Blah, Blah, Blah -- Some Slippery Slope Blather About Marijuana Legalization

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
This is just between us libtards, OK? The rest of you, if you don't mind, could we have the room for a minute? You might want to step outside, check on your Tea Party stuff, see if any immigrant babies are making dirty bombs in your vicinity, something like that. We'll be just be a minute. Great. See you back here in a sec, thanks.

Hey, WTF, libtards? You want state law to trump federal law so you can smoke pot? Do you have no memory cells left at all in your brains? What are you basing this theory of government on, the CheechandChongstituion?

You do remember we fought a civil war over this crap, right? You do remember where the whole "states rights" thing goes if you let it go? What are you planning to say when Rick Perry uses you as an excuse to send the Texas National Guard into Mexico? OOPS?

buzz kill.jpg
A note about our production: Jim (pictured above) does not select the photos or write the headlines that accompany his column. That's done by an editor who may not share his opinion.
Damn! I thought we were supposed to be the smart wing. There's a story in The New York Times today quoting UT political science professor Bruce Buchanan about the shitty position liberals are putting the president in over the new state pot laws in Colorado and Washington: "It's a sticky wicket for Obama," Buchanan tells the Times, saying that an attempt by Obama to defend and enforce federal anti-pot laws would be seen as "a slap in the face to his base right after they've just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams."

No, wait a minute, I'm part of his base. I didn't vote for him to save pot. I voted for him to save the country from a sedition by right-wing nutball racist billionaires. I never thought about pot in the voting booth.

My fellow libtards, please let me ask you something. Are you really and truly unable to buy any pot under existing circumstances? Can you just not get enough of the shit?

Are you utterly unable to wait a just little bit and put up with current pot-buying conditions until we get past the fiscal cliff and the existential threat to the continued existence of the nation as we know it? Do you not have any notion at all of the company you are putting yourselves in when you argue that state capitals should be able to trump D.C.?

We need to get on a bus together and go down and take a little tour of the Texas capital in Austin. All those big-belly bad-beard guys in tricorn hats with Don't-Tread-On-Me flags you saw on TV during the campaign? Guess what? They won. That's who runs the Legislature now. Obama did not win Texas. The Tea Party won Texas. We live in Texas! Holy shit! Every little chance you get, try to take a smart pill or something, will you?

Let's see. If state law is allowed to trump federal? That might take us how far, here in the Lone Star? How about mandatory blood tests for drivers to see if they're white enough, otherwise they get sent back to one of the colored continents. Yeah. Or maybe we could legalize legitimate rape. Abolish all taxes for rich people. Let Harold Simmons store nuclear waste in public schools but keep the schools open.

Once you establish the principle that federal law isn't shit, then the sky's really the limit, isn't it? Tell me: Are you confident that everybody is done and their minds are all settled and we don't have to deal with the slavery thing again? I'm not quite there yet.

I'm just sayin', libtards, you know I love you, but I just don't think this is the right moment or the right test of the president's basic authority. If we really want to get rid of federal pot laws, then we need to go to Washington to do it, not Austin.

I'm done. Was I nagging? Did I bring you all down and everything? Sorry. But, uh, anyway, is it maybe a little early in the day to be ... how shall we put it ... quite so up? OK. Food for thought, that's all. Let me step out in the hall now.

Hey you right-wing ding-a-lings, c'mon back in here. You didn't miss a thing. We were just talking about the role of preschool enrichment in combating attention deficit disorder among the disadvantaged. Yeah, no, you wouldn't even get it, so forget it. We've got you back in the room now, so we can all get back to abnormal.

My Voice Nation Help
72 comments
BigJimSchutzeFan
BigJimSchutzeFan

Jim, the fact is that alcohol prohibition in the 1930's ended by some states taking initiative, then the federal govt following suit, so such steps are constitutionally valid and obviously did not diminish the power of the federal govt under FDR and future "libtards."  marijuana prohibition will follow the same pattern until the current "libtard" in the White House wakes up and realizes its not his problem solve.  Let states take control of the matter as they do with alcohol.

BigJimSchutzeFan
BigJimSchutzeFan

Who would have thought that Colorado, the state that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, would vote for legalizing marijuana?

Native_Texun
Native_Texun

I don't know if alcohol should be legal. Just think of the "new" people we could put in "the system" if we make alcohol a controlled substance like the 'evil' pot. Really, I would refer for America's societal drug of choice to be pot over alcohol. In the end, less prople would die --- really. I can live without pot. But you, dear reader, cannot live without alcohol. So YOU are the problem.... Lazy shiftless drunks ... Lazy potheads. I'll go for the later. And after Hollywood and TV glamorizes being 'high' as much as they have being drunk or tipsy.... then you too will become indoctrinated, to the new order.

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Constitution is now like the Bible; pick the section you want to interpret how you want to support whatever belief you want.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Let me take a stab at you high minded race-baiters on just what you, in reality, are accomplishing.  Justice Curtiss, who wrote the dissent on the Dred Scott Decision, is talking to you.  This decision, it is generally agreed upon by most Historians, is one of three precipitating events which caused the War of Northern Aggression.  Here'tis:

"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S 393 (1857) (Justice Curtis dissenting).

SCOTUS so jammed the Big Parchment up with your "living, breathing" intpretation shtick, it resulted in a 180 off delivery of your so-called "modernity".  See, slavery is actually allowed if you hold the Constitution juuuussst right.  

Today you completely ignore the Equal Protection clause to grant special rights and advance one segment of the population to the detriment of others, you embrace the concept of seizing the property of one private citizen and transferring it to another, and you demand the President, the Congress and the Courts completely ignore whole chunks of the Constitution (10th Amendment for starters) all because you want what you want.  And in that process you are attempting to order some of your countrymen into a very real form of human bondage because you see, after your blather dies out, somebody has to labor for a period of time every day to produce income so it can be taxed to - not only pay off this vast sea of current redistribution but the over fifty years of mounting debt to pay for past redistributions.  Now the debt wall darkens the skies it is so monumental.  It is so big we are stuck in a recessionary Groundhog Day and cannot extricate ourselves yet you moan on about . . . whatever.  

And anybody who disagrees with you is a racist, misogynistic homophobe, right?  

Stark testimony to your own terrific goodness. More important, you promote yourselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. . . . It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

This is going to end up just like the last time you fools whipped out your ad hoc, situational decoder ring and applied it to the Constitution.  

The rudder falls off and we twirl around.

So yeah, sit there and want pot legalized but not immigration law enforced.  Cheer local ordinances on anti-smoking but stand mute on the FDA banning nicotine in the name of Public Safety.  And rejoice at the institutionalizing racism to thwart societal racism.  Just like Scarlett in Gone With the Wind, she'll just make a point of thinking about that on Tuesday.  Only the war started on Monday.

kduble
kduble

Okay, so we enforce federal drug laws, but we don't enforce federal immigration laws. The Feds can enforce immigration without help from the states. Yet, they need help from the states to enforce their drug laws? I'm confused.

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

C'mon, Obama could bitch-slap his base all day long and they'd ask for more, even the uber-stoners, and he knows it. Like a Great American, he'll do what's right for Obama. Legal weed is meaningless in that context, so who cares?

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Lincoln's most famous letters. Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, a few days earlier had addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions."

"WTF, Mr. President!  We got the Army of Northern Virginia kicking our asses all over Yankee land.  Hell!  Lee's in Pennsylvania for God's sake!  Now, why did we piss off the South?"

So let's hear it from the horses mouth, just what this little dust-up was really all about:

Executive Mansion,Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,

A. Lincoln.

and that settles that.

Daniel
Daniel

Slavery was, in a very essential sense, a violation of our Constitutional principles. The rights of human beings were being trampled egregiously. No such ramifications attend marijuana laws.

That said, this whole marijuana referendum stuff smells a little funny (can't you smell that smell?).Clearly, these efforts were funded by an unholy alliance of Ben & Jerry's and Taco Bell. An enterprising journalist would have like you know I guess what I'm saying is noted that and stuff? And all like done a scathing expose or whatever.

jerikjonsson
jerikjonsson

JS, it's a concept that has apparently fallen from favor, but the right thing for the Administration to do in a situation like this (specifically, a situation in which the states are right and the feds are wrong) is exercise prosecutorial discretion.  Ignore the benign violations of federal law in Washington and Colorado, and there will never be any harm done to federal supremacy.  This, in fact, is exactly what the Administration pledged to do, in writing, in its first term with regard to medical marijuana, a pledge it reneged on.  And is your argument really that allowing Washingtonians to smoke pot will prevent the feds from enforcing civil rights legislation?  I haven't polled all of them, of course, but I challenge you to find even a single judge who would agree.

 But word out of the WH today is that they're planning to bust some low-level users and sellers just for the purpose of re-proving, once again, some more that the Supremacy Clause is still alive, a point no one questions and an issue that would never arise if it weren't for the Administration's untrustworthiness.  

And whose ox is gored by legal marijuana?  If the issue is federal supremacy, then you're suggesting that the Administration is risking its own popularity and political capital for the benefit of Congress.  The Administration didn't write the CSA, and the armchair pundit in me strongly doubts that there's any political upside for the Administration in being hard asses here.

cheshyre
cheshyre

Maybe after your car has been confiscated - and said car being 90% of your net worth - for having a joint in your pocket (or better yet, because your friend in the car has a joint in his pocket) you'll be singing a different tune. Just because a law is federal law does not mean it's a just law. The passing of just laws is what you should be for! Not every situation is the same! This is real life, you're allowed to think, Igor.

P.S. And don't forget the cab fare for fetching your work clothes out of the confiscated car. Goddam Obama gonna pay for that? This is about human rights, not state or federal rights.

DOCensors
DOCensors

So the only time liberals don't ignore the 10th amendment is when they want to get wasted.

monstruss
monstruss

I'm having a bit of a hard time composing a response to this without saying something to the effect of "did they not teach civics at the log cabin school you attended on the wild frontier?" 

ozonelarryb
ozonelarryb

noted Conservative-for-real Wm. F. Buckley was in favor of legalization of some form due to the corruption the resent scheme engenders, among other reasons.

James080
James080

I don't see any reason why a state, or all states, should not repeal all of their drug laws and cede total responsibility for the enforcement of drug laws to the federal government. For an analogy, the federal government opposes virtually all states laws which attempt to enforce state controls on illegal immigration. The Attorney General has argued successfully in the Supreme Court that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration laws, basically saying the states have no constitutional jurisdiction to legislate or enforce matters concerning immigration. Using that same premise, why not let the feds take over drug enforcement crime and punishment?

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

Weed need to be mandatory, not just legal.

That'd solve a whole shitload of problems in a bout a week.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

I sense a collective Harshing of the Mellow.

BigJimSchutzeFan
BigJimSchutzeFan

maybe Obama could work this out by holding a "pot summit" in Denver and invite Henry Louis Gates.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@Sotiredofitall Which Constitution are you speaking of? The one ratified by white male slave-owners back in the 18th century? Or the one amended several times to include people who are not white, male, and landowners?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx 

"war of northern aggression".

too funny.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@kduble Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. --Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

The conduct of our Nation's affairs always demands that public servants discharge their duties under the Constitution and laws of this Republic with fairness and a proper spirit of subservience to the people whom they are sworn to serve. Public servants cannot be arbitrarily selective in their treatment of citizens, dispensing equity to those who please them and withholding it from those who do not. Respect for the law can only be fostered if citizens believe that those responsible for implementing and enforcing the law are themselves acting in conformity with the law. -- William F. Downes, United States District Judge - Carol Ward v. United States 79 AFTR2d Par. 97-964 No. 95-WY-810-WD (2 Jun 1997)

James080
James080

@albert.finney000 Reagan took on the USSR over Eastern Europe in communist bondage, and the Berlin Wall was taken down. But Jim and the NY Times are afraid Obama can't handle the pressure of obstinate stoners clamoring for legal drugs. Leadership expectations are certainly lower for this president.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@Daniel 

Got it. Laws apply only in egregious cases. Otherwise fuck it.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@ozonelarryb 

including maybe the fact that he was a drug addict?

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@James080 I think that that is a far better strategy than legalization, and, essentially that is what is happening. No?

Just waiting for the rest of the dominoes to start falling.

brantley.hargrove1
brantley.hargrove1

@James080 I like this idea, but apples and oranges. The Feds don't want states mucking around with immigration because it is an extension of foreign policy and affects how we relate to other countries.

Daniel
Daniel

@JimSX @Daniel The proper role of federal law (GENERALLY speaking) is to protect rights, not impose restrictions. Like our Constitution itself.

James080
James080

@brantley.hargrove1 @James080 I would argue that the state and federal war against the importation and distribution of illegal drugs has a far greater effect on our foreign policy and how we relate to other nations than immigration control.

But law enforcement at every level seems to need the illegal drug trade. The dangers Eisenhower warned against in the 50's about the growing "military industrial complex" could easily be compared ot the massive drug enforcement, interdiction and prison industry that feeds off of illegal drug use. Its just my opinion, bu the criminalization of drug use and enforcement of these laws seems to cause far more problems than they solve.....and there are more drugs and users than ever.

James080
James080

@JimSX @Daniel So Jim, when you're not spending all your time reading the NY Times, you're read the federal Constitution. What? Are you doing,  exploring conflicting points of views?

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

@gregmilan45678 - cnetwork has the line on some of the best weed this side of the DO offices at a competitive wholesale price, right?

Daniel
Daniel

@gregmilan45678 @Daniel @JimSX omg my cousin is doing it at first he thought it was some kind of frod perpetrated by bottom-feeding lowlife pond scum but now he just bought a Lexus and him and his wife are taking a vacation to Hawaii! LOL!!! and that's just working 4/hr per day from home its fun and easy.

gregmilan45678
gregmilan45678

@Daniel @JimSX as Frances responded I am impressed that people able to profit $8353 in 4 weeks on the cnetwork.

Daniel
Daniel

Gee whiz, the Constitution actually lays the ground rules for running for federal office, proscribes the activities and ethical standards of Congress and the President, and establishes the feds as the ultimate arbiters in matters of interstate commerce. Most of the rest (e.g., the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended) is protective of citizens' civil rights against incursion by state governments. What didja do, pull up the text of the Constitution and run a search for the word "no"? 

The marijuana thing will play out the way it plays out -- if the Supreme Court decides that marijuana should and must be illegal throughout the land (it may well come to this, God help us), their decision will have Constitutional standing by definition, and I, like Al Gore, will "strongly disagree but accept it."   

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@Daniel @JimSX 

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting....no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ozonelarryb
ozonelarryb

@JimSX I didn't say that did I?

my 'philosophy'?? jhc, what next?

Also, plz answer my question, Mr Law and Order.

DAniel
DAniel

@BigJimSchutzeFan @JimSX As a libtard, albeit one who sometimes declines to carry his card, I must be unflinchingly honest: It was Clinton's DOJ that really ratcheted up the War on Drugs to morally untenable levels. Reagan's, Bush I's and Clinton's, but Clinton's especially. Nixon just sort of coined the term. 

Bush II and Obama have found better pretenses for eroding our civil rights -- the War on Drugs just kind of chugs along, a lucrative juggernaut but not a front-burner priority..

BigJimSchutzeFan
BigJimSchutzeFan

@JimSX  

"Got it. Rich white junkies, OK.

Poor minority junkies, fuck 'em."

Bingo!!! You just discovered the core motivation of Richard Nixon's War on Drugs!!!

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@ozonelarryb @JimSX 

Got it. Rich white junkies, OK.

Poor minority junkies, fuck 'em.

Fits perfectly with the rest of your"philosophy."

Meanwhile, we libtards say a junkie is a junkie.

"Assumptions" about you? You're pretty transparent, my man.

ozonelarryb
ozonelarryb

@JimSX @ozonelarryb yes, read it all.  i am a bit more forgiving of a contributing member of society's self medicating due to his perceived need than the nodded out trash littering our streets.

But also, the "..you guys in the biz courses.."  ???  where do you get off (and that's probably true) making such assumptions about me?  You are a blight on this blog. 

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@ozonelarryb @JimSX 

Me PROVE it? It's not even in doubt. See this review in  the Wall Street Journal of just one profile of Buckley:

“Losing Mum and Pup” painfully describes Bill Buckley’s mental and physical decay as emphysema and diabetes conspired to bring him down. He did a great deal of self- medicating. “His daily intake of pills would be enough to give Hunter Thompson pause,” Christopher writes. The prescription-drug abuse, however, long predated the illness. Mr. ­Brookhiser describes Buckley’s ­apparent addiction to Ritalin, which he used as an all-purpose stimulant, popping them like NoDoz.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204456604574205693086824098.html

Ozone, did you never notice the frog-eyes on Buckley, a clear physical symptom of speed addiction? What did he ever say in his last 10 years except a bunch of fast-glib-jibber-jabber?  But that was the kind of shallow shit you guys in the business courses loved, wasn't it? Sounds good, and you don't have to think too much. Between booze and speed you guys made us hippies look like nuns. Probably still do, but it takes a bad toll after age 30, eh, Ozone?

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...