Conway as a WR

[McPeachy]

Bet it will get tested in court, somewhere, in the next few years. Fact of the matter is that weed isn't illegal in Colorado - or Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (yes, you have to be 21 to buy recreational weed, can't smoke it in public - kind of, and can't drive under the influence - kind of).

My single biggest issue, is that you don't see / hear of a stoned (marijuana) person becoming angry, agitated, violent and beating the shit out of somebody (wife, girlfriend, buckhorn bar, etc.). Alcohol on the other hand though!?!?! Of course there is big money in the alcohol business, just like there is big money in tobacco. Hypocrisy at the highest level in my opinion.

 

[Bryoming]

I would be willing to guess that before it is tested in court it will be removed from the schedule 1 narcotics list. I would be pretty surprised if it isn't de-listed altogether by 2025. (Like alcohol and tobacco are, two drugs with MUCH higher potential for dependency and abuse)

 

[Slow Hand]

Here is an informative article depicting the supremacy of laws (State vs Federal). The way I see it...until it is reclassified it will always be illegal in the eyes of our federal govt. Because of the "Supremacy Clause" that means that you can be prosecuted for the use, possession, and distribution of "Mary Jane".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Going a little off topic here...lol...but:

Article II Section 3: he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Frankly I'm shocked that presidents are not sued for failing to execute the law. Marijuana either needs to be legalized at the Federal level or the President needs to enforce the law as outlined by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

(Like alcohol and tobacco are, two drugs with MUCH higher potential for dependency and abuse)

There is a bit of a "grandfather clause" here as well. Not saying it is right or wrong, but if alcohol and tobacco were new to the block, they wouldn't be legalized today either.

Hell, if football were a new game, I doubt we'd allow that in our schools either.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

Avoid trouble with the school and the NCAA? Nope.

That depends on how you define trouble. Trouble as in reprimand, running extra, perhaps a suspension, etc. or trouble as in lose scholarship, kicked off team, kicked out of University.

If it is the latter, then I disagree. I suspect it will be the former which is sufficient.

The kids will also learn a lesson in US society, when you stumble, there will be many eager to dance on the carcass of your career. However, those same people will be celebrating on your coattails when they (the kids) achieve greatness. In other words, the level of forgiveness will likely be directly proportional to the amount of success they have as an athlete.

My definition of trouble would be that it is an issue at some level; meaning they don't treat it the same as if you smoked a cigarette or drank a beer.

As far as the NCAA is concerned, if you test positive for marijuana, you are suspended for 6 months, period, no questions asked.

Not sure what the policy for all the other Colorado schools are, but at the one I work for, 1st offense (whether its caught by police, in the dorms, by a coach, or admission) is a 1-2 game suspension and you are required to submit for random drug tests for a set period of time. A 2nd offense, unless there are mitigating circumstances, means you are no longer welcome as a varsity athlete.

 

[laxwyo]

Interesting we are still talking about Conway and only Conway. No JJ talk since he's shown the potential to be a stud. Hell, even some Dalton bashing since some see little potential in him

 

[Cowduck]

Here is an informative article depicting the supremacy of laws (State vs Federal). The way I see it...until it is reclassified it will always be illegal in the eyes of our federal govt. Because of the "Supremacy Clause" that means that you can be prosecuted for the use, possession, and distribution of "Mary Jane".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html

Obama has directed the DOJ not to prosecute marijuana possession though - in other words, he's telling federal law enforcement to respect the states and their voters on this issue. And besides all that, there is a pretty overwhelming movement at this point to reform criminal justice in this country and especially drug prosecutions. There's a large coalition made up of people on the left who have believed for years that the "War on Drugs" is failing because it doesn't do any good to lock up addicts instead of rehabilitate them and people on the right who are realizing just how goddamn expensive it is to prosecute and warehouse people who use drugs. Here in Alaska, they just spent $240,000,000 (that is one quarter of a billion dollars) on a brand new correctional complex that opened in 2013 and that motherfucker was full within a year. Deep red states like Texas and Georgia are already significantly reforming their drug enforcement and sentencing laws. Alaska is doing it since oil has been at $35 a barrel and the state is broke and can't afford more jails. The federal government is changing its emphasis too. The War on Drugs is OVER and can't be considered anything other than a colossal failure.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Obama has directed the DOJ not to prosecute marijuana possession though - in other words, he's telling federal law enforcement to IGNORE FEDERAL LAW

Fixed it for you and it is a violation of the US Constitution Article II Section 3.

Obama should enforce the federal law as he is mandated to do. It is not up to the president to choose which laws he/she enforces.

Change the law or enforce the law but do not ignore the law.

 

[Cowduck]

Obama has directed the DOJ not to prosecute marijuana possession though - in other words, he's telling federal law enforcement to IGNORE FEDERAL LAW

Fixed it for you and it is a violation of the US Constitution Article II Section 3.

Obama should enforce the federal law as he is mandated to do. It is not up to the president to choose which laws he/she enforces.

Change the law or enforce the law but do not ignore the law.

There's only so many federal law enforcement dollars to go around. Do you want the federales going around busting potheads who aren't hurting anyone in states who have legalized weed, or do you want them chasing terrorists? Decisions, decisions.

 

[Cowduck]

Obama has directed the DOJ not to prosecute marijuana possession though - in other words, he's telling federal law enforcement to IGNORE FEDERAL LAW

Fixed it for you and it is a violation of the US Constitution Article II Section 3.

Obama should enforce the federal law as he is mandated to do. It is not up to the president to choose which laws he/she enforces.

Change the law or enforce the law but do not ignore the law.

And also: do you REALLY want federal agents aggressively going after simple drug possession at ground level? Apart from cost concerns (which would be goddamn astronomical), it would be an incredible expansion of the notion of federal power. The vast majority of drug prosecutions happen at the state and local level. The feds weren't exactly going after pot possession at the street level even before Obama's directive. Their efforts were mostly directed at breaking up dispensaries and large-scale grow/importation operations, in the case of marijuana.

It seems to me the same people who are quite often beating the drum to get the feds out of state affairs seem to want jackbooted FBI/DEA agents busting college kids and working class folks for a little weed. It seems... incongruous to me.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Their efforts were mostly directed at breaking up dispensaries and large-scale grow/importation operations, in the case of marijuana.

I want our government to function according to the laws outlined by the Constitution. Colorado now has dispensaries and large-scale grow operations but being ignored which is against the Constitution.

I want them to either change the federal law or enforce it. I want them to do their job as the Constitution describes. If you want pot ignored, legalize it at the federal level and let the states decide how they want to handle it.

Either way, presidents should not be allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

 

[joshvanklomp]

Interesting we are still talking about Conway and only Conway. No JJ talk since he's shown the potential to be a stud. Hell, even some Dalton bashing since some see little potential in him

You realize this is the football board, right?

 

[Cowduck]

Their efforts were mostly directed at breaking up dispensaries and large-scale grow/importation operations, in the case of marijuana.

I want our government to function according to the laws outlined by the Constitution. Colorado now has dispensaries and large-scale grow operations but being ignored which is against the Constitution.

I want them to either change the federal law or enforce it. I want them to do their job as the Constitution describes. If you want pot ignored, legalize it at the federal level and let the states decide how they want to handle it.

Either way, presidents should not be allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

Every president ever has had to pick enforcement priorities for the executive branch. You're just being naive at this point. You presume that the FBI, DEA, and DOJ have infinite resources. They don't, and thank god for that.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Every president ever has had to pick enforcement priorities for the executive branch. You're just being naive at this point. You presume that the FBI, DEA, and DOJ have infinite resources. They don't, and thank god for that.

Enforcement priorities? Perhaps. Ignoring the law? No. Legalize it or enforce the laws.

Naïve? Hogwash. The president is legislating based on his ideals which is against the constitution. The DEA would drop the hammer on any other grower in any state that didn't legalize it. They have the resources and marijuana is still a priority. In the case of Colorado and Washington, Obama is circumventing the constitution based on his ideals and it is wrong.

Use the legal channels we have in place to legalize at the Federal level or enforce the law of the land equally and without personal agenda.

 

[Cowduck]

Every president ever has had to pick enforcement priorities for the executive branch. You're just being naive at this point. You presume that the FBI, DEA, and DOJ have infinite resources. They don't, and thank god for that.

Enforcement priorities? Perhaps. Ignoring the law? No. Legalize it or enforce the laws.

Naïve? Hogwash. The president is legislating based on his ideals which is against the constitution. The DEA would drop the hammer on any other grower in any state that didn't legalize it. They have the resources and marijuana is still a priority. In the case of Colorado and Washington, Obama is circumventing the constitution based on his ideals and it is wrong.

Use the legal channels we have in place to legalize at the Federal level or enforce the law of the land equally and without personal agenda.

So you want to live in a federal police state. Got it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

So you want to live in a federal police state. Got it.

No, I want the president's office and all offices to follow the laws as outlined by the Constitution and not overreach their power.

You want a dictator. Got it.

 

[laxwyo]

The constitution has no authority for federal law to regulate intrastate trade. It was an over reach by the Supreme Court and congress that greatly expanded the authority of the federal government to regulate "interstate commerce".

 

[WyoBrandX]

So you want to live in a federal police state. Got it.

No, I want the president's office and all offices to follow the laws as outlined by the Constitution and not overreach their power.

You want a dictator. Got it.

If the law isn't worth enforcing, it shouldn't be a law at all. Seriously, how can we expect our citizens to obey the law when we don't enforce the law?

Our laws are beyond stupid at this point - it is ridiculous. We need to repeal many laws. When you enforce the ones you like, and can chose the ones you don't like, and then can chose to enforce a law because you don't like a person, you have problems.

Legalize weed. Thats fine with me. Legalize drugs - most people that do the hardcore drugs rob you to pay for their drugs. Just give them the drugs instead. They will quit robbing.

If it is a law, it must be enforced. No more selective enforcement.

I also think that citizens should be able to write and repeal laws at the polls.

When you go to vote, if you don't like a law that has been passed in the last 4 years, or ever for that matter, you should be able to vote for the repeal. I also think, that citizens should be able to unit to write legislation and pass it at the polls. For example, you don't like congress serving more than 2 terms in a row, you should be able to vote that in. This would equalize congress, the executive branch, and supreme court imho.

 

[laxwyo]

I think we should still hang for stealing cattle. I'm sure it's still on the books in a few places