Legal Like Beer?

If you walk the streets of San Francisco for an afternoon it's almost impossible to not have the smell of marijuana waft into your face, at least anywhere south of Market, up through Haight, and throughout the Mission. It's more common than cigarettes, which, btw, are legal. Although those who do smoke "smokes" get dirtier looks than the weed tokers. There's this sense that one kills, and the other saves. Lets not get into that debate, but I'd like to say, both kill...

Anyway...

There's an article in the most recent SF Weekly calling out Obama for basically "flip-flopping" on the issue. The sticking point is Californians are told something is legal, even filling out paperwork, getting permits, paying state taxes, etc. for the operation of a Marijuana Dispensary, but then they are arrested by the Feds, who don't care what California law is. Made more confusing is the Obama Administration's half-ass stance on the matter, most notably the words of Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy AG David Ogden, who left people with the false assumption that operating a dispensary was pseudo-legal, and at the very least, federal resources would not be used to shut them down.

There are a couple of people with ankle bracelets, others behind bars, and some in limbo who would like to tell you this hasn't been the case.

People within the AG's office are suggesting those are anomalies, or mistakes, if you will. Yet that doesn't really seem to be the case, or put peoples' fears to rest regarding the law(s).

As an outsider looking in, a few things jump out at me regarding this issue.

First, if you smoke weed, sell weed, regardless of a license to do so, you know it's against the law. If you believe anything else other than that fact you are only lying to yourself. If you think I'm wrong then you should ask yourself what it is you wanted Obama to "change", if things were legal already. You can't be jailed by California law, but being that the state is the 8th largest economy in the world, there are a lot of federal workers here. They can jail you, will, and have.

By engaging in the selling, growing, etc., anyone who does this is well aware they are towing the line.

The idea of state's rights Republicans speak of? That's nonsense. Politicians only speak about things that help them when it applies to them. State's rights regarding taxes? Sure, they're for that. State's rights regarding drugs? Nah. Not really.

So first point here is anyone engaging in these acts has to know he/she is violating the law of the United States, regardless of how extra-legal you think it may be.

Second point about marijuana that bothers me is the assumption it's not even a drug. Yep. Not a drug.

People don't just want it legalized because it helps cancer patients, those with glaucoma, digestive problems, etc. They want it legal because it's "not worse for you than alcohol", a statement I actually do agree with.

Yet as far as state legalization goes, citizens don't just view marijuana as something for medical purposes, but rather for recreational purposes! That's the kicker!

To me, It would be one thing if an individual needed a real prescription to get it; from a doctor who would lose his license if he overprescribed it. It's another thing completely how nearly ANYONE can get as prescription for what seems to be ANY ailment at all.

Now I'll admit, I have smoked weed quite a bit in my day, and rarely if ever do now, and that certain types of Marijuana completely ease nauseous symptoms I have from certain problems with my diet. Often works better than any pill I can possibly take, but I still don't use it because I don't like being "high." But I do know for certain it helps my digestive system. Not all strands, but certain ones for sure.

I'm not arguing that it's not highly effective, or that smoking is not the best vehicle to take the drug. I believe it is. However, I am arguing that I would only use it because I have a real ailment that it does help.

The things I hear other people claim to have in order to get a prescription are ridiculous, flat out. Not even going to name them all, but I will say I hear "anxiety" a lot. Truth is, it CAUSES anxiety in more people than it cures, but anyway...

It would be one thing to say it should be legal, studied, heavily monitored, recommended on some legitimate level as far as consumption goes, and all the other things which apply to every other drug individuals use for various ailments, but that's not what people seem to be pining for. To me they make all these claims, but then want to use it for partying, or general relaxation. Which is also fine, if that's what you're really asking for. If that's your goal, MAKE THAT YOUR GOAL! Stop with bullshit about glaucoma, and nausea, and all the other jazz. Yes, I know it works, but most people here in San Francisco/Bay Area, at least a legitimate voting bloc, want it for themselves, and not the random person who unfortunately suffers an ailment. It's all about recreation but using "cancer" as cover.

If you want it legal, say that, and why you want it legal. Stop beating around the bullshit bush.

The government thinks it is a harmful drug that shouldn't be legal. Common users think they can use it, and drive a car around. There's a HUGE divide between those two sides. Huge.

I have no problem with it being "legal" in a medical sense, and used to treat people who need it. I do have a problem with it's leisurely usage amongst people in vehicles, on bikes, and just on the street. Would you drive a car after having consumed random amounts of Codeine, without knowing the correct dosage? I would hope not. People around here seem to think that would be okay. Heck, their drug of choice can be used infinitum!

Now I know I can drive a car having smoked, for a fact. I did it in college quite a bit. On some level I felt I was a better driver. But there are a lot of BAD drivers out there, and not only that, but bad walkers! Bad bikers! Bad at waiting on the grocery store line! And these people are lit up on really potent weed. To me there's a level of unsafe there which goes undiscussed.

If you can't be tested for weed like alcohol, and it's legal to smoke in California, is it legal to smoke and drive?

Moving on...

Before anyone continues to say "the government this" and the "government that", start thinking about what this fight is really about. Who it really helps, who it hurts, and what the laws should really be regarding marijuana, which CAN BE, not always, but CAN BE a VERY SERIOUS DRUG.

I'm not even against social legalization, but is that what the debate is?

------
Sidenote:

The US Attorney's office in the Bay Area who is going after users, dealers, growers, etc (as he should, it's his job), is Joseph Russoniello. Appointed by Reagan, and served in the area during Bush's last year in office.

Do you think for a second this guy is going to listen to Attorney General Eric Holder about government resources? Trust me, he isn't. He's protected. He's following THE LAW. No one can blame him for that, and HE KNOWS who butters his bread at the end of the day.

If this guy can cause problems amongst liberals, weaken Obama's base, or attack him in any way he most likely will. He's a Republican appointed, Bush/Bush/Reagan serving US Attorney. He has an agenda.

If you trust him that means you would also trust Chris Christie. He was placed in New Jersey by Bush solely to change the politics in the state. That idiot came in and went after "corruption." Really? Corruption? In Jersey? It was a joke issue (yes, serious issue) in that no one could blame in. Everyone is against corruption, right?

Christie is now the Governor of New Jersey, having never won elected office previously. It wasn't an accident.

So you think the US Attorney in California is going to stand down to Eric Holder?

He basically just gave Holder and Obama the finger and said, "What are you going to do about?"

Now you know. Nothing.

Some Questions...

As I mentioned the other day about this guy Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin leading the budget battle charge, Rachel Maddow is making a good point as well. Of course, it's similar to mine, which is why it's good, and it's actually so legit of a point that I'm actually stomaching her practically unwatchable show.

Who are the people going to blame if there's a shutdown?

John Boehner? Paul Ryan? Michele Bachman? No one knows who these people are!

They know who Obama is though, so in all likelihood he's going to take a larger part of the blame.

Granted, it could hurt the entire Republican party as a whole, but more likely it hurts CONGRESS as a whole AND the President.

Meanwhile, none of this House members are running for President, nor could they. In essence, the Republicans have managed to attack Obama while remaining faceless. Somewhat impressive, and as mentioned in previous post, taking it for the team, so to speak. So happens that those who are taking it, like Ryan, will only gain favor with his base. Nationally, the guy has no career, but in Wisconsin, the way that state is going, he could end up with a monument.

Sidenote: it's so painful having to watch news about this shutdown. It's so rendered itself unreadable because of the dryness of it all, so instead I have to actually watch these idiots talk about.

So wrong.

Lets keep the government open, and instead have a cable shutdown!

Wait, that's crazy. Americans are fine with a government shutdown, but CABLE?!?!?!?

Now you've gone toooooo far!!!!!!!!!

Cheers, Lawrence O'Donnell

For calling out NBC and Donald Trump, and their ploy to get ratings for his TV show by pretending to run for President.

As you may, or may not know, Trump has joined the "birther" movement, and has been blatantly lying and negligent about the issue. It's an issue that hurts the country, but Trump won't let that stop him in his quest for ratings.

For O'Donnell, and NBC employee, to call this out on his own MSNBC show is actually great.

Yet at the same it probably increases his ratings too!

Hmmm....


Jonathon Capehart has the right take.

Hey, Let Ryan Do It!!!

I really am loving this Ryan guy from Wisconsin, the one who is seemingly in control of Congress after deciding one day that he's gonna be different. After years of being an obscure House Republican, and after voting for the TARP program, which Tea Baggers found to be a terrible idea, he got all uppity about things.

So there's now...

He has crafted this incredible budget which should limit the deficit sometime around 2371, which if all things go according to plan, will place him on the face of the $10 bill (which will be worth about 10 cents in today's market).

Lets follow his progression to super-stardom from relative obscurity.

Runs for Congress again, wins, wins, wins, wins, wins, does nothing most of the time, then realizes he can become more famous by doing some outlandish shit. In this case it is proposing an unrealistic budget which will never pass the Senate, and of course has tax cuts for wealthy earners.

I know! Sounds crazy. But that's what he's done.

Meanwhile, Republican leadership, knowing full well they want his budget plan to broad up don't want anything to do with having their names on it. They're basically saying, "Dudes, listen, this guy is gonna do it for us. Let him!" That's why you'll always see a crew of older dudes BEHIND him.

As for Ryan and his absurd plan, there's a reason he's doing it.

Obviously Republican voters don't care about what you did, only about what you say you're going to do...to Barack Obama...he knows this.

He knows seniors aren't voting for him en masse anyway, and neither are poor people, if they vote. This is clearly about self preservation of the party, and not the self-preservation of the country.

Cutting taxes always sounds good, so they do it. It's a GLARING factor in his budget that in the midst of FIXING THE DEFICIT he's CUTTING TAXES for the rich. That's the ole "get me elected" maneuver, and the economics of it are based on FANTASY. Old school supply side economics, never proven to have worked. The Laffer curve was laughed out of politics.

But the REAL REASON for this is simple...

Over the last 15 years or so, since the last government shutdown, at least, the country has moved right. Actually, it's HURLED itself to the right. From the Supreme Court, to bullshit social issues, to tax issues, etc. President Clinton partly to blame for economic reasons as well, I know. Republicans never viewed Clinton's centrism as settled negotiation, balancing the right and left. They viewed the new place the country landed as the point of which they would bring it FURTHER to the right. Hence, this budget.

Things were going wildly right for so long they were a bit shaken by Barack Obama's election, and the changing mood of the country. Now Republicans are acting as if 2000-2008 didn't happen, they played no role, and it has no effect. Everyone should just forget about it and pretend we're at the end of the Clinton years. Obama-ism has shaken them, as did the health care effort, so rather negotiate reasonably from a point where most Americans sit right now they have chosen to DRAG the country back to the right, to avoid losing all their gains!

Yes, that is it.

This bill will never pass, but this is the Conservatives saying, "we will kill a few of our own before we cede anything back to Democrats."

It's a big play. It could cost them the election, but in the eyes of Boehner and McConnell they're thinking, "lets let Ryan do it...he's totally expendable..."

As for Ryan, check his history. Career politician, family businesses, private school educated, no connection to all of the Americans he plans to ram in the ass.

He's just a soldier in the Conservative ideological war, evident by his complete dismissal of the bipartisan committee he rejected.