What's your thought about no more legal medicinal marijuana stores?

Pot, be it medicinal or recreation is illegal under federal law, period... and has been for quite some time (except for a couple very specific areas), nothing on that front has changes.

What has changed... is another failure at basic project management from this administration (which has increasingly become a more and more obvious pattern that I should have noticed years ago).

A few years ago they made the decision to de-prioritize enforcement of some of those laws with regards to medical users & operations: 

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.

All that has happened here is they have decided to reverse the previous decision and return to the old norm.

@Charles: He did plenty of that (and more) in his youth.

1 hour ago, ComeOnBeer wrote

Your leader had a chance to say something to congress, and this is what he said.

 

Today governor Brown signed the 2nd half of the dream act forcing us to pay for the college tuition of immigrants we never met.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/10/09/governor-brown-signs-second-half-california-dream-act/

Bill could have easily made marijuana legalization his issue and not acted to serve his own, personal, super selfish financial interests, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.........................

What if we enacted a law that made people personally responsible for their ideas and statements before congress. Imagine how many billions we could recoupe on people filing extended unemployment claims and drawing on government services.

What type of responsible person would allow an "infinite amount" of workers into their country no matter how skilled or pay for the education of people who didn't even bother to become citizens or even residents?

Just the word infinite is irresponsible. The reason pot is banned federally is the same reason Bill Gates whined about more cheap labor from the emerging world. It's exploitation.

Wall Street should be occupied. I am only sad that I am no longer a college student to join against the corporate leaders of America like your buddy Bill.

You know you want to say it... "they took ur jerb!"

Grow up beer.

No... actually... it's exactly the same thing.

It's a group of entitled little whiney children who feel they have been jilted by society and not given their just rewards for simply existing and/or just showing up with their hand out... as a result through a hissy fit by seeking to hijacking the lives & property of other people and seek to change things through some of the least effective means imaginable.

The occupy wall street kids hijack a park and annoy locals with blocked traffic, drum circles and a foul smell of rotting trashing and un-showered hippies... while you hijack thread after thread here, annoy the locals with your incessant whining, ranting, and a foul smell of failure.

Behold, your intellectual and moral sibling... who also made a few bad choices in the world and now blames everybody but themselves for it:

Again... grow up.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

I'm not really picking on you, you just had the last of a bunch of similar statements on the issue, so don't take this personally.

Then you should address your comments specifically... rather than go through the nonsensical rambling you do. I'm sorry... but what you said above is quite nonsensical.

For the 8 years prior to Obama, Bush simply 'reinterpreted' the various laws passed using signing statements.  This process is legally dubious, and about as cynical as anything I can think of.  Clinton did it before him, but to a much lesser extent.

Blame Bush. Bush is bad. Bush didn't start it but he made it worse. Yada yada.

I enjoy how you leave out the fact that this administration is attempting to do something on such a scale that no previous administration has... use it's regulatory authority (sometimes invented (see health care law wavers)) to enforce policy that was explicitly rejected by the law makers.

I'm not sure who came up with the actual concept, but the end result is that laws are altered by the exectutive (which isn't legal) and the great unwashed masses blame the executive for 'not passing a law'.

1. You could do some reading about the subject.
2. The signing statement doesn't change the law... it changes how it will be enforced... more on that in a minute though.

Obama is actually being quite smart about it.  If he made it seem legal through lack of enforcement, then as soon as a more conservative president comes through, it's back to enforcement again, and a bunch of young businesses go out of business.

*face palm*

How exactly is he being smart about it... when he's not doing what you said he'd be smart to do? Instead he's getting the blame for himself nice and early... in a time when his poll numbers are increasingly looking bleak and he needs more than a little support from every corner.

Perhaps it's time for another uplifting and rhetorical speech as to why this policy reversal is a good thing?

If, instead, he lets congress do their job and make it legal, then it actually has a chance to stand up in court.  Same goes for any other 'law' that civic ignorants seem to think that Obama has complete control of.

*double face palm*

I know you are desperate to try to defend him, lord knows he needs defending... but you aren't doing it very well.

It looks like it's time for a brief civics lesson: The President is head of the Executive Branch which is charged with the enforcing of the law. While the Rule of Law means that there is a consistent law that is applied to all equally... we don't exactly live under a fully applied system as your local cop has the discretion to give you a warning for speeding, rather than issue a ticket, or a prosecutor the ability to offer a plea deal to a lesser crime so as to ensure a conviction.

Similarly, our government (at all levels) has limited resources, so will necessarily prioritize crimes in terms of which they will apply more resources to the investigation and prosecution of (or other times because they think the law is unjust and decide to simply ignore it rather than seek it's repeal).

It's not the previous limited enforcement of the law that has people outraged (something I might add given your statements above would deem as very illegal as it is the equivalent of a signing statement coming from the DoJ)... but the reversal of their original decision.

At the end of the day... signing statements (assuming we ignore the explicitly political ones which tend to boil down to "I disagree with this law, but will enforce it") are little more than directives to the executive branch as to how it will be enforced... also known as an executive order... both of which are trivially changed at any time by a current or future executive.

29 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Why are you sorry.  I may not have been clear enough, but that's no reason to get emotional about it.  I'm a big boy, I'm wearing my big-boy britches.

And yet resorting to childish insults to try to make your point. Bravo!

Did you fail to notice that I also included clinton in the list of folks who did this?  Why yes, yes you did.

Did you fail to notice my use of the phrase "Bush didn't start it but he made it worse"? Why yes, yes you did.

Is it legal?  You do understand how the legal system works, right?

As I demonstrate time and time again in a rational and level headed way... yes, I do.

"We aren't going to enforce this law" effects the same result as not passing the law.

Only for the time of that a given administration decides to not enforce the law as written... as seen in this case... they changed their mind.

I think I was pretty clear about why I think it was smart.  He said as much when dealing with DADT.  The goal isn't to kick the can down the road, the goal is to get it into law, then the courts so it can be challenged and fixed if neccessary.

Talk about some doublespeak!

No, if he was smart he would have challenged the law immediately, not allow the creation of a dependency (the users) and aboveground economy (the jobs) through the explicit and intentional enforcement of the law... only to risk all of it after the fact.

He himself has now caused what you are/were afraid a Republican would do. Why not just cut out the middle stuff?

Hell... an even smarter (and more politically savvy) would have been to allow the grey market to grow flourish (and likely become more politically powerful) so that when a future administration tried to re-enforce the laws, there would be an even larger push back against such a move.

You know... what successive administrations have done with regards to illegal immigration?

Perhaps if you'd quit smacking yourself in the face with your palm, you'd give yourself a chance to comprehend stuff.

You'll note my tag line off to the side there... "inanity makes my head hurt". It has nothing to do with *face palms*.

I'm sorry, are you giving me a civics lesson or discussing finance and prioritization.  Either way, thanks, but I've got a pretty decent grasp of both.

Again, your words say otherwise.

Establishing precident in the courts would make for a much clearer answer to the question "can I sell weed in california". So Obama directs the DOJ to go back to enforcing it

#BasicLogicFAIL!

Again... the precident was already there... then he changed it... then he changed it again.

Maybe some campaign bundling could make them safer... or even get them a nice DoE loan. I mean, they are green jobs, aren't they?

(Like he directed them to challenge DADT)

Wait! When exactly did Obama direct the DOJ to challenge DADT (ie in court)? He's ordered them not to defend DOMA... but I can find no information as to the DOJ challenging DADT... hell, I can actually find the opposite.

I would suggest supporting your claim before you dig yourself into any other factual holes.

and lets the courts determine the correct answer.  That way, the next time a dem isn't running the show, the change in how the executive enforces the rules won't cause a shakeup in the industry. 

You mean like the President just did!??!?!

I know you and I don't agree, often, if ever, but try and remember that I"m not a complete f*cking idiot.

Your words sure seem to say otherwise.

I know you want the President to do well. I know you believe in him and want him to succeed in everything he does... and when he doesn't, defend it to your last breath.

The sooner you recognize that he is a horrible project/program manager, the better off you and the rest of us will be.

Like many PMs, he paints a grand and rosy vision of the future... only when defining the intermediate steps to getting there he just can't adequately understand the external dependencies which usually leads to poorly managed expectations along the way as the schedule slips. When things go wrong, he's unable to accept responsibility nor alter his spec when a feature needs to be cut to help get the product out the door. Because of this rigidness he ends up with a poor ability to build a non-obvious network of support or alignment with sympathetic stakeholders.

It is unfortunate that he got promoted too fast from his last job (evangelist). Sure, he might not have grown much more in that old role, but it was a far better fit for his skills than where he is today.

47 seconds ago, cbae wrote

@dahat: Obama rigid? Are you out of your freaking wingnut mind? He's been bending over backward to appease the Party of No. The progressives have been criticizing him for being far too accommodating to a party that would rather see the country go down the sh1tter than for him to get re-elected.

Would you like an answer? Or would you like to continue name-calling?