StarGateWars Forums

I see what you're saying, but i still can't see how people can put labels on those who support hemps legalisation since it's right across all spectrum's...


Maybe it's just me!?!

There is a pretty big difference between using it and supporting its legality.

Juliette wrote:There is a pretty big difference between using it and supporting its legality.

I can't think of many users who don't support legality.

Most people I know would rather not go to jail for doing something that brings them enjoyment.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Absolutely great news!

Z E R O wrote:
I sincerely hope the Federal government doesn't step in as the article somewhat suggests, and wonder what the ramifications of this will be on a federal level.

As i understand things, a governor of a state and the state itself can tell the feds to take a flying one?

It truly depends on the law which was passed.

From a news story on the matter:

Washington will allow those at least 21 years old to buy as much as one ounce (28 grams) of marijuana from a licensed retailer. Colorado’s measure allows possession of an ounce, and permits growing as many as six plants in private, secure areas.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomber ... z2BZByftsu

In Oregon, Measure 80 was summarized as follows:
"Result of "Yes" vote: "Yes" vote allows commercial marijuana (cannabis) cultivation/sale to adults through state-licensed stores; allows unlicensed adult personal cultivation/use; prohibits restrictions on hemp (defined).

Further details: [spoiler]The measure distinguishes “hemp” from “marijuana” and prohibits regulation of hemp.

The measure creates the Oregon Cannabis Commission (Commission). The duties of the Commission include:

1. Licensing qualified marijuana growers;
2. Licensing qualified persons to process and package marijuana;
3. Licensing stores to sell marijuana to persons having a physician’s order stating that marijuana is an effective treatment for that person’s medical condition;
4. Purchasing marijuana from licensed growers for sale at state-licensed stores;
5. Selling processed marijuana at cost to state-licensed stores, pharmacies in Oregon and other states, and to Oregon medical research facilities;
6. Setting the retail price of marijuana sold for profit at state-licensed stores;
7. Collecting fees for licenses issued;
8. Setting standards for quality and potency of marijuana sold at state-licensed stores;
9. Establishing psychoactive concentrations of marijuana and hemp;
10. May limit the quantity of marijuana sold at state-licensed stores and may prohibit
the sale of marijuana to persons who violate the provision of the measure or who abuse marijuana; and
11. Promoting Oregon cannabis products in all legal national and international markets.

The measure sets qualifications for persons who purchase marijuana at state-licensed stores, and
for persons licensed to cultivate or process marijuana for purchase by these stores. Money from
licenses and the sale of marijuana at state-licensed stores shall be used to:

1. Reimburse the Commission for expenses;
2. Reimburse the Attorney General’s office for the costs of enforcing the criminal provisions created by the measure and defending the validity of the measure; and
3. Reimburse Commission-licensed retailers by paying them 15% of gross sales at Commission-licensed stores.

Money remaining from the sales of marijuana after reimbursements have been paid shall be distributed as follows:

1. 90% to the state general fund to finance state programs;
2. 7% to the Department of Human Resources to fund drug treatment programs;
3. 1% to create and fund a new state committee for the promotion of Oregon hemp fiber and associated industries;
4. 1% to create and fund a new state committee to develop and promote biodiesel fuel production from hemp seeds; and
5. 1% to state school districts to fund drug education programs.

Ballot Measure 80 would take effect on January 1, 2013.[/spoiler]

Juliette wrote:There is a pretty big difference between using it and supporting its legality.

Obviously

Psyko wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Absolutely great news!

Z E R O wrote:
I sincerely hope the Federal government doesn't step in as the article somewhat suggests, and wonder what the ramifications of this will be on a federal level.

As i understand things, a governor of a state and the state itself can tell the feds to take a flying one?

It truly depends on the law which was passed.

How come? as long as the state/s is/are not violating the constitution-what rights does the federal govt have to tell the states what to do since the fed gets it's power and owes it's very existence to the states anyways

Also, if a sheriff had the gumption, could he not kick out the feds on constitutional grounds?
IE, if there were a sheriff with such gumption, could he not arrest all TSA in his jurisdiction due to constitutional violations?


Going off a bit i know, just trying to understand because as i see it the feds power within any of the 50 states starts and stops wherever the states tell them it starts and stops. i mean, if the states felt like it they could abolish the fed tomorrow...correct?

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Absolutely great news!

Z E R O wrote:
I sincerely hope the Federal government doesn't step in as the article somewhat suggests, and wonder what the ramifications of this will be on a federal level.

As i understand things, a governor of a state and the state itself can tell the feds to take a flying one?

No it's the opposite. The Federal Government can sue the states of Washington and Colorado to have the law reversed. And even if they don't, as I said, federal law enforcement agencies still consider it illegal and will enforce accordingly.

Empy wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Absolutely great news!

Z E R O wrote:
I sincerely hope the Federal government doesn't step in as the article somewhat suggests, and wonder what the ramifications of this will be on a federal level.

As i understand things, a governor of a state and the state itself can tell the feds to take a flying one?

No it's the opposite. The Federal Government can sue the states of Washington and Colorado to have the law reversed. And even if they don't, as I said, federal law enforcement agencies still consider it illegal and will enforce accordingly.

Happened in California.

Empy wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Absolutely great news!

Z E R O wrote:
I sincerely hope the Federal government doesn't step in as the article somewhat suggests, and wonder what the ramifications of this will be on a federal level.

As i understand things, a governor of a state and the state itself can tell the feds to take a flying one?

No it's the opposite. The Federal Government can sue the states of Washington and Colorado to have the law reversed. And even if they don't, as I said, federal law enforcement agencies still consider it illegal and will enforce accordingly.

Hold on, i'm not getting this...did or did not the states create the federal govt?

Edit, i've forgotten which part of the US constitution that says words to the affect of "rights not granted to the federal govt remain with the the states", that's obviously worded VERY wrong (and badly) but the point still stands, the states are the authority because no where in the US and the states constitutions does it say that rights granted to the feds are surrendered (or abandoned) by the states-which would make the feds the sole authority of the land.

The states are supposed to be another check and balance against any president or federal govt which would be tyrannical...correct?

I can't say what the correct interpretation of the constitution is, all I can say is that the Federal Government has the power and authority to sue the governments of Colorado and Washington to get the laws reversed. That doesn't mean they'll win, but they can try. That's a fact.

And again, like I said, in any case the federal government still considers marijuana illegal and will enforce that law even if Colorado and Washington legalize it. As Psyko said, reference many cases of this in California with medical marijuana.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Empy wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Absolutely great news!

Z E R O wrote:
I sincerely hope the Federal government doesn't step in as the article somewhat suggests, and wonder what the ramifications of this will be on a federal level.

As i understand things, a governor of a state and the state itself can tell the feds to take a flying one?

No it's the opposite. The Federal Government can sue the states of Washington and Colorado to have the law reversed. And even if they don't, as I said, federal law enforcement agencies still consider it illegal and will enforce accordingly.

Hold on, i'm not getting this...did or did not the states create the federal govt?

Edit, i've forgotten which part of the US constitution that says words to the affect of "rights not granted to the federal govt remain with the the states", that's obviously worded VERY wrong (and badly) but the point still stands, the states are the authority because no where in the US and the states constitutions does it say that rights granted to the feds are surrendered (or abandoned) by the states-which would make the feds the sole authority of the land.

The states are supposed to be another check and balance against any president or federal govt which would be tyrannical...correct?

Federal Laws > State Laws

States must enforce Federal Laws, but are not required to have the same laws at the State level. The State can enforce laws which do not exist at a Federal level.

Example: The Federal minimum wage is currently set at $7.25. Some State minimum wage laws have never been increased to match that $7.25 mark, but employers within the State are required to pay their employees at least the Federal minimum wage...whichever is higher.

Hmmmm....i'm going to REALLY have to study the US constitution because as i understand it the feds get their power from the states and the states can nullify the feds if the states so chose.


Regardless, thanks

Studying the constitution is of less importance as you seem to think. Study jurisprudence. The USA's justice system is based on that far more than on the constitution (this is why low-level decisions can carry such weight - e.g. Roe v Wade), and since you are looking for enforcement of the laws and not the theory, that is where you have to look. Theoretical understanding is worthless without situational awareness.

Juliette wrote:Studying the constitution is of less importance as you seem to think. Study jurisprudence. The USA's justice system is based on that far more than on the constitution (this is why low-level decisions can carry such weight - e.g. Roe v Wade), and since you are looking for enforcement of the laws and not the theory, that is where you have to look. Theoretical understanding is worthless without situational awareness.

I'm only interested in what's constitutional-therefore legal according to the constitution-as opposed to what's legal because the courts say so. the courts saying Obamacare is legal doesn't make it so.


But i will have a look and compare the 2


Sorry to drag out my trying to understand all this. just trying to figure out what the ramifications are if the feds try to bully (for lack of a better word) the states into reversing the marijuana laws.


Personally, if i was a governor of a state i would tell the feds to get lost and if they tried any strong arm tactics i would arrest all feds in my state.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Juliette wrote:Studying the constitution is of less importance as you seem to think. Study jurisprudence. The USA's justice system is based on that far more than on the constitution (this is why low-level decisions can carry such weight - e.g. Roe v Wade), and since you are looking for enforcement of the laws and not the theory, that is where you have to look. Theoretical understanding is worthless without situational awareness.

I'm only interested in what's constitutional-therefore legal according to the constitution-as opposed to what's legal because the courts say so. the courts saying Obamacare is legal doesn't make it so.


But i will have a look and compare the 2


Sorry to drag out my trying to understand all this. just trying to figure out what the ramifications are if the feds try to bully (for lack of a better word) the states into reversing the marijuana laws.


Personally, if i was a governor of a state i would tell the feds to get lost and if they tried any strong arm tactics i would arrest all feds in my state.

Coup d'Etat!

It's nothing of the sort Jim, it's about doing "my" job which primarily is to serve and protect the rights of the citizens within "my" state. if that means i have to take on the federal govt then that's what has to be done because the federal govt exists because of the states and the people, not the other way around.