PSA: ATTN - If you are bound in raid zones, read this

[heartbrand]

I couldn't agree more. The DOJ has for too long been used as a weapon of the executive branch to selectively enforce certain laws and ignore others, the CSA included. I have to disagree on Eric Holder though, I've written to him before and his responses are troubling to a social libertarian such as myself. He's a big opponent of legalizing online poker for example because of it's "evils" and would not vote for legislation that allows states to decide whether to tax and regulate it. While republicans claim to be the party of small government and states rights, that doesn't seem to apply to sexual orientation / drugs / gambling aka anything that goes against their Puritan values.

edit: a well written article on the legality of state marijuana laws and their interaction with federal law: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/PA714.pdf A decent response to the article, http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog...arijuana-laws/ which makes the argument that states merely choosing not to enforce federal laws is not equivalent to attempting to violate federal laws, but that of course under federal law marijuana possession and use remains illegal.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by heartbrand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I couldn't agree more. The DOJ has for too long been used as a weapon of the executive branch to selectively enforce certain laws and ignore others, the CSA included. I have to disagree on Eric Holder though, I've written to him before and his responses are troubling to a social libertarian such as myself. He's a big opponent of legalizing online poker for example because of it's "evils" and would not vote for legislation that allows states to decide whether to tax and regulate it. While republicans claim to be the party of small government and states rights, that doesn't seem to apply to sexual orientation / drugs / gambling aka anything that goes against their Puritan values.

edit: a well written article on the legality of state marijuana laws and their interaction with federal law: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/PA714.pdf A decent response to the article, http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog...arijuana-laws/ which makes the argument that states merely choosing not to enforce federal laws is not equivalent to attempting to violate federal laws, but that of course under federal law marijuana possession and use remains illegal.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
this is an mh-53 in honor of heartbrands 53rd post in this thread

[Stinkum]

Originally Posted by heartbrand

The rationale here by people is just comical. Are you ok when the government says online poker and sports betting is illegal? Do you just go o yaw that's classic np np good decision? are you cool with blue laws in your states that forbid you from buying alcohol on sundays? Sodomy laws? You think the current patent law system is ok?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[big league chew]

Originally Posted by Stinkum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

had a hearty lol, ty

[hagard]

not surprised to see HB still posting 500word replies to this thread

[p-niner]

Originally Posted by Stinkum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hahaha