The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on July 29, 2015, 03:08:12 pm
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/29/christie-enjoy-your-pot-now-stoners-because-when-im-elected-the-partys-over/
Christie: enjoy your pot now, stoners, because when I’m elected the party’s over
posted at 9:21 am on July 29, 2015 by Jazz Shaw
Hey, Oregon, Alaska, Colorado and Washington! Smoke up those skunk weed spliffs while you can. (Don’t bother correcting me in the comments. I have no idea what the kids are calling it these days.) If Chris Christie is elected president your days of happily getting high in the public square are over because the feds will be enforcing the law regardless of what your hippie dippy state legislatures have to say about it. (Bloomberg)
Residents in U.S. states that have legalized marijuana should toke up while they still can, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said.
“If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it,” Christie, a Republican campaigning for the 2016 presidential nomination, said Tuesday during a town-hall meeting at the Salt Hill Pub in Newport, New Hampshire. “As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws.”
At a time when a majority of Americans say recreational pot use should be legal, and four states have already made it so, Christie remains opposed. The former federal prosecutor said Democratic President Barack Obama has selectively chosen which laws to enforce.
“If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it.”
Recreational pot is still illegal in New Jersey and Christie has regularly threatened to veto any legislation which might decriminalize it, so he’s not being inconsistent here. Of course, it’s a sure fire way to lose the libertarian, Rand Paul wing of the party but I don’t think he’s particularly concerned with that right now. More likely Christie is looking for his own Trump / Huckabee style moment where the media suddenly starts talking about him again (he’s sort of disappeared from the cable news beat for weeks now) and he gets a shot at having a few angry conservatives rally to his side and bump his poll numbers enough that’s he’s assured a spot on the big debate stage.
Will that work? He’s facing a lot of competition in the Look At Me pageant. Huckabee’s “marching the Jews to the oven door” comment is currently just about the only thing the press wants to talk about aside from Mr. Trump. Even Rand Paul failed to get much of a media surge when he took a chainsaw to the tax code, and that was a fairly transparent cry for attention. But at this stage of the game it seems like everyone outside of the top five can afford a bit of embarrassment if it saves them from dropping out of the crowded field entirely.
But to give credit where credit is due, we can at least give a nod to Christie for bringing up the state vs federal supremacy issue, along with the responsibility of the feds to enforce the laws as written, not selectively based on the political winds of the day. It might be nice if some of the other candidates (besides Trump) were getting away from safe topics and digging into the sticky issues of concern to conservatives such as this one. I’m not holding my breath, though. It looks like the top non-Trump guys are mostly sticking to Don’t Rock the Boat mode for now.
-
Federal laws?? What are they??
Since 2009 there ain't no such thing. Only the ones Obama and his minions want to uphold....
-
Hmmmmm. Let's see. Nope. I don't see anything about Pot or anything like that in the Constitution. So what authority does he have to override state laws on the matter?
-
Hmmmmm. Let's see. Nope. I don't see anything about Pot or anything like that in the Constitution. So what authority does he have to override state laws on the matter?
The laws already in place.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the law, as President you should enforce the law, and then urge Congress to change the laws you don't believe are based on the Constitution.
The idea that a President can just disregard Federal Law leads to the lawlessness we are seeing in this administration.
You don't like DOMA? You just tell your DOJ not to enforce it. You don't like immigration laws? You make sure that no one enforces them.
Not a good plan.....
-
Hmmmmm. Let's see. Nope. I don't see anything about Pot or anything like that in the Constitution. So what authority does he have to override state laws on the matter?
What's your opinion on the primacy of Sanctuary Cities flaunting Federal immigration law?
-
Christie just lost the election...
-
Christie just lost the election...
It also compromises his chances on being picked for VP.
-
It also compromises his chances on being picked for VP.
Good. Another GOPe candidate bites the dust.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chris_Christie.htm
-
Has the Seattle Hempfest attendees shaking in their boots,... or ahhhh I mean sandals. Federal laws have not stopped them yet, and the fed can't stop it with Christie. I wish we could end legal pot in WA, but there is no getting that genie back in the bottle.
-
It also compromises his chances on being picked for VP.
I don't think Christie ever had much chance of winning the nomination OR being the VP pick.
JMHO.
-
What's your opinion on the primacy of Sanctuary Cities flaunting Federal immigration law?
Immigration and naturalization are under federal authority per Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution so the States don't have that authority. Regulating a plant or non interstate commerce isn't under federal authority per the same section.
-
Immigration and naturalization are under federal authority per Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution so the States don't have that authority. Regulating a plant or non interstate commerce isn't under federal authority per the same section.
But what about the laws in place?
Does the President have the right to ignore federal law?
-
There is a thriving medical marijuana dispensary in the same strip mall, as our alcoholics anonymous meeting hall. So far I have concluded:
1. Good science says medicinal use for adults are very legitimate.
2. Use by teens is not wise, since it reacts with regions of the brain which are not fully formed, and trouble can be predicted.
Also heard they don't have valid test methods, levels of blood concentration, for driving while intoxicated. Valid but solvable concern.
-
The laws already in place.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the law, as President you should enforce the law, and then urge Congress to change the laws you don't believe are based on the Constitution.
The idea that a President can just disregard Federal Law leads to the lawlessness we are seeing in this administration.
You don't like DOMA? You just tell your DOJ not to enforce it. You don't like immigration laws? You make sure that no one enforces them.
Not a good plan.....
So if somehow a GOP President gets in and decides he's (or she's, if by chance it ends up being Fiorina) not going to enforce the Obamacare mandates, would you be opposed?
-
So if somehow a GOP President gets in and decides he's (or she's, if by chance it ends up being Fiorina) not going to enforce the Obamacare mandates, would you be opposed?
Enforce the laws on the books until they are overturned or legislated out of existence.
-
So if somehow a GOP President gets in and decides he's (or she's, if by chance it ends up being Fiorina) not going to enforce the Obamacare mandates, would you be opposed?
Actually, yes, I would.
There is a process required to change laws, and I believe it should be followed regardless of the party of the President or the hideousness of the law.
-
Enforce the laws on the books until they are overturned or legislated out of existence.
The federal law on the books now, makes it illegal for federal officers to involve themselves pursuing marijuana cases, where the state has legalized it.
My conservative Republican representative was a co-sponsor of the measure. At that time, last Nov. 2014, 23 states plus DC allowed legality for various circumstances.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html
-
The federal law on the books now, makes it illegal for federal officers to involve themselves pursuing marijuana cases, where the state has legalized it.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html
Ok... but you cannot pass a pre-empoyment screening or get a security clearance if you do dope...
What you do to your body is your business. You want to dope up, have at it.
You give/sell/or anything else to kids, and you are toast as far as I am concerned.
-
Ok... but you cannot pass a pre-empoyment screening or get a security clearance if you do dope...
What you do to your body is your business. You want to dope up, have at it.
You give/sell/or anything else to kids, and you are toast as far as I am concerned.
Ed, I am not advocating anything. I neither drink or use any drugs. I merely stated if, in the future, I had a medical use for marijuana, I would like to be able to consider it. I believe I cited dealing with nausea from chemotherapy. In 1990 I watched my brother experience horrific side-effects from chemo.
Do I think a lot of "medical" use is a hoax, scam, etc.? Of course. I'm willing to accept that as necessary to preserve personal freedom.
Do I think Marijuana should be used by minors? No. Do I think it has risks? Yes. But I do not feel they should be any greater of a concern, than alcohol.
I a few days I will reach 21.5 years sobriety. I had a cold beer problem, not a drug or marijuana problem. I do not plan to take up marijuana for "recreational" purposes, since in AA that would violate my sobriety, as a "mind altering" substance. However that would not be the case, with a legitimate doctor prescribed prescription.
I no such condition at present, and don't want one in order to ingest pot in any form.
-
Ed, I am not advocating anything. I neither drink or use any drugs. I merely stated if, in the future, I had a medical use for marijuana, I would like to be able to consider it. I believe I cited dealing with nausea from chemotherapy. In 1990 I watched my brother experience horrific side-effects from chemo.
Do I think a lot of "medical" use is a hoax, scam, etc.? Of course. I'm willing to accept that as necessary to preserve personal freedom.
Do I think Marijuana should be used by minors? No. Do I think it has risks? Yes. But I do not feel they should be any greater of a concern, than alcohol.
I a few days I will reach 21.5 years sobriety. I had a cold beer problem, not a drug or marijuana problem. I do not plan to take up marijuana for "recreational" purposes, since in AA that would violate my sobriety, as a "mind altering" substance. However that would not be the case, with a legitimate doctor prescribed prescription.
I no such condition at present, and don't want one in order to ingest pot in any form.
BK, I applaud your courage and determination.
I have a couple of focused concerned about illegal drugs, primary of which is pushing on people without their consent, i. e. kids and spiked drinks/food.
But secondly is "dirty" drugs, not sure what the right terms are, but I have heard of people thinking they were getting their usual dose but ending up with either higher doses or contaminated dosage so the reliable/safety (if there is such a thing). I am almost to the point the government should buy it, clean it up then tax the hell out of it and sell it like alcohol.
-
BK, I applaud your courage and determination.
I have a couple of focused concerned about illegal drugs, primary of which is pushing on people without their consent, i. e. kids and spiked drinks/food.
But secondly is "dirty" drugs, not sure what the right terms are, but I have heard of people thinking they were getting their usual dose but ending up with either higher doses or contaminated dosage so the reliable/safety (if there is such a thing). I am almost to the point the government should buy it, clean it up then tax the hell out of it and sell it like alcohol.
Yikes! Got to disagree. I don't want marijuana legalized, taxed and regulated, I wanted it decriminalized. I don't want any more government involvement in our lives over something that is essentially a individual's personal decision, as long as that behavior is not hurting anyone else.