Author Topic: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use  (Read 120213 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #210 on: November 22, 2013, 05:18:34 PM »
I don't think you can really assess what Obama truly thinks based upon his political stances. And frankly, given the environment we live in, it would be completely unconstructive for him to pursue decriminalization. It's nice to think that people should be elected to office and take really hardline stances, but I think it's unrealistic. President's almost always govern from the center, and I think there are structural reasons for that.

I mean, just imagine the response if Obama put forward a plan to decriminilize Marijuana federally. Yes, there would be a huge upwelling of support. But there would be a more massive upwelling of hatred and racism. Oh, the first black President wants to decriminlize Marijuana? Of course he does! It would start a battle over an issue that likely wouldn't be won with the Congress we have today, and it would accomplish absolutely nothing.


You might well be right, but that just takes to the point where you and I always butt heads. If he can't actively do anything, then the obvious next step would be the passive approach. Not that hard and nothing stopping him. Instead, his DoJ continues to actively intervene. Besides which, there are plenty of things that can be done short of outright deciminalization. Cut some funding to the DEA commensurate to a decrease in busting potheads. Push for a tweaking of seizure laws so that you can't steel somebody's Corvette because they were driving home with a QP in the trunk. Both of these would lead to a significant decrease in people getting busted for pot matters, while allowing more resources and more incentive for the sorts of things they consider more important.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #211 on: November 22, 2013, 08:59:45 PM »
Well, to pick off where you stopped, things they might consider more important are health care, jobs, national security and a host of other things that are more demanding than fixing a few minor things to let a few potheads off. It wouldn't be substantial change, it wouldn't fix the real problem at hand, and it would require Obama diverting attention and energy into solving those problems.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #212 on: November 22, 2013, 09:08:58 PM »
By cutting DEA funding and having his goon squad quit wasting time busting businesses that the states want to actually bust some real criminals? I don't think so.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #213 on: November 24, 2013, 11:26:25 AM »
How would it not? It seems to me your assuming the President knows everything you know, when in fact he probably knows a lot more about a lot of thigns than you do, and a whole lot less than about a lot of things than you do.

Here's my point:

Imagine you're elected President in '08. You get into office, and immediately you start getting briefings informing you about a lot of programs and information you had no idea about before you got into Presidency. Furthermore, you have constant demands to talk with foreign leaders, deal with foreign relations, managing and leading the armed forces, trying to deal with the economy, dealing with an incalcitrant congress, dealing with Judicial nominees, court battles, legal battles, immigration, and basically the countless issues that face our government.

Now also imagine  before this, that you were running for President, and dealing with the politics of running for President, which doesn't include the War on Drugs.

Meanwhile, you still have to shit, piss, eat, sleep and stay sane.

Where, in all of this, do you find time to investigate the War on Drugs to learn about which measures you can implement to make things better? While, at the same time, not hurting yourself politically so that you can get some other things done about the economy, foreign policy, etc. Even finding someone to deal with these issues would take time and attention.

I think you're idealizing what a President can do. You point to things he can technically do, and think it's realistic that he shoudl be able to do them. But practically speaking, the President is far too busy to get to everything even he may want to get to. He has a LOT of demands, and prioritizing those demands is a pretty difficult thing to evaluate.

As far as I can figure, it's not the President's job to do what you're asking. It's Congresses job, who's sole duty is to evaluate law, pass laws and make the laws the President enforces. It shouldn't be the President who evaluates laws to determine what is and is not working. That's Congress. That's the Press. That's the American people's job. The President is not a legislator, he is not someone who creates law or decides what is lawful.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #214 on: November 24, 2013, 11:30:12 AM »
You mean to tell me he doesn't have occasional, if not regular, briefings with the DEA head and his DoJ? Look, Bush found time to prioritize his DoJ, and he was an incompetent simpleton. Obama's just an asshole.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #215 on: November 24, 2013, 01:03:52 PM »
In the same sentence that you call Bush and 'incompetent simpleton' you also try to use his actions as justification. If he was so incompetant, couldn't some of his prioritization been from incompetence?

I imagine Obama does have regular meetings with the DoJ, and I imagine aspects of the Drug War occasionally do come up. Wasn't one of his first legislative achievements equalizing penalties for crack as with other drugs? I imagine he's also been dealing with immigration, remember his amnesty? And JP Morgan is settling with the DoJ for a $13 Billion fine (which still leaves open criminal prosecution and further fines). I imagine Obama would probably want to be talking about that.

None of which would answer the question of political viability, or deal with the long-term solution. Does it make any sense to risk political backlash for something which would provide only contigient relief for a problem that runs much deeper?


Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23568
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #216 on: December 10, 2013, 08:12:45 AM »
Oh Bill O'rielly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhDj8qFyXF0&sns=em

"This is promoting the use of an intoxicant by the Denver Post!!! Why don't you just set it up like, 'here's a bar in Denver where you can get the cheapest chasers and the most gin for your money'?!?!"


Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 34891
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #217 on: December 10, 2013, 08:25:37 AM »
I saw this live last night at my parent's house and we all laughed when he asked Juan Williams if he gets loaded when he goes to restaurants.  :rollin :rollin

But the funny thing is, you just know that O'Reilly probably got high all the time in college. :lol

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23568
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #218 on: December 10, 2013, 08:42:28 AM »
He probably gets high all the time now and just acts like a piece of shit for the ratings. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #219 on: December 10, 2013, 08:46:19 AM »
I doubt he smokes now, but I thought he was a pretty strong pro-pot kind of guy for practical reasons.

As for his opinions, he's somewhat correct that wine and pot reviews are different. Most people don't drink wine to get fucked up; particularly the wines that get reviewed. However, there are reasons to pick one bag of grass over another that are beyond "this one will get you stoneder." The other thing is that restaurant critics also review bars. I haven't read the POS in ages, but I think the DMN has a bar critic in the guide section. That actually is analogous to what the Denver paper is doing.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16708
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #220 on: December 10, 2013, 08:50:54 AM »
Oh Bill O'rielly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhDj8qFyXF0&sns=em

"This is promoting the use of an intoxicant by the Denver Post!!! Why don't you just set it up like, 'here's a bar in Denver where you can get the cheapest chasers and the most gin for your money'?!?!"

I really cannot even stand that guy for more than a minute.  It usually takes that long before he says something completely ludicrous.  He's a bully...that's all he is.   He's a big goony molester.  Spin this, fuckwad. 

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28117
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #221 on: December 12, 2013, 04:39:42 AM »
No link but I read an article on drudge about NY state legislators starting to bring up full legalization. From the article, they stated Moms have a lot of support because their kids are getting arrested for petty crimes. I don't think I heard of mother support for MJ before but sounds good to me.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #222 on: December 12, 2013, 08:01:16 AM »
If I remember the poll right, there's something like a 15 point difference in favor of legalization at this point.

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 17594
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #223 on: December 12, 2013, 08:03:50 AM »
Wait, what's the argument here?  Their kids are getting arrested for petty crimes, so moms think that legalizing marijuana will somehow help?  I don't follow.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #224 on: December 12, 2013, 08:11:08 AM »
Yeah, that's a bit peculiar, however, I guess it makes sense. I suspect we're talking about black folk, and for black folk the very last thing you want is to be arrested in NYC. That's a real bad trip. While they'll still be cited for minor in possession (or whatever the legal term is up there), that's usually not something you go to jail for. You get a ticket and sent on your way. Due to all of the Terry-stopping they have going on up there, they're using joints and nickel bags to toss kids into jail, mostly just to be dicks and maintain their authority. This would prevent that (or at least put more of a spotlight on them).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 17594
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #225 on: December 12, 2013, 09:22:29 AM »
Oh, so possession is the petty crime that they're being charged with, and it's just stupid.  That I get.  I thought it was like legalizing marijuana would somehow cut down on shoplifting or something.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28117
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #226 on: December 12, 2013, 09:32:26 AM »
Yes. The article mentioned it has a racial impact as well as mostly black and Latinos go to jail for low level MJ crimes. It makes sense. These kids get criminal records for something that is mostly considered safer than alcohol and tobacco.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #227 on: December 12, 2013, 12:22:21 PM »
Not that it's probably needed too much here, but this seems like a pretty good page describing the reasons for legalization. Very fascinating graph at the beginning too - don't think I had seen that before.

https://www.policymic.com/articles/73423/marijuana-legalization-is-about-so-much-more-than-smoking-weed

And here's the poll I was referring to:

https://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

58 to 39% in favor of legalization. That's not even close. Hell, we call a 4% win in Presidential races a "landslide."

It really can't be long now. Once a few states do it successfully, more states will jump on. More and more people don't care, more and more people think it should be legal, and more and more people see it as the corrupt enterprise it is.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #228 on: December 12, 2013, 01:46:21 PM »

It really can't be long now. Once a few states do it successfully, more states will jump on. More and more people don't care, more and more people think it should be legal, and more and more people see it as the corrupt enterprise it is.
Since when does the will of the people matter in government? Add to that, we've got the biggest stoner ever in the whitehouse, and a Democrat, yet he's still adamantly opposed to legalization. Moreover, we haven't seen it work successfully anywhere yet. Colorado and Washington are still hammering out details, and it remains to be seen how much Herr Holder is going to interfere with their ability to do it right. As I've said before, I suspect that a great deal of their enforcement is directed at making sure these programs do fail.

Incidentally, this was the perfect post for SMF's autocorrect to recommend "whorehouse" for "whitehouse." :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #229 on: December 12, 2013, 02:55:40 PM »
Prohibition came to an end in much the same way. First a few states, with the federal government not suing; then the entire thing collapsed. Pressure against the War on Drugs has been mounting for quite some time, and not just from the general public.

I know you're pessimistic and all, and there are certainly plenty of examples where the peoples will doesn't matter one bit, but there are plenty of other examples where the peoples will dramatically changes governmental policies and what goes on.

"Adamantly opposed"? As far as I can tell, Obama has barely taken a position about marijuana personally. I remember he was asked about it directly by, I think, a student in Mexico, and he gave a horrible status quo answer,  but it's not as if the guy is out there railing on it, or even speaking about the issue. I still think your characterization of what has been done is grossly unfair, but I suppose we both know where this specific disucssion goes.

I think one thing that should be mentioned: if Obama or Holder actually wanted to shut down Medical Marijuana, they are doing a fucking horrible, lousy, no good job of doing so. Seriously. You can list a things they are doing, but you don't list the things they aren't doing, that would be within their power. First and foremost, they could sue the states to stop allowing it at all. What do they have to gain by issuing a memo saying Colorado and Washington can go forward - with 8 specific exceptions, all of which are very reasonable - and then taking that back? I just don't see any rational motive, any proof of such motives, nor much of anything, for that matter. They never did rescind their memo saying they wouldn't interfere with state laws, and by and large, they haven't. Where they have, it's been pretty reasonable. Shutting down some cause they're near a school. Other's because the guys we're operating a trans-state operation.

I think it's fine to criticize Obama on his policies, and there's plenty of room for criticism on this issue, but I don't think the ones you bring up are valid. I'd say he deserves some heat for not doing anything, as opposed to being 'adamantly opposed.'

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #230 on: December 12, 2013, 03:54:10 PM »
This is strictly conjecture on my part, by my feeling is that they don't want to shut down medical marijuana programs or force states to reject them. They want them to be passed and then fail [ostensibly] on their own merits. I'd liken the DoJ's actions here more to sabotage and harassment than an actual assault.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #231 on: December 13, 2013, 10:05:33 AM »
And where does that conjecture come from? Is it independently come upon, or is it trying to force an explanation for what's going on?

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28117
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #232 on: December 13, 2013, 11:17:22 AM »
I don't see how the medical mj programs will fail on their own assuming they are following the laws/guidelines.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #233 on: December 13, 2013, 11:50:07 AM »
I don't see how the medical mj programs will fail on their own assuming they are following the laws/guidelines.
But they're by definition contrary to federal laws and guidelines. This leaves the DoJ with leeway to intervene however they see fit.

And where does that conjecture come from? Is it independently come upon, or is it trying to force an explanation for what's going on?
It's my own interpretation of the way things have played out thus far. The DoJ is spending a lot of effort going after people who are trying their damnedest to play by the rules (state, at least). When the DEA is going Raibow-6 all over lawful growers, dispensaries and activists, that leads me to believe it's not smooth, lawful grass sales they want.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #234 on: December 13, 2013, 06:06:55 PM »
Pointing out heavy handed police tactics in this country doesn't really prove anything beyond the fact that we have heavy handed police tactics. I don't see how that does anything to prove Obama, Holder, et al. are involved in some conspiracy to thwart medical marijuana. The DEA would go Rainbow-6 on an elderly grandmother if they thought she had some meth on her.

And the cases I've seen regarding the so called "perfectly legal" growers usually weren't so perfectly legal. Up here in Montana, a lot of them were trafficking across state lines, laundering money, and a host of other illegal activities, even with medical weed. The ones that were honest and didn't do anything didn't get shut down by the feds, they got shut down by Republicans in the States House, who called in the Feds in the first place.


Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #235 on: December 14, 2013, 07:49:03 PM »
Does that include your neighbor Tom Daubert? His is similar to plenty of cases I've read about, where the people involved tried like hell to stay above board at the state level, only to find themselves harassed by the Federales. I recall a Humbolt grower who had the sheriff come out to inspect and tag every one of his plants on a regular basis only to have the feds come in and destroy his operation over charges that didn't even stick (and the sheriff testified on his behalf).

One of the things that really troubles me is busting people for charges that probably won't stick anyway. This was a popular trick under Ashcroft/Gonzalez. In their case they were busting pornographers in what would best be described as frivolous prosecution. We've seen some of that here, including the Oaksterdam case where to the best of my knowledge The Man has filed no charges or offered any explanation for their raid. Although, now it would appear they're just going after forfeitures, which is the driving force behind damn near every prosecution of drugs. You mentioned that the DEA would kick down a grandmother's door if she had meth on her. I would suggest that it would only happen if she had property or if it were a benefit to their grant money and funding.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #236 on: December 15, 2013, 11:35:13 AM »
Does that include your neighbor Tom Daubert? His is similar to plenty of cases I've read about, where the people involved tried like hell to stay above board at the state level, only to find themselves harassed by the Federales. I recall a Humbolt grower who had the sheriff come out to inspect and tag every one of his plants on a regular basis only to have the feds come in and destroy his operation over charges that didn't even stick (and the sheriff testified on his behalf).

https://billingsgazette.com/news/local/marijuana-raids-built-on-years-of-investigation-yield-millions-from/article_01f9d21f-b862-5ae5-bd48-7b17723d869d.html

Don't believe it was within the state law for them to buy from another dispensary. It also sounds like they performed other trafficking, and from the description given, sounds like they sold to someone who didn't have a card. All violations of State Law. Is it weak? Yes. Is it a waste of time? Yes. But it's not as clear cut as just saying they were fully operating with the States Law.

Also, I don't see how the Feds who did come in means Holder is involved in a conspiracy, or that Obama is behind it at all. There's conflicting law, priorities, desires and interests within the federal government, and they're not always controlled by the top.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/mt/pressreleases/20120910112017.html

Quote
The investigation was a cooperative effort between the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task Force.

I'd be curious to know how much control Holder has over all these tasks forces and agency. I'm sure he has some influence, but don't DEA Agents has some autonomy and regionalization? They're told to enforce the law, and the law they're enforcing unfortunately says growing marijuana is illegal. *edit*
My point here, is that, okay, Holder and the higher ups put in a new prioritization and guidelines that it wants it's attorneys and agents to follow, but it's a long ways down to DEA Agents and other enforcement officials and task forces. It's a huge administration, one's that unnecessarily big because the War on Drugs is futile and expensive, and that just makes communication and strict management sorta impossible. Agents in the field have the loophole that the federal law still dictates selling and growing marijuana is illegal, and there's really not going to be much repercussions for it. This arguments falls in line with your gripe about the whole ordeal, in that coppers and such want a piece of the pie. They're still able to do it, and because of the structure of our government (including the size), there's very little consequences. If you're Obama or Holder, and you don't follow the issue much, you're going to think medical marijuana is functioning just fine. There hasn't been any national coverage on the issue, more states are adopting it - hell, they even said they think legalization is fine. Considering size and scope of the federal government, the duties Holder and Obama both oversee, this is all perfectly reasonable.

Add in the fact that if charges get brought, even if it's a flimsy case for you breaking the state law, the move most people are going to take is a plea deal. The actual charges are going to be impossible to beat, because it's going to be pretty damn hard to say you weren't growing, selling and making money off of marijuana when you operated a business.

One more thing: because of the complication of having one state law and one federal law and trying to make obvious points of disagreement work in harmony is just going to lead some of the cases you bring up. I think what you propose doing is fixing the symptoms of a problem instead of addressing the problem.

Quote
You mentioned that the DEA would kick down a grandmother's door if she had meth on her. I would suggest that it would only happen if she had property or if it were a benefit to their grant money and funding.

And I'm perfectly fine with this argument, thing it's valid, and agree with it. But this is a different argument than saying Obama, Holder or the DoJ are involved in a conspiracy to undermine medical marijuana through a series of raids and whatnot.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 12:16:55 PM by Scheavo »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #237 on: December 15, 2013, 12:22:39 PM »
I don't see any indication that Daubert was up to no good, other than the clear violation of federal law. Clearly Montana had no concerns about it; this was strictly a federal cash grab. Seems telling that they let him cop a plea from 20 years federal time to 5 years probation. After all, they got their money.

And I've never said that Obama was the head of this conspiracy. What I've said is that Obama employs at his leisure a pretty crappy AG, who seems to devote a large amount of resources to busting dopers. Furthermore, the pattern appears oriented at busting plenty of the good guys. Assume what you will of that.

And overall, I still think the biggest issue is that we've made fighting dopers so ridiculously profitable. I'm sure you agree with that. There's no incentive to win the so-called war, nor is there any incentive to fight it reasonably.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #238 on: December 15, 2013, 09:18:47 PM »
I don't see any indication that Daubert was up to no good, other than the clear violation of federal law. Clearly Montana had no concerns about it; this was strictly a federal cash grab. Seems telling that they let him cop a plea from 20 years federal time to 5 years probation. After all, they got their money.

Actually, the Montana government was caring quite a bit at this time. There was a HUGE backlash to the law, and I remember reading that most of the actions were done by request of local officials.

Quote
And I've never said that Obama was the head of this conspiracy. What I've said is that Obama employs at his leisure a pretty crappy AG, who seems to devote a large amount of resources to busting dopers. Furthermore, the pattern appears oriented at busting plenty of the good guys. Assume what you will of that.

You referred to "they" when I used Obama and Holder together before, so I assumed you meant Obama as well.

Quote
And overall, I still think the biggest issue is that we've made fighting dopers so ridiculously profitable. I'm sure you agree with that. There's no incentive to win the so-called war, nor is there any incentive to fight it reasonably.

But this is exactly what I'm using to prove my point. There's enough money in it, that regardless of what Herr Holder wants to happen, there will still be people busting pot growers, especially if they're an easy target. In the meantime, there's really not a whole hell of a lot Holder can effectively do. IF he even hears or knows about the cases.


Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #239 on: December 15, 2013, 10:05:49 PM »
But this is exactly what I'm using to prove my point. There's enough money in it, that regardless of what Herr Holder wants to happen, there will still be people busting pot growers, especially if they're an easy target. In the meantime, there's really not a whole hell of a lot Holder can effectively do. IF he even hears or knows about the cases.
There will still be plenty of drug related crime to go around. The difference is that Cali cops can bust people for violating Cali law and still make lots of money in the process. Growing dope and selling it to sick people isn't against Cali law. What we're seeing is the federal government stepping in to bust people who aren't violating Cali law. Likewise, they could just as easily be ripping off dopers in states that are far less tolerant of drugs in general.

Just out of curiosity, did you cut Ashcroft as much slack when he had his goons prosecuting smut peddlers? They did the exact same thing this department is doing in filing questionable charges against people just because the arrest and trial is so disruptive; regardless of whether or not there's a conviction.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #240 on: December 16, 2013, 09:05:24 AM »
But this is exactly what I'm using to prove my point. There's enough money in it, that regardless of what Herr Holder wants to happen, there will still be people busting pot growers, especially if they're an easy target. In the meantime, there's really not a whole hell of a lot Holder can effectively do. IF he even hears or knows about the cases.
There will still be plenty of drug related crime to go around. The difference is that Cali cops can bust people for violating Cali law and still make lots of money in the process. Growing dope and selling it to sick people isn't against Cali law. What we're seeing is the federal government stepping in to bust people who aren't violating Cali law. Likewise, they could just as easily be ripping off dopers in states that are far less tolerant of drugs in general.

And how often do you have someone open up a shop and make it public? Busting a questionable grower or two is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not arguing the procedures being done are good, logical or couldn't be done better - I'm arguing that individual corruption, greed and opinions matter a hell of a lot more than you are. DEA agents have regions, do they not? US Attorneys have regions, do they not?

Quote
Just out of curiosity, did you cut Ashcroft as much slack when he had his goons prosecuting smut peddlers? They did the exact same thing this department is doing in filing questionable charges against people just because the arrest and trial is so disruptive; regardless of whether or not there's a conviction.


Honestly, considering you're the only person I've ever heard anything from about what our government does regarding smut, I don't just Ashcroft for that. Even so, I would take the same approach and consider where the orders are coming from. I certainly wouldn't think Ashcroft would have full control, taht he could be expected to, or taht things wouldn't go on in his administration he wasn't terribly partial to.

In general, though, you should be aware that I don't hate the vitriol for the Bush administration that most liberals do. There's a few things I think are extremely valid to point out about him and his administration (*cough* Iraq *cough*), but in large, I still see a failed system and a failed congress.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #241 on: December 16, 2013, 05:09:52 PM »
Quote
Just out of curiosity, did you cut Ashcroft as much slack when he had his goons prosecuting smut peddlers? They did the exact same thing this department is doing in filing questionable charges against people just because the arrest and trial is so disruptive; regardless of whether or not there's a conviction.


Honestly, considering you're the only person I've ever heard anything from about what our government does regarding smut, I don't just Ashcroft for that. Even so, I would take the same approach and consider where the orders are coming from. I certainly wouldn't think Ashcroft would have full control, taht he could be expected to, or taht things wouldn't go on in his administration he wasn't terribly partial to.
Ashcroft's DOJ went hardcore on smut for several years. You should read up a little on that; it's pretty interesting (if not infuriating). I know there were some folks in Ft Worth that got rounded up in that for making their own videos. By and large the MO was to go to some small town in Pennsylvania or Ohio, order some DVD's through the mail, and then use prevailing community standards to gain a conviction.

And to be clear, this was very definitely a DC based plan and Ashcroft himself was pretty upfront about being highly motivated to rid the country of porn. This wasn't his far away lawyers acting on their own. That's why I find it so hard to believe that Holder hasn't at the very least offered some suggestions for prioritizing his department with regards to busting dopers.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #242 on: December 16, 2013, 05:42:53 PM »
Well if was directly part of Ashcrofts purpose and motivation, then I would say the case is completely different than Holder. For one, Holders official position has been let state-legal pot continue, and there isn't any evidence I've seen ever saying otherwise.

Another difference would be doing something, versus trying to stop something. It's easy to set up a unit / person to go do something like order a DVD and prosecute. It's a lot harder to get everyone within a department to stop doing something, which is still in some ways their job. The level of control is entirely different. Ashcroft would have been using existing law to actively do something, Holder would need new law to stop doing something.





Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25860
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #243 on: December 16, 2013, 06:49:34 PM »
Well if was directly part of Ashcrofts purpose and motivation, then I would say the case is completely different than Holder. For one, Holders official position has been let state-legal pot continue, and there isn't any evidence I've seen ever saying otherwise.
Perhaps it just means that Ashcroft was more honest about his goals; something I have no doubt of. Don't get me wrong, the guy was awful, but I wouldn't ever question his integrity. I can't say that about Holder.

And while he might not be able to tell his guys to stop something, he can damn sure instruct them to focus their efforts on something that matters, rather than something that's easy and profitable.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #244 on: December 16, 2013, 10:14:10 PM »
That's a big perhaps. It's possible, but it's hardly proven. Until proof is given otherwise, I'm gonna go ahead and take people on their word.

Out of curiosity, is there an evaluation of sorts? Yes, we hear about every time a grower or dispensary gets raided and whatnot, but that doesn't really speak of the larger picture. What percentage of the caseload have these cases represented? My point being: his guys could well be focusing on more things 99% of the time, and that 1% makes the news.