United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: State Proposes Bold Law to Treat Pot Like Tobacco And Expunge All Records of Marijuana “Crimes”
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... -records-marijuana-crimes.html
Published: Sep 27, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-09-28 07:51:26 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 31217
Comments: 181
Bold legislation introduced in New Jersey last week would not only treat cannabis like tobacco — legalizing it — but would expunge records for individuals previously convicted of certain marijuana-related ‘crimes.’ Should the bill, A4193, pass, convenience stores would be permitted to sell cannabis alongside cigarettes — available to anyone aged 19 and older. “This bill would legalize marijuana by removing all criminal liability associated with marijuana from the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice … as well as its regulation as a controlled dangerous substance under the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act,” the proposed law states. Sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll — once deemed the state Legislature’s “Most Conservative” member, as the Newark Patch pointed out — the legislation “[l]egalizes marijuana and provides for records expungement for certain past marijuana offenses; treats marijuana products similar to tobacco products, including the use of civil penalties for providing marijuana to persons under 19 years of age.” Carroll’s bill audacious thumbs its nose at the DEA’s vehemently criticized decision this year not to reschedule cannabis from its current inexplicable designation as a dangerous substance of no medical value, akin to heroin or cocaine. “To me it’s just not a big deal,” Carroll told Politico. “It’s already ubiquitous. Anybody who thinks this is somehow going to increase the availability of marijuana has never been 19. If that’s the case, then what’s the big deal about having it available at the local 7-Eleven?” Alcohol, after all, is a standard fixture at convenience stores and gas stations, with store owners facing fines and other civil penalties for underage distribution. “The whole point here is to get the government out of the business of treating at least marijuana use as a crime and treat it instead as a social problem,” Carroll continued, adding he’s never tried cannabis, personally. “You’re talking to the world’s most boring, straightest guy,” he said. “I’ve never popped a pill, never smoked a joint, nothing. I’ve never quite understood the all the allure of this stuff.” Apparently, though, he doesn’t feel his personal views concerning substances should override contrary opinions and choices. On the surface, the right-wing lawmaker would seem the last person sponsoring legislation taking such a radical departure from federal law — but on issues of personal freedom, his stances align most closely with libertarian philosophy. Carroll not only co-sponsored New Jersey’s medical cannabis legislation, in April he proposed lowering the state’s drinking age to 18, saying, according to the Patch, If you’re old enough to make the determination you want to enlist in the Marines, you’re old enough to determine if you want to have a beer. Despite an overwhelming public perception cannabis should at least be decriminalized and growing national disillusionment with the failed drug war — with the resultant largest prison population in the world, gang violence, strengthening of Mexican cartels, epidemic-level police violence, and inability of those in need to get life-saving medical cannabis treatment — the Drug Enforcement Agency opted to maintain marijuana prohibition this year. Should the proposed law indeed pass, New Jersey would join Alaska, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon in legal, recreational weed. In fact, degrees of decriminalization and legalization — mostly for medical use — exist in half the states in the nation. November’s election will likely expand those numbers. Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month. New Jersey lawmakers are attempting a multi-pronged approach to legalizing weed. Another bill, A2068, filed in January by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora — ironically, one of the most liberal members of the state Legislature — and State Sen. Nicholas Scutari would legalize cannabis and treat it akin to alcohol. A third is expected after several legislators, including Gusciora and Scutari, return from an information-gathering field trip examining legalization in Colorado in October. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — whom Carroll refers to as “the Fat Man” — will almost certainly veto any legislation concerning cannabis. But his tenure in office draws to a close just over a year from now. “We would like to get the ball rolling, even with this governor and even if he vetoes it, the choice then could be made to put it on the ballot through the Legislature or set the groundwork for the next administration,” Gusciora told Politico. “I think it’s only a matter of time.” Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-121) not displayed.
.
.
.
#122. To: misterwhite (#121)
Me: "It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading." Strawbeater. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Then why bring up anarchy? Why not simply say the judge made a misleading statement since the free speech in this case would not lead to outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide?
Because anarchy, unlike pot legalization, WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US") - so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate. As always, glad I could clear that up for you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Thank you for the clarification. Here I thought that when you said "Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties" you meant ... all parties.
Me: "It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading." Strawbeater. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Pfffft! You don't know what you think.
Since you're slow on the uptake I'll walk you through it: "Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties" addresses the literal accuracy of the phrase and "It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading" addresses the metaphorical accuracy of the phrase. Applying the phrase to pot legalization is neither literally nor metaphorically accurate ... just more of your bunched-panties hysteria.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I agree. It's an accurate idiomatic expression.
It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Only if you take it literally.
No, also if you take it metaphorically or idiomatically.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. By definition, an idiom is an expression not interpreted literally. Poor you.
"No, also if you take it metaphorically or idiomatically." By definition, an idiom is an expression not interpreted literally. Hence my "also". Dimwit. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If you "also" took suicide pact idiomatically, you wouldn't be comparing it to suicide. Because an idiom is not taken literally. Don't give me this we weaselly weaselly "also" crap.
You assume a fact not in evidence. It thinks?
Very rarely the two neurons floating around in his head accidentally bump into each other and exchange a small amount of information. This is what passes for thought.
Your first sentence doesn't follow from your second; that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning. If Joe and Jim each agree to eat a forkful of rutabaga if the other does, only in a purely humorous sense ought one call that a "suicide pact." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So if I said "Killing two birds with one stone" I must be referring to a murder, a bird or a stone?
So if I said "Killing two birds with one stone" I must be referring to a murder, a bird or a stone? You must be referring to multiple objectives accomplished. How is "suicide pact" nonhumorously applicable even idiomatically to anything whose outcome is orders of magnitude less serious than death? Can you supply examples (not from you or your **** buddy Roscoe) in support of your apparent position that it is so used idiomatically? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I'm already down to single-syllable words. I suppose I could switch to a rebus and see if that works.
Might work.
[misterwhite:] That's not against the law. "Nobody said it was, strawbeater." [crickets] "Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt." What proof? Where's your proof he crossed the border with the pot? Where's your proof that the pot is even from Colorado? "The Colorado seller testifies." [crickets] For those keeping score at home. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Sure. That's a piece of cake. See? I did it again. I already gave you an example in my post #116. And he's referring to people making a pact with a document, not other people. So the phrase, "The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact" must be taken as an idiomatic expression.
[misterwhite:] Because you say so. "No basis was offered, hence baseless; that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self-evident." [crickets] "That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?'" Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You? "Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives." [crickets] For those keeping score at home. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You mean he confesses to the crime. That's how the states are going to stop interstate transportation. Those who do so will confess. Well, OK. If you say so. Now give the computer back to the adult.
To which I already replied: 'anarchy, unlike pot legalization, WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US") - so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.' A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I think he likes taking beatings.
You mean he confesses to the crime. Who says he committed a crime? He didn't take any pot across the Colorado border. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No basis was offered, hence no basis was offered. It doesn't mean it's baseless. "that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self-evident." The governmental assertion of authority is predicated on the findings. Whether or not that authority is self-serving is moot. "Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstitutional? You?" Sure. If we can tear them away from watching Family Feud or listening to the Sean Hannity show, perhaps we can get them to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367. We don't need the courts to do that!
The Colorado seller testifies to what?
That he sold pot to the guy who soon after showed up in a neighboring state with Colorado plates and pot in the car. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Accomplice
The judge was referring to a "suicide pact" with the Bill of Rights. How can that be "appropriate"? A suicide pact is between people. It's obvious his was an idiomatic expression. As was mine.
Because you say so. "No basis was offered, hence baseless;" No basis was offered, hence no basis was offered. It doesn't mean it's baseless. Double-secret bases also have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate. Moot only if there's an evidentiary basis - which asserted "findings" are not. Your snide contempt for conservatives is noted. Back to gnawing on that red herring, I see; the need for courts is not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?' A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Not unless he knew about the intent to cross the state border. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Simply false - the judge said 'it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."' The parties to the pact would be the citizenry. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Oh. THAT Colorado seller. First of all, the feds have no authority to question a guy with Colorado plates in a neighboring state. Or search his car. He has broken no law. Second, even if he accidentally opens his trunk and the feds see the marijuana, they can take no action. Their authority is limited to drugs crossing the border. Interstate commerce. Right? So, how in the world are they going to be able to find the name of the Colorado retailer who sold him the pot? Even if they could, the driver of the car could say he took that pot home. The stuff in the trunk is not Colorado pot. The bottom line is that your law is federally unenforceable.
RICO
Yep. "Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities." --Justice Scalia,
Comments (162 - 181) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#123. To: ConservingFreedom (#122)
#124. To: misterwhite (#123)
Then why bring up anarchy? Why not simply say the judge made a misleading statement since the free speech in this case would not lead to outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide?
#125. To: ConservingFreedom (#124)
"WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US")
#126. To: misterwhite (#125)
#127. To: ConservingFreedom (#126)
#128. To: misterwhite (#127)
#129. To: ConservingFreedom (#128)
"Applying the phrase to pot legalization is neither literally nor metaphorically accurate ..."
#130. To: misterwhite (#129)
#131. To: ConservingFreedom (#130)
It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance
#132. To: misterwhite (#131)
#133. To: ConservingFreedom (#132)
No, also if you take it metaphorically or idiomatically.
#134. To: misterwhite (#133)
Only if you take it literally.
#135. To: ConservingFreedom (#134)
#136. To: misterwhite (#127)
Pfffft! You don't know what you think.
#137. To: nolu chan (#136)
"You assume a fact not in evidence. It thinks?"
#138. To: misterwhite (#135)
If you "also" took suicide pact idiomatically, you wouldn't be comparing it to suicide. Because an idiom is not taken literally.
#139. To: ConservingFreedom (#138)
"that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning."
#140. To: misterwhite (#139)
#141. To: misterwhite (#139)
(Edited)
'that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning. If Joe and Jim each agree to eat a forkful of rutabaga if the other does, only in a purely humorous sense ought one call that a "suicide pact."'
#142. To: Roscoe (#140)
#143. To: misterwhite (#142)
#144. To: All (#113)
"He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border."
#145. To: ConservingFreedom (#141)
"Can you supply examples (not from you or your **** buddy Roscoe) in support of your apparent position that it is so used idiomatically?"
#146. To: All (#111)
"Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"
#147. To: ConservingFreedom (#144)
"The Colorado seller testifies."
#148. To: misterwhite (#145)
I already gave you an example in my post #116.
#149. To: misterwhite (#145)
So the phrase, "The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact" must be taken as an idiomatic expression.
#150. To: misterwhite (#147)
"The Colorado seller testifies."
#151. To: ConservingFreedom (#146)
"No basis was offered, hence baseless"
"Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives."
#152. To: ConservingFreedom (#150)
#153. To: misterwhite (#152)
The Colorado seller testifies to what?
#154. To: ConservingFreedom (#153)
#155. To: ConservingFreedom (#148)
"so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.'
#156. To: misterwhite (#151)
"Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate." [...] "Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"
"that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self- evident."
The governmental assertion of authority is predicated on the findings. Whether or not that authority is self-serving is moot.
"That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?'"
Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You?
"Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives."
Sure. If we can tear them away from watching Family Feud or listening to the Sean Hannity show,
perhaps we can get them to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367.
We don't need the courts to do that!
#157. To: Roscoe (#154)
Accomplice
#158. To: misterwhite (#155)
The judge was referring to a "suicide pact" with the Bill of Rights.
#159. To: ConservingFreedom (#153)
"That he sold pot to the guy who soon after showed up in a neighboring state with Colorado plates and pot in the car."
#160. To: ConservingFreedom (#157)
#161. To: misterwhite (#159)
The bottom line is that your law is federally unenforceable.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]