Obama administration goes back on its words about medical marijuana.

It's a Federal crime, Savage. California judges are irrelevant.

California loses, because California is fucking stupid and they antagonize soldiers. They try stupid shit like what you want, and boom, nationalize the local Guardsmen, and they're done.

There are lots of ways on which a State can antagonize or obstruct federal law enforcement. It's time to revisit all of them.

Say DEA pigs raid a stoner's home. The following morning, a bazillion California State troopers arrest those fucks and put them in the slammer for 20 years, 'cause they violated California law. Quite ironically, the same evidence with which they'd prosecute somebody would make'em guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Feds could moan and groan, but the whole op would be legit.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:28:14 PM by SavageHeathen

But making it a capital offence is the single most ridiculous idea for law I have heard in my life.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:27:40 PM by Erock

You do not declare political war against the largest and most powerful government on the face of fucking Planet Earth and win, Savage.

Period.

Drug legalization must happen at the Federal level first.

You especially don't declare war on your own federal government in which you have more influence than anyone else (fifty five seats in the Reps) are dependent on for money and several other services, and expect to come out of it the winner when you know they can fuck you up. They have too much to lose to fight over this one thing in power and resources.

Simply put, it's not practical for California to get hostile over this issue.

You can prevail against the Feds. In fact, there's a whole lot of ways to prevail against the Feds (not militarily, but politically).

The Feds' only recourse against a State that sabotages them is to try and strike down their obstructions through the SCOTUS or to answer in kind with bullshit legislation. Most political clashes between Feds and States end at a stalemate, 'cause neither side can do much against the other aside from petty jabs (Feds cut funding, State obstructs Feds even more, Feds cut more funding... Until one side gives up)

edited 9th Nov '11 1:34:44 PM by SavageHeathen

Or they pull funding for everything, declare a state of emergency, nationalize the Guardsmen, and ruin your shit.

And California will give up because they are in a shitty financial position, last I checked. Again, too much to lose.

Savage, enough of your anti-state anarchist bullshit please. 90% of the stuff you say either can't be done because of the Constitution or is politically impossible to pull off. The other 10% is so far out there nobody will even take it seriously.

I understand you are to that spectrum ideologically but can ya tone down the "Rah rah kill the cops, hang the Feds, viva la revolucion!" stuff?

What's unconstitutional about criminalizing searches, whether reasonable or unreasonable?

It can be done. The absence of constitutional protection against reasonable searches doesn't mean that reasonable searches can't be banned.

Are they even doing unlawful searches or going to the stores where it's known to be sold and sending them a cease and desist letter? With the warning that they will be searched if they fail to comply? That kind of advanced warning is the kind of thing you definitely need permission for. I don't think this situation necessarily involves going into people's houses.

This. Specifically the Fourth Amendment.

Take a long look at that. It allows searches and seizures. It only disallows unreasonable searches and seizures.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:45:43 PM by MajorTom

Savage, you need to wake up and read up on the Supremacy Clause, which all the things you said are in clear violation of.

^ And the Fourteenth Amendment.

Heh, you say that people should be arrested for trying to make this happen? Under whose authority, Savage Heathen? YOURS?

If California tried to ignore a ruling like that, or arrested any federal employees, the shit storm would be huge.

Do you have any idea how little of the time drug enforcers bother to get a warrant?

Fuck, Barkey's right. Similar means of messing with Federal employees has been tried before, and the SCOTUS sided with the Feds. I'm sure there are various ways to antagonize the Feds, but I proposed the wrong one.

: I do realize it. That's why I proposed that in order to get rid of drug enforcers. Still, rules imposing penalties of Federal employees in pursuit of their duties have been struck down before, so subtler tools are needed.

California can probably harass Federal employees in other ways. Say, imposing a brutal tax on any Californian resident's income that doesn't come from California... Then let the exceptions swallow the rule, getting pretty much everyone except Federal government employees freed of such a burden through an exception. End result? Fedgov employees residing in California being priced out of the State.

Tax 90% of their income, then watch'em quit en masse.

edited 9th Nov '11 4:51:50 PM by SavageHeathen

I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to do that either, as it is obviously discriminatory. All your suggestions are just bad.

Savage, ever hear the phrase "anything you can do, I can do better?"

That's what the Federal Government would say to California—in addition to "neener neener neener"—as it pulls funding for anything and everything and watches the State sink like a block of solid lead.

Savage, oh man... Dude you are funny, rider of Brohan.

But maybe try suggesting some realistic and totally over-the-top ideas.

On topic: honestly I can't say I'm really sad to see medical weed under fire, seeing as how the system to get medical weed has been abused to hell and back.

edited 9th Nov '11 4:17:03 PM by MarkVonLewis

Wait, I'm a bit lost here. Why are we talking about leaving the union because of marijuana?

There's other painkillers for people who need them and people who don't need them shouldn't be taking them anyways because this is only medical marijuana.

That's kind of Savage Heathen's shtick.

But really, the system was so abused and manipulated by certain people that it became virtually a necessity. And since I hate the smell of weed, this works to my advantage.

I did not even once mention breaking the Union in this thread. I was suggesting ways for California to fight back against Federal bullshit, and none of those was seccession.

The best plan I could make in a pinch is to enact absurd taxes and exempt everyone except Federal employees from them (without mentioning Federal employees in the law at all). Taxing the Feds outta California is a not-neccessarily-unconstitutional way to harass DC's thugs (quite appropriate, considering that Fed pigs are harassing Californians).

California legislators have a lot of lawyers, so they might come with more creative and less unconstitutional ways to fight back if they wanted to.

edited 9th Nov '11 5:14:22 PM by SavageHeathen

I hate the smell of booze. (Actually, it makes me physically ill)

Just throwing that out there.

While I am pro-legalization, I would support a public ban on any and all forms of smoking, because smoking makes it not just your problem anymore via second-hand smoking.

Anyhow, yeah, Savage thinks that the ability to use drugs freely should be a civil right (or rather, that it always was, and that government is infringing on it) and that infringing on civil rights is the ultimate crime, ergo, California should secede/do stupid things to make a point and bring down the man so everyone can have their civil rights!

Feel free to point out any holes in this style of thinking if you like—though not in this thread—since it is, in fact, full of holes.