D.C. Marajuana legalization-What can Congress actually do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the GOP wins the WH in '16, might the AG begin strict enforcement of federal law and essentially repeal not only the DC law, but all the state marijuana legalizations?

Yes, it's possible that everyone down to casual users in Colorado could be at risk for arrest and prosecution.

But that would cost billions and would be against the will of the people.

But the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and prison lobbies would support it, so it could very well happen.

Seems as if liberals are only for the “will of the people” when it comes to something they want.
They don’t much care about the “will of the people” when it comes to gay marriage in Alabama and other states.

The will of the people, as you put it, doesn't override basic rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia could not prohibit a black man from marrying a white woman, Texas could not prohibit consensual sodomy, and Connecticut could not prohibit a married couple from availing themselves of birth control. Better people think you are an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Anonymous]

"Yeah, we're all about them there Life an' Liburty but daggone if'n yer gonna Pursuit yer Happiness wit' any o' that thar wacky tabaccky..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Yeah, we're all about them there Life an' Liburty but daggone if'n yer gonna Pursuit yer Happiness wit' any o' that thar wacky tabaccky..."

I am a conservative and personally feel that you can't NOT legalize pot, given alcohol is legal. For the life of me though, I don't understand why a bunch of progressive liberals so desperately like and need it.

From a medical standpoint, certainly. Even Carly Fiorina brought that up in her CPAC speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Yeah, we're all about them there Life an' Liburty but daggone if'n yer gonna Pursuit yer Happiness wit' any o' that thar wacky tabaccky..."

I am a conservative and personally feel that you can't NOT legalize pot, given alcohol is legal. For the life of me though, I don't understand why a bunch of progressive liberals so desperately like and need it.

From a medical standpoint, certainly. Even Carly Fiorina brought that up in her CPAC speech.

Tell me, how many drinks do you have a night? In a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Yeah, we're all about them there Life an' Liburty but daggone if'n yer gonna Pursuit yer Happiness wit' any o' that thar wacky tabaccky..."


I am a conservative and personally feel that you can't NOT legalize pot, given alcohol is legal. For the life of me though, I don't understand why a bunch of progressive liberals so desperately like and need it.

From a medical standpoint, certainly. Even Carly Fiorina brought that up in her CPAC speech.

Yes all those liberals at CPAC cheering for legalization...I know your type everything you disagree with is liberal ever though you are a rino.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Yeah, we're all about them there Life an' Liburty but daggone if'n yer gonna Pursuit yer Happiness wit' any o' that thar wacky tabaccky..."


I am a conservative and personally feel that you can't NOT legalize pot, given alcohol is legal. For the life of me though, I don't understand why a bunch of progressive liberals so desperately like and need it.

From a medical standpoint, certainly. Even Carly Fiorina brought that up in her CPAC speech.

Yes all those liberals at CPAC cheering for legalization...I know your type everything you disagree with is liberal ever though you are a rino.

As I said, I feel you can't NOT legalize pot, given alcohol legislation. That's how a lot of conservatives feel. Conservatives see this as an issue of freedom, and liberals seem to see this as a 'gimme my drugs'. I find that interesting.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
As I said, I feel you can't NOT legalize pot, given alcohol legislation. That's how a lot of conservatives feel. Conservatives see this as an issue of freedom, and liberals seem to see this as a 'gimme my drugs'. I find that interesting.

Libertarians see this as an issue of freedom. Not all conservatives are libertarian and there many conservatives who don't share your view. Among liberals, a significant number sees marijuana legalization as a stop toward ending the war on drugs which they see has being a huge disaster. Related to that, marijuana prosecution is often racially biased and legalization is seen as a social justice issue. Very few just want someone to 'gimme my drugs".

[Anonymous]

If pot use is legalized, what standard do the police use for driving a motor vehicle while stoned? It's incongruous that drinking 2 beers could lead to a DUI arrest, yet it would be very difficult to arrest stoned drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alaska just legalized pot. You know the Palins are exercizin' their Constitutional freedoms right now.

I'll bet if I got stoned, I could see Russia from my front porch, too.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather that Bowser spend her time focused on getting the garbage picked up and improving our public schools, rather than defending some pot law from some meddling House members. Like it or not, the Constitution is pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If pot use is legalized, what standard do the police use for driving a motor vehicle while stoned? It's incongruous that drinking 2 beers could lead to a DUI arrest, yet it would be very difficult to arrest stoned drivers.

the same standard police used before breathalizers. you do know field sobriety tests exist right for impairment in general?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If pot use is legalized, what standard do the police use for driving a motor vehicle while stoned? It's incongruous that drinking 2 beers could lead to a DUI arrest, yet it would be very difficult to arrest stoned drivers.

the same standard police used before breathalizers. you do know field sobriety tests exist right for impairment in general?

I am far from an expert, but I think that the tests police use can't determine how recently the marijuana was used. So if you're driving home from work on Thursday and you smoked on the previous Saturday, you would show as impaired. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If pot use is legalized, what standard do the police use for driving a motor vehicle while stoned? It's incongruous that drinking 2 beers could lead to a DUI arrest, yet it would be very difficult to arrest stoned drivers.

the same standard police used before breathalizers. you do know field sobriety tests exist right for impairment in general?

I am far from an expert, but I think that the tests police use can't determine how recently the marijuana was used. So if you're driving home from work on Thursday and you smoked on the previous Saturday, you would show as impaired. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Field sobriety, the finger on the nose, alphabet, walk the line stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If pot use is legalized, what standard do the police use for driving a motor vehicle while stoned? It's incongruous that drinking 2 beers could lead to a DUI arrest, yet it would be very difficult to arrest stoned drivers.

the same standard police used before breathalizers. you do know field sobriety tests exist right for impairment in general?

I am far from an expert, but I think that the tests police use can't determine how recently the marijuana was used. So if you're driving home from work on Thursday and you smoked on the previous Saturday, you would show as impaired. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Field sobriety, the finger on the nose, alphabet, walk the line stuff.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/health/driving-under-the-influence-of-marijuana.html?referrer= This gives more information

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather that Bowser spend her time focused on getting the garbage picked up and improving our public schools, rather than defending some pot law from some meddling House members. Like it or not, the Constitution is pretty clear.

Yep, the law is very clear. Congress had 30 days to review the initiative and vote on a joint resolution -- no pun intended -- to prevent it from taking effect. The Congress failed to do that. Don't hate the player, hate the game.