Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • Good. Decriminalization and descheduling of Marijuana is the only way this history of social injustice of throwing people in the can for a dimebag of pot can begin to become history.
  • Didn't WA state as a whole already do this?
  • ... a government by the people, for the people...

    Majority rules basically. I'd love to see this bowlshirt settled, legalized and become a non-issue sometime in my lifetime.

    /50 yrs old
  • When will pot be available in stores and available for purchase without a prescription?
  • Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot. I say that the people of Colorado have spoken and if that's what they want, good on this DA for bowing to the will of the people.

    Oh, and also the feds should respect the state's laws and lay the hell off of them..
  • Why not do it like they do the death penalty? Ask the prospective juror "can you set aside your bias against the death penalty in the right circumstance and sentence someone to die?" If they say no, they are off the jury panel. Just do it with weed. Those who will never convict because of their disagreement with the law should be forbidden from serving.

    /snark
  • Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.


    A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

    I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.
  • orbister: Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.

    A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

    I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.


    How do you do it without the pot???
  • spentshells: orbister: Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.

    A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

    I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

    How do you do it without the pot???


    Some people need drugs, he just has a god-given natural talent.
  • Pot should have been legalised a long time ago i believe
  • davidcameron1: Pot should have been legalised a long time ago i believe


    It should have never been illegal in the first place.
  • This is one of the areas that I think the Federal Government should change their policy.
    Let the States handle small possession and personal use stuff. States can also handle the licensing and registration of growers and distributors. They can tax and control at a local level, much like what already happens with gasoline or cigarettes.
    Make a breakpoint at say 1 pound, and if you have more than that without a valid state license, then throw the charges up to the Federal level for trafficking. Then bump up the penalties for trafficking to make it serious enough to maybe actually get attention, say 10 years min?
  • I'm all for decriminalization of pot.

    But I prefer having a legal system where legislatures make the law, the judiciary interprets it, and the executive enforced it. not one where some prosecutor decides what to do based on his gut instincts and some vague appeal to 'majority rule.'
  • Here's a question for all the legal beagles in Farkland: we all know that ex post facto laws are Constitutionally prohibited at both the federal and state level. Which is good. Does the reverse of ex post facto also hold? I'm not saying this prosecutor should proceed with any of these cases, I'm just wondering from a theoretical and legal perspective; should he, in a legalistic kind of way, still prosecute based on the laws that were in existence at the time the "crime" was committed?
  • orbister: I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.


    The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.

    Happened in the 1960s.

    The majority of Americans don't want their kids smoking pot. I favor letting a state legalize it, and the rest of us watch and see what happens. If in 100 years they're doing great, maybe it should be accepted.

    But if it looks like California does now, after only a decade of pseudo-legalization... well, let's just say pot will remain illegal for a long, long time.
  • Slives: This is one of the areas that I think the Federal Government should change their policy.
    Let the States handle small possession and personal use stuff. States can also handle the licensing and registration of growers and distributors. They can tax and control at a local level, much like what already happens with gasoline or cigarettes.
    Make a breakpoint at say 1 pound, and if you have more than that without a valid state license, then throw the charges up to the Federal level for trafficking. Then bump up the penalties for trafficking to make it serious enough to maybe actually get attention, say 10 years min?


    Legalization is going to be FAR, FAR harder than either decriminalization or descheduling pot at the Federal Level.

    For pot to be legally sold in the United States, as it was a scheduled, restricted prescription drug, the FDA will have to approve it for either OTC Medical uses based on the reason you're marketing it for and based specifically on the route of intake, or will have to approve it as safe for use as a dietary or nutritional supplement.

    That's going to be even harder than legalizatiion, because it's going to require scientific studies which have been hard to come by because of the illicit status of pot over the past 70 years.
  • BronyMedic: For pot to be legally sold in the United States, as it was a scheduled, restricted prescription drug, the FDA will have to approve it for either OTC Medical uses based on the reason you're marketing it for and based specifically on the route of intake, or will have to approve it as safe for use as a dietary or nutritional supplement.

    That's going to be even harder than legalizatiion, because it's going to require scientific studies which have been hard to come by because of the illicit status of pot over the past 70 years.


    How did alcohol and tobacco make the cut?
  • orbister: Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.

    A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

    I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.


    ... that this would get most of their children ...

    /serves me right for posting in haste because the phone rang
  • Bomb Head Mohammed: I'm all for decriminalization of pot.

    But I prefer having a legal system where legislatures make the law, the judiciary interprets it, and the executive enforced it. not one where some prosecutor decides what to do based on his gut instincts and some vague appeal to 'majority rule.'


    So would we all, I'm sure. But if the legislature fails to represent the people, representation will fall to someone else down the chain. Also, that argument aside, the prosecutor's doing exactly what he should under the less-than-ideal circumstances. He's dismissing cases that would waste both the court's time and the taxpayers' money. I say give the guy a medal. No, TWO medals.
  • As a result of the announcement, police officials across Boulder County also stated they will no longer issue marijuana-possession citations in light of Amendment 64. The constitutional amendment will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana in Colorado for those 21 or older.

    Ok, so let me make sure I got this right. Colorado passes a state consitutional amendment allowing the use of pot (up to an oz, I guess?) and the DA says "Hey guys, I'm not gonna charge anyone with possession any more, 'cause I'm such a cool guy". Um....isn't that how the law is supposed to work? You de-criminalize something, then they can't charge you for it anymore. It seems it would be a violation of state law if he were to press charges. So thanks for following the law, Mr Garnett. We appreciate it.

    As a side note, I wonder how military commanders are handling this for troops stationed in CO? I guess as federal soldiers they still can't puff? What about the CO National Guard?
  • spentshells: orbister:
    I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

    How do you do it without the pot???


    Natural talent. No need to make things even worse though.
  • Well, duh. Juries get the society they want.
  • sodomizer: orbister: I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

    The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.

    Happened in the 1960s.

    The majority of Americans don't want their kids smoking pot. I favor letting a state legalize it, and the rest of us watch and see what happens. If in 100 years they're doing great, maybe it should be accepted.

    But if it looks like California does now, after only a decade of pseudo-legalization... well, let's just say pot will remain illegal for a long, long time.


    Weed usage is far, far more widespread than people think. Almost everyone I know smokes from time to time, and I'm from the richest and most upper class area in the US (plano) but they all manage to be productive members of society.

    That being said, it absolutely should be restricted to 18+. I think it does interfere with development and at the very least motivation for doing schoolwork
  • MythDragon: You de-criminalize something, then they can't charge you for it anymore. It seems it would be a violation of state law if he were to press charges.


    If it was a crime at the time the act was committed you can be charged, just as you can't be charged if it wasn't a crime when you did it.
  • Load 25 of 64 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.