New Hampshire legislature “endorses” legalized marijuana; Update: Appeals court upholds federal jurisdiction on pot

posted at 8:41 am on January 16, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Bad news for Mary Katharine, and good news for Fox viewers: we may get Weed Shoutfest III in the near future. The New Hamphire state legislature narrowly endorsed a bill yesterday that would legalize marijuana for recreational use, following the model pioneered by Colorado. The vote in this case was bipartisan — and contentious — but don’t start toking up yet in the Granite State:

After a passionate debate, the New Hampshire House of Representatives endorsed a bill Wednesday that would legalize marijuana in the state.

The vote was a nail-biter, with closely divided legislators initially voting against legalization 170-168 before choosing to vote again, the second time approving legalizing pot with 170 votes.

The bill, HB 492, would decriminalize possession of one ounce of marijuana by adults age 21 or older and allow residents to grow up to six plants. State-licensed stores would be authorized to sell marijuana.

After preliminarily endorsing the measure, lawmakers referred it to a second House committee, the Ways and Means Committee, for further refinement.

There are a couple of points here that will harsh the mellow of libertarians cheered by this development. First, as the story notes, this doesn’t mean that the bill has actually passed yet. It has to go back to committee and then return to the floor for a final vote. The slender two-vote margin for endorsement is a fragile majority, and the initial skepticism of the bill will no doubt increase when legislators see the final product. Those who switch from endorsement to opposition can always claim to support the idea in principle while claiming that the proposed execution of the idea was too flawed to support in the end, and I’d be surprised if that impulse is only limited to one or two legislators.

Second, the governor already has declared she’ll veto the bill if it passes:

Supporters hope that renewed attention on the issue from Washington and Colorado legalizing the drug might make a difference in New Hampshire. But Gov. Maggie Hassan said Monday she would veto any such bill.

Less than six months ago, Hassan signed a bill allowing the medical use of marijuana.

“But I don’t support the decriminalization of marijuana any further, and I would veto it if it comes to my desk,” she said.

Even if the 170-168 majority is sustained for approval, it’s far short of a veto override. Don’t think Hassan’s office isn’t working the phones to avoid having to impose the veto, either. It’s safer politically to keep it from coming to her desk.

Besides, from a strategic standpoint, what’s the rush? Colorado already got the headlines for going first. Other state legislatures inclined to follow suit have a better option in waiting. Why not let the experiment in the Rockies play out for a little while? If things go bad in Colorado, then all they have to do is take no action at all. Even if it turns out to be a net positive, other states will be able to better craft legalization legislation to avoid any problems that do arise.

As an apertif, here’s the video from Steven Crowder last year on the marijuana debate. Steven argues that there is a valid argument for getting the federal government out of marijuana prohibition, but rebuts the argument that pot is harmless or less harmful than alcohol – as well as provides an entertaining bit of vox populi from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Whether you agree or not, it’s good for another look and another laugh. At least no one’s yelling in this one:

Update: I missed this from yesterday, but Gabriel Malor didn’t:

An appeals court Wednesday affirmed the federal government’s long-standing policy that California medical marijuana dispensaries have no protection under state law from drug prosecutions.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that three California dispensaries, their customers and their landlords are barred from using a state law allowing marijuana use with a doctor’s recommendation as a shield from criminal charges and government lawsuits. All uses of marijuana are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, also known as the CSA, even in states that have legalized pot.

The ruling upholds three lower court decisions and follows previous rulings by federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In other words, federal law on this point — the Controlled Substances Act — trumps state law, even for “medicinal” marijuana. That doesn’t mean the DoJ will start pressing federal charges in California or Colorado, which they seem disinclined to do at the moment.  But they can.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

Great! I can see it now. New products in the state liquor stores.

“Dude! Can I have a dime bag and three bags of Doritos please?”

evilned on January 16, 2014 at 8:53 AM

If it becomes legal in NH I expect the MA will soon follow. There is already growing support for it in MA and the folks that got it legal for medical use have said their goal was to get it legal. It is already decriminalized with I believe a small fine and confiscation for getting caught with anything up to an ounce.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 16, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Meh.

M240H on January 16, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Police unions, private prison corporations, alcohol and beer companies, pharmaceutical companies, and prison guard unions are said to be in the top five in terms of lobbying and paying lawmakers to keep marijuana illegal.

Might be time to start pulling out our stakes and building a world that suits us, not them.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 16, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Has the federal government legalized pot yet? Didn’t think so.

In other words this is all meaningless for the most point. States rarely do anything about recreational use of pot anyway so NH joins the list of greedy governments that want to tax the hell out of product. And Maryland is about to legalize too- it is what happens when you have already slapped a tax on everything including the rain.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 9:03 AM

donabernathy on January 16, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Dude, I just saw you in that Crowder video! How’s it going? You free the Palestinians yet?

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:04 AM

…pretty soon…we’ll have ‘pot cafes’

KOOLAID2 on January 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM

“It is in vain, O Men, that you seek within yourselves the cure of all your miseries. All your insight only leads you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good. The philosophers promised them to you, and have not been able to keep their promise. Your principal maladies are pride, which cuts you off from God, and sensuality, which binds you to the earth; and they have done nothing but foster at least one of these maladies. If they have given you God for your object, it has only been to pander to your pride; they have made you think that you were like him, and resembled him by your nature. And those who have grasped the vanity of such a pretension have cast you down into the other abyss by making you believe that your nature was like that of the beasts of the field, and have led you to seek your good in lust, which is the lot of animals.” In other words: egomania and erotomania, the two ills of our time – the raised fist, and the raised phallus.

-Pascal

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Has the federal government legalized pot yet? Didn’t think so.

In other words this is all meaningless for the most point. States rarely do anything about recreational use of pot anyway so NH joins the list of greedy governments that want to tax the hell out of product. And Maryland is about to legalize too- it is what happens when you have already slapped a tax on everything including the rain.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 9:03 AM

At this point I honestly don’t think it matters. DOJ has already said they are not going to pursue any States that do this. And IMO that will not change even if a Republican gets voted in as President in 2016.

Johnnyreb on January 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM

…pretty soon…we’ll have ‘pot cafes’
KOOLAID2 on January 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Ganjapreneurs

aryeung on January 16, 2014 at 9:12 AM

“But I don’t support the decriminalization of marijuana any further, and I would veto it if it comes to my desk,” she said.

What about “choice”, you Nazi, get your government hands off my body.

Bishop on January 16, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Ganjapreneurs

aryeung on January 16, 2014 at 9:12 AM

I’d do it if I could. I have seven acres that would be great for growing pot. If I could retire to just growing what amounts to a weed and still put food on the plate I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 16, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Has the federal government legalized pot yet? Didn’t think so.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Perhaps you would share with us what in the US Constitution, in your opinion, gives the US Government the authority to make possession, manufacture, transportation and trafficking of cannabis illegal in the first place…?

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:20 AM

People are still going to grow the stuff underground, they’ll be the new Moonshiners trying to evade the Tax Man.

Bishop on January 16, 2014 at 9:22 AM

I’d do it if I could. I have seven acres that would be great for growing pot. If I could retire to just growing what amounts to a weed and still put food on the plate I’d do it in a heartbeat.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 16, 2014 at 9:18 AM

It pains me to say this but the writers of Weeds may not have been so far off.

aryeung on January 16, 2014 at 9:25 AM

It takes a Libertine Liberal…

to argue that since pot is legal in so many states man…

we should just ignore Federal Law on this one thing…but guns man nah logic don’t work duuuude…

//Codename Cheech

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Perhaps you would share with us what in the US Constitution, in your opinion, gives the US Government the authority to make possession, manufacture, transportation and trafficking of cannabis illegal in the first place…?

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Uh….the same thing that prevents Testosterone Energy Drinks…

let’s not pretend that pot is so noble or unique in its onerous strangulation by Federal Leviathan Regulation friend-o…

Why should pt be legal but not Meth?

Meth was legal until 1978.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Another source of income by redistribution from the people to the government. Tax, tax, tax.

Legalize marijuana smoking but trash cigarettes, both regular and the electronic type. Don’t they see the hypocrisy? I know, dumb question.

iamsaved on January 16, 2014 at 9:26 AM

People are still going to grow the stuff underground, they’ll be the new Moonshiners trying to evade the Tax Man.

Bishop on January 16, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Correct that is the whole point…

and if potheads get to mainstream their intoxicant why not acid junkies?

Legalize it all, and subsidize it, ship it to the door via USPS…

let the bodies hit the floor.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM

…pretty soon…we’ll have ‘pot cafes’

KOOLAID2 on January 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM

In all seriousness, though, I would rather have this than some other arrangements. Let ‘em all congregate in one place and stink it up. (Sorry, but I find the smell of mj to be horrid; first time I smelled it, I was walking down a street in Rotterdam and I checked the bottom of my shoes because I thought for certain I had stepped in something.) The establishment can take away their car keys. Just so long as it isn’t government-run or -endorsed.

GWB on January 16, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Another source of income by redistribution from the people to the government. Tax, tax, tax.

Legalize marijuana smoking but trash cigarettes, both regular and the electronic type. Don’t they see the hypocrisy? I know, dumb question.

iamsaved on January 16, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Maaaannnn herb is like medicinal with no risks maaaannn.

//Stoner Local 957

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:28 AM

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM

It will certainly be interesting in the years to come. The door has been opened and everyone is trying to get their foot in before it closes again.

Bishop on January 16, 2014 at 9:30 AM

If I could retire to just growing what amounts to a weed and still put food brownies on the plate I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 16, 2014 at 9:18 AM

FIFY ;)

GWB on January 16, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Old hotness: Bread and circuses.

New hotness: Dope and gay marriage.

Gunlock Bill on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Correct that is the whole point…

and if potheads get to mainstream their intoxicant why not acid junkies?

Legalize it all, and subsidize it, ship it to the door via USPS…

let the bodies hit the floor.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM

Sort of a Galapagos New Jack City with accelerated selection?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Ed

In other words, federal law on this point — the Controlled Substances Act — trumps state law, even for “medicinal” marijuana. That doesn’t mean the DoJ will start pressing federal charges in California or Colorado, which they seem disinclined to do at the moment. But they can.

Gets back to the point that this idiocy of allowing the President and AG to ignore whatever parts of the application of Federal Law that Obama is mainstreaming has GOT to end or be applied evenly to “administrations other than ones the media likes.”

Why can’t the next President use Obama’s Magic Pen and Phone to erase EPA regs on coal?

This is idiocy.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Uh….the same thing that prevents Testosterone Energy Drinks…
let’s not pretend that pot is so noble or unique in its onerous strangulation by Federal Leviathan Regulation friend-o…
Why should pt be legal but not Meth?
Meth was legal until 1978.
harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Well, where does the Constitution address energy drinks and meth?

aryeung on January 16, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Sort of a Galapagos New Jack City with accelerated selection?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Old skool props for mentioning “New Jack City”, a flick I am not ashamed to admit that I still love to watch.

Bishop on January 16, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Recalling the hazy days, or is that daze, of some fine fun years gone by, and boiling it all down to the economics of that time as a teen, and knowing times aren’t much different today in the sense of teenagers aint rich, I struggle with comprehending why any one would do X+$30, (state wants $30 a bag) when X has always worked and to the best of my second hand knowledge still works, production places, distribution lines are in place, and the underground economy for the product thrives.

Even if I were a med patient with approved use…and btw my wife is an approved user, with Lupus…I still would not go where it’s simply turned into a revenue stream for the state. That to me is the height of hypocrisy, given the 40 yr old war on drugs.

PatHenry on January 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Well, where does the Constitution address energy drinks and meth?

aryeung on January 16, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Forgive me, I thought we were having a discussion on where Pot is authorized to be regulated by the Feds, not “how much sh*t are the Feds into that defies your understanding of what the Federal govt should be?”

I don’t notice Libertine nation trying to undo well “any” of the other far more important overall impositions on liberty that the Federal Government engages in.

I am certain we will get the coercive, and openly corrupted by neo-luddite fascist NGO EPA under control just as soon as stoner gets their doobies…

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Why can’t the next President use Obama’s Magic Pen and Phone to erase EPA regs on coal?

This is idiocy.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Regs aren’t laws. Many regs can be dumped at a whim, and that is a different problem in which Congress has abdicated its authority to the executive branch. And unfortunately the courts not only allow this, but encourage it by inventing new avenues for regulation every day.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Uh….the same thing that prevents Testosterone Energy Drinks…

let’s not pretend that pot is so noble or unique in its onerous strangulation by Federal Leviathan Regulation friend-o…

Why should pt be legal but not Meth?

Meth was legal until 1978.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Fine.

Please share with us where, in the US Constitution, in your opinion, the US Government draws the authority to assess criminal penalties on the possession, distribution, manufacture, or transportation of methamphetamine…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:39 AM

In other words, federal law on this point — the Controlled Substances Act — trumps state law, even for “medicinal” marijuana. That doesn’t mean the DoJ will start pressing federal charges in California or Colorado, which they seem disinclined to do at the moment. But they can.

They’ll be ok as long as they aren’t registered Republicans or their name don’t show up on a democrat intelligence report for donating money to a TEA Party group.

Wigglesworth on January 16, 2014 at 9:42 AM

The neighborhood will be a different place when PCP-addled junkies are running down the streets naked and waving a machete at giant spiders only they can see.

Interesting, but different.

Bishop on January 16, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Regs aren’t laws. Many regs can be dumped at a whim, and that is a different problem in which Congress has abdicated its authority to the executive branch. And unfortunately the courts not only allow this, but encourage it by inventing new avenues for regulation every day.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Regs aren’t laws, for clarity’s sake…

President Harlekwin decides on a whim to order BATFe to not enforce Class III laws….

I am certain the media and stoner nation will be consistent.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Well, where does the Constitution address energy drinks and meth?

aryeung on January 16, 2014 at 9:33 AM

The Commerce Clause covers all interstate commerce. The issue here is not the federal governments authority over anything (alcohol is the lone exception because of the 21st Amendment), but its authority to interfere with strictly internal matters of any one state. I agree that if a state grows and sells marijuana entirely within its own borders the feds have zero business getting involved. Unfortunately the law and the courts disagree.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM

They’ll be ok as long as they aren’t registered Republicans or their name don’t show up on a democrat intelligence report for donating money to a TEA Party group.

Wigglesworth on January 16, 2014 at 9:42 AM

You got it…

This situation will be used to coerce political activity in one direction.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Fine.

Please share with us where, in the US Constitution, in your opinion, the US Government draws the authority to assess criminal penalties on the possession, distribution, manufacture, or transportation of methamphetamine…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Under the Commerce Clause. The proper question is not whether the feds have the authority, but how far does that authority extend.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Daves Dels not here!!

BUT, his Sundials are!!

ToddPA on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 AM

The Commerce Clause covers all interstate commerce. The issue here is not the federal governments authority over anything (alcohol is the lone exception because of the 21st Amendment), but its authority to interfere with strictly internal matters of any one state. I agree that if a state grows and sells marijuana entirely within its own borders the feds have zero business getting involved. Unfortunately the law and the courts disagree.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM

TO THE POINT that in the 1930s the Federal Govt’s position was and was upheld that corn grown on a farm used to feed the farm’s own stock for farm consumption was in fact “interstate commerce”…

because “market disequilibrium”…

“I wanna get stoned” does not trump Federal Law and precedent.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Even if the 170-168 majority is sustained for approval, it’s far short of a veto override.

Buzzkill.

Tsar of Earth on January 16, 2014 at 9:49 AM

The regulations governing meth labs should be interesting.

Bishop on January 16, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Fine.

Please share with us where, in the US Constitution, in your opinion, the US Government draws the authority to assess criminal penalties on the possession, distribution, manufacture, or transportation of methamphetamine…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:39 AM

The combination of the FDA,powers by the DEA, under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 schedule II…

Look tiger I agree that the law is onerous, I am at heart a libertarian but the idea or notion that “FOOORRR POOOOTTTT” is the action of a bunch of libertarian minded people who are interested in reclaiming any of the multitude of lost liberties INCLUDING DRUG USE PAST THEIR PREFERENCE is horesh*t….

EPA does not have the power to deny you use of your mineral resources but ask Alaska they sure as hell do it….

You want Pot legalized do it Federally… not this whack a mole game of undermining Federal law by whim.

I’d give 2,000 bucks if Stoner Nation were trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment giving states the power to override Federal Regulations…

but they are not about anything that principled.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Under the Commerce Clause. The proper question is not whether the feds have the authority, but how far does that authority extend.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Well, one would think that in a defense citing a clause that refers to “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”, that commerce with a foreign nation, or commerce that takes place among States (as opposed to within a sovereign State), or Commerce involving an actual Indian tribe would be a good place to start looking at the limit of the USG’s authority on such matters.

None of which have anything to do with NH’s proposed legislation…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Dels not here.

Bmore on January 16, 2014 at 9:53 AM

TO THE POINT that in the 1930s the Federal Govt’s position was and was upheld that corn grown on a farm used to feed the farm’s own stock for farm consumption was in fact “interstate commerce”…

because “market disequilibrium”…

“I wanna get stoned” does not trump Federal Law and precedent.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 AM

I know the current legal status of the Commerce Clause. I don’t agree with it. I understand your point about enforcing the laws of the land, but there is a conflict that has to be addressed. And the conflict is between the feds and state’s rights. And I am very likely to be sympathetic towards any state that tells the feds to get stuffed when it comes to the feds interfering with their internal business. This is not a fuzzy legal point in which we run off into the weeds and get lost in our words. This is a direct attack on state’s rights that is counterfactual to the Constitution. At what point do the states say enough is enough and openly defy the federal government?

Of course I would prefer such a showdown were over some other issue then pot…

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 AM

None of which have anything to do with NH’s proposed legislation…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Tell it to 170 years of abuse then…

http://tinyurl.com/3kltvk

Wickard V Filburn is a good place to start…

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Maggie (Gov Hassan, who is way, way, way left of the former fence sitting lefty Lynch) will say she’ll veto, to appeal to the hard right and older gen mods, while elbow nudging and wink winking at her friends on the left…she wants the cash, (and to score the libertarian votes for the dems) which is the same reason why she keeps harping for a casino in a time casinos are failing.
Here in a tourism driven state where we, in my opinion shamefully, peddle booze on the interstates, this is one more thing to pick up on the way to your vacation at the ocean or in the mountains, and again on your way home.

That’s why they scrambled for a second vote…it wasn’t as’posed ta fail.

PatHenry on January 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Look tiger I agree that the law is onerous, I am at heart a libertarian but the idea or notion that “FOOORRR POOOOTTTT” is the action of a bunch of libertarian minded people who are interested in reclaiming any of the multitude of lost liberties INCLUDING DRUG USE PAST THEIR PREFERENCE is horesh*t….

EPA does not have the power to deny you use of your mineral resources but ask Alaska they sure as hell do it….

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:52 AM

And every time you accept the notion that what the USG does in reference to cannabis is somehow justified under the ICC, you put a dagger in the heart of any argument against the abuses in Alaska you decry, or any of a million other bastard children of Wickard.

But, by all means… Because Interstate Commerce. Puts you in fine company with those environuts…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Of course I would prefer such a showdown were over some other issue then pot…

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 AM

State’s Rights are a punch line to the Courts…

if they allow this it is because their willfully made stupid on civics Libertine Leftoids want “pot”…

it will not set a precedent that allows Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania to utilize their resources in a way that makes them globally competitive for industrial jobs for example…

I am in your camp, I am in fact not structurally against drug decriminalization.

I am against the use of this issue to hide how much a game of Imperium Majesttrix Obama’s Presidency has been.

Holder refusing to enforce the law contra his oath is preventing the caseload getting to SCotUS to establish LEGALLY and Precedentarily the lines in play.

THAT is what I am against.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Wickard V Filburn is a good place to start…

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Gee, one of us is standing against Wickard, and one of us is standing with it.

Imagine that…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:59 AM

GWB on January 16, 2014 at 9:28 AM

…almost all my relatives live in the Netherlands…none of them smoke pot!…it is very accessible there!

KOOLAID2 on January 16, 2014 at 10:00 AM

But, by all means… Because Interstate Commerce. Puts you in fine company with those environuts…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:58 AM

My argument plainly stated is that I abhor the methodology and goals of Stoner Nation in undermining the idiocy behind Wickard w/out killing it champ.

You are willfully misunderstanding me.

Ounces, Pounds, or Tonnes?

I would be THRILLED to directly subsidize the delivery of whatever intoxicant a person chose up to and including rocket fuel….so long as that is achieved by getting the OTHER regulatory monkeys off our back…

The Libertine Stoner Left is NOT in fact furthering liberty at all with this idiocy, they are simply wanting to be numbed for their police state.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Recycled footage.

Sherman1864 on January 16, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Gee, one of us is standing against Wickard, and one of us is standing with it.

Imagine that…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Yes because pointing out the dimensions and implications of the bomb the Government has built and has aimed at a LOT of liberty is my endorsement of the STUPIDITY of claiming that a farmer using feed on HIS farm for meat for HIS consumption in my home of Ohio is justification for ALL THE CRAP THAT HAS BEEN TACKED ON THAT WRONG.

Look argue with your imaginary friend…

I’ll be making shadow puppets laughing at the notion the potheads give a damn about any other liberty.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

State’s Rights are a punch line to the Courts…

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 9:58 AM

When I talk about finally standing up to the feds I’m not talking about a lawsuit. You don’t say enough is enough by calling your lawyer.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

When I talk about finally standing up to the feds I’m not talking about a lawsuit. You don’t say enough is enough by calling your lawyer.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

As I said if the stoners were attacking EPA,FDA and DEA’s pens via amendment….

they’d have no better friend.

This?

“yeah” whatever.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:05 AM

As I said if the stoners were attacking EPA,FDA and DEA’s pens via amendment….

they’d have no better friend.

This?

“yeah” whatever.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:05 AM

A constitutional convention would be nice, but unlikely. I am afraid that nullification may be the only solution at some point. Outright defiance may be the only thing that moves us in the right direction.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM

A constitutional convention would be nice, but unlikely. I am afraid that nullification may be the only solution at some point. Outright defiance may be the only thing that moves us in the right direction.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Simple nullification winds up allowing the parties to use disparate enforcement as a coercive tool.

I would support an ART V, ideally with a goal of break-up…

The progressives on the court love invoking extra-American precedence when inclined.

I’d argue that USSR declaration no. 142-H would be a nice one to jam up Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hind end.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM

First there was the breathalyser, now Britain gets the ‘SPITALYSER’ : Police to get saliva test to catch motorists under influence of cannabis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540452/First-breathalyser-Britain-gets-SPITALYSER-Police-saliva-test-catch-motorists-influence-cannabis.html

With the new hand-held devices they will be able to test the suspected offender as soon as they return to the police station.

It is also likely to help with the conviction rate as prosecutors must prove that a driver’s actions have been impaired by drug use before they can bring charges. Drug users are currently 50 times less likely than drunks to be convicted.

Offenders who are caught under the new law will get an automatic 12-month ban as well as facing up to six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

The Prime Minister vowed to introduce legislation following growing concerns over the number of people driving whilst being high.

In one high profile case, Lillian Groves, a 14-year-old, was killed outside her home in 2011 after being hit by a drug-driver.

She was killed outside her home in New Addington, Surrey, by a speeding motorist, John Page, who had been smoking cannabis.

But he was never charged with any drug offence, and was sentenced to just eight months in prison after pleading guilty to causing death by careless driving.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM

The Dems were awfully upset about the e-cigarettes the stars were smoking the other night. Is mj smoke as harmful to the lungs as tobacco? What does the EPA say about all this smoke being added to the environment? We need answers and all people are worried about is some traffic jam in Jersey.

Herb on January 16, 2014 at 10:14 AM

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:02 AM

My argument plainly stated is that I abhor the methodology and goals of Stoner Nation in undermining the idiocy behind Wickard w/out killing it champ.

You are willfully misunderstanding me.

You don’t like the goals of cannabis legalization advocates. Got it, although to argue that referring to them as “Stoner Nation” is somehow “plainly stating” the matter is disingenuous to say the least. If I misunderstand you, it is your lazy use of sarcasm that is to blame, not my will.

As far as their methods… no, I’m quite sure using the arguments relying on Wickard used by the enviro-Left to justify the existence and regulations of the EPA, to justify cannabis prohibition are far more likely to overturn Wickard than actually opposing Wickard, whether I like the policy or not.

/eyeroll

Ounces, Pounds, or Tonnes?

Whatever you can afford. Or even, whatever you and your customers, suppliers, creditors, shareholders, and managers think you can afford.

I would be THRILLED to directly subsidize the delivery of whatever intoxicant a person chose up to and including rocket fuel….so long as that is achieved by getting the OTHER regulatory monkeys off our back…

Ever hear the phrase “You strike when the iron is hot”?

The iron is hot on cannabis.

The Libertine Stoner Left is NOT in fact furthering liberty at all with this idiocy, they are simply wanting to be numbed for their police state.

Somehow, arguing in favor of a prohibition that has resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of man-years of incarceration, while using the phrase “police state”, just doesn’t quite pass the giggle test…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Somehow, arguing in favor of a prohibition that has resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of man-years of incarceration, while using the phrase “police state”, just doesn’t quite pass the giggle test…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM

You are engaged in the same self-delusion Gabriel Malor engaged in when he joined with the activists in the wake of Prop 8. “By any means necessary” hunting of your particular “cookie” will not knock any dent at all in the Hyper-Regulatory State. You have simply placated the lunatic fringe on the coercive left and cooled any incentive for the Libertine “conservatives” or “moderates” to keep pushing on nailing leviathan.

“The iron is hot”…yup and not wielded by any sensibly defined libertarian bent.

Libertarianism is a different kettle of fish than simple libertinianism.

You keep on “fighting the power” man, I am gonna go long on Frito-Lay and Hostess investments.

The SCotUS invoked the Xth amendment to kill DOMA and now the activist Glee Mafia is using the XIVth amendment to inflict California’s preferences on the nation.

*That* is the issue….

until you nip the courts’ game of in and out by amendment they will keep on sniping off people who grasp “f**k something is out of whack”

Have a day.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:20 AM

The Dems were awfully upset about the e-cigarettes the stars were smoking the other night. Is mj smoke as harmful to the lungs as tobacco? What does the EPA say about all this smoke being added to the environment? We need answers and all people are worried about is some traffic jam in Jersey.

Herb on January 16, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Which just goes to show this is all Kabuki theater and a bunch of stoners on the left trying to get their way…

a lot of desperately hopeful genuine libertarians and libertarian leaning conservatives will empower Pothead to be mainstreamed thinking it will aid the cause of undermining the Federal juggernaut….

and just like I was burned on supporting civil unions to shield the Church from the games that are coming will stand in awe as the activists then use the courts to go beyond the point of sanity.

If the “war on drugs is wrong” why are potheads just decriminalizing the one thing?

Nah this is about just numbing themselves to the monster they vote for on the left, and hope on the right.

You’d think after seeing the mayhem the idiot masses empowered Barack T Ogabe to wage people on the right would have gotten past “Hopium”…it *is* a helluva drug though.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Yes because pointing out the dimensions and implications of the bomb the Government has built and has aimed at a LOT of liberty is my endorsement of the STUPIDITY of claiming that a farmer using feed on HIS farm for meat for HIS consumption in my home of Ohio is justification for ALL THE CRAP THAT HAS BEEN TACKED ON THAT WRONG.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

No. Endorsement of Wickard lies in the use of the Commerce Clause to justify USG action on what is clearly an intrastate issue. The only thing that allows one to do that is acceptance of Wickard.

I, for one, oppose Wickard and all its progeny. And I do so whether I like the policy goal or not. It’s the nature of consistency, really…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 10:27 AM

You discredit yourself Ed by posting a video from a dirty Jew like Crowder.

NotCoach on January 16, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Well, what did you expect from a Military-Industrial Zionist Gulag-Operating Jewish Catholic fascist blogger?

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM

No. Endorsement of Wickard lies in the use of the Commerce Clause to justify USG action on what is clearly an intrastate issue. The only thing that allows one to do that is acceptance of Wickard.

I, for one, oppose Wickard and all its progeny. And I do so whether I like the policy goal or not. It’s the nature of consistency, really…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 10:27 AM

You pretend that Wickard has not been upheld time and time and time again…darn near without modification actually.

Look you’re right I concede the point…

CO, NH, Cali et al are ALL engaged in undermining Wickard v Filburn and their actions along with the actions of Holder in his refusal to treat Ohioans and Coloradans the same on Drug Investigations is a GREAT thing for the rule of law and liberty.

My mistake.

I concede the point, you are the sane one here.

I have stated I would support legalization of anything up to and including Rocket Fuel, I have said that I am against and loathe the misuse of Federal power against coal and states’ resources…

you sniffed me out though I am the thug fascist because I think that the stoners are not undermining Wickard AT ALL but are in fact simply getting high.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM

It’s actually worse than simply not undermining Wickard…the actions of the stoners is in fact creating precedent for ANOTHER misuse of Federal Authority…

but hey “freedom”

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Can’t the federal government just amend the list of drugs or does that take a 2700 page comprehensive piece of legislation. Oorrr, President Choom can just poof it away. He likes to do that anyway.

Cindy Munford on January 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM

you sniffed me out though I am the thug fascist because I think that the stoners are not undermining Wickard AT ALL but are in fact simply getting high.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Pretty sure the only on here who used the word “thug” or “fascist”… is you. I’m also pretty sure the only person I have called a thug fascist is Barack Obama.

Maybe the Emmanuel brothers also, but if I did, I’m sure that was in a fit of rage.

Either way, just because you enable thuggery and fascism doesn’t make you a thug or a fascist. It just means you are less than a part of the solution.

So, cheer up…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Can’t the federal government just amend the list of drugs or does that take a 2700 page comprehensive piece of legislation. Oorrr, President Choom can just poof it away. He likes to do that anyway.

Cindy Munford on January 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM

He wants the benefit of benign indifference while maintaining the power to use the law punitively when he so chooses Mrs. Mumford.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM

So, cheer up…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Oh I am deeply enthused “Mr. Galt”… I am certain empowering stoner nation in their consumption will help us dismantle the welfare state as well….

“different goals”..

Yeah I freely acknowledge that I want to either get our liberties back from the Federal Government or dismantle it after they crash the boat.

Considering EUrope now has the most sought after currency on the globe thanks to Obamanomics I am thinking the implosion will be sooner rather than later.

Now all I am gonna have to enjoy watching it all fall apart is some iced tea and rage….

You can smoke a joint the size of the USS Nimitz as far as I am concerned and “pot legalization” has nothing to do with stopping the coming storm, so you can put that narcissism down.

A good portion of “Legalize it!” is in love with the welfare state that is driving the train into the mountain.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:46 AM

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Sounds just like something he would do.

Cindy Munford on January 16, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Daves Dels not here!!

BUT, his Sundials are!!

ToddPA on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 AM

We’re down to less than 6 inches of snow pack here in NH’s foothills so they are all visible again.

Ed sez:

Second, the governor already has declared she’ll veto the bill if it passes:

What Ed doesn’t mention is that our Governor is a Democrat.

And our previous Governor, John Lynch (also a Democrat) also vetoed pot legalization, in 2012. Nothing new here.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Sounds just like something he would do.

Cindy Munford on January 16, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Whether Mr Galt grasps it or not my issue is in “legalizing it” and leaving Holder this power….

we are dealing with a weaponized civil service and a Federal government being ran like a Chicago Ward…

not the time to 1/2a*s dismantling the justifications for the Federal powers in play.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

And our previous Governor, John Lynch (also a Democrat) also vetoed pot legalization, in 2012. Nothing new here.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Correct, Donkey likes playing BOTH sides of the drug legalization game.

There is NO WAY Democrats would undermine the illegality of drugs by asserting a GENUINE Xth amendment justification.

The more legitimately liberal the state the more specious the “legalize it” game gets.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 11:03 AM

You don’t like the goals of cannabis legalization advocates. Got it, although to argue that referring to them as “Stoner Nation” is somehow “plainly stating” the matter is disingenuous to say the least. If I misunderstand you, it is your lazy use of sarcasm that is to blame, not my will.

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Yeah, not buying this. These people have one principle: being allowed to smoke pot. And for a lot of them — maybe most of them — it’s based on the false premise that THC has no harmful effects, and is safer than alcohol.

Liberty is not about being able to indulge your pet vices. The reason for liberty is to be able to make your own decisions, to speak your own mind, to follow your religion and your conscience. The people who are only interested in doing away with regulations on harmful drugs so they can indulge cheapen the argument for liberty. They stand for nothing more than their own selfishness.

To pretend they are fighting for a larger principle is disingenuous.

And like many modern social movements, it’s based on false information. One of the biggest problems we have in this country now is all the things people “know” that just ain’t so.

With all the technological advances we have, this country should be a paradise. Instead, virtually every “new idea” seems to be a bad one. The examples are legion: no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, the welfare state, the rise of single motherhood, premarital sex, greater acceptance of homosexuality, etc. These all seem to be good ideas, or to at least be meant well, but the end result of every one has been more broken homes, poverty, and crime.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 16, 2014 at 11:04 AM

not the time to 1/2a*s dismantling the justifications for the Federal powers in play.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Apparently it is, rather, the time to start using the tools the Left uses to justify the regulatory state, to justify the failed War on Drugs.

Good call there…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Apparently it is, rather, the time to start using the tools the Left uses to justify the regulatory state, to justify the failed War on Drugs.

Good call there…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Purple Haze again tiger..

“The War on Drugs” is being undermined or “The War on Drug”?

Not the same thing at all speaking of “disingenuous.”

The war on drugs is uh “the war on drugs” which goes, again back to the use of the schedules on the 1970 CSA to go after imbibers…

My argument for legalization is predicated on the idea of sanctity and sovereignty of self. This of course also means I am against Obamacare because of its death panels. What portion of Stoner Nation is structurally opposed to Federally Funded medical care?

Legalizing one particular intoxicant is legalizing one particular intoxicant not a blow against either the power of the Feds to regulate said intoxicants, nor the leviathan state that attempts to play santa clause on so many things.

You keep on arguing with that shadow though.

You’re good at that.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 11:14 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 16, 2014 at 11:04 AM

The nature of Liberty, the harm associated with THC, and the perceived decline of morality in America notwithstanding, I asked a simple question, in response to the claim that the USG hasn’t legalized cannabis yet:

Perhaps you would share with us what in the US Constitution, in your opinion, gives the US Government the authority to make possession, manufacture, transportation and trafficking of cannabis illegal in the first place…?

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 9:20 AM

The only response I have gotten (as I suspect it really is the only thing prohibitionists have to hang there hat on) is the Commerce Clause. All the high handed talk of morality and low handed talk of Stoner Left aside, the only answer I’ve gotten is “Commerce Clause”.

Which just happens to be the fallback position of just about every Leftist authoritarian, also.

Imagine that.

NH is discussing growing cannabis in NH, for sale in NH, for consumption in NH, and NH alone. To cite the Commerce Clause in opposition to this is to necessarily accept Wickard v Filburn.

Which ought to be like pro-lifers using Roe v Wade o bolster an argument. When you start doing that, you undermine the pro-life cause.

When you start using Wickard to justify the War on Drugs, just because you happen to favor the War on Drugs, you undermine federalism. Which, to me, is a necessary component of conservatism…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:15 AM

This Crowder video is an excellent contribution to the discussion. All the pot heads tell you pot is harmless. Well, it is harmless to dumb people, it is harmless to people who don’t need their wits about them, it may have some small medicinal properties that are NOT being used well because the activists don’t really want THC explored as a controlled substance, they want to have at it when they want to…which is adolescent Have-It-Now.

The psychiatrist in the video has it correct on neurological damage, and she doesn’t even tell the whole story. She doesn’t mention damage to children YOUNGER than those in the video from second hand absorption in their own home…much more damaging than cigarette smoke, amazing. Pregnant women and infants should NEVER be around narcotics of any kind, especially pot, (also crack cocaine, to be complete.) In terms of the autism spectrum, pot is more likely to harm a young child than a childhood vaccination.

And as for the fallacy that the drug war will simply disappear, what is that? Are you going to legalize heroin? cocaine? methamphetamines? NO? So the drug “WAR” will still be fought, AND there will have to be new penalties for giving pot to 12 year olds, which are MORE severe than the punishments we have now. The Social Workers will have to be the cops and the same people will be going to jail for giving their own kids drugs. Under 21 is meaningless unless it is prosecuted at least as harshly as alcohol crimes…and exposure to pot under the age of twelve will have to be the same as putting alcohol in your babies formula or in the kids chocolate milk. The punishment for my kid having pot at your teenagers birthday bash has to be at least as expensive for you as if the cops came in for the noise and there was a teeny bottle of beer on the counter.

It’s a Brave new world, I don’t think it will be unregulated for very long. You think about how you have all your freedom, and insure that under 21′s don’t get any. Other than that, I really don’t care if you get high in your closet at home and I don’t have to know about it.

Fleuries on January 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM

“The War on Drugs” is being undermined or “The War on Drug”?

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Yeah.

Much like how you were the only one talking about “thug fascist”, the only one talking about the War on drugs being undermined… is you.

What I was discussing was the concept of federalism, and the fight against Wickard being undermined, by lazy thinking and acceptance of the Left’s arguments regarding the Commerce Clause and its relevance to intrastate commerce.

Now, normally I’d ask you to keep up. But… I mean, c’mon…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:24 AM

When you start using Wickard to justify the War on Drugs, just because you happen to favor the War on Drugs, you undermine federalism. Which, to me, is a necessary component of conservatism…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:15 AM

You are not ending the “war on drugs” or the misuse of forfeiture laws…

you are “legalizing pot” thanks…

Wickard is the foundation the mess is built on, you are also in the habit of pretending that recognition of the totality and structure of the problem Liberty faces is a condoning of it.

I am dying for you to explain how CO or NH’s passed and possible actions undermine the legality of DEA and FDA’s power?

No seriously, you are acting as though defunding the war on Edison’s light bulbs is an attack on the legality of the idiocy in the first place.

Not even repealing the ban itself is undermining the legal framework the ban was built upon unless included in the ban is a precedent building declaration decrying the overreach.

It is why the cause of liberty would be better served forcing Holder to sue CO and NH by having to enforce the same Federal Laws in play in their neighbors to cut to the chase there friend-o…

you want to get into a recurring Mexican Stand-off on the legal issue, I’d prefer getting things resolved and having “rule of law” come what may.

Want to legalize pot without undermining the whole framework?

Great get it through Congress, and the President’s magic pen to sign it.

Empowering the Feds to make a bigger mockery of the Xth Amendment is not the way to go champ.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Now, normally I’d ask you to keep up. But… I mean, c’mon…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Right sport that is why *I* have argued about the further infringements on liberty and the ethics of law enforcement and you keep saying “POT POT.”

I am against the war on drugs and consider it the inevitable poisoned fruit of Wickard as is the carnivorous and corrupt EPA. You keep arguing for the way for a single intoxicant to avoid Wickard without hurting Wickard at all. Wickard can only be undermined by taking Federal Overreach to SCotUS.

Get it?

You saying that Ogabe and Holder should have the power to pick and mix enforcement even in CO simply enables and empowers further structural corruption without accomplishing anything in dismantling the Police State we are buildling.

You are actually simply preventing the Pot Users from feeling the love of the monster they have largely voted for.

I’d prefer to attack the body of law.

You keep on wining and dining that chicken though.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 11:30 AM

It’s a Brave new world, I don’t think it will be unregulated for very long. You think about how you have all your freedom, and insure that under 21′s don’t get any. Other than that, I really don’t care if you get high in your closet at home and I don’t have to know about it.

Fleuries on January 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM

The democrats show their intent when they rage at E-cigs…

the whole thing is folly.

Stoner Nation is bound and determined to have their way, and they will…and we will be told that any evidence of the idiocy of the defacto anything goes impact is “isolated cases” just like welfare fraud…

consequently the best answer is to subsidize its use and for the very poor to give it to them.

Immobilize them with their intoxicants.

The U6 unemployment numbers means at some point nature will take its course.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I am dying for you to explain how CO or NH’s passed and possible actions undermine the legality of DEA and FDA’s power?

Well, while I could mention how such an obvious conflict between the authority of the State to make its own legislation regarding cannabis and the USG’s dubious attempt to prohibit cannabis necessarily will, at some point, bring a constitutional crisis to a head…

As I say, I could mention it. But it turns out, I don’t have to. I never made any such claim. All I did was ask a question about the source of the USG’s authority to attempt that prohibition in the first place. And, as I pointed out, the only answer I’ve gotten so far is “Commerce Clause”. That, regardless of the fact that we are discussing cannabis grown in NH, for consumption in NH.

Which is sound constitutional reasoning… if you accept Wickard. If you reject Wickard, as any thinking conservative should, the Commerce Clause argument kinda fails, given that there is no actual commerce among States.

Of course, this only works for thinking conservatives…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Now, normally I’d ask you to keep up. But… I mean, c’mon…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Right sport that is why *I* have argued about the further infringements on liberty and the ethics of law enforcement and you keep saying “POT POT.”

Hmmmmm…

I seem to remember you talking about “thug fascists”. When, in fact, the only one talking about thug fascists was… you.

I seem to remember you talking about “undermining the War on Drugs”. When, in fact, the only one talking about undermining the War on Drugs… was you.

Now, you say all I have talked about is “POT POT”. Now, just where, in this entire thread, have I used the word “pot”? Or, are you as in the above examples, just making it up as you go along?

And they say cannabis uses warps your thinking…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Can’t the federal government just amend the list of drugs or does that take a 2700 page comprehensive piece of legislation. Oorrr, President Choom can just poof it away. He likes to do that anyway.

Cindy Munford on January 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM

He’ll get back to you Cindy, but first,
he has to choom a blunt.

ToddPA on January 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Many of the federal courts are nothing more than Obama stooges.

rplat on January 16, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Spent my commentary on Colorado. Not going to rehash it.

Yay dope.

Axeman on January 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Galt go smoke your Thai Stick…

it’s a lot like Mary Katherine Ham…

Whatever intoxicant you choose or do not choose to put into your body is your business but arguing this flailing crap is doing ANYTHING that can’t be undone on a whim is idiocy.

I am tired of your chasing your tail, arguing I support a drug war I hate. Not because of Drugs either dear sir but because as a person who rents out houses I get to deal with the anxiety of the Feds or locals trying to use forfeiture on my dwelling if my occupants misbehave…

but rather than address or attack any of the multitude of government abuses contained within the entire set of the laws and laws and regs for enforcement…

nah bro I just want my wakky tabakky legal yo….

and trust me I get it…I think it is stupid and short sighted, but I get it.

so to the MOON to the MOON but quit acting like I need to treat you like this is some noble battle…

it’s about as noble as a Wall Street Tycoon legalizing his one little corner of regs to help his one little felony actually….

Come down off your cross and go get high.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Oh and again Galt you GENIUS..if you understand ANYTHING about Wickard you would grasp that as long as Wickard STANDS without alteration the legal precedent for the legality of the MJ laws even though “it is ALL WITHIN NH HARLEKWIN ALL OF IT IS IN ONE STATE!” is settled G8ddam*ed law…

so again go in the corner and spliff out baby…. because if your genuine grief was with Wickard, the War on Drugs or any of it you would be more versed in your nonsensical braying on Wickard and grasp that legalizing one intoxicant does not undermine the predatory powers the war on drugs embodied.

A “Conservative” Court upheld Kelo…

Good luck on Wickard without an Amendment, or the war on drugs.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

But when push comes to shove will she actually veto it and lose the stoner vote?

dogsoldier on January 16, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM

But when push comes to shove will she actually veto it and lose the stoner vote?

dogsoldier on January 16, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Yeah, she’s said many times in the past she opposes it. She did however sign into law a medical marihuana bill in 2013.

She also beat her Republican “opponent” in 2012 by 12 points so she’s got plenty of vote leeway.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Galt go smoke your Thai Stick…

it’s a lot like Mary Katherine Ham…

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 12:16 PM

I’m proud to stand with MKH and Bill Buckley in favoring legalization.

That certainly beats standing with Joe Biden and Bill O’Reilly in favor of Prohibition…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

She also beat her Republican “opponent” in 2012 by 12 points so she’s got plenty of vote leeway.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Really?? 12 points??

What the hell did we do so wrong in NH…?

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 12:33 PM

She also beat her Republican “opponent” in 2012 by 12 points so she’s got plenty of vote leeway.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Really?? 12 points??

What the hell did we do so wrong in NH…?

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Why do you think I put the word opponent in quotes?

Also the NH Republican Party is a total joke as far as getting out the vote is concerned.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM

I’m proud to stand with MKH and Bill Buckley in favoring legalization.

That certainly beats standing with Joe Biden and Bill O’Reilly in favor of Prohibition…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Sensimilia Boy I favor legalization, this is not the way to go about it…

Look dude you need to wear a glowing yellow light if you are chemically fortified…

you’re not reading son.

Also given that William F Buckley is uh dead I am pretty sure that his stance on legalization would be a little more nuanced than “just uh neutralizae the law and let the President make it up as he goes along too”…

See WF Buckley was “smart” as opposed to well YOU.

http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugs%E2%80%A6with-william-f-buckley/181/

Oh gee LOOK William F Buckley’s position is more like mine than yours.

http://youtu.be/gTyucBinXnY

Video Clip….

CO and NH are NOT in fact attacking the problem that William F Buckley addresses with legalization.

Buckley, like me favored undermining the entire legal justification at the Federal level for the war. My only regret is he passed on before the forfeiture laws had been upheld the multiple times they were after 1996. Buckley also invokes the social and professional pressure argument.

Oddly I suspect the new cause for the Libertine left who support no other liberty will be to glom ontoAl Sharpton’s movement to remove pre-employment background screening from hiring and in fact generate a movement to do away with pre-employment drug screening because “social justice.”

http://youtu.be/m_-dtU_esJ8

Here William F Buckley takes on Chuck Rangel on the issue…

If the logic of the legalization of pot is predicated on the failure of the war on drugs Galt then one should support decriminalization of most scheduled substances.

That said, I strongly suspect the game here is carving out an armistice with the war on drugs for one corner while not addressing ANY of the powers that were in fact abused.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Why do you think I put the word opponent in quotes?

Also the NH Republican Party is a total joke as far as getting out the vote is concerned.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM

I think you typo’d “National GOP” Del.

harlekwin15 on January 16, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Also the NH Republican Party is a total joke as far as getting out the vote is concerned.

Del Dolemonte on January 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Get Rand the nomination, and the Paulestinians will walk those precincts. Bet your bottom dollar on it…

JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2