Haha... The UN is demanding that Holder file a lawsuit against Washington and Colorado because they passed legalization. Land of the free, indeed. 

Eff the UN. Stop this pointless war on drugs.

Shouldn't he though? I **** on these types of issues, but what's the legality of a state making legal something that is illegal on the federal level?

Just tell the UN that radical Muslim nations produce and sell pot like they do opiates, they'll change their tune faster that you can say "religion of peace"!!!

Now Hawk, that's just insensitive of you.  You know that the UN is felled with folks who mean well in all they do and that we really should do what they tell us.  Shame on you.  

**** you un

Temo1 wrote: Shouldn't he though? I **** on these types of issues, but what's the legality of a state making legal something that is illegal on the federal level?

Federal government doesn't really have the power to say something is illegal and that's that. They needed a constitutional amendment to ban liquor, there's no such law for weed. Now they probably can stop pot from being shipped to Colorado, but pot grown in Colorado or Washington sold to their states, I don't see how the Feds can have a say on that.

BedellBrave wrote: Now Hawk, that's just insensitive of you.  You know that the UN is felled with folks who mean well in all they do and that we really should do what they tell us.  Shame on you.  

Now Bedell you know I'm nothing if not IN-sensitive. 

crump7 wrote: **** you un

Now you see, Bedell, the Crumpmeister and I have all found common ground!!!

ZitotheBrave wrote:

Temo1 wrote: Shouldn't he though? I **** on these types of issues, but what's the legality of a state making legal something that is illegal on the federal level?

Federal government doesn't really have the power to say something is illegal and that's that. They needed a constitutional amendment to ban liquor, there's no such law for weed. Now they probably can stop pot from being shipped to Colorado, but pot grown in Colorado or Washington sold to their states, I don't see how the Feds can have a say on that.

I don't have a very good grasp on this stuff, but I'm willing to bet you're wrong per the Supremacy clause. That said, I can't reconcile this with the need for a constitutional amendment against alcohol. I'd need an actual knowledgeable person's help with that.

Temo1 wrote:

ZitotheBrave wrote:

Temo1 wrote: Shouldn't he though? I **** on these types of issues, but what's the legality of a state making legal something that is illegal on the federal level?

Federal government doesn't really have the power to say something is illegal and that's that. They needed a constitutional amendment to ban liquor, there's no such law for weed. Now they probably can stop pot from being shipped to Colorado, but pot grown in Colorado or Washington sold to their states, I don't see how the Feds can have a say on that.

I don't have a very good grasp on this stuff, but I'm willing to bet you're wrong per the Supremacy clause. That said, I can't reconcile this with the need for a constitutional amendment against alcohol. I'd need an actual knowledgeable person's help with that.

Ouch harsh dig Temo.

Supremacy Clause is an interesting case, but there isn't really a strict law banning pot and a good lawyer could poke holes in it. You could maybe argue that the UN agreement is a treaty.

Another reason why State Rights should be infinitely more powerful than the Federal Government.

ZitotheBrave wrote:

Temo1 wrote:

ZitotheBrave wrote:

Temo1 wrote: Shouldn't he though? I **** on these types of issues, but what's the legality of a state making legal something that is illegal on the federal level?

Federal government doesn't really have the power to say something is illegal and that's that. They needed a constitutional amendment to ban liquor, there's no such law for weed. Now they probably can stop pot from being shipped to Colorado, but pot grown in Colorado or Washington sold to their states, I don't see how the Feds can have a say on that.

I don't have a very good grasp on this stuff, but I'm willing to bet you're wrong per the Supremacy clause. That said, I can't reconcile this with the need for a constitutional amendment against alcohol. I'd need an actual knowledgeable person's help with that.

Ouch harsh dig Temo.

Supremacy Clause is an interesting case, but there isn't really a strict law banning pot and a good lawyer could poke holes in it. You could maybe argue that the UN agreement is a treaty.

Hey, I'm just saying saying neither of us are lawyers.

All I know is this law will either certify a state has a right to create an industry, or this will prove that in the end, the Fed has the right to create vague laws. You know what constitutes a Schedule one banned substance?



The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.[20]

Any lawyer worth a grain of salt could destroy those 3, at worst pot is a Schedule 4 drug with Benzos or Ambien. Pot has about as low of a potential for abuse (for every full blown stoner I know there are half a dozen people I know who smoke pot once in a blue moon), there are accepted medical use in treatment, and there is an accepted saftey for use. Who has ever overdosed on pot?

3 things a decent lawyer could do, first is fight those points. Second is bring up drug use stats from the Netherlands where pot is legal. And last is compare pot to alcohol or cigarettes. Still find it amazing that cigarettes aren't a Schedule 1 drug if they'll put pot in there, since it doesn't fit any of the above qualities.

US needs federal reform on drugs. **** the UN

The un is just as useless as fema, if not more.

The founders of this country slaughter thousanda of people so I can walk down the street smoking an L.

Why are we hating on that great institution of hope in the world?  

I'm not against the war on drugs, but the war on pot doesn't make sense. Prisons are too crowded, and legalizing pot to a certain point could certainly help.

There's some truth to that but Pot is also a gateway drug. If you don't want people in a room don't build a door.

The medical use for weed is ********. There's plenty of legal OTC and prescribed medicine that give one the dame effect

---------------------------------------------
--- m0ssy wrote:

I'm not against the war on drugs, but the war on pot doesn't make sense. Prisons are too crowded, and legalizing pot to a certain point could certainly help.

---------------------------------------------

krgrecw wrote: There's some truth to that but Pot is also a gateway drug. If you don't want people in a room don't build a door.

The medical use for weed is ********. There's plenty of legal OTC and prescribed medicine that give one the dame effect

---------------------------------------------
--- m0ssy wrote:

I'm not against the war on drugs, but the war on pot doesn't make sense. Prisons are too crowded, and legalizing pot to a certain point could certainly help.

---------------------------------------------

That's the biggest crock of ****. Pot is no less of a gateway drug than Booze or Cigs. I know way more people who've smoked pot and done nothing else than who've smoked pot and done something else. The whole idea of pot being a gateway drug is stupid because it's based aroudn the theory that if someone does something wrong and nothing bad happens they'll do something worse wrong. So if pot was legal that theory would be busted at that point.