[ale] OT: Go Vote!

Marvin, International Martian of Mystery marvin.higginbottom at gmail.com
Wed Jul 19 12:22:06 EDT 2006


Steve Brown wrote:
> Steve Brown wrote:
>>> Yes, and in 2000, the Democrats actually won the popular vote. First
>>> time in
>>> over one hundred years someone won the popular vote but lost the
>>> election. I
>>> don't really understand the hype that goes on over the presidential
>>> elections (vote or die, hahaha); it seems the local elections are the
>>> best
>>> way for a person to get their agendas pushed.
> Marvin wrote:
>> Tell that to the California and DC voters who passed their medical
>> marijuana initiatives.   The  DEA, like other federal bureaucrats, care
>> less than squat about limited government.
>
>
> What are you saying? Vote for a presidential canidate that supports the
> decriminalization of marijuana? Does such a canidate exist? (please don't
> mention the Green Party in your response) 
No, that's not my point-  not that I think it would be a bad idea, mind
you (I'd rather suggest libertarian than green, myself). 

I'm saying that Federal bureaucracies step on Federalism regularly.   An
example of which is the DEA, which  has stated that it doesn't intend to
abide by the State laws which allow people to grow and sell pot for
medicinal purposes, and has repeatedly busted legal (under state
statues) medicinal growers and sellers.

IOW's I'm saying that while it's easier to get a government your happier
with by local elections and rule of law, the Federal bureaucracies place
huge stumbling-blocks before such local legislation which limit their
effectiveness. 

> The _people_ of Cali would still
> have more power in their votes for senators than by a vote for the
> prez. The
> president doesn't appoint these administrators without approval from the
> senate.
Once again, that has little relevance to what I was trying to convey-
though when you consider that many Federal bureaucracies (of which the
DEA is another prime example) were created by Executive fiat (Richard
Nixon's in the example cited), rather than legislation, whether congress
approves of it's chief bureaucrats is rather moot. 

> It's not like Californians give a damn, I mean come on, the Governator?
Whether they give a damn or not, they voted by an overwhelming majority
to ratify the MM proposition (as did DC), and the Feds have chosen to
ignore the people.

> And BTW, the DEA seems to care less about Californians growing ganja for
> their personal use than about people who are growing the stuff on
> hundreds
> of acres of _federal_ land. I've seen them do their runs on TV, and they
> would usually let individuals keep a few plants on their property.
I concur that a Federal enforcement agency has a genuine interest in
policing Federal property- but from what I understand, the medicinal
marijuana growers were growing on private land (generally greenhouses),
and the buyers clubs were operating on private property as well. 








More information about the Ale mailing list