DeGette files bill to require feds to respect marijuana law Read more: DeGette files bill to requir

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

In an effort to ensure new voter-approved amendments that legalize limited use of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington are not overrun by the federal government, Democratic U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette introduced bipartisan legislation Friday that aims to curtail such a scenario.

"My constituents have spoken and I don't want the federal government denying money to Colorado or taking other punitive steps that would undermine the will of our citizens," DeGette, of Denver, said in a statement.

The legislation, coined "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act," comes on the heels of Colorado voters approving Amendment 64, which legalizes up to an ounce of marijuana for anyone over the age of 21.


Read more: DeGette files bill to require feds to respect marijuana law - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz2CQXAtJSg
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

but not republicans ?
way to go killjoys ,loosen up a bit you stiffs
also shouldn't this be called amendment 420
leave it to me to come up with this stuff

[That One Guy]

The drug law is just as much a federal law as civil rights is. If a state votes to shoot down civil rights tomorrow, are we still in favor of states rights? I say yes, most wouldn't. I find it tobe analogous to those that cry for limited gov't but then want federal laws against abortion or whatever. You can only have it one way or the other. States or fed calling the shots.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

The drug law is just as much a federal law as civil rights is. If a state votes to shoot down civil rights tomorrow, are we still in favor of states rights? I say yes, most wouldn't. I find it tobe analogous to those that cry for limited gov't but then want federal laws against abortion or whatever. You can only have it one way or the other. States or fed calling the shots.

so hard when you want to draw the line .
so what should happen to smoking marijuana what harm can it do if done right

[Requiem]

Do you smoke weed, Dan?

Puffin' on that Brucie Banner, Danny mind your manners.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Do you smoke weed, Dan?

Puffin' on that Brucie Banner, Danny mind your manners.

I looked over everything i posted not shure what you are getting at so lets dissect this statement

Puffin' on that Brucie Banner<<-- the incredible hulks alter ego i dont get how or what this went from legalize marijuana to marvel comics but whatever > , Danny mind your manners. <--- what are you talking about here have i been overly rude to someone can you point that out where i have been overly rude unlike other posters.
your reply will be most eagerly awaited i dont got a clue what you are trying to get at and yes i smoke weed when its free and given to me never look a gift horse in the mouth they have bad breath.

[Requiem]

It is a rhyme, Dan. It is simple as that. Bruce Banner is a strain of weed. Makes you blast off like NASA.

[Broncos_OTM]

Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN

so hard when you want to draw the line .
so what should happen to smoking marijuana what harm can it do if done right

homie, slow down and think before you type. i have been skipping alot of your posts because, you don't make much sense.

[Rohirrim]

I'm sure all the Republican "states rights' supporters will be lining up to voice their backing of DeGette...






j/k

[Rohirrim]

In the letter — penned by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Boulder —

That's my rep!

[nyuk nyuk]

I sent DeGette an email and ripped her a new one. She's sworn under oath in part to uphold the law. Federal law trumps state law, always has. That's why states and localities can't vote themselves things like legalized slavery or wife beating.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

In the letter — penned by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Boulder —

That's my rep!

You must be proud. Walking stereotypes are always nice to have around.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I sent DeGette an email and ripped her a new one. She's sworn under oath in part to uphold the law. Federal law trumps state law, always has. That's why states and localities can't vote themselves things like legalized slavery or wife beating.

Or secession.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Broncos_OTM

homie, slow down and think before you type. i have been skipping alot of your posts because, you don't make much sense.

That's why he's the official OM poster boy for the right.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I sent DeGette an email and ripped her a new one. She's sworn under oath in part to uphold the law. Federal law trumps state law, always has. That's why states and localities can't vote themselves things like legalized slavery or wife beating.

Wrong again. As usual. Citizens of the states are certainly allowed to grant themselves more rights than spelled out in the Bill of Rights. There is no proscription against that. They just can't violate the rights of individuals guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which of course is what your two examples would do. Since there is no proscription in the Constitution against growing or smoking pot, the states have every right to legalize it. Don't you get embarrassed bringing such poorly thought out arguments to the table? And you sent an email to DeGette proclaiming your ignorance? Ouch.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I sent DeGette an email and ripped her a new one. She's sworn under oath in part to uphold the law. Federal law trumps state law, always has. That's why states and localities can't vote themselves things like legalized slavery or wife beating.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Wrong again. As usual. Citizens of the states are certainly allowed to grant themselves more rights than spelled out in the Bill of Rights. There is no proscription against that. They just can't violate the rights of individuals guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which of course is what your two examples would do. Since there is no proscription in the Constitution against growing or smoking pot, the states have every right to legalize it. Don't you get embarrassed bringing such poorly thought out arguments to the table? And you sent an email to DeGette proclaiming your ignorance? Ouch.

So in other words, since there is no proscription against slavery and wife beating, we can legalize that too. Indeed, neither was covered in the Bill of Rights and we all know it, and we already know some of the Founders owned slaves themselves. Black people weren't written in to have these rights until much later, and according to you, thus we can revert on a local level to black disenfranchisement and women not being allowed to vote, apparently. Epic genius here, folk.

Segregation was ended precisely when federal law was changed that overrode all state laws on the topic. This is why under the Bush administration, whenever a medical pot joint opened up, Bush would have the DEA close it down. They were enforcing federal marijuana laws.

You just threw the Civil Rights Act out the window, in toto.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

You may wish to stick to politics in your own congressional district, just saying... Or at least to politics in your own state.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You may wish to stick to politics in your own congressional district, just saying... Or at least to politics in your own state.

Says the female impersonator from Texas.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You may wish to stick to politics in your own congressional district, just saying... Or at least to politics in your own state.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

So in other words, since there is no proscription against slavery and wife beating, we can legalize that too. Indeed, neither was covered in the Bill of Rights and we all know it, and we already know some of the Founders owned slaves themselves. Black people weren't written in to have these rights until much later, and according to you, thus we can revert on a local level to black disenfranchisement and women not being allowed to vote, apparently. Epic genius here, folk.

Segregation was ended precisely when federal law was changed that overrode all state laws on the topic. This is why under the Bush administration, whenever a medical pot joint opened up, Bush would have the DEA close it down. They were enforcing federal marijuana laws.

You just threw the Civil Rights Act out the window, in toto.

I know you went to all this trouble to ignore the point of my post, but it was clumsy and transparent. Keep trying.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I know you went to all this trouble to ignore the point of my post, but it was clumsy and transparent. Keep trying.

Oh? What was your point? You're retroactively applying the Bill of Rights as interpreted today under non-BOR amendments to the Constitution. The BOR as was originally made was exactly as I said it was, thus you undercut your own argument by saying people can ignore anything outside the BOR.

It was no trouble, I've been shooting potheads down with this basic fact for some time.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

If I lived in your neck of the woods, I'd probably be dying of boredom and want to look elsewhere, also.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Oh? What was your point? You're retroactively applying the Bill of Rights as interpreted today under non-BOR amendments to the Constitution. The BOR as was originally made was exactly as I said it was, thus you undercut your own argument by saying people can ignore anything outside the BOR.

It was no trouble, I've been shooting potheads down with this basic fact for some time.

Waste of time.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

If I lived in your neck of the woods, I'd probably be dying of boredom and want to look elsewhere, also.

You seem to be doing a bang up job of that while living in Colorado. Tell us about your hamster.