LMFAO Erik Holder AG!!!

Wow!
There you go all knowing MMJ activists that ranted endlessly about how Obama was going to "CHANGE" the federal governments attitudes and policies regarding cannabis laws and enforcement!
LMFAO!!!
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Anyone going to try to defend that one.
Anyone still going to try to tell me that Obama is going to "CHANGE" the federal enforcement policies with regard to cannabis, or MMJ for that matter.

I can tell you this, the AG actually in fact does have the power to remove cannabis from the sched. of narcotics, or resched it.
Guess what ain't gonna happen in the next 4 years!
Nice!:D:jointsmile::thumbsup:

I agree. The Clinton's and there chronies have a terrible history on the MMJ issue. They are definitely the wrong people on this issue.

Yeah but that's just it.
Obama doesn't, and has never ever given 2 shits about the issue politically, he just wants the support of the left wing pot activists, and panders to them on cue.
I bet if you rang a bell, you could make him drool on cue, knowwaddamean?
I have been saying this since day 1, but for some reason, if you have a youtube soundbite that says one thing, after that you can do or say anything you want that contradicts that "youtube soundbite" and it's like it doesn't happen!:D Even if it's on NATIONAL FUCKING TELEVISION!
It's frustrating because deep down, I know that there were a lot of smart people here, that stupidly voted on a single issue with Obama, and that issue from the Obama campaign, was completely false and fabricated.
Now though, well, we'll see how many folks STILL "BELIEVE" IN "CHANGE".
I bet that I won't be surprised.:jointsmile:

I can't wait to see some of the folks that demonized Bush for his policies with regard to cannabis, now use the same level of scrutiny when it comes to "The 1".:thumbsup:

"Marijuana violence is increasing. We need to nip it in the bud," claims Holder.

Shamelessly copied from NORML
Eric Holder was also a US Attorney in Washington DC in the mid-1990â??s. This piece from the Washington Post, Monday, September 9, 1996, entitled â??Marijuanaâ??s Violent Sideâ?�, Holder is calling for stricter penalties in the District for personal marijuana possession.

In addition, U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.
â??We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important,â?� Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling.
Holder said he hopes to discourage some of that activity by being tougher on marijuana crimes. New guidelines should be in place by the end of the month, he said, noting that the District could learn from New Yorkâ??s â??zero-toleranceâ?� policy. There, crime plummeted when police aggressively enforced quality-of-life crimes, including panhandling and public drinking, which gave officers an opportunity to check for drugs, guns and outstanding warrants.
â??If you take these so-called minor crimes seriously and treat them fully, it has a ripple effect,â?� Holder said.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Perfect Obama! Maybe someone should email him the infamous youtube clip to remind him of what he said. Good luck!
LOL:thumbsup:

O but wait, there is still the democratic controlled congress, with a democrat president, and congress could also remove/resched cannabis.
I can't wait to laugh my ass off about this 2 years from now after they have done NOTHING to advance cannabis/mmj policy in a positive way! At least maybe now, some of the folks around here will have, real life, real time proof of what many others as well as myself have been saying with regard to the Democratic Party being the party for the pro-cannabis crowd. That is unless they just choose to ignore it because it rips a hole in their alternate plane of reality!
:D

Did anyone ever say any of these guys planned on helping us out for MMJ? Somehow....I think not. I don't think any of us are that naive. There's no such thing a pro-marijuana side in our government. It's ALL either 1.Hate weed, or 2. Keep your mouth shut if you have an alternate opinion on it. Marijuana reform starts at the local level, not the national level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PicsorShens

Did anyone ever say any of these guys planned on helping us out for MMJ? Somehow....I think not.

---

With all do respect sir, I think you have 12 posts here, and while I have no way of knowing how many posts you have in fact read here say o in the last year, I do know for a fact this was said, more than once, more than a few times, and by more than a few people on these very boards. So for you to say that it didn't happen, that is a little naive. At best. I understand that YOU may not have said or thought this, but you shouldn't assume that everyone was as wise, or had the same sincere thinking ability to come to the same conclusion, you, myself, and some others had. It's just not what actually happened, not only here, but I know personally people that said and believed this in real life. But yeah, it's easy to confirm what I am saying, the posts still exist! You may be giving some folks here more credit than they deserve with regard to how naive their political beliefs were with this issue.:jointsmile:
You can disagree with that all you want, but you are absolutely dead wrong.:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PicsorShens

I don't think any of us are that naive. There's no such thing a pro-marijuana side in our government. It's ALL either 1.Hate weed, or 2. Keep your mouth shut if you have an alternate opinion on it. Marijuana reform starts at the local level, not the national level.

---

You are right that no one in the federal government is on our side, however the catch 22 is anything you do on the local level is not relevant, since all federal penalties still apply. I know someone that operated in CA, where it is "locally legal" and guess what, the DEA, they didn't give a shit.
Until cannabis is REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED from the sched of narcotics, nothing will change. Er, I mean "CHAAAANGE!" All praise "BaaMa!":D:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

With all do respect sir, I think you have 12 posts here, and while I have no way of knowing how many posts you have in fact read here say o in the last year, I do know for a fact this was said, more than once, more than a few times, and by more than a few people on these very boards. So for you to say that it didn't happen, that is a little naive. At best. I understand that YOU may not have said or thought this, but you shouldn't assume that everyone was as wise, or had the same sincere thinking ability to come to the same conclusion, you, myself, and some others had. It's just not what actually happened, not only here, but I know personally people that said and believed this in real life. But yeah, it's easy to confirm what I am saying, the posts still exist! You may be giving some folks here more credit than they deserve with regard to how naive their political beliefs were with this issue.:jointsmile:
You can disagree with that all you want, but you are absolutely dead wrong.:wtf:



You are right that no one in the federal government is on our side, however the catch 22 is anything you do on the local level is not relevant, since all federal penalties still apply. I know someone that operated in CA, where it is "locally legal" and guess what, the DEA, they didn't give a shit.
Until cannabis is REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED from the sched of narcotics, nothing will change. Er, I mean "CHAAAANGE!" All praise "BaaMa!":D:jointsmile:

---

I'd love to see some of these threads and/or posts to prove your point, if you can dig them up. Also, it STARTS on the local level, and you work your way up from there. Shit doesn't start on the national level.

Eh fuck it nevermind, I did a quick search and found at least one example of someone saying Barack Obama is gonna at least decriminalize marijuana. I'm not really sure why people would think ANY politician would be for it but eh, what're you gonna do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PicsorShens

Eh fuck it nevermind, I did a quick search and found at least one example of someone saying Barack Obama is gonna at least decriminalize marijuana. I'm not really sure why people would think ANY politician would be for it but eh, what're you gonna do.

---

You really did make me laugh out loud.:D
Do you know the google search function too?
site://http://boards.cannabis.com
then just put the search term in front of the "site://..." like this in google,
"water torture site://http:boards.cannabis.com"
It works really well.
Or yeah if you just go back and randomly pick a post in politics within the last year you will find some in no time.
As you have done.

As for why people believe silly things? I dunno? To be honest I believe in some silly stuff too, I'm sure.
As for this specifically? I have no fucking idea man, why? How about how? How could someone honestly believe that, and with like conviction too. Just silly.

Thanks for taking the time to check out the posts for yourself. I really didn't want to like go through and make a huge long post quoting multiple posts from the boards. Shit! I was just gonna tell you to blow it out your ass and look yourself! (I AM JUST FUCKING KIDDING WITH YOU!) kinda.:jointsmile:

But yeah, we both agree it sounds like, complete lunacy how mis-informed some folks are, and want to be.
As far as local level, yeah, you can do whatever you want, but it's regulated by the fed period that's it. That has to change first, then states should be able to choose. I am sure there would be many states that would try to initially keep it completely 100% illegal. Others would fall into different areas of the spectrum. You are right, the most important, relevant political action comes from the most local level, but federal regulation currently with cannabis trumps all local and state laws. It's FEDERALLY REGULLATED SUBSTANCE that has to end before real people are allowed to decide for themselves.
There are probably now at this point,
1000s of individual accounts that prove I am right, as in the folks that are facing/doing federal time.
It's pure hyperbole, but without MMJ Laws, I think it may be likely that a significant number of those folks, would not be in the position that they are now in. Most of them were acting in good faith, and up front, in the open to some extent, and I argue that if there were now MMJ laws, these people would not have hit the DEAs radar, as they would have remained underground where it's safe. There's plenty of sweet potatos to eat, gonna be down here for a while.:(