Notifications
Clear all
Uttica,
How is it immoral to discuss government policy? That is all that is being talked about here. No one is talking about smoking pot. We are talking about having a free exchange of ideas and political discourse. If you see that as immoral you may wish to move to Iran, China, or North Korea.
You're suggestion that having a discussion about politics being immoral is REALLY frightening to me. I disagree with many of my fellow citizens on many things, but one thing that those of us living under the US flag almost unanimously agree on is our right to free speech. I guess even that can't be taken as a given anymore.
Sean
Posted : July 21, 2009 9:09 pm
I think that many young people (and even a few old farts like me) see it as very hypocritical that the government has good drugs (alcohol and tobacco) and bad drugs (marijuana and cocaine) and the good drugs are the ones which do the most harm.
And they don't seem to realize that prohibition doesn't work in a free country. It didn't work in the 1920's and it isn't working now. What legalizing alcohol proved is that making it legal takes the criminal element out of the sale and distribution of the drug. People who are not hurting anyone but themselves are not declared criminals and fill up our jails.
Question the current laws if they are unjust.
Me, I say QUESTION EVERYTHING! And if it doesn't make sense then complain about it.
Edited to take out my statement about religion vs MJ laws. I was wrong, Sorry.
Posted : July 21, 2009 9:31 pm
Never said it was immoral to discuss government policy.
And for the record, although I am not religious, I never posted on the atheism vs religion debate.
Posted : July 21, 2009 10:11 pm
I quit doing drugs year ago, weed puts me to sleep in no time. I quit drinking 20 years, I was bad, going down hill for years, A friend helped me out. he said try this for a month. I agreed. He gave me a big bag of weed, and said every time you need a drink, light up a joint instead. I would get stoned and fall asleep 20 minuets later . Did it for a month, and have not touched a drop in 20 years. And man did my life change.
I am not saying this will work for everyone but it works for me. Now i only puff if i feel i need a drink.
weed does not lead to harder drugs (my opinion) the only time i did powder is when i was drunk. But that is just me.
People have different addictions, some booze, some drugs, some chocolate. some religious, and atheist beliefs;)
I should be your choice, it is your body and mind. not the gov
Posted : July 21, 2009 11:04 pm
I agree completely Jim. Sorry about my previous statement, I have removed it.
Posted : July 21, 2009 11:52 pm
Uttica,
How is it immoral to discuss government policy? That is all that is being talked about here. No one is talking about smoking pot. We are talking about having a free exchange of ideas and political discourse. If you see that as immoral you may wish to move to Iran, China, or North Korea.
You're suggestion that having a discussion about politics being immoral is REALLY frightening to me. I disagree with many of my fellow citizens on many things, but one thing that those of us living under the US flag almost unanimously agree on is our right to free speech. I guess even that can't be taken as a given anymore.
Sean
Well put, Sean...I think we are both on the same page...
Uttica....ahh, there are so many things that can be said to a closed mind like yours...but they fall on deaf ears, so I will not even broach the subject with you...Peace....
Posted : July 22, 2009 11:51 am
Oakland to tax marijuana to fill budget shortfall
Legal pot club owners see plan as a way to legitimize their businesses
Associated Press
OAKLAND, Calif. - Oakland residents overwhelmingly voted Tuesday to approve a first-of-its kind tax on medical marijuana sold at the city's four cannabis dispensaries.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32083228/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
Posted : July 22, 2009 4:19 pm
It's funny that the Avis will put in AP articles from different columnist that tout for the legalization of pot....yet they deny the local folks an article for Normal.......hmmmm
Just as well, the folks at the Avis would just report it wrong & miss spell most of the stuff anyways! Not to mention it would appear a day late & a dollar short.
Try the source? Better coverage......at least they are on the web unlike the cave dwellers who still like carving on stone...ie Avis.
Posted : July 22, 2009 4:56 pm
I have a nephew. Cute kid, about 10 years old. When he can't explain something he becomes very flustered and impatient. He becomes agitated and starts to lash out at the person he is trying to explain something to. I figure, with a little patience and teaching, he will learn to make his point and not lash out at someone like a child does.
To bad not everyone learned those lessons going up. Makes their arguments child like...Peace...
Posted : July 22, 2009 10:03 pm
what does the aclu have to say?
Posted : July 23, 2009 4:41 am
*******************
OAKLAND, Calif. - Oakland residents overwhelmingly voted Tuesday to approve a first-of-its kind tax on medical marijuana sold at the city's four cannabis dispensaries.
*******************
What's good for alcohol and tobacco, extremely dangerous and deadly drugs, should be good for cannabis. Let's make it legal and tax it.
Posted : July 23, 2009 5:26 am
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM This is interesting!
Federal Law Trumps State Law ! So If the sale of medical cannabis/marijuana is illegal according to Federal Law, how can a State Tax an illegal substance? Opinions need not apply. Precedent and Fact would be nice.
Posted : July 23, 2009 10:24 am
Topic starter
Department Of Justice Urged To Clarify Administration's Medical Marijuana Policy
Share This Page
June 12, 2009 - Washington, DC, USA
Washington, DC: Members of the US House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment this week that seeks to clarify the Obama Administration's policy toward medical marijuana patients and providers in states that have authorized the drug's therapeutic use.
The amendment, sponsored by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill, reads: "There have been conflicting public reports about the Department's (of Justice's) enforcement of medical marijuana policies. Within 60 days of enactment, the Department shall provide to the Committee clarification of the Department's policy regarding enforcement of federal laws and use of federal resources against individuals involved in medical marijuana activities."
In March, US Attorney General Eric Holder stated that he would not authorize federal justice resources to target or prosecute medical cannabis users or providers that are compliant with state law. However, agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration have continued to target medical marijuana providers in California and other states, and federal prosecutors have continued to bring federal anti-drug charges against defendants who were acting in accordance with their state's cannabis laws.
"I've been greatly encouraged by what President Obama and Attorney General Holder's public statements in support of state's determining their own medical marijuana, but remain concerned about the matter since the federal government has still continued raids in states that permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes," Rep. Hinchey said in a prepared statement. "This provision will provide Congress with the transparency we need to determine whether any further legislative action is needed. It's imperative that the federal government respect states' rights and stay out of the way of patients with debilitating diseases such as cancer who are using medical marijuana in accordance with state law to alleviate their pain."
The full House is expected to consider the bill shortly.
Posted : July 23, 2009 12:09 pm
Topic starter
US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To State Medical Marijuana Laws
Share This Page
May 21, 2009 - Washington, DC, USA
Washington, DC: The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal brought by a pair of Southern California counties that sought to challenge the legality of the state's medical marijuana laws. The Court's order lets stand a unanimous 2008 Fourth District CA Court of Appeals ruling that determined that state laws allowing for the medical use of cannabis by qualified patients "do not create a 'positive conflict' [with federal law.]"
In 2006, lawmakers from San Diego and San Bernardino filed suit against San Diego NORML and the state of California, arguing that federal anti-drug laws preempt the state's medical marijuana laws. Both the California Superior Court and the Court of Appeals had rejected the counties' legal arguments.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented San Diego NORML in the suit: "The Court's order ... hold that state medical marijuana laws are entirely valid despite the federal prohibition on marijuana. ... The Court's order leaves ample room for states to move forward with enacting and implementing independent medical marijuana policies."
Commenting on the outcome, NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said: "San Diego and San Bernardino's protracted lawsuits — lawsuits that arguably cost county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and jeopardized the health and safety of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of citizens — were not about resolving legal ambiguity. These cynical efforts were about the arrogance and recalcitrance of a few who were willing to abuse their political power to hamstring the will of the voters, the state legislature, and the courts."
Posted : July 23, 2009 12:13 pm
Topic starter
An End To Federal Marijuana Prosecutions
Share This Page
June 18, 2009 - Washington, DC, USA
Washington, DC: Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, along with co-sponsor Texas Republican Ron Paul, reintroduced legislation today to limit the federal government's authority to arrest and prosecute minor marijuana offenders.
The measure, entitled an "Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults," would eliminate federal penalties for the personal possession of up to 100 grams (over three and one-half ounces) of cannabis and for the not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce of pot – making the prosecutions of these offenses strictly a state matter.
Under federal law, defendants found guilty of possessing small amounts of cannabis for their own personal use face up to one year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.
Passage of this act would provide state lawmakers the choice to maintain their current penalties for minor marijuana offenses or eliminate them completely. Lawmakers would also have the option to explore legal alternatives to tax and regulate the adult use and distribution of cannabis free from federal interference.
To date, thirteen states have enacted laws 'decriminalizing' the possession of marijuana by adults. Minor marijuana offenders face a citation and small fine in lieu of a criminal arrest or time in jail.
"The federal government has much more important business to attend to than targeting, arresting and prosecuting adults who use marijuana responsibly," NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. "This is an issue that ought to be handled by the states, not the Feds."
According to nationwide polls, three out of four voters believe that adults who possess marijuana should not face arrest or jail, and one out of two now say that cannabis should be regulated like alcohol.
The reintroduction of the Frank/Paul bill comes one week after the duo reintroduced HR 2835, The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009 – which seeks to halt federal interference in states that have enacted medical marijuana laws – and just days after Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) called for federal legislation to sentence certain first-time marijuana offenders to 25 years in prison.
"The US Congress has a definite choice," said St. Pierre. "They can choose the path of compassion, fiscal responsibility, and common sense by supporting Barney Frank's and Ron Paul's efforts, or they can continue down America's failed drug war path by endorsing Rep. Kirk's draconian legislation. It is abundantly clear which direction the voters wish to go; will their elected officials follow?"
Posted : July 23, 2009 12:15 pm
Are prescription drugs taxable in the states?
If the legalized mj for recreational use, would we have to pay back taxes on all the mj I used for for 40 years:-o
Posted : July 23, 2009 12:20 pm
Topic starter
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2835ih.txt.pdf
Text of the 2009 federal patient protection act, pending before congress.
Support it by going to http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/?style=D It only takes a minute
And this, http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/?style=D
And this, The Industial Hemp Act of 2009 http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/?style=
Posted : July 23, 2009 12:23 pm
Bombi,
Presently if you are in possession of a small amount of cannabis, are you breaking the Law? Yes or No
Posted : July 23, 2009 6:05 pm
Presently it's illegal under federal law to have any amount, but some state laws allow so many grams for "personal use".
It's not a question of it being illegal........we all know it is. This is a voice of many people trying to get the laws changed
Not that long ago it was illegal to vote as a black or as a woman. It was illegal to drink alcohol once upon a time too.
We all know the stinking law.........this is people advocating for a change in the law.
Posted : July 23, 2009 6:47 pm
Topic starter
Lizard you would be correct ,if I am in the VI but in 15 US states no. And perhaps if the pending decriminalization law passes then the door is wide open to change.
The thing is that the law will change in the VI within the next few years.
Think of the decrease in court and incarceration costs and the restoration of our liberties and the deregulation of morality.
Posted : July 23, 2009 6:52 pm
Islandtyme,
I thought I asked Bombi for a simple yes or no.
Posted : July 23, 2009 7:35 pm
Bombi,
it is your position that it is legal in the 15 states regardless of the Federal law?
Posted : July 23, 2009 7:38 pm
Lizard,
I am not Bombi, but we are of similar mind.
There is no federal law that mandates that states must enforce federal laws against marijuana possession or cultivation. States are free to determine their own penalties — or lack thereof — for drug offenses. State governments cannot directly violate federal law by giving marijuana to patients, but states can refuse to arrest patients who possess or grow their own. The 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich did not overturn state medical marijuana laws or block other states from adopting similar measures.
In fact, the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s June 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich stated unequivocally that “marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes.” The ruling did not overturn state medical marijuana laws or prevent states from enacting new ones. It simply preserved the status quo as it has been since California passed Proposition 215 in 1996: States can stop arresting medical marijuana patients under state law, but these laws don’t create immunity from federal prosecution.
Posted : July 23, 2009 7:51 pm
That wasn't the question was it.
Posted : July 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Lizard,
Once again, unless you are on the hunt for another victim for your personal lynch mob, the question has been answered with the official stance of USVI NORML. Should you wish to contest our stance, please feel free to contact me.
Linda Adler
President, USVI NORML
Posted : July 23, 2009 8:44 pm
