StarGateWars Forums

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... a-use?lite

Discuss?

I'm shocked and thrilled to see this, it's about damn time and I hope other states and nations closeby *hint canada hint* start to follow suit! I honestly had no hope in people waking up enough for this to finally get passed.

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.

Z E R O wrote:http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14977250-colorado-washington-approve-recreational-marijuana-use?lite

Discuss?

I'm shocked and thrilled to see this, it's about damn time and I hope other states and nations closeby *hint canada hint* start to follow suit! I honestly had no hope in people waking up enough for this to finally get passed.

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.

It failed here in Oregon. 55% to 44%

I had assumed it had. Since it wasn't included. I was gonna ask you the result as the article didn't say.

Isn't Marijuana still illegal under Federal Law?

Empy wrote:Isn't Marijuana still illegal under Federal Law?

That's why I'm kind of wondering what's going to happen..

Z E R O wrote:

Empy wrote:Isn't Marijuana still illegal under Federal Law?

That's why I'm kind of wondering what's going to happen..

Federal Law Enforcement agencies will consider it as illegal as ever and enforce accordingly.

Welcome to the modern age.
Hope you can make it work better than we did. Our drug lords changed to harder and harder drugs..

Liberal nonsense always pushes itself in. Now these two states can welcome drug tourism from other states and drug lords will now have to think how to control this "legal" market to have another kind of legal cover like casinos or cabarets to carry on their background underground stuff.

Z E R O wrote:I had assumed it had. Since it wasn't included. I was gonna ask you the result as the article didn't say.

Technically, only 58% of the State has reported in. But they've called it as it stands for the moment.

Juliette wrote:Welcome to the modern age.
Hope you can make it work better than we did. Our drug lords changed to harder and harder drugs..

+!

though tbh can't be much worst that cigerette's and the toxins that are added to those..

I don't like it much, seen too many friends and family turned psychotic by it and develop epilapsy etc.. and others start out on it and turn to harder substances..

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?

Legendary Apophis wrote:Liberal nonsense always pushes itself in.

You've lost me Jim, what does this have to do with which political ideology one supports?

fem fatale wrote:

Juliette wrote:Welcome to the modern age.
Hope you can make it work better than we did. Our drug lords changed to harder and harder drugs..

+!

though tbh can't be much worst that cigerette's and the toxins that are added to those..

I don't like it much, seen too many friends and family turned psychotic by it and develop epilapsy etc.. and others start out on it and turn to harder substances..

Exactly! I hate the word 'gateway drug', but I do agree with that.
Though I believe it is possible to 'properly' do marijuana.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Liberal nonsense always pushes itself in.

You've lost me Jim, what does this have to do with which political ideology one supports?

It's not a matter of Democrat or Republican, because you likely have Democrats who are opposed to it (conservative democrats who would be conservative for society values but totally agreeing with democrats' economic policy/welfare/domestic policy), while you have Republicans who are in favor, even though the latter usually become Libertarians because Libertarians (liberal for both economy and society) are in favor of legalization.

Politics aren't limited to one line, it's determined by two things, think about the political compass: stance on the domestic policy and society on the one hand, stance on economy/taxes on the other. Libertarians are liberal in both. Conservative democrats aren't liberal in any. Republicans are usually liberal-conservative, conservative for domestic/society (well they are usually conservative for society values like same-sex marriage, adoption for same sex and legalizing drugs and more towards a small state than a big state) and liberal for economy. Finally you have democratic liberals, who are liberal for society but not necessarily domestic policy (depends on particular points) and not really liberal to not at all for economy.

Economically I am in the middle between Obama and Romney, for foreign and environment I am closer to Obama while for society values, a part of domestic values, security and immigration I am very close to Mitt Romney. That tells you it's maybe more complicated than the explanation I gave above, but closer to this than a simple split democrat/republican.

I still don't get it Jim since "weed" is smocked by all levels of society and by people crossing all parties and political ideologies. hell, even world famous politicians smoke the stuff.

Politically speaking, i don't care for labels and consider myself a political atheist, i don't believe in any system (for those who are unaware...no, i am not an anarchist, and do not support a "mad max" road warrior type society) where you have centralised power. power rightfully belongs to the people, as such i am opposed to any govt telling anybody what they can and cannot put into their bodies, even if it's poison.

[spoiler]I don't smoke it myself (have tried it over 24 years ago, not my thing), but i support peoples choice to smoke it for relaxation and leisure if they so choose without fear of being branded a criminal or having to cross the legal line so they can enjoy it. i also support peoples right to use it medicinally if it helps them. a third reason is because it removes the criminal element as i've stated before.[/spoiler]

Well, as I said, you have liberals (in the English language, it's liberal for society values), libertarians (liberal for both economy/taxes and for society values stuff) and conservatives (can be democrats or republicans).
Romney is against it, so were Santorum and McCain during their campaign, Gingrich I don't remember. Ron Paul was in favor, but it's well known he's the local libertarian in the GOP. Some republicans are in favor, while some democrats aren't, as I said already, it's not the party it's whether you are liberal or conservative for society values.