP. The only difference is in whether and how we seek to protect it.

Please read the Khanna memo. I know that you will be able to bend your mind around it. You strike me as Libertarian/gun-nut. That’s not an insult, not in the least.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Read it, didn’t agree with it. Not a Libertarian/gun-nut am a gun nut. I am also a retired Rock Star, holder of a couple dozen copyrights, former Record Company owner and was a personal friend of the late Senator Sonny Bono and was directly involved in the construction of the Bono Copyright extension Act.

Our currently copyright laws are a evolution of a process of understanding that intellectual property is a “Property Right” that has been evolving since the 1710 Statute of Anne.

Derek Khanna’s memo owes more to to the Marxist inspired idea’s of Siva Vaidhyanathan “Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity” and Richard Stallman, than it does to any genuine conflict between Lassie fare economics or capitalism.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 8:03 PM

should i get you and your top driver a cookie cuz even though he smokes doobies on the weekend he’s still a top notch guy? i think it’s gross. i think it’s stupid. i’m sorry i have rained on all your parades by calling those who make weed and alcohol a hobby for themselves losers.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 8:24 PM

…let’s…all…get…high…!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 7, 2012 at 8:36 PM

should i get you and your top driver a cookie cuz even though he smokes doobies on the weekend he’s still a top notch guy? i think it’s gross. i think it’s stupid. i’m sorry i have rained on all your parades by calling those who make weed and alcohol a hobby for themselves losers.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Hey, this is America, you are entitled to hold pretty much whatever assine demonstrably false and incontrovertibly stupid personal beliefs you want to. Jesus Christ drank wine on a lot of occasions, he was clearly a loser. President Ulysses S Grant drank a small lakes work of Whiskey and was obviously a complete and total looser. Albert Einstein smoked tobacco on an hourly basis, and everyone knows what a looser he was. Hell, even that super cosmic looser Micheal Phelps, with a mere 18 Olympic Gold medals smoke the evil marijuana.

I’m about as anti drug use as you can get, but even I can see the bigoted stupidity in your assertion. Blanket statements are never accurate, they only serve to expose the stupidity of those who insist on defending them as if they held any tacit veracity.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Now that smoking cigarettes in public places has been almost universally banned, where will the dope smoking parties occur?

GeorgiaJarhead on December 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

and if you’d like to take your head out of your backside, you’ll see that i have said they should LEGALIZE IT!!!! THAT MEANS I WANT YOUR LITTLE TOP DRIVER TO ENJOY HIS DOOBIES AND BAGS OF CHEETOS AND NOT BE BOTHERED BY THE “MAN” FOR DOING SO. OOPSIES, I MADE A JUDGMENT CALL FOR THOSE THAT GET WASTED ON WEED AND DRINK. I’M A GAY MAN AND HAVE JUDGEMENTS CALLS MADE ON ME EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. DO YOU SEE ME ON THE GAY THREADS ON HERE SCREAMING AND CRYING AND WHINING ABOUT IT? NO SWEETHEART, YOU DON’T, AND YOU NEVER WILL. BUT AS SOON AS SOMEONE SAYS DIDDLY BOO ABOUT YOU AND YOUR PRECIOUS FRIENDS THAT TOKE UP, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE. SMOKE UNTIL YOUR BRAINS FALL OUT. DRINK UNTIL YOUR LIVER EXPLODES.

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 8:43 PM

AP – nothing personal, but none of you cats get this dude.

Upper/middle-class blacks have come to see hemp as an endemic disease to the lower-class black community.

If he cracks down on tokin’, it’s because he, Michelle, Jarrett, Holder, etc… see legalization as being more destructive to younger blacks than anyone else because we’re going to see a whole new field of small businesses sprout up.

budfox on December 7, 2012 at 9:12 PM

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Blaine Edwards and Antoine Merriweather say “two snaps up.”

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I’m a d***.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

GhoulAid on December 7, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Why do you twist the words of each person to whom you’ve replied? Nobody in my operation smokes pot. I have to test. I was drawing a distinction between wanton abuse and social-use. Neither suits me. But I don’t consider a hard-working guy who loves to go off a loser.

And what does being gay have to do with any of this?

@swalker
Did you know Lynn Strait? Do you know anybody listed there? Long shot…but it’s a small world and getting smaller.

Capitalist Hog on December 7, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Have you ever created any intellectual property, do you now or have you ever held any copyrtights?

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, and yes. I am an independent filmmaker and hold several copyrights. What’s your point? That anyone who has ever created intellectual property should be in lock step on the copyright issue?

The jurisdiction over copyrights is clearly written in the Constitution. So I have no problem with copyrights existing, nor with the federal government being the arbiter. That’s one of their enumerated powers. But I do have an issue with the trend of extending copyrights into virtual infinity.

The Constitution specifies that copyrights are to be granted for “limited” times. While technically anything other than “forever” is limited, continually extending copyrights for longer and longer and longer terms is violating the spirit of that provision. The founders who wrote the Constitution recognized, as has always been recognized, that giving the creators of intellectual property exclusive rights to it for a time is important to promote the creation of these works. But they also recognized that there is an important societal benefit to copyrights not lasting forever and the public eventually having full access to such works.

It’s the same philosophy that underlies our patent system. Patents in the United States are only good for 20 years, and I don’t see that discouraging individuals and companies from innovating and creating new products. I’m not saying copyrights need to expire after 20 years, but I am opposed to any more extensions, and I could see myself getting behind an attempt to go back to the limits in place in the early twentieth century, where they lasted in the neighborhood of 50 years.

Shump on December 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Hey, this is America, you are entitled to hold pretty much whatever assine demonstrably false and incontrovertibly stupid personal beliefs you want to. Jesus Christ drank wine on a lot of occasions, he was clearly a loser. President Ulysses S Grant drank a small lakes work of Whiskey and was obviously a complete and total looser. Albert Einstein smoked tobacco on an hourly basis, and everyone knows what a looser he was. Hell, even that super cosmic looser Micheal Phelps, with a mere 18 Olympic Gold medals smoke the evil marijuana.

I’m about as anti drug use as you can get, but even I can see the bigoted stupidity in your assertion. Blanket statements are never accurate, they only serve to expose the stupidity of those who insist on defending them as if they held any tacit veracity.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Watch what you argue. I’m a Catholic and I hear arguments all the time from fundamentalists that Christ didn’t REALLY drink wine and that it was more like grape juice. Y’know, despite the fact that the Bible makes it clear that when He turned the water into wine at the wedding, the guests were already pretty well sloshed…

Shump on December 7, 2012 at 9:58 PM

What Colorado and Washington have done is nullification of federal law. Nullification is a very 10th amendment concept, but the Dems cry “slavery” every time you bring it up. Pot, however, is much cooler than slavery. Of Obama comes down on legalized pot, he loses some young voters, but if he lets it slide, then nullification is here to stay. Then the next time a state tries to legalize catastrophic health insurance contra Obamacare, he’d have to go to court to undo nullification and take out legalized pot in the process. Isn’t one of the SCOTUS cases that limited the commerce clause also a marijuana case? It could be that this is an issue that could revive states rights.

In addition, legalized pot has gained support from the likes of Pat Robertson and Palin so opposition among evangelicals is not likely to be robust.

xuyee on December 7, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Watch what you argue. I’m a Catholic and I hear arguments all the time from fundamentalists that Christ didn’t REALLY drink wine and that it was more like grape juice. Y’know, despite the fact that the Bible makes it clear that when He turned the water into wine at the wedding, the guests were already pretty well sloshed…

Shump on December 7, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I’d like to know what kind of refrigeration they had back then that could keep grape juice from turning into wine.

cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Might be tough getting a federal conviction with a local jury for doing something that is not illegal under local law.

RUReady2RNR on December 7, 2012 at 10:48 PM

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, and yes. I am an independent filmmaker and hold several copyrights. What’s your point? That anyone who has ever created intellectual property should be in lock step on the copyright issue?

No, it was a simple straight forward question to determine if Mark1971 had any skin in the game or experience with copyright law.

The jurisdiction over copyrights is clearly written in the Constitution. So I have no problem with copyrights existing, nor with the federal government being the arbiter. That’s one of their enumerated powers. But I do have an issue with the trend of extending copyrights into virtual infinity.

The Constitution specifies that copyrights are to be granted for “limited” times. While technically anything other than “forever” is limited, continually extending copyrights for longer and longer and longer terms is violating the spirit of that provision. The founders who wrote the Constitution recognized, as has always been recognized, that giving the creators of intellectual property exclusive rights to it for a time is important to promote the creation of these works. But they also recognized that there is an important societal benefit to copyrights not lasting forever and the public eventually having full access to such works.

It’s the same philosophy that underlies our patent system. Patents in the United States are only good for 20 years, and I don’t see that discouraging individuals and companies from innovating and creating new products. I’m not saying copyrights need to expire after 20 years, but I am opposed to any more extensions, and I could see myself getting behind an attempt to go back to the limits in place in the early twentieth century, where they lasted in the neighborhood of 50 years.

Shump on December 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM

As far as copyright’s are concerned, no I don’t think everyone who is a copyright holder should be in lock step. as I indicated above the late Senator sonny Bono was a personal friend of mine and I worked with him on the Bono copyright extension Act.

We came up with the period of time on it because of changing technologies. The ability of a product to remain a constant and viable source of revenue for it’s creators has been profoundly extended because of technologies like Cd’s, MP3′s digital media and the internet.

In the realm of copyrights, not including technological patents or trademarks, the exclusive right to profit from a given artistic work in no way, shape or form diminishes or degrades anyone elses ability to create an artistic work.

In this sense, copyrighted material, i.e. intellectual property takes on the same form as any other property. In no other instance is it considered acceptable to strip an individual of their property rights based solely on the duration of their ownership of said property.

It cannot be reasonable argued that lacking any diminishing or degrading properties for society, that any individual should be stripped of their property so that the revenue generated by it can be redistribute to others. There simple is no rational, logical or moral justification to say to anyone, you have profited enough off your creative labors, now you have to allow someone else to profit off your labors.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I’d like to know what kind of refrigeration they had back then that could keep grape juice from turning into wine.

cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Merely letting grape juice spoil =/= proper wine.

MelonCollie on December 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Merely letting grape juice spoil =/= proper wine.

MelonCollie on December 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

So they think Jesus was drinking spoiled grape juice? Yuck.

cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Merely letting grape juice spoil =/= proper wine.

MelonCollie on December 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

So they think Jesus was drinking spoiled grape juice? Yuck.

cptacek on December 7, 2012 at 11:18 PM

It’s actually funnier than that. Wine naturally ferments at between 17 and 21% alcohol by volume. Dilute the wine down with water up a 5 to 1 ratio, and the alcohol content is still that of bargain brand beer, around 3.2 percent.

SWalker on December 7, 2012 at 11:22 PM

You think you’re any better than Barack Obama, AllahP?

December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy…

A date which will live in — Infamy?

Not if you’re HotAir.com — or Google — or Yahoo.

HotAir.com posts NOTHING on Pearl Harbor Day to commemorate the horrific Japanese surprise attack on the American Naval Fleet in port at Pearl Harbor leaving 2,402 Americans killed and 1,282 Americans wounded — many of them civilians.

Pathetic.

This website has gone to crap ever since Michelle Malkin sold out to the highest bidder.

HotAir.com — Guaranteed Soft & SquishyOr Your Money Back

FlatFoot on December 7, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I hear ya, Flatfoot.
I was shocked & saddened that hardly any websites had anything on the 71st anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Didn’t even find 1 link on Drudge.
How could this be? Pearl Harbor & the tragic loss of so many Americans….is it even taught in taxpayer union schools anymore?
michellemalkin.com did post an extensive article on this important day for all Americans to remember & never to forget.

Belle on December 8, 2012 at 12:14 AM

He has more flexibility now that his election thing is out of the way.

Kenosha Kid on December 8, 2012 at 12:36 AM

The guy who smoked illegal stuff is president while the guy who never did illegal stuff in his life is not.

Not good.

Not good at all.

Sherman1864 on December 8, 2012 at 2:56 AM

NO dope should be legal until alcohol use is not the epidemic that it is.

TX-96 on December 8, 2012 at 7:20 AM

Control.

Jim Treacher on December 8, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Awwww…. Poor stoners thought the massive Left-wing goverment was their friend. Anybody stupid or venal enough to vote for Obama absolutely deserves to get rolled by an overreaching Federal Police state. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of useful idiots.

SAMinVA on December 8, 2012 at 8:15 AM

This has nothing to do with legalities. Barry-O just wants to keep it all for himself.

creeper on December 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I’ve a feeling we’ll be seeing this in the Supreme Court sooner or later. And no doubt one thing that will be said is “And marijuana is mentioned in the Constitution where….?”

TMOverbeck on December 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

It’s not surprising at all. What makes the drug lords rich? The fact that the risk of prosecution drives up drug prices. The drug lords take little of the risk, but most of the profit. The drug lords are a key Obama constituency (e.g. fast & furious).

Besides, the whole drugs-as-a-crime thing keeps those private penitentiaries full, which means good profits for Obama’s string-pullers.

This is the sad thing for blacks, who make up the majority of the prison population, and who vote heavily for Odinglenuts: their hero sees them as fodder in his efforts to accumulate power; their incarceration rates partly fund his political machine.

So, therefore, a couple of states legalizing pot is seen as the top of the slippery slope for Hugo Barack Obama, or at least to a powerful contingent of his string-pullers, so they need to jump on that trend right away and make sure it doesn’t spread, lest incarceration rates drop.

We (law-abiding citizens) need to worry about that, too, because if there are fewer potheads in jail, they’ll need to replace that revenue. Hmmm, didn’t file your tax return? Unpatriotic! Off to jail!

mr.blacksheep on December 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM

NO dope should be legal until alcohol use is not the epidemic that it is.

TX-96 on December 8, 2012 at 7:20 AM

This. When we can’t even handle something as serious as abortion with any sense of responsibility, legalizing pot WILL start a national disaster.

Our culture has no idea how to practice moderation, cowardly political statements aside. We went straight from the Beaver Cleaver 50′s to the dope-smoking screw-in-the-mud-at-Woodstock 60′s/70′s, and things only went downhill from there.

MelonCollie on December 8, 2012 at 8:56 PM