This is clearly a horrific health crisis that could spread across the land like… hold on… Yeah, pass that over here… Umm… Now, where was I?
It’s a routine declaration of the Oakland City Council, but yeah, it’s kind of funny too. The City of Oakland is set to renew its declaration of a “local public health emergency” stemming from a local lack of medicinal cannabis.
Oakland official Barbara Parker says the proclamation was originally issued in 1998. It effectively means nothing, but it does buttress Oakland city policies like permitting medical cannabis dispensaries, and ordering Oakland Police to effectively ignore pot offenses.
Parker said the city originally issued the declaration because federal and state law enforcers were busting local growers and cancer patients. That threat of imprisonment persists to this day. The declaration says people could die due to lack of cannabis, so it’s cause for Oakland to continue the declaration.
in related news shelves are now over stocked with Twinkies and worker productivity is up 800%
Quick, somebody call the Wahbulance. Either legalize the stuff or don’t, but stop having this gray legal area where the city promises not to enforce the law.
Under Federal law, marijuana is illegal. If California cities are going to nullify Federal law, than don’t be surprised when Republican states decide to nullify Obamacare.
The solution is to repeal or reform Federal law and let the state legislatures make laws how the people of California see fit.
The Left never thought they would want States Rights.
This is a public relations stunt by Oakland councillors, to draw attention to their support for the general legalisation of marijuana for medical and therapeutic use. I’m guessing that there really isn’t a shortage of pot in The Land of Oaks.
Smoke them if ya got them…
===================
Smoke smoke SMOKE that cigarette….
===================
Umm dah!!
Here is a MUCH more manly pic of Arnie!
#2 Benji, quit ly’in. If you look past Fox Snooze, you will see Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. directed federal prosecutors Monday to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients.
Seems the Repukes are the ones living in the 1950′s.
yeah uh no duh. if you can’t see that this is really a fiduciary crisis for the city of Oakland (like politicians really care if people die) than you are more blind than Stevie Wonder with shades on.
the federal government has no business telling individual ADULTS what they can or can’t put into their own bodies. same with the state and local government. that goes for salt, trans fats, pot, coke, cigarettes, so on and so forth.
Legalize, regulate, tax! Removes the criminal gangs, reduces the load on the judicial system, raises new tax revenue. Legislating this type of morality has simply never worked. Golly, using logic in this situation is difficult for people after 70 years of brainwashing…
#6 Dallas said, “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. directed federal prosecutors Monday to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients”
That doesn’t change the fact that marijuana is still illegal under Federal law. Selective enforcement of the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Change the law, not the enforcement of said law.
Even if Eric Holder promises to never prosecute any marijuana offenses under Federal law does not mean some police officer or Federal agent won’t arrest or harass a medical marijuana patient.
Change the law, not the enforcement of the law. Otherwise the rule of law means nothing.
This is hilarious! I still don’t understand why this stuff is just legalized?
#9–Benji–take a refresher course on “Federalism.” Should be foundational to the other stuff you spout.
Feds can have their laws enforced by their gestapo especially on their land.
States can do the same. No nullification. Just two sets of laws applied by their own terms.
Surely you are up to this?
#7–BBoy. Well, an excellent application of libertarian ideology. We agree.
Ah, Benji,
The federal government is not empowered by the Constitution to make an agricultural product illegal, unless it is sold across state lines. It’s about time someone enforced the law alright.
#8 said “Legalize, regulate, tax! Removes the criminal gangs, reduces the load on the judicial system, raises new tax revenue.”
Bull Sh*t!!
Lifting Prohibition didn’t get rid of the bootleggers.
Regulate – How? At what cost?
Tax – Like cigarettes? How do you collect those taxes?
Arnold looked much happier then than he does now.
BigBoyBC said,
“Lifting Prohibition didn’t get rid of the bootleggers.”
Why are there still bootleggers if alcohol is legal?
To make moonshine?
To sell alcohol to minors?
If so, this must be a regional thing.
Yeah BBoy–you went back to stupid and irrelevant with that post. I guess you can’t help yourself. Big question–did this happen in parallel with, or because of, your LIEberTARDIANISM?
Moonshine==as big a problem today as it was during prohibition?
Silly.
@bobbo, #16
Wow, you really aren’t too bright, are you? For a second, I thought you must have multiple personality disorder. Then I realized you mistook BigBoyBC for me, BmoreBadBoy. Yes, they both have 3 B’s and boy in the name. Now, try doing something that you never do with your logic or arguments – ask the next question.
I always argue on the side of Liberty. Period. No exceptions. I guess I have principles, what can I say?
@BigBoyBC, #13
Now, about lifting prohibition, it doesn’t get rid of anything my dim-witted friend. It drives down the cost of the formerly prohibited product, which then leads to the demise of the criminal interest in supplying said product. Of course, alcohol is still regulated, and taxed, so I guess you might still have microbreweries that might sell under the table. But it’s not the Al Capone, Chicago gang land issue it was back during Prohibition by a long sight! Legalizing then regulating and taxing marijuana will make it like many other schedule 2 or higher narcotics. You either get it through a permission slip from your doctor, or get it on the street, which will be riskier, but not as bad as things are now. The best solution is to stop trying to legislate what people put into their own bodies. If there is no victim, there is no crime. Period.
Btw, how the hell is weed a schedule 1 narc? Weed is safer than alcohol. Ever heard of anyone overdosing on weed?
Steve S, Bobo and BmoreBigBoy,
I guess using the term “bootleggers” sent you guys off on a tangent to my point. I should have said “Organized Crime”. When booze was no longer profitable they moved on to other illegal activities (The gang problem won’t go away).
As to my position of the legalization of pot. I don’t care, either way. But, the excuses that #8 made are just propaganda. It’s more complicated than just changing a law, and people better realize it before the make any decisions.
And Bobo, lay off smoking the cheap sh*t while drinking Thunderbird. That stuff is rotting your brain.
#17–BM-BB==Yep. Excellent you can tell the mistake I made. Ya got some depth. Now let’s see you use it:
“I always argue on the side of Liberty. Period. No exceptions. I guess I have principles, what can I say?” /// Not much as you repeatedly demonstrate. You post like a 12 year old, or like Benji, who has just read an idea for the first time and takes to it without balance, practicality, or wisdom. The Liberty Interest of one person will always ultimately come into conflict with the Liberty Interest of others. You don’t always argue Liberty, just the retarded interest of YOURSELF.
You say prohibition doesn’t get rid of anything but then in the very next sentence describe exactly what it does get rid of.
Silly.
BigBoyBC, #18
Oh, well that’s a whole different matter altogether! Here’s where we get to “ask the next question”. I’m not being facetious either. What did “organized crime” move to after booze was decrim’d? Let’s see, running numbers, prostitution, other drugs, “protection”. Let me know if I left anything out. What if the government decrim’d gambling, sex for money (which SOME women do anyway while “dating”), all drugs, and open carrying of firearms, what would “organized crime” have to “move on to”?
Legalizing pot would not only make the “bootleggers” as you like to call them “move on” to something else that is illegal and therefore artificially inflated by government laws. It would also make pot no longer the number 1 cash crop export of certain central and south American countries. Hence the Mexican drug cartels would shrink considerably (since pot is by far their number one cash crop to the good old USA) and all this ciudad Juazrez/Arizona shoot outs and gang warfare would dissipate enormously.
Bobbo, #19
Do you like to argue just to be argumentative? I was trying to be explicit. I guess that went over your head.
And as I’ve said before, we are all selfish, meaning we all have our own interests as priority #1. Jesus, if he existed, may be the 1 in 2000 year exception. If you believe these liberal (or any) politicians have your interest in mind ahead of theirs, your naivety knows no bounds. If by Liberty you mean you may do anything you like as long as you don’t violate the liberty of another, there is no conflict. The problem is you have a contorted view of Liberty. You think Liberty means free education, free healthcare, free food, free transportation, etc, etc for everyone. Unfortunately for you, nothing is free. Liberty to me means nobody comes to me with a gun in hand, asking for money and threatening to harm me, take my property and jail me if I don’t comply, and call it the law. That’s called extortion and coercion.
In fact, government is the biggest crime organization on earth.