How is California’s attempted legalization of pot different from the States attempt to opt out of 0bamacare?
August 8th, 2010 | by admin |dwoodall asked:
There is a Federal Law that states that posession of marijuana without a prescription is illegal, yet California wants to pass a law exempting Californians from that law.
There is a Federal Law that states that posession of marijuana without a prescription is illegal, yet California wants to pass a law exempting Californians from that law.
Haven’t we been hearing from the left that “Federal Law trumps State Law” whenever we point out that our State wants to sue over the healthcare bill?
Are they smoking so much pot that they don’t understand the 10th Ammendment, unless it benefits them?
Eagle Claw Fishing Rods
No Responses to “How is California’s attempted legalization of pot different from the States attempt to opt out of 0bamacare?”
By I hate hippie liberal douches on Aug 9, 2010 | Reply
We’re talking about hippies here, woodall. These guys can’t tell their heads from their rear ends.
By ✈ ▏▏ ✈ ⬠ NEVAR 4GET ⌚ on Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
They understand that the White House probably has more important things to care about than legalization of marijuana in California.
As I recall, Reagan didn’t enforce the federal labor laws.
By Dr. Phil of sh*t on Aug 13, 2010 | Reply
They are also jerking all second amendment rights from holders of Med pot cards.
Since when does a cancer patient qualify for removal of second amendment rights??
By iris054 on Aug 14, 2010 | Reply
Wrong. The bill Obama just signed into law says states may design their own health care programs.
Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate
See? If you read Huffington Post instead of just watching FOX you’d be better informed. And if you turned your hat around you’d look smarter too.
##
By blake on Aug 14, 2010 | Reply
here here i agree. they just wanna add more taxes thats all
By Conservative Carcharodon on Aug 16, 2010 | Reply
San Jose, CA - a California (D) congress man is introducing a bill that will make it a law to ban all Happy Meal toys as it promotes obesity in young kids.
I guess the parents and eating habits at home are no longer the issue. It’s all about the little Star War & Nascar toys.
It’s a SF city council member ( dem of course ) who is urging the bill to pass congress. They want to legalize pot so the tax revenue can be used to treat drug addiction. No joke, that’s what was reported.
California should be annexed away from the rest of the country and allowed to drift out in the ocean and fend for itself.
By pard68 on Aug 18, 2010 | Reply
You’re about right. It’s always been that way for them.
They demanded a Republican congressman step down because he made a mild-racist remark at best. Reid and Bidden have made some EXTREMELY racist remarks and no one cares. Heck, Sen. Byrd is a Purple Wizard in the KKK!
They complained that the tea party was trashing congressional offices and then, come to find out, it was a bunch of Dems who did it, and that story stopped dead in its tracks.
By Right-wing nutjob on Aug 19, 2010 | Reply
It’s good because it’s a liberal idea. That’s how they roll. Just like Bush’s spending was running our country into the ground but somehow 0bama’s spending is going to save the world.
By Bomfy on Aug 21, 2010 | Reply
Individual states can choose not to enforce Federal Laws, so the Feds would have to come in and deal with it themselves.
The only real thing I could see the Fed doing to force the plan on the states that don’t want it is to threaten to take other things away.
I can see you point, it’s more than a tad hypocritical.
By Your Assistant on Aug 25, 2010 | Reply
It is the federal governments law to enforce this law or not and enforce the new health care laws they will. Are you afraid that someone is going to not die because they have to pay for their health insurance now? I do not get the real parallel in your question. It seems like apples and oranges to me.
Why would a person not want health care reform. Oh, they work for the health insurance companies, they have their health care paid for (so they think) and they are rich (can pay for it easily themselves) so the minority has no right to get that benefit.
Seems under this standard the majority is the TYRANNY to the minority whom are left out. Hmmm…. I would never want to deny others health care due to my good fortune and my smug selfishness, and I do not think when you do you would either.
By serenely, soMEone on Aug 26, 2010 | Reply
It isn’t.
States do a much better job of governing when DC is properly restrained.
DC is analogous to a housing association but it has tried and succeeded in overpowering almost every force set against keeping it on track with the Constitution.
By Derik on Aug 29, 2010 | Reply
They’re full of hypocrisies. Like their hate for Capitalism; Do the weed dealers give it away for free? Of course not! They are trying to turn a profit.
By I ♥ Spending on Sep 1, 2010 | Reply
The occasional support of marijuana legalization is one of the few things Democrats do that doesn’t increase the national debt. If the Democrats didn’t get so many “contributions” from lawyers they may have actually done something right decades ago and legalized it. Now that more and more Republicans are talking about legalization the Democrats may want to beat them to the punch and kiss the lawyers’ butts some other way instead. I recommend legalizing gay marriage. Lawyers make big money on divorces, maybe even enough to make them back off on the marijuana issue. Gay divorces might be enough of a windfall for them to satisfy their greed. If not let’s make an issue out of taxing the lawyers extra to pay for prison expenses and all the money that goes out of the country to foreign drug cartels. They owe us for that.
By tonalc2 on Sep 4, 2010 | Reply
Federal law does trump state law. If pot is legalized in California, the feds would be within their rights to swoop in with raids and pot busts; or they could determine the law not viable.
However, that scenario is highly unlikely, esp. since Holder gave the directive to stop busting medical marijuana dispensaries.
By Malignant Narcissist on Sep 7, 2010 | Reply
Oh, you must’ve missed the memo. If you are a liberal, the constitution is supposed to be a fairweather document. When it comes to health care, the state has to adopt the federal jargon. When it comes to marijuana, it is up to the state as to whether or not they want to allow such a thing.
Why even bother having a constitution anymore if it isn’t honored?
Thank god for the 10th Amendment…now pretend that it exists, Mr. Messiah Hussien!
By charles on Sep 9, 2010 | Reply
I think what California is considering is repealing a state law, which they can do if they choose to without question. The Feds will still be able to enforce the Federal law or try, without any assistance from the state unless state law is violated. The 10th Amendment is not an issue.
States opposed to Obama Care are challenging the validity of the Federal law in ways not limited to the 10th amendment. A closer analogy would be if the Federal Government said you are required to buy a certain amount of marijuana every year whether you want to or not, and they fine you or put you in prison if you don’t.
By bwlobo on Sep 10, 2010 | Reply
Good point, dwoodall. I still don’t get why the President and all his czars and the Cogress and all their staff get to opt out of Obamacare either. Liberals are such forked-tongue, slithering hypocrites!
You know, though… nothing is new under the sun. After reading these verses in Psalm 101: 3-7, you realize that there have been rotten, deceiving liars from the beginning of social groups!
I refuse to take a second look
at corrupting people and degrading things.
I reject made-in-Canaan gods,
stay clear of contamination.
The crooked in heart keep their distance;
I refuse to shake hands with those who plan evil.
I put a gag on the gossip
who bad-mouths his neighbor;
I can’t stand
arrogance.
But I have my eye on salt-of-the-earth people—
they’re the ones I want working with me;
Men and women on the straight and narrow—
these are the ones I want at my side.
But no one who traffics in lies
gets a job with me; I have no patience with liars.
Sounds like the attitude of the Tea-Party Faithful, doesn’t it….
By BabyJames on Sep 13, 2010 | Reply
California could save themselves from financial ruin by giving its citizens the liberty to use marijuana for its many great uses. Decriminalizing marijuana saves billions in costs for trials, jailing, patrol, and it takes the marijuana market out of the hands of the black market and puts it into the hands of entrepreneurs. People whose interest is not to sell illegal substances for profit (including cocaine, meth, ex, you name it)… but to build a business.
The people of california will decide if they want to legalize the use of pot. Just like the people decided to elect officials who would bring about health care reform. Remember that landslide election? FOXs polls were crap then and they are crap now.
The states can attempt to opt out. Good Luck. Wish I could have opted out of the bailout for wall street. The fact is that health care reform in the long term will provide the nation with affordable, accessible and reasonable medicine… when providers do not have to inflate costs to make up for uninsured unpaid bills and astronomical overhead in administrative costs as well as pennies to the dollar private health care payments… EVERYONE will benefit.
If you legalized pot, the inflation in cost for the drug dealer’s risk in selling the product disappears. Therefore, cheaper for everyone.
So in fact, the legalization of marijuana has some of the same principles as obamacare. Both will save the government and taxpayers money by providing for the common welfare.