• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

OT, flounder, isn't this the way it should be?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I'm pretty sure that both of you would rather have the Fed. Government/taxpayer pay for medical dope, just as you want them to pay for condom/birth control pills, but isn't this the more responsible way to handle it?


Paul Ryan On Medical Marijuana Legalization: 'Let The States Decide'



Paul Ryan Marijuana Legalization

In an interview with Colorado station KRDO-TV, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan says he believes it's up to the states to decide whether to legalize medical marijuana.

"My personal position on these issues has been let the states decide what they want to do with these things," he explains. "This is something that is not a high priority of ours."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/paul-ryan-marijuana-legalization_n_1866180.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
I'm pretty sure that both of you would rather have the Fed. Government/taxpayer pay for medical dope, just as you want them to pay for condom/birth control pills, but isn't this the more responsible way to handle it?


Paul Ryan On Medical Marijuana Legalization: 'Let The States Decide'



Paul Ryan Marijuana Legalization

In an interview with Colorado station KRDO-TV, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan says he believes it's up to the states to decide whether to legalize medical marijuana.

"My personal position on these issues has been let the states decide what they want to do with these things," he explains. "This is something that is not a high priority of ours."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/paul-ryan-marijuana-legalization_n_1866180.html


That is my position on medical marijuana...

But it doesn't sound like Romney agrees- altho that doesn't surprise me because I don't see him as much of a states rights person..

HuffPost's Ryan Grim recently reported on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's position on legalizing medical marijuana:

Campaigning in New Hampshire during the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked on several occasions whether he supported medical marijuana. He became visibly frustrated.
"I have the same position this week I had last week when you asked the question," he said, before arguing fairly loosely that medical marijuana should be banned because it might lead to broader marijuana legalization, which might in turn lead pot smokers to try hard drugs.


"The entryway into our drug culture for our young people is marijuana," Romney said. "Marijuana is the starter drug. And the idea of medical marijuana is designed to help get marijuana out into the public marketplace and ultimately lead to the legalization of marijuana overall. And in my view, that's the wrong way to go."

Romney suggested his questioner approach Democrats instead and promised to fight legalization. "I know there are some on the Democratic side of the aisle that'd be happy to get in your campaign," he said. "But I'm opposed to it, and if you elect me president, you're not going to see legalized marijuana. I'm going to fight it tooth and nail."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
I'm pretty sure that both of you would rather have the Fed. Government/taxpayer pay for medical dope, just as you want them to pay for condom/birth control pills, but isn't this the more responsible way to handle it?


Paul Ryan On Medical Marijuana Legalization: 'Let The States Decide'



Paul Ryan Marijuana Legalization

In an interview with Colorado station KRDO-TV, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan says he believes it's up to the states to decide whether to legalize medical marijuana.

"My personal position on these issues has been let the states decide what they want to do with these things," he explains. "This is something that is not a high priority of ours."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/paul-ryan-marijuana-legalization_n_1866180.html


That is my position on medical marijuana...

But it doesn't sound like Romney agrees- altho that doesn't surprise me because I don't see him as much of a states rights person..

HuffPost's Ryan Grim recently reported on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's position on legalizing medical marijuana:

Campaigning in New Hampshire during the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked on several occasions whether he supported medical marijuana. He became visibly frustrated.
"I have the same position this week I had last week when you asked the question," he said, before arguing fairly loosely that medical marijuana should be banned because it might lead to broader marijuana legalization, which might in turn lead pot smokers to try hard drugs.


"The entryway into our drug culture for our young people is marijuana," Romney said. "Marijuana is the starter drug. And the idea of medical marijuana is designed to help get marijuana out into the public marketplace and ultimately lead to the legalization of marijuana overall. And in my view, that's the wrong way to go."

Romney suggested his questioner approach Democrats instead and promised to fight legalization. "I know there are some on the Democratic side of the aisle that'd be happy to get in your campaign," he said. "But I'm opposed to it, and if you elect me president, you're not going to see legalized marijuana. I'm going to fight it tooth and nail."


but you do agree that it should be up to the states and the 10th, correct?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
I'm pretty sure that both of you would rather have the Fed. Government/taxpayer pay for medical dope, just as you want them to pay for condom/birth control pills, but isn't this the more responsible way to handle it?





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/paul-ryan-marijuana-legalization_n_1866180.html


That is my position on medical marijuana...

But it doesn't sound like Romney agrees- altho that doesn't surprise me because I don't see him as much of a states rights person..

HuffPost's Ryan Grim recently reported on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's position on legalizing medical marijuana:

Campaigning in New Hampshire during the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked on several occasions whether he supported medical marijuana. He became visibly frustrated.
"I have the same position this week I had last week when you asked the question," he said, before arguing fairly loosely that medical marijuana should be banned because it might lead to broader marijuana legalization, which might in turn lead pot smokers to try hard drugs.


"The entryway into our drug culture for our young people is marijuana," Romney said. "Marijuana is the starter drug. And the idea of medical marijuana is designed to help get marijuana out into the public marketplace and ultimately lead to the legalization of marijuana overall. And in my view, that's the wrong way to go."

Romney suggested his questioner approach Democrats instead and promised to fight legalization. "I know there are some on the Democratic side of the aisle that'd be happy to get in your campaign," he said. "But I'm opposed to it, and if you elect me president, you're not going to see legalized marijuana. I'm going to fight it tooth and nail."


but you do agree that it should be up to the states and the 10th, correct?

Yep- that is what I said...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
but you do agree that it should be up to the states and the 10th, correct?

Yep- that is what I said...


as most things should be, correct? Like gay marriage, etc?

Correct the Federal government should have kept their noses out of both--BUT since they have now written laws outlawing both- they need to wipe those off the books...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep- that is what I said...


as most things should be, correct? Like gay marriage, etc?

Correct the Federal government should have kept their noses out of both--BUT since they have now written laws outlawing both- they need to wipe those off the books...

Why should the federal govt. have kept their noses out of these things OT?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep- that is what I said...


as most things should be, correct? Like gay marriage, etc?

Correct the Federal government should have kept their noses out of both--BUT since they have now written laws outlawing both- they need to wipe those off the books...

What else should the "Feds." write off the books, so government becomes smaller, instead of larger.


any Fed. dept. that should be done away with?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
as most things should be, correct? Like gay marriage, etc?

Correct the Federal government should have kept their noses out of both--BUT since they have now written laws outlawing both- they need to wipe those off the books...

Why should the federal govt. have kept their noses out of these things OT?

My opinion- they are better handled by the States...

But in my opinion we have totally lost Nixons "War on Drugs"- and I would support Gary Johnsons/Judge Greys legalization of marijuana....I agree with them that just like prohibition- making marijuana a crime just made Zillions $ for the mobs- and built up an international underworld that is so powerful that the only way we will stop is by making their product of no value thru legalization...

Legislating this type of morality has never worked- and the issue is better handled thru education and medical treatment... This could be paid for by the states taxing legally grown marijuana and still keep the untaxed product illegal- and make the taxed product so cheap that the criminal element couldn't afford the penalty of selling the untaxed product...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep- that is what I said...


as most things should be, correct? Like gay marriage, etc?

Correct the Federal government should have kept their noses out of both--BUT since they have now written laws outlawing both- they need to wipe those off the books...


There are lots of things the Federal Government should stay out of when it comes to the States and Voter ID laws should be at the top of the list. If the DNC has the right to demand an ID to get into their Convention then States should be able to demand ID to insure Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse that are voting for the Dems are actually legal voters and not people living up to Ed Schultz telling them on cable TV to go out and vote ten times to keep the Republican Candidate from getting in.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
as most things should be, correct? Like gay marriage, etc?

Correct the Federal government should have kept their noses out of both--BUT since they have now written laws outlawing both- they need to wipe those off the books...


There are lots of things the Federal Government should stay out of when it comes to the States and Voter ID laws should be at the top of the list. If the DNC has the right to demand an ID to get into their Convention then States should be able to demand ID to insure Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse that are voting for the Dems are actually legal voters and not people living up to Ed Schultz telling them on cable TV to go out and vote ten times to keep the Republican Candidate from getting in.


IDs and votes don't matter to the Dems. They'll just take a vote and the teleprompter will tell the empty chairman, which way to call it.

"there's no voter fraud in the US, except at our conventions, why would we want to ask voters for ID?"

:lol:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Correct the Federal government should have kept their noses out of both--BUT since they have now written laws outlawing both- they need to wipe those off the books...

Why should the federal govt. have kept their noses out of these things OT?

My opinion- they are better handled by the States...

But in my opinion we have totally lost Nixons "War on Drugs"- and I would support Gary Johnsons/Judge Greys legalization of marijuana....I agree with them that just like prohibition- making marijuana a crime just made Zillions $ for the mobs- and built up an international underworld that is so powerful that the only way we will stop is by making their product of no value thru legalization...

Legislating this type of morality has never worked- and the issue is better handled thru education and medical treatment... This could be paid for by the states taxing legally grown marijuana and still keep the untaxed product illegal- and make the taxed product so cheap that the criminal element couldn't afford the penalty of selling the untaxed product...

That was also the opinion of the FoundingFathers and that is why there is no Constitutional authority for the federal govt. in these areas? But the 10th ammendment makes it quite clear and for certain that these are state issues. Don't you agree oldtimer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Why should the federal govt. have kept their noses out of these things OT?

My opinion- they are better handled by the States...

But in my opinion we have totally lost Nixons "War on Drugs"- and I would support Gary Johnsons/Judge Greys legalization of marijuana....I agree with them that just like prohibition- making marijuana a crime just made Zillions $ for the mobs- and built up an international underworld that is so powerful that the only way we will stop is by making their product of no value thru legalization...

Legislating this type of morality has never worked- and the issue is better handled thru education and medical treatment... This could be paid for by the states taxing legally grown marijuana and still keep the untaxed product illegal- and make the taxed product so cheap that the criminal element couldn't afford the penalty of selling the untaxed product...

That was also the opinion of the FoundingFathers and that is why there is no Constitutional authority for the federal govt. in these areas? But the 10th ammendment makes it quite clear and for certain that these are state issues. Don't you agree oldtimer?

I agreed with many Constitutionalists when Nixon pushed thru his Federal drug laws- that they were illegal-- but the SCOTUS have upheld them... Over the past 100+ years we've had drug laws many courts have ruled drug laws unconstitutional- but SCOTUS has always let them stand...
 

Mike

Well-known member
FDR's "Marijuana Tax" of 1937 was found unconstitutional in Leary v. USA.

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary's conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by repealing the Marihuana Tax Act and passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
My opinion- they are better handled by the States...

But in my opinion we have totally lost Nixons "War on Drugs"- and I would support Gary Johnsons/Judge Greys legalization of marijuana....I agree with them that just like prohibition- making marijuana a crime just made Zillions $ for the mobs- and built up an international underworld that is so powerful that the only way we will stop is by making their product of no value thru legalization...

Legislating this type of morality has never worked- and the issue is better handled thru education and medical treatment... This could be paid for by the states taxing legally grown marijuana and still keep the untaxed product illegal- and make the taxed product so cheap that the criminal element couldn't afford the penalty of selling the untaxed product...

That was also the opinion of the FoundingFathers and that is why there is no Constitutional authority for the federal govt. in these areas? But the 10th ammendment makes it quite clear and for certain that these are state issues. Don't you agree oldtimer?

I agreed with many Constitutionalists when Nixon pushed thru his Federal drug laws- that they were illegal-- but the SCOTUS have upheld them... Over the past 100+ years we've had drug laws many courts have ruled drug laws unconstitutional- but SCOTUS has always let them stand...

In much the same way obamacare is unconstitutional and SCOTUS changed the wording to make it stand. This is also a state issue, that is why Massachusets has different health insurance laws than Montana, there is no provision in the U.S.Constitution for federal involvement.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I would agree with Insurance reform being a state issue- except it has been tried and failed in some states (like Montana) because we don't have enough population to get the big rate drops that will come with big pools- and so the states don't have the leveraging ability with the insurance companies the federal government and the entire population does...

That was the idea put out by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, Orrin Hatch, and the Republican leadership for years- we needed large pool(s) with "everyone" required to participate to eventually get the insurance prices/medical costs back down to affordable...

With Obamacare in about 10 years we will see if they were right....
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I would agree with Insurance reform being a state issue- except it has been tried and failed in some states (like Montana) because we don't have enough population to get the big rate drops that will come with big pools- and so the states don't have the leveraging ability with the insurance companies the federal government and the entire population does...

That was the idea put out by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, Orrin Hatch, and the Republican leadership for years- we needed large pool(s) with "everyone" required to participate to eventually get the insurance prices/medical costs back down to affordable...

With Obamacare in about 10 years we will see if they were right....

except! :shock: there can be no except, the power is either granted by We the People to the federal govt through the U.S.Constitution or it is not.
Everyone who voted yes on obamacare violated his/her oath of office and should be removed from office over this.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I would agree with Insurance reform being a state issue- except it has been tried and failed in some states (like Montana) because we don't have enough population to get the big rate drops that will come with big pools- and so the states don't have the leveraging ability with the insurance companies the federal government and the entire population does...

That was the idea put out by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, Orrin Hatch, and the Republican leadership for years- we needed large pool(s) with "everyone" required to participate to eventually get the insurance prices/medical costs back down to affordable...

With Obamacare in about 10 years we will see if they were right....

Warning! The above post is COMPLETE Hogwash!!!!!!!!!!

There are companies with as little as 25 employees that are "Self-Insured" with very competitive rates!!!

You DO NOT have to have huge pools to have affordable health insurance rates.

Sometimes Larger insurance pools open themselves to MORE RISK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.siia.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=4546
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
I would agree with Insurance reform being a state issue- except it has been tried and failed in some states (like Montana) because we don't have enough population to get the big rate drops that will come with big pools- and so the states don't have the leveraging ability with the insurance companies the federal government and the entire population does...

That was the idea put out by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, Orrin Hatch, and the Republican leadership for years- we needed large pool(s) with "everyone" required to participate to eventually get the insurance prices/medical costs back down to affordable...

With Obamacare in about 10 years we will see if they were right....

Warning! The above post is COMPLETE Hogwash!!!!!!!!!!

There are companies with as little as 25 employees that are "Self-Insured" with very competitive rates!!!

You DO NOT have to have huge pools to have affordable health insurance rates.

Sometimes Larger insurance pools open themselves to MORE RISK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.siia.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=4546

That is not what the insurance companies testified to in the Congressional Hearings... They stated that the bigger the pool- with the inclusion of everyone (mandate) could spread out risk and lower individual costs to all...
 
Top