Von Miller facing 4 game suspension.

[cdumler7]

I need to research the law more? "The law" you're citing doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it is still illegal. FEDERAL law makes it still illegal. As in the FBI has the legal authority show up to your house and arrest you for possession if you have it on you. The fact that you're not understanding this is a good case study for how weed makes you stupider.

If the Federal Government was going to show up they would not show up at the consumers house but to the actual business selling it.

You are right Federal Law makes it illegal and in this instance they would trump the State Law. Now does that mean that the Federal Government will actually come in and actually try to regulate this and arrest people for it? They have a little in the past and it has not been met well by the state or local areas that they have gone into. The Federal Government is figuring out quickly to allow the State to go ahead and take control in these situations unless they want to start riots.

So pretty much it is Actually Legal and Illegal all at the same time. The fact that you are using the word "Stupider" doesn't give you the greatest case for trying to prove somebody being more stupid than you.

 

[NinerSickness]

So pretty much it is Actually Legal and Illegal all at the same time.

Or more accurately: it's illegal, but the Federal government may not enforce the law.

Now in 2017 if Eric Holder is no longer the Attorney General, that may not be the case.

 

[cdumler7]

Or more accurately: it's illegal, but the Federal government may not enforce the law.

Now in 2017 if Eric Holder is no longer the Attorney General, that may not be the case.

Seriously are you going to be an A-Hole about this? It is legal to actually walk into a store and buy the drug. Now if a Federal Agent is standing outside the door yes they can arrest you for illegal drugs but if the government did this then they would have full on riots on their hands. They are not going to do this and people are going to legally be able to buy the drug with no issues. The fact that the State can tax a person for this purchase should show that it is actually Legal. Just because the Federal Government says no to something doesn't mean that it is completely illegal. This is a gray area at this time but more times than not people will walk out of a store and use the drug without facing any possible legal troubles.

 

[NinerSickness]

Seriously are you going to be an A-Hole about this?

Yes.

It is legal to actually walk into a store and buy the drug.

It really isn't.

Now if a Federal Agent is standing outside the door yes they can arrest you for illegal drugs but if the government did this then they would have full on riots on their hands.

1. No they wouldn't.
2. Even if this were true, it doesn't make marijuana possession / sale legal.

The fact that the State can tax a person for this purchase should show that it is actually Legal.

In the People's Republic of Colorado? Yes. In the United States of America (including Colorado) it doesn't show that at all.

Just because the Federal Government says no to something doesn't mean that it is completely illegal.

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL!

 

[cdumler7]

Yes.



It really isn't.



1. No they wouldn't.
2. Even if this were true, it doesn't make marijuana possession / sale legal.



In the People's Republic of Colorado? Yes. In the United States of America (including Colorado) it doesn't show that at all.



THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL!

The Obama administration has said that the federal government will not intervene with those states that make it legal and there is a bill in the making to make states that legalize it be exempt from federal regulations. Also that is not the very definition of something being legal it is the very definition of something falling in a gray area at this time.

 

[NinerSickness]

The Obama administration has said that the federal government will not intervene with those states that make it legal and there is a bill in the making to make states that legalize it be exempt from federal regulations.

Wrong again! Congress passes laws & the president confirms or uses veto power. This law was on the books bofore Obama was President. Just because Obama picks & chooses the laws he decides he wants to enforce doesn't mean the laws he ignores are somehow repealed. That would take another act of congress.

 

[buried_in_snow]

I need to research the law more? "The law" you're citing doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it is still illegal. FEDERAL law makes it still illegal. As in the FBI has the legal authority show up to your house and arrest you for possession if you have it on you. The fact that you're not understanding this is a good case study for how weed makes you stupider.

First of all, I understand it. Hence the fact I wrote:

Y Sure, federal laws can trump state laws but you are incorrect in saying it is not legal at a state level in Colorado.

Amendment 64 is part of our state's constitution.

Second of all, you're a cliche example of someone who gets all butthurt then starts slinging bullshit in hopes of it sticking. I don't smoke weed, therefore I am not stupidier than you.

btw - eloquent people use the term, "more stupid." Only uneducated burnouts would think "stupidier" is appropriate to use.

Wrong again! Congress passes laws & the president confirms or uses veto power. This law was on the books bofore Obama was President. Just because Obama picks & chooses the laws he decides he wants to enforce doesn't mean the laws he ignores are somehow repealed. That would take another act of congress.

Do you know anything about the Tenth Amendment of The Constitution? Again, you might want to research the law a bit more before you start blowing out labia on a message board.

It is possible for something to be decriminalized on the state level and not on the federal level. Which means that it is legal on the state level, but illegal on the federal level. To try and even argue this makes you look completely ignorant.

 

[buried_in_snow]

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL!

No it is not.

"Completely" illegal would encompass the state level as well.

Just because you type something in all caps, doesn't make it right.

 

[catchbluefish]

If this is an instance of weed use, and again, the only credible source to confirm or deny it is he nfl and they can't comment so anything from the media, the Nflpa or the player in question is meaningless, what is legal or illegal has no bearing in a case like this,. That said, the constitutional issues in a case like this, if you are talking legally, are murky at best.

 

[NinerSickness]

Do you know anything about the Tenth Amendment of The Constitution? Again, you might want to research the law a bit more before you start blowing out labia on a message board.

It is possible for something to be decriminalized on the state level and not on the federal level. Which means that it is legal on the state level, but illegal on the federal level. To try and even argue this makes you look completely ignorant.

The 10th amendment doesn't give an individual state the ability to nullify a federal law. If Colorado passed a law decriminalizing the act of stealing someone's mail, that wouldn't mean stealing someone's mail is legal in Colorado.

Decriminalizing something at the State level doesn't unilaterally make it legal. You just did what the Supreme Court is so good at doing: you cited an amendment that had nothing to do with the issue at hand in order to justify your patently false opinion.

 

[buried_in_snow]

If this is an instance of weed use, and again, the only credible source to confirm or deny it is he nfl and they can't comment so anything from the media, the Nflpa or the player in question is meaningless, what is legal or illegal has no bearing in a case like this,. That said, the constitutional issues in a case like this, if you are talking legally, are murky at best.

The NFL policy is the NFL policy. The Colorado constitution has no bearing.

btw- it's being rumored that in previous failed test(s) he tested positive for amphetamines. And in this most recent failed test he had molly in his system

 

[cdumler7]

The 10th amendment doesn't give an individual state the ability to nullify a federal law. If Colorado passed a law decriminalizing the act of stealing someone's mail, that wouldn't mean stealing someone's mail is legal in Colorado.

Decriminalizing something at the State level doesn't unilaterally make it legal. You just did what the Supreme Court is so good at doing: you cited an amendment that had nothing to do with the issue at hand in order to justify your patently false opinion.

I understand what you are saying to a point. First off your example is apple and oranges there. You are talking about an actual criminal act against another individual compared to that of Weed which only affects the person smoking it.

Also my opinion is not false. I have said nothing that is not factually true. The state has made it legal. The Federal government still says it is illegal. That is what I have said. I have said the Federal government can step in at any point they want and arrest anybody caught with Weed or anybody caught distributing or growing it. I have pointed out though that the Federal government has said at this point they are not going to interfere with what the States have decided. In fact Obama's exact words when asked about the Federal government stepping in and enforcing the federal laws in Washington and Colorado were "We have bigger fish to fry." He has said and others in the Federal government that they are not going to do anything at this time.

So again this boils down to this being a very gray area with how things are at this time. The Federal Government is working at this time to make this a little more black and white by passing a Law that would allow for those states that have decided to legalize Marijuana to not be in direct violation of Federal Law.

 

[buried_in_snow]

The 10th amendment doesn't give an individual state the ability to nullify a federal law.

I never said it did. Please don't introduce straw man arguments.

If Colorado passed a law decriminalizing the act of stealing someone's mail, that wouldn't mean stealing someone's mail is legal in Colorado.

Technically it would, but that would never happen.

Decriminalizing something at the State level doesn't unilaterally make it legal

.

Never claimed it did. You're arguing a straw man argument.

You just did what the Supreme Court is so good at doing: you cited an amendment that had nothing to do with the issue at hand in order to justify your patently false opinion.

This is the key verbiage of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Briefly what that means in regards to CO and WA legalization of marijuana:

Although the federal government may use its power of the purse to encourage states to adopt certain criminal laws, the federal government is limited in its ability to directly influence state policy by the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from directing states to enact specific legislation, or requiring state officials to enforce federal law. As such, the fact that the federal government has criminalized conduct does not mean that the state, in turn, must also criminalize or prosecute that same conduct.

Another fine example is when the federal gov't raised the legal drinking age to 21. There were a few states that kept the legal drinking age at 18. So unless federal agent themselves are going to do something about it in said states, you are totally legal to consume alcohol at the age of 18.

I don't know why this is escaping you.

 

[NinerSickness]

I don't know why this is escaping you.

It's called intellectual honesty.

If the Federal minimum drinking age is 21 and a state says it's 18, then drinking at the age of 18 is not legal in that state. I don't want to actually read the National Minimum Drinking Age Act to see if exactly what it says (I think it only outlaws the sale of alcohol to people under 21 not drinking it). And it has all kinds of exceptions and even says in the law what happens if the state doesn't enforce it.

Whether or not the state enforces a law is not the basis on which something is "legal" or "illegal."

And "technically," as you put it, you're wrong. If Colorado passed a law decriminalizing the theft of mail it would still be illegal. I don't know why this is escaping you.

 

[JDM]

I'm honestly surprised there hasn't been another, more recent, federal court case on the issue. I don't think a great case was presented last time state laws v federal laws were challenged with regards to weed, and feel that another challenge would have a decent shot at being successful.

IMO the fact that the federal government is allowed to overrule states on this is absurd.

 

[NinerSickness]

IMO the fact that the federal government is allowed to overrule states on this is absurd.

Therein lies the crux of Federalism. I totally agree with this statement. However, without some degree of an overruling Federal government, we'd just be 50 sovereign states (a lot of which would be land locked).

The Federal government is always a heavy hand. It has to be if it's going to apply to every corner of a really large country. That's why libertarians get so pissed off that it's expanded into 100,000 times as many roles as it originally filled.

 

[buried_in_snow]

It's called intellectual honesty.

If the Federal minimum drinking age is 21 and a state says it's 18, then drinking at the age of 18 is not legal in that state. I don't want to actually read the National Minimum Drinking Age Act to see if exactly what it says (I think it only outlaws the sale of alcohol to people under 21 not drinking it). And it has all kinds of exceptions and even says in the law what happens if the state doesn't enforce it.

Whether or not the state enforces a law is not the basis on which something is "legal" or "illegal."

And "technically," as you put it, you're wrong. If Colorado passed a law decriminalizing the theft of mail it would still be illegal. I don't know why this is escaping you.

Well, I'm pretty sure the fact you cut out and ignored 95% of my post tells me everything I need to know.

I can't explain it any slower or simpler for you. Sorry.

I wish I could use crayons and pictures, maybe that'd help

 

[NinerSickness]

Well, I'm pretty sure the fact you cut out and ignored 95% of my post tells me everything I need to know.

I can't explain it any slower or simpler for you. Sorry.

I wish I could use crayons and pictures, maybe that'd help

I don't feel the need to address every bit of nonsense in your posts. This is like when someone on the Niners' forum was arguing for days that the elder bost bomber wasn't actually dead & was arrested naked the following day. I don't know what else to say to you.

AGAINST FEDERAL LAW = ILLEGAL

It's that simple. There is no gray area on this one, and I'm hoping the same doesn't go for your brain.

 

[cdumler7]

It's called intellectual honesty.

If the Federal minimum drinking age is 21 and a state says it's 18, then drinking at the age of 18 is not legal in that state. I don't want to actually read the National Minimum Drinking Age Act to see if exactly what it says (I think it only outlaws the sale of alcohol to people under 21 not drinking it). And it has all kinds of exceptions and even says in the law what happens if the state doesn't enforce it.

Whether or not the state enforces a law is not the basis on which something is "legal" or "illegal."

And "technically," as you put it, you're wrong. If Colorado passed a law decriminalizing the theft of mail it would still be illegal. I don't know why this is escaping you.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand of why this can be considered a gray area. In the past States have gone against what the Federal Government has established and for the most part the Federal Government has allowed the State to enforce the law as they see fit. Obama has flat out said the Federal Government will not interfere in Washington and Colorado with the pot industry. So technically the Federal Government is saying yes it is illegal but we will do nothing about it. The State has said it is legal and collecting taxes on the product. If you can't even admit that it is at least a little bit of a gray area at this time then seriously there is no reason to continue this conversation because there is no getting through to that thick skull of yours. Do you live in Washington or Colorado? Do you see how this is enforced on a daily basis? Because I do and I live 2 blocks from a pot store and see people walk in there constantly and watch police officers drive by constantly doing nothing to the store owner or those buying the product.

 

[JDM]

Therein lies the crux of Federalism. I totally agree with this statement. However, without some degree of an overruling Federal government, we'd just be 50 sovereign states (a lot of which would be land locked).

The Federal government is always a heavy hand. It has to be if it's going to apply to every corner of a really large country. That's why libertarians get so pissed off that it's expanded into 100,000 times as many roles as it originally filled.

I'm not so sure 50 almost sovereign states would be a terrible thing. My issue is that constitutionally, banning a plant should not fall under the exception of state sovereignty applied to regulating trade. I think a proper challenge going back to the Supreme Court would back that up.