Follow TV Tropes

Following

Fed to take away Grandma's glaucoma meds

Go To

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#26: Oct 6th 2011 at 4:59:08 PM

The disenfranchisement doesn't specifically target drug users, and should be fought through legal means anyway. Like they've done in Wisconsin. That seems to have been considered a success by Wisconsonites. (T Hey prevented the shutdown of DM Vs and the restrictions of the hours.)

Basically, you're not even giving the less extreme measures a chance, you're just pointlessly yelling out "revolution, motherfuckers!"

SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#27: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:08:19 PM

There are other measures that California might take to piss the Feds off: They might defund/shut down their own Narcotics enforcement and stop all cooperation between Californian and Federal law enforcement in protest for Federal meddling: That alone might get the Feds to back down.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#28: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:10:25 PM

...no...

The Federal Government would probably just pull funding for programs in California.

Watch as their economy goes so far below sea level the measuring equipment can't handle the pressure...

I am now known as Flyboy.
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#29: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:11:34 PM

They can't do that. If California's economy tanks, the US economy tanks.

edited 6th Oct '11 5:13:04 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#30: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:15:10 PM

Which is why California wouldn't do such a preposterously stupid thing as try and take on the Federal Government.

Playing chicken with yourself means you're the only person who can lose.

I am now known as Flyboy.
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#31: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:16:13 PM

A big State such as California probably can't take on the Feds on their own, but they sure as Hell can make them miserable through sheer obstruction and legislative ill will.

edited 6th Oct '11 5:18:58 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#32: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:18:06 PM

When a house cat pushes a lion, the lion will push back, and the lion will win the ensuing fight.

You take such a dim view of democracy I think you might just be shutting your eyes entirely. Or, perhaps, you're simply too impatient to accept that "shooting first and doing stupidly antagonistic things" is not the way to run a society...

I am now known as Flyboy.
Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#33: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:19:49 PM

Freedom is overrated.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#34: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:21:40 PM

Freedom as an abstract concept held over sheer practicality and realism is overrated.

I should pothole that to Hypocritical Humor... but I won't.

I am now known as Flyboy.
Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#35: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:24:17 PM

When individual freedoms infringe on the collective good, restricting them is necessary.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#36: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:26:43 PM

@USAF: The only ones shooting first and doing stupid antagonistic things are the Feds.

edited 6th Oct '11 5:27:35 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
MarkVonLewis Since: Jun, 2010
#37: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:27:14 PM

Oh, Savage Heathen, man you make me laugh.

As for marijuana legalizing, I'm torn. One the one hand, it ain't worth busting people over, unlike heroin, meth, and a number of other drugs... But on the other hand I've known a LOT of high-on dumbasses who were constantly stoned outta their mind and being a level of stupid that was almost unreal. (namely, my step sis' whole family)

Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#38: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:28:21 PM

The only ones shooting first and doing stupid antagonistic things are the Feds.

Nope.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#39: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:34:33 PM

Savage; it takes two sides to make a bad situation what it is. The Feds don't have a monopoly on stupid fucks. Again, you fail to give us a reasonable cause for California to do anything, especially something that would suddenly put several thousand cops out of a job. (That's a recipe for fucking disaster right there.) Again, the pot issue is not enough, and to do what you suggest is incredibly selfish and doomed only to disaster.

SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#40: Oct 6th 2011 at 5:51:58 PM

[up] There are alternatives aside from rolling over and submitting: If the Feds are going to assert their drug laws over California's, California might defund their drug cops and just let the Feds take over (taking the expense over as well). Classic tit-for-tat. Money-saver, too.

Of course, since Fed drug cops are harassing people for things that are legal in California, cooperation among State and Federal law enforcement might be banned. Californian drug cops could be re-funded only if the Fed Gov agreed to stop their intrusion.

That'd be an exquisitely proportional reaction, and much less bloody than revolution or secession.

edited 6th Oct '11 5:57:34 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#41: Oct 6th 2011 at 6:13:39 PM

Once again, California isn't idiotically stupid. They decide to pull the States' Rights card, and lose national support, followed by their other shit being defunded by the Federal Government.

What was it you called it, again? Proportional reaction?

I am now known as Flyboy.
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#42: Oct 6th 2011 at 6:15:51 PM

[up]Then how do you suggest CA keeps its weed laws upheld?

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#43: Oct 6th 2011 at 6:17:11 PM

...it doesn't.

That, or it simply comes up with something the Federal Government can accept. Or, it simply doesn't legalize pot at the moment.

The legalization process was kind of botched anyhow...

I am now known as Flyboy.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#44: Oct 6th 2011 at 6:34:42 PM

Or just ignore them.

Think Gandhi for a second, people. Human chains around medical pot operations and DEA offices, noncooperation from local law enforcement. If Californians care enough about the freedoms their state enjoys, they could pull it off.

And if they don't? Then the state doesn't deserve to keep laws its citizens won't defend. Tough beans, back to the secret grow-op days.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#45: Oct 7th 2011 at 12:35:49 PM

So, there's a new law about to affect the world:Link

The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out. The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.

"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for reforming the country's drug laws. "The strange thing is that the purchase of and smoking the marijuana while you're there wouldn't be illegal. But this law would make planning the wedding from the U.S. a federal crime."

The law could also potentially affect academics and medical professionals. For example, a U.S. doctor who works with overseas doctors or government officials on needle exchange programs could be subject to criminal prosecution. A U.S. resident who advises someone in another country on how to grow marijuana or how to run a medical marijuana dispensary would also be in violation of the new law, even if medical marijuana is legal in the country where the recipient of the advice resides. If interpreted broadly enough, a prosecutor could possibly even charge doctors, academics and policymakers from contributing their expertise to additional experiments like the drug decriminalization project Portugal, which has successfully reduced drug crime, addiction and overdose deaths.

The Controlled Substances Act also regulates the distribution of prescription drugs, so something as simple as emailing a friend vacationing in Tiajuana some suggestions on where to buy prescription medication over the counter could subject a U.S. resident to criminal prosecution. "It could even be something like advising them where to buy cold medicine overseas that they'd have to show I.D. to get here in the U.S.," Piper says.

Civil libertarian attorney and author Harvey Silverglate says the bill raises several concerns. "Just when you think you can't get any more cynical, a bill like this comes along. I mean, it just sounds like an abomination. First, there's no intuitive reason for an American to think that planning an activity that's perfectly legal in another country would have any effect on America," Silverglate says. "So we're getting further away from the common law tradition that laws should be intuitive, and should include a mens rea component. Second, this is just an act of shameless cultural and legal imperialism. It's just outrageous."

Conspiracy laws in general are problematic when applied to the drug war. They give prosecutors extraordinary discretion to charge minor players, such as girlfriends or young siblings, with the crimes committed by major drug distributors. They're also easier convictions to win, and can allow prosecutors to navigate around restrictions like statutes of limitations, so long as the old offense can be loosely linked to a newer one. The Smith bill would expand those powers. Under the Amsterdam wedding scenario, anyone who participated in the planning of the wedding with knowledge of the planned pot purchase would be guilty of conspiracy, even if their particular role was limited to buying flowers or booking the hotel.

The law is a reaction to a 2007 case in which the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals threw out the convictions of two men who planned the transfer of cocaine from a Colombian drug cartel to a Saudi prince for distribution in Europe. Though the men planned the transaction from Miami, the court found that because the cocaine never reached the U.S. and was never intended to reach the U.S., the men hadn't committed any crime against the United States.

But the Smith bill goes farther than necessary to address that outcome in that case. "They could have limited this law to prohibiting the planning of activities that are illegal in the countries where they take place," Piper says. "That would have allowed them to convict the guys in the Miami case. There was an amendment proposed to do that and it was voted down on party lines. They intentionally made sure the bill includes activities that legal in other countries. Which means this is an attempt to apply U.S. law all over the globe."

It wouldn't be the first time. Over the last several years, a number of executives from online gambling companies have been arrested in U.S. airports and charged with felony violations of U.S. gambling, racketeering and money laundering laws, even though the executives were citizens of and the companies were incorporated in countries where online gambling is legal.

Last May, one U.S. citizen saw how the police can apply in reverse. Joe Gordon, a native of Thailand who has lived in America for 30 years, was arrested while visiting his native country for violating Thailand's lèse-majesté law, which bans criticism of the Thai royal family. Gordon had posted a link on his blog to a biography of Thailand's king that has been banned in Thailand.

In recent years, officials have also attempted to impose U.S. white collar crime policies on other countries as well, such as pressuring Switzerland to soften it's privacy laws to help American officials to catch tax cheats and money launderers.

But Silverglate says the Smith bill breaks new ground. "I'm horrified by the pressure on Switzerland, and that's probably the libertarian in me, but at least there you have an argument that there's an American interest at stake. Here, I don't see any interest other than to a desire to impose our moral and cultural preferences on the rest of the world."

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#46: Oct 7th 2011 at 12:42:20 PM

[up] It gets worse, and worse, and worse... And yet the spineless continue to advocate for patience.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#47: Oct 7th 2011 at 12:46:09 PM

...now that's a ridiculous law.

Putting aside the morality of drug use, American law largely ends when you step off American soil...

I am now known as Flyboy.
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#48: Oct 7th 2011 at 12:49:44 PM

Hm, that one I'm not worried about, if only because it's so extreme as to be completely unenforceable.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
johnnyfog Actual Wrestling Legend from the Zocalo Since: Apr, 2010 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Actual Wrestling Legend
#50: Oct 7th 2011 at 1:34:45 PM

Well, this should crank up the conviction rate.

This is literally unprecedented. Unless you count flying to Tailand to boink an underage boy. But yeah, that's on par with smoking a joint.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

Total posts: 54
Top