Would marijiuana be recriminalized in any of the legal states?

Make it illegal, hang the drug dealers and smugglers, whip the drug users I think 3 lashes should be enough

>>129810866
Florida is legal medicinally.

>>129811427
It's not legal anywhere

File: 34567898765.jpg (149KB, 1060x1590px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1060x1590px

>>129811365
This would be harming for conservative whites and hippys than actual niggers and minorities, you do realize that right? Spics don't really do marijuana, they just deal it, and those who do don't get caught

So essentially what you're doing is punishing the white race and making them more rebellious in a dying-white state

File: map.png (47KB, 810x488px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 810x488px

>>129810866
Your map is incorrect.

>>129811623
No im not retard
>>129811624
1 peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

>>129810866
yeah as soon as they recriminalize alcohol and tobacco

>>129811624
someone likes overreaching and unconstitutional federal policies

Who's a good statist? who's such a good statist? thats right! you are! yes you are!

>all that tax money
>recriminalize

>>129811624
Bootlicker detected

File: koth_Hank Hill high on marijuana2.jpg (23KB, 173x276px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 173x276px

>>129812390
It's about people's healths.

File: c.jpg (92KB, 940x537px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 940x537px

I can speak for CO:
Doesn't matter what the feds do. it's already classified high-schedule, and CO amended the constitution to legalize as opposed to doing so via legislative measure like other states. Coloradans voted to have a convention, voted the cannabis issue into the convention, voted for its passage, then both state houses followed suit and pushed that shit on through - despite pretty vocal opposition from the DOJ & feds.

By contemporary political definition... it was actually a pretty god damn "American conservative" spectacle.

Not only that, but the only real punitive congressional measure would be to revoke federal highway funding (the largest source of federal income for all states). In CO's case, the prospect of that is pretty fuckin toothless. The NMDAA / 23 USC §158 (affirmed by SC in SD v. Dole 1987) was amended in 2012 to restrict Congress' authority so they can only reduce federal highway funding by a maximum of 8%.
CDOT forecasts current federal highway revenue to be $200 million for 2017-2018, 8% of which is $16 million of a cut if they went ahead and revoked funds.

Considering CO's weed industry generated $124.9 million in tax revenue from January - August of 2016 alone, $16m over 2 years is nigger change. Furthermore, Colorado is 35th / 50 in federal fund dependency.

All of CO's rec shop owners & stakeholders I know are well-versed in dealing with getting equity out the safe and into the bank at this point, under the egis of the banks' complicating "cold shoulder" tactics. The ones I know best have been playing this game since the explosion of the medical industry in 08.

Republican majorities in both federal delegations, the DOJ, nor POTUS can do shit about our weed.

It's pretty fuckin cool

>>129810866
Colorado will drink itself to death on pot money and progressive bullshit.

This place used to be cool.

DUUUDE

File: Oregon-01.png (457KB, 2048x1458px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 2048x1458px

>>129810866
Counties and municipalites can make it illegal again. pic related for Oregon

File: c2.jpg (145KB, 640x330px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 640x330px

>>129812692

I should also add, for those who think "oh well the feds will just start raiding that shit and shut it down by force..."

No, they won't, and no - they can't. As of 2014, federal agents are prohibited from interfering with marijuana operations implemented legally under state law. This amendment to the Appropriations Act (sponsored & supported by republicans, mind you) formally dismissed that silly notion forever (and the legislative intent references the protection to veterans who use cannabis to treat PTSD, no less). Really, a shining example of brilliant legislative drafting and lobbying.

Cannabis favorability is higher than its ever been throughout the developed world, among citizens, members of congress, and most importantly among Coloradans. And again - Colorado residents' majority vote to legalize cannabis by constitutional amendment, in the face of loud threats from the federal government, makes our legal weed about as exquisite a spectacle of conservative political doctrine as you can find.

So I reiterate, fear not - they can't do shit. CO weed is here to stay.

t. ACTUAL CO native (CALIFAGs go the fuck home - your lesbian moms miss you)

File: 1469672395921.jpg (19KB, 222x293px)

19KB, 222x293px

>>129811973
Did you just unironically quote the bible?

Weed is okay sometimes 2bh

>>129814716
Every day

>>129810866
Let people smoke who gives a fuck. The only ones on /pol/ who are against this are pimply 15 year olds who took the degeneracy bait

>>129813410
The other thing is this

Say they do raid all the dispensaries

Most of the pot in the CO comes from small grows and gets moved out of state in small (less then 100, maybe even as little as 20lb) incriments.

There used to be a 24 hour grow store in denver, for crying out loud, I think they moved to cali

The feds would run themselves dry before they do this and local LEO don't care since no jury will convict on this.

The real problem with the weed is that the state is becoming more progressive and all that money is the real drug. Instead of cutting taxes we get more spending on illigals and other asshattery liberal bullshit.

>>129811973
>The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.

>Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter.

It's really important to know who wrote what in The Bible. Talk about being a cuck, you guys just blindly accept some revised version of the Bible that has been spread around for hundreds of years, without question, but you want spiritual truth?

>>129815885
>(((scholars)))

File: classic_progressives.jpg (111KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x768px

>>129810866
>classic progressives kvetching over drugs

>>129816266
You could mean anything with that. Are you saying you can't study the Bible? That there aren't people who want to know the historicity of the Bible?

The King James version of the Bible is a compilation of texts from different time periods.

>>129816526
Yes it wasn't all written at once by Moses or something this is common sense

>>129813282
really? I didn't know this