Christie to Colorado: Pot party ends with me

[Salvador]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday doused the hopes of those who might want to enjoy state-legalized marijuana with him in the White House.

"If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it," Christie, a Republican presidential candidate, said during a town-hall event in the early voting state of New Hampshire, according to Bloomberg.

“As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws,” he added.

Christie, who has long opposed recreational marijuana and said early this month that he has never tried pot, has stated that unlike President Obama he would not selectively choose which federal laws to enforce.

“If you want to change the marijuana laws, go ahead and change the national marijuana laws," the former prosecutor said Tuesday, according to Bloomberg.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/249526-christie-to-colorado-pot-party-ends-with-me

 

[LibertyBeacon]

It's almost as if this guy is a pawn of the legalization movement for no other reason than to lampoon the moronic moral majority in order to highlight to the public just how ridiculous this stance is. I cannot think of another reason for his lunacy -- except perhaps due to too many sugary snacks and carbohydrates.

For this reason alone, I hope he stays in the news -- because there is no way in hell this fat tub of lard is going to be president much less the blessing from Rince Preenus.

 

[Monello]

There are bigger fish to fry than a few pot smokers. I don't think people will stop just because it's against the law. I'm pretty confident in that last statement.

I hope 1 day all states legalize it. This way you have a revenue stream and you remove the criminal element associated with it much like what took place when prohibition was repealed.

 

[This_person]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday doused the hopes of those who might want to enjoy state-legalized marijuana with him in the White House.

"If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it," Christie, a Republican presidential candidate, said during a town-hall event in the early voting state of New Hampshire, according to Bloomberg.

“As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws,” he added.

Christie, who has long opposed recreational marijuana and said early this month that he has never tried pot, has stated that unlike President Obama he would not selectively choose which federal laws to enforce.

“If you want to change the marijuana laws, go ahead and change the national marijuana laws," the former prosecutor said Tuesday, according to Bloomberg.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/249526-christie-to-colorado-pot-party-ends-with-me

What a bastard!! You mean that just because a law is made, and the chief executive is charged with enforcing those laws, that he thinks he has the right to enforce federal law!?!?

I can't believe the gall of this man.

 

[Larry Gude]

:

"If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it," Christie, a Republican presidential candidate, said during a town-hall event in the early voting state of New Hampshire, according to Bloomberg.

“As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws,” he added. l:

Nice to see a leader who can identify what's really important.

 

[Larry Gude]

There are bigger fish to fry than a few pot smokers. I don't think people will stop just because it's against the law.

Of course they will. Why, when Chris Christie enforces federal law, he ####in' eh well enforces federal law! Damn good thing we have amendments or Dred Scott would be in some deep kimshee and women could forget coming anywhere near a ballot.

"Chris Christie; telling it like it is. Based on whatever local poling date suggests you'll buy. Leadership for tomorrow. If that's what you wanna hear."

 

[This_person]

Nice to see a leader who can identify what's really important.

Is this what CHRISTIE is highlighting as important, or Salvador?

My guess is that this was a throw-away line, not a major plank.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is this what CHRISTIE is highlighting as important, or Salvador?

My guess is that this was a throw-away line, not a major plank.

I don't really care. When Christie leaped into Obama's arms during Sandy and pleaded for daddy to save him, when he showed no initiative for New Jersey to figure it out and make changes in their zoning, insurance, anything, to try and manage the thing, when he Pearl Harbored Mitt, I was done with him. So, I'm not objective. I'd just as soon have Hillary or Obama or Dubbya as him as a 'leader'; Too Big To Fail.

We can say "He had to do that" and, maybe so. Maybe we are all just dependents of the federal government now. That doesn't mean he had to do it with so much...enthusiasm. He saw a chance to help beat Mitt, thus leave room for himself in '16 and here he comes. Just another pol.

 

[This_person]

I don't really care...I'm not objective.

I'm not a Christie fan, but I'm trying to be very objective with this election. You mentioned more than enough policy and practices reasons to not like him (I'm not arguing with a single one) to find a "he doesn't know what's important" meaning when it doesn't exist.

 

[Hijinx]

I'm not a Christie fan, but I'm trying to be very objective with this election. You mentioned more than enough policy and practices reasons to not like him (I'm not arguing with a single one) to find a "he doesn't know what's important" meaning when it doesn't exist.

I don't like Christie,never did.
I don't really care any more what they do with Marijuana, or heroin or Cocaine for that matter. If someone wants to fry their brain, that's their decision.

However the man has a point about following the Constitution and not choosing which laws to enforce.
If we enforced the laws we have, there would be no discussion about Amnesty, Guns, or anything else.

We have more than enough laws on the books to cover any contingency.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not a Christie fan, but I'm trying to be very objective with this election. You mentioned more than enough policy and practices reasons to not like him (I'm not arguing with a single one) to find a "he doesn't know what's important" meaning when it doesn't exist.

However, it's not really about him. If we think of pols as mirrors, reflections of ourselves, as used car sales people trying to sell us what we want, the mere fact that he said something so stereotypically GOP, spending MORE time on social issues, drugs, abortion, homosexuality, it's just maddening the rights priorities are. The two party system requires two healthy, strong sides to oppose one another, challenge, to use the governing system of checks and balances properly and that the GOP has abdicated any semblance of limited government, humble foreign policy and trusting the people, and yet gets worked up and wants to use MORE government, as social control apparatus, the whole damn thing is adrift.

So, it's about us, we, the people. He's just giving us what we want. Same with Trump.

Had we won the wars, that provides a place to work from, a solid base to then move to other things. That we did not, man, what are we about anymore?

 

[This_person]

However, it's not really about him. If we think of pols as mirrors, reflections of ourselves, as used car sales people trying to sell us what we want, the mere fact that he said something so stereotypically GOP, spending MORE time on social issues, drugs, abortion, homosexuality, it's just maddening the rights priorities are. The two party system requires two healthy, strong sides to oppose one another, challenge, to use the governing system of checks and balances properly and that the GOP has abdicated any semblance of limited government, humble foreign policy and trusting the people, and yet gets worked up and wants to use MORE government, as social control apparatus, the whole damn thing is adrift.

So, it's about us, we, the people. He's just giving us what we want. Same with Trump.

Had we won the wars, that provides a place to work from, a solid base to then move to other things. That we did not, man, what are we about anymore?

I took the remarks to be about enforcing laws, not about the "social" issue (it's not really, but I get your characterization) of illegal drugs. If we're not about enforcing laws, what are we about?

Meanwhile, the same party is selling us modifying the drug laws and sentencing laws for violating the drug laws. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Maybe you don't like the law, but you have to follow it until it's changed.... isn't that a good thing?

 

[Larry Gude]

I took the remarks to be about enforcing laws, not about the "social" issue (it's not really, but I get your characterization) of illegal drugs. If we're not about enforcing laws, what are we about? ?

Not all laws are equal. Not all sins are equal. Christie thinks dope law enforcement is going to appeal to those folks and he's probably right. But, those comments are now part of his platform.

What we SHOULD be about is GOOD law. Our drugs laws have been a travesty for generations. They are an affront to any concept of freedom and liberty AND personal responsibility.
Heroin right now is a HUGE problem and are we going to start addressing it as a health issue or just open another front in the 'war on drugs' and throw a bunch more people in jail, make a bunch of money for lawyers and jails and the system?

The gun debate in Annapolis I learned a HUGE point from a guy who testified, a criminologist, who'd been studying guns, crime scenes, the whole thing, for decades and he said it's about behavior, not tools. The left wants guns to be all about tools; more gun laws. The right wants drugs to be all about drugs, more drug laws. The right wants guns to be about behavior. The left wants drugs to be about behavior.

We're amazing; we're either SPOT on or 180 degrees wrong depending on our own personal bias'.

 

[This_person]

Not all laws are equal. Not all sins are equal. Christie thinks dope law enforcement is going to appeal to those folks and he's probably right. But, those comments are now part of his platform.

What we SHOULD be about is GOOD law. Our drugs laws have been a travesty for generations. They are an affront to any concept of freedom and liberty AND personal responsibility.
Heroin right now is a HUGE problem and are we going to start addressing it as a health issue or just open another front in the 'war on drugs' and throw a bunch more people in jail, make a bunch of money for lawyers and jails and the system?

The gun debate in Annapolis I learned a HUGE point from a guy who testified, a criminologist, who'd been studying guns, crime scenes, the whole thing, for decades and he said it's about behavior, not tools. The left wants guns to be all about tools; more gun laws. The right wants drugs to be all about drugs, more drug laws. The right wants guns to be about behavior. The left wants drugs to be about behavior.

We're amazing; we're either SPOT on or 180 degrees wrong depending on our own personal bias'.

I feel like you completely missed the second half of my post, where I said:

Meanwhile, the same party is selling us modifying the drug laws and sentencing laws for violating the drug laws. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Maybe you don't like the law, but you have to follow it until it's changed.... isn't that a good thing?

We can debate and modify drug laws, and our side is actually doing that. That doesn't change enforcement of the laws on the books, though.

Last I checked, every person who used illegal drugs for the first time was sober the first time they did (maybe not from alcohol, but from the drug they were starting to use). That implies to me that drug laws are about behavior, not the drug. Just like everyone agrees that shooting someone while robbing a store is wrong, some will say you should also outlaw the gun. I say using the drug is the illegal activity, so treat it as such. If using the drug should NOT be the illegal activity, then change the law. Until the law is changed, enforce the law.

How is any of that bad?

 

[Midnightrider]

I feel like you completely missed the second half of my post, where I said:

​

We can debate and modify drug laws, and our side is actually doing that. That doesn't change enforcement of the laws on the books, though.

Last I checked, every person who used illegal drugs for the first time was sober the first time they did (maybe not from alcohol, but from the drug they were starting to use). That implies to me that drug laws are about behavior, not the drug. Just like everyone agrees that shooting someone while robbing a store is wrong, some will say you should also outlaw the gun. I say using the drug is the illegal activity, so treat it as such. If using the drug should NOT be the illegal activity, then change the law. Until the law is changed, enforce the law.

How is any of that bad?

The president is required to uphold the law of the country, but he is also required to uphold the constitution. Drug law conflicts with the constitution, it just does. The president should refuse to enforce it, not because the states are setting the laws right on their own, but because the laws are unconstitutional.

 

[This_person]

The president is required to uphold the law of the country, but he is also required to uphold the constitution. Drug law conflicts with the constitution, it just does. The president should refuse to enforce it, not because the states are setting the laws right on their own, but because the laws are unconstitutional.

That's certainly a popular opinion, one with which no court (to the best of my knowledge) has concurred.

We have processes for addressing such opinions, but failing to do one's job is not the legal process.

Do you believe that, if a Republican who is against the ACA becomes president, the next president has the authority to simply not support the ACA? How about tax laws - many people feel they violate the constitution. How about (pick any law you want, and put it here)? Would you want them to not enforce (that law)? Isn't NOT enforcing the law a violation of the constitution? Since we both know it is, how do two wrongs make a right? Especially since there's no grey area on how to address laws one feels are unconstitutional.

 

[Midnightrider]

That's certainly a popular opinion, one with which no court (to the best of my knowledge) has concurred.

We have processes for addressing such opinions, but failing to do one's job is not the legal process.

Do you believe that, if a Republican who is against the ACA becomes president, the next president has the authority to simply not support the ACA? How about tax laws - many people feel they violate the constitution. How about (pick any law you want, and put it here)? Would you want them to not enforce (that law)? Isn't NOT enforcing the law a violation of the constitution? Since we both know it is, how do two wrongs make a right? Especially since there's no grey area on how to address laws one feels are unconstitutional.

thats exactly how our country has worked since its founding, and its a big reason each president appoints his AG. :shrug:

 

[This_person]

thats exactly how our country has worked since its founding, and its a big reason each president appoints his AG. :shrug:

Can you provide an instance of where presidents simply don't follow the laws they're required to follow, and their AG backs them up, all without Congressional or Judicial support of doing such a thing? Where the judicial said later, "yeah, that's exactly what the president had the authority to do"?

 

[This_person]

Can you provide an instance of where presidents simply don't follow the laws they're required to follow, and their AG backs them up, all without Congressional or Judicial support of doing such a thing? Where the judicial said later, "yeah, that's exactly what the president had the authority to do"?

Preferably about 43 of them, since we've had 43 different men as president, and you said, "each president". We'll start with George Washington, since you said "since its founding".

 

[tblwdc]

The president is required to uphold the law of the country, but he is also required to uphold the constitution. Drug law conflicts with the constitution, it just does. The president should refuse to enforce it, not because the states are setting the laws right on their own, but because the laws are unconstitutional.

What drug law is unconstitutional?