This is clearly a horrific health crisis that could spread across the land like… hold on… Yeah, pass that over here… Umm… Now, where was I?
It’s a routine declaration of the Oakland City Council, but yeah, it’s kind of funny too. The City of Oakland is set to renew its declaration of a “local public health emergency” stemming from a local lack of medicinal cannabis.
Oakland official Barbara Parker says the proclamation was originally issued in 1998. It effectively means nothing, but it does buttress Oakland city policies like permitting medical cannabis dispensaries, and ordering Oakland Police to effectively ignore pot offenses.
Parker said the city originally issued the declaration because federal and state law enforcers were busting local growers and cancer patients. That threat of imprisonment persists to this day. The declaration says people could die due to lack of cannabis, so it’s cause for Oakland to continue the declaration.
in related news shelves are now over stocked with Twinkies and worker productivity is up 800%
Quick, somebody call the Wahbulance. Either legalize the stuff or don’t, but stop having this gray legal area where the city promises not to enforce the law.
Under Federal law, marijuana is illegal. If California cities are going to nullify Federal law, than don’t be surprised when Republican states decide to nullify Obamacare.
The solution is to repeal or reform Federal law and let the state legislatures make laws how the people of California see fit.
The Left never thought they would want States Rights.
This is a public relations stunt by Oakland councillors, to draw attention to their support for the general legalisation of marijuana for medical and therapeutic use. I’m guessing that there really isn’t a shortage of pot in The Land of Oaks.
Smoke them if ya got them…
===================
Smoke smoke SMOKE that cigarette….
===================
Umm dah!!
Here is a MUCH more manly pic of Arnie!
#2 Benji, quit ly’in. If you look past Fox Snooze, you will see Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. directed federal prosecutors Monday to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients.
Seems the Repukes are the ones living in the 1950’s.
yeah uh no duh. if you can’t see that this is really a fiduciary crisis for the city of Oakland (like politicians really care if people die) than you are more blind than Stevie Wonder with shades on.
the federal government has no business telling individual ADULTS what they can or can’t put into their own bodies. same with the state and local government. that goes for salt, trans fats, pot, coke, cigarettes, so on and so forth.
Legalize, regulate, tax! Removes the criminal gangs, reduces the load on the judicial system, raises new tax revenue. Legislating this type of morality has simply never worked. Golly, using logic in this situation is difficult for people after 70 years of brainwashing…
#6 Dallas said, “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. directed federal prosecutors Monday to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients”
That doesn’t change the fact that marijuana is still illegal under Federal law. Selective enforcement of the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Change the law, not the enforcement of said law.
Even if Eric Holder promises to never prosecute any marijuana offenses under Federal law does not mean some police officer or Federal agent won’t arrest or harass a medical marijuana patient.
Change the law, not the enforcement of the law. Otherwise the rule of law means nothing.
This is hilarious! I still don’t understand why this stuff is just legalized?
#9–Benji–take a refresher course on “Federalism.” Should be foundational to the other stuff you spout.
Feds can have their laws enforced by their gestapo especially on their land.
States can do the same. No nullification. Just two sets of laws applied by their own terms.
Surely you are up to this?
#7–BBoy. Well, an excellent application of libertarian ideology. We agree.
Ah, Benji,
The federal government is not empowered by the Constitution to make an agricultural product illegal, unless it is sold across state lines. It’s about time someone enforced the law alright.
#8 said “Legalize, regulate, tax! Removes the criminal gangs, reduces the load on the judicial system, raises new tax revenue.”
Bull Sh*t!!
Lifting Prohibition didn’t get rid of the bootleggers.
Regulate – How? At what cost?
Tax – Like cigarettes? How do you collect those taxes?
Arnold looked much happier then than he does now.
BigBoyBC said,
“Lifting Prohibition didn’t get rid of the bootleggers.”
Why are there still bootleggers if alcohol is legal?
To make moonshine?
To sell alcohol to minors?
If so, this must be a regional thing.
Yeah BBoy–you went back to stupid and irrelevant with that post. I guess you can’t help yourself. Big question–did this happen in parallel with, or because of, your LIEberTARDIANISM?
Moonshine==as big a problem today as it was during prohibition?
Silly.
@bobbo, #16
Wow, you really aren’t too bright, are you? For a second, I thought you must have multiple personality disorder. Then I realized you mistook BigBoyBC for me, BmoreBadBoy. Yes, they both have 3 B’s and boy in the name. Now, try doing something that you never do with your logic or arguments – ask the next question.
I always argue on the side of Liberty. Period. No exceptions. I guess I have principles, what can I say?
@BigBoyBC, #13
Now, about lifting prohibition, it doesn’t get rid of anything my dim-witted friend. It drives down the cost of the formerly prohibited product, which then leads to the demise of the criminal interest in supplying said product. Of course, alcohol is still regulated, and taxed, so I guess you might still have microbreweries that might sell under the table. But it’s not the Al Capone, Chicago gang land issue it was back during Prohibition by a long sight! Legalizing then regulating and taxing marijuana will make it like many other schedule 2 or higher narcotics. You either get it through a permission slip from your doctor, or get it on the street, which will be riskier, but not as bad as things are now. The best solution is to stop trying to legislate what people put into their own bodies. If there is no victim, there is no crime. Period.
Btw, how the hell is weed a schedule 1 narc? Weed is safer than alcohol. Ever heard of anyone overdosing on weed?
Steve S, Bobo and BmoreBigBoy,
I guess using the term “bootleggers” sent you guys off on a tangent to my point. I should have said “Organized Crime”. When booze was no longer profitable they moved on to other illegal activities (The gang problem won’t go away).
As to my position of the legalization of pot. I don’t care, either way. But, the excuses that #8 made are just propaganda. It’s more complicated than just changing a law, and people better realize it before the make any decisions.
And Bobo, lay off smoking the cheap sh*t while drinking Thunderbird. That stuff is rotting your brain.
#17–BM-BB==Yep. Excellent you can tell the mistake I made. Ya got some depth. Now let’s see you use it:
“I always argue on the side of Liberty. Period. No exceptions. I guess I have principles, what can I say?” /// Not much as you repeatedly demonstrate. You post like a 12 year old, or like Benji, who has just read an idea for the first time and takes to it without balance, practicality, or wisdom. The Liberty Interest of one person will always ultimately come into conflict with the Liberty Interest of others. You don’t always argue Liberty, just the retarded interest of YOURSELF.
You say prohibition doesn’t get rid of anything but then in the very next sentence describe exactly what it does get rid of.
Silly.
#20–BM-BB==total Fail. Answer the question.
Like most Dogma, it has a certain ring when spounted from the vegetable crates in the Public Square, but get it down to specifics, and you prove yourself the fool.
Answer the question.
My bad. Same dispute on different thread.
Here’s the question as yet unanswwered from the “Send in the Clowns” post:
“For this blog–why don’t you explicate how YOUR beliefs didn’t directly lead to the crash of 2008 and tell us why reregulation along the lines of Glass-Steagall is not a necessary social control over this unregulated business?”
@bobbo, #35
Since you posted the question to me in 2 separate columns, I’ll post this retort in both.
Man, ok, since you want to bring up Glass-Steagall, let’s talk about Glass-Steagall. First of all, President William J. Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, which effectively repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, the part that eventually led to the crash of 2008. So keep kissing his butt, you liberal scum.
And before you say, oh, Bubba couldn’t help it, it was Veto-proof, read:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/04/how-democrats-were-hijacked-by-wall.html
and do your research on what the final tally was on the vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, for which your precious Joe Biden, D, Delaware voted AYE!!!! Boo-Yah! You’ve been PWND!!! 😉
It’s really funny when people think there is any such thing as the free market in this country, then turn around and use Greenspan as an example. Greenspan is the penultimate example of a regulator. The very fact that he set monetary policy by setting interest rates, regulated banking institutions and took over troubled banks “temporarily” using stolen money from tax payers puts him in YOUR camp, the camp that opposes the free market. When he introduces money into circulation, he inflates the currency because the more of it that exists, the less it is worth. So, please, don’t confuse Greenspan’s ideology with the free market. That’s an oxymoron.
Finally, there is no such thing as effective legislation, as history has repeatedly shown, over and over. Lawyers are good at leaving loopholes in legislation, so they and their buddies can get around it, while you and I get screwed.
#23–BM-BB==well, since this is the newer thread, I’d say lets keep the discussion here==but you aren’t discussing it. You refuse to answer the question and prefer to use one of your shit can rants.
To rephrase slightly as a response/integration to your mostly off point rant:
why don’t you explicate how YOUR beliefs/”free market no regulations” didn’t directly lead to the crash of 2008 and tell us why reregulation along the lines of Glass-Steagall is not a necessary social control over this unregulated business?”
@bobbo, #24
Ok, I guess I haven’t made it plain and simple enough for you. So here goes:
MY BELIEFS/”FREE MARKET NO REGULATIONS” did NOT directly lead to anything because they have not been practiced. Isn’t that what my “rant” was all about? Ever since 1934, when the SEC was created, there have been regulations created to directly affect the market. And since government has a monopoly on currency and can effect rates and inflate money and pick winners and losers through legislation, there is no free market. Hence it hasn’t been free from direct government regulation so that means legislation is what lead to the crash of 2008 (and numerous crashes before that).
Regulation along the lines of Glass-Steagall don’t work because politicians can be BOUGHT, just like your precious democrats were on November 4, 1999 @ 3:30PM:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354
where they changed their vote from Nay on a former, similar bill, to Yea, along with the gop, for the gramm-leach-bliley act, which effectively nullified the Glass-Steagall Act, according to the following link:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/04/how-democrats-were-hijacked-by-wall.html
I answered your questions, plain and simple. I wonder how much of the kool-aid you’ve gotten yourself drunk with. Will you finally stop blaming the “free market” for what legislation and regulations and government corruption has wrought upon us?
Sad.
Sad BECAUSE you are totally unreal in your assessment. Our current financial debacle, the oil spill in the Gulf, the lack of single payer healthcare and all other sorts of social dystopia is brought on by your idiot version of libertarian/free market philosophy.
To say that current REAL examples of it are invalid because “true libertarianism/free market” were not really in play acts as if it ever would be. Nonetheless, Greenspan is a free market f*cktard and libertarian advocate. He did the best he could and look what he and his attitude and his philosophy brought us.
Your “thinking” is totally circular. If it a situation doesn’t work, its because libertarian principles weren’t really followed. From your point of view, you can’t lose. From my point of view, you are nothing but.
Like I said–Sad when you can’t understand/accept OVERWHELMING evidence right before your eyes.
Down right LIEberTARDIAN. You have no clothes.
@bobbo, #27
The only reason it’s sad is because you are right, the government will never allow free markets to reign. And short-sighted people like you will always depend on the government to tell you what you can do and how. If only people like you had the guts to tell nanny state to leave nonviolent people alone to make their own decisions.
Still, you have to admit, all politicians, even your precious liberal d-bag democrats, are all corrupt and able to be bought. Can you at least admit that?
BM-BB==thats the whole point. People are “corrupt.” Your ideology only works if people are pure, or act purely==in accordance with your philosophy.
So, your notion of libertarianism only works in a pure world that doesn’t exist. THAT WHY trying to implement its tenets in the real world doesn’t work.
This is all right before your eyes and your experience yet you continue to champion your dogma over your experience.
PRAGMATISM===defined: its what works.
DOGMA===believed whether it works or not.
Libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma. Wake up.
@bobbo, #29
Since people are corruptible, as you readily admit, why give some of them power to exert their own self-interests at the expense of others? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
My ideology DEPENDS on people acting in self-interest. Unlike yours, where you dupe yourself into believing politicians will look after the public’s best interest. My philosophy is simple, don’t aggress against people who haven’t aggressed against you. Unlike the millions of laws on the books. Even the lawmakers themselves don’t know all the laws, yet “ignorance is no excuse” if you break one.
The reason the tenets of libertarianism aren’t implemented is because people have been indoctrinated to follow a leader, to need to have other people tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. That’s what they mean by structure. Like in prison or in the military. Some people need it. If you want that, I say, go ahead, you’re free to have it. Elect you a president. Pay taxes. Just don’t bother me if I don’t want to go along with YOUR system or ideology.
My experience has been forced upon me. But I choose see things how they aren’t and ask, why not?
Your argument is fallacious. Back when monarchies were rampant, that was what was deemed “pragmatic”. It worked, as long as you had a just and wise king. Then when his spoiled brat of a son gained the thrown, shyt hit the fan. Same with democracy. If you’re lucky, you get a president who does less harm than most and a deadlocked congress/senate.
My beliefs are not dogma at all. In my belief system, there is no authority. Everyone deals with each other on a voluntary basis. Your beliefs are dogma, because they come from up high, the white house and capitol hill, kind of like temples of sorts, eh? They come down with their tablets of LAWS, which you cannot dispute. Even if they make no sense. Voting for new politicians every 2,4 or 6 years is a sham. It gives them way too much time to ignore your desires and make deals with “contributors” until the next election comes around.
You’re a serf in this feudal kingdom called the US. You’re the one who needs to WAKE UP!
Idiot.