tvashtarkatena

How about shutting the fuck up? No charge.

"Paging Doctor Rob. Doctor Rob, to the Spraydiactrics Ward."

A grade school civics text should clear this one up for you.

Hey, if the Baggers can manage to significantly cut the military budget and corporate (farm, etc) subsidies, I'll join up. They've got to give that social conservative shit up up first, though.

He wants to stick it in the man, but the answer is still no.

Hopefully, he'll die. KIDDING!!!!

Only two new Bagger lawmakers have agreed that they 'would' give up their federal health care benefits. None actually have. REPEAL!!!!!

That strategy hasn't flown well with voters in the past...not at all well.

Repeal Obamacare! LOL

Yup. Less than a month in and already stumbling around wondering where all the love went!

Actually, Obama's been one of the most productive presidents in the past century, if you actually take the time to check out his accomplishments. Whether or not you love TARP et al, it was probably a necessary evil that saved the country from a much worse fate.

"Set vaporizer on stun"

Also, in 40 years, we still don't have any credible evidence that pot is actually bad for you with the exception of the obvious damage caused by smoking it.

True dat. Thanks for coming! OW: The difference is we've got 2.2 million people in the slammer now, half for non violent drug offenses, as opposed to less than a quarter of that in the early 80s. We've got a 9th district ruling that our criminal justice system, fueled primarily by the drug war, is racially descriminatory. And we've got 40 years of drug war with higher illicit use of stronger, cheaper drugs. We didn't have any of that in the 70's when Nixon launched the War on Drugs.

More snuff pics from our favorite kook! Topical, too...if you're fucking insane.

Oh noes! linky

It's likely that pot will wind up like alcohol, which is legal but controlled at the federal level, with most, but not all, states (including WA) allowing prohibition at the country or municipal level by referendum.

Regarding Medical Marijuana... ...legal in 15 states, 20 states considered it in 2010. Although it didn't fly in most states that last year, only in N Dakota did voters resoundingly reject it via initiative. Well, you've got to consider that N Dakotans probably self select for a dull and painful lifestyle. Most of the bills died when the session ended, indicating that the respective legislatures will pick it up again this year. Good synopsis of Med MJ

Nothing's really happening at the federal level, so the only number that really matters is how legislators and voters fall on the issue within a given state. Once enough states move forward, the feds will likely follow. The feds still don't recognize the legality of medical marijuana, despite its being legal in some states (now many states) since the mid 90s. No one ever accused the feds of being too responsive to the public. Right now our voters appear to be at a tipping point for decriminalization and possibly legalization in WA. Last year's session featured a legalization bill, which got much further than expected. This session will also include at least one such bill. There are more conservatives in the legislature now, so an initiative might be necessary to push the issue. Prop 19 failed in CA primarily because voters were unclear as to how it would work (it was poorly written), and because it's proponents were about 10x underfunded. A similar initiative in WA, should one be put forth, will not suffer from either problem.

On appeal, the court applied intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny to deny a man previously convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor (his wife came home to find hubby with a professional, hyjinx ensued) the right to possess firearms. US v Chester This is in line with Heller; the right to bear arms should be afforded only to law-abiding, responsible citizens. Previous convictions for violence indicated otherwise in this case. The ruling included a discussion of whether or not conviction for a violent misdemeanor might be a more compelling reason to deny 2nd amendment rights than conviction for a non-violent felony. A case to test that will likely come up sooner than later, possibly securing the right to bear arms for convicted potheads and Martha Stewart.

Some of the fossil fuel subsidies probably go towards improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions, so there's likely a component of the black zone that drifts into the green zone.

Jesus probably smoke a shit ton of pot. Pot's been around, according to the arch. record, for at least 6,000 years. I'd guess 50,000 years ago our ancestors were tokin ditch weed.

Medicinal marijuana is a completely different issue than outright legalization, with a very different approval rate. That 81% drops to well under 50% when you're talking about the latter. Your GOP/Dem figures are about right; thanks for nailing my argument. Remember...Baggers are nothing more than extra-militant GOPers. They sure has hell don't vote Dem, and they sure as hell do vote, eh? Your assertion that Baggers are more likely to favor legalization may well be right if the 'libertarian' streak is stronger than the 'social conservative' streak amongst that group. Personally, I doubt that it is; I suspect social conservatism is what fuels the emotion in that movement, and it is, after all, almost pure emotion without a whole lot of rationality, given the inconsistency and incoherence of their agenda, or, er, lack thereof. Hey, I hope I'm wrong. If so, I'd love to see an actual Bagger leader, not Geraldo Rivera's doppleganger, not yesteryear's economist, not kooky-but-lovable-and-largely-ignored-by-his-own-party Ron Paul, come out with a statement in support of ANY drug policy reform other than med. MJ. I've looked...NADA. Can anyone find anything 'official' from the Baggers on this?

The feds, who've done fuck all to reform drug policy (smoking your medicinal weed, green card in hand, in Yosemite NP? Hellooooo, felony!) aren't going to do jack until enough of the states reform first, and those state fights have been pretty partisan so far, with conservative groups on the wrong side of the issue. So when you trot our good ole Ron Paul as your example...yeah. Not exactly a knock out punch. And calling the Tea Baggers 'libertarian'? That's pretty much the national joke these days, isn't it?

I'd love to find a statement by anyone in the tea party leadership supporting marijuana legalization, if you can produce one. They seem strangely silent on the subject on the national level...but certainly not in Washington's legislature. I'd love to be wrong on this one....