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

[Kraftwerk]

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

The rationale here by people is just comical. are you cool with blue laws in your states that forbid you from buying alcohol on sundays? Sodomy laws?

Get your alcoholic homosexual ideas out of here. Sunday is God's day, not buy a 40 and stick your dick up your life partner's behind.

[heartbrand]

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

I wonder if they will choose to even hear the case though. 5 of the 9 justices have been appointed by conservative presidents with three of them remaining from the Reagan era. They might decide not to hear it because of their belief in strong state rights with the government trying to meddle in their affairs as little as possible. And yes the federal law prohibits its illegality in the U.S but it has not been actively in-forced for quite some time as anyone who has been in California can attest to. There are more marijuana dispensaries in L.A then there are Starbucks.

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though, states rights aside those arguments are usually because of the belief by the conservative justices, a belief I must admit I also hold, that Congress routinely oversteps it's boundaries vis-à-vis the commerce clause. This case is one where a state law directly contradicts a federal law, which would seem straight forward to me. A better argument would be that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause, however, arguments using the commerce clause have been for the most part even under the conservative majority almost unanimously unsuccessful with the exception of United States v. Lopez

[Sektor]

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.]

LOL stupid shit like this cracks me up.

[Agatha]

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

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though

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

[karsten]

all the lawyers that I know don't use words they dug out of a torts textbook because they're normal people with normal friends who don't care

except one guy who failed the bar in three states and is still trying to get everyone to call him a lawyer even though he's not still

[Num1RecommendedByDentists]

Originally Posted by Num1RecommendedByDentists [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

oh my good fucking christ

i just skimmed through this thread, heartbrand has 50% of this thread's 140 posts and the average word count is 300+

telling me to step away from the keyboard the other day and then pulling this shit

you're a hoot heartbrand

oh man

hahahahahahahahahahah

[p-niner]

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

Medical marijuana laws violate federal law and will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court

Yet more states add medical and 2 just went legal without need of doc consent.

KEEP answering phones and reciting scripted responses to disgruntled customers.

[heartbrand]

It is pretty straight forward that those laws violate the supremacy clause. Just because the DOJ during the Obama administration has been inept at deciding how to handle the changing societal views on marijuana, does not change that fact.

[GoodGuyAmes]

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

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though

They try and pursue them in court instead of kicking down doors. When they stop trying to stop it on the ground and just focus on applying pressure through the courts it just becomes all for show. The DOJ needs to follow the law in place and not the law they think should be in place. Public servants in government do not create law - only the congress has that power. I'm sure Eric Holderman believes that they should just let the states decide or even go one step further and decriminalize it across the board but he just cant act on his personal beliefs. I voted for Obama in 2008 and I really hoped to see more of his campaign promises enacted when he came to office. Decriminalize and tax (still illegal for street dealers to sell, regulate it and make it safe) marijuana, legalize gay marriage and give them all the federal benefits straight couples enjoy and lets focus on important issues.

[Agatha]

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

It is pretty straight forward that those laws violate the supremacy clause. Just because the DOJ during the Obama administration has been inept at deciding how to handle the changing societal views on marijuana, does not change that fact.

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

for the non retired special forces pilots, thats a b-52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_S...ment_(Airborne) < where i used to serve