• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crazy Christie "Enjoy weed while it's legal. When I'm elected...."

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
...and his chances in the primary just went up in smoke.

:colbert:

Just wake me up when the GOP primary is worth taking seriously. He's just one more clown in the clown car.
 
Expect one of the 2% candidates come out supporting an amendment to repeal the right of women to vote and sending Black people back to Africa. They need something to out trump the Trump. Fucking clowns.
 
smackababy said:
I get where he is coming from, but his choosing this particular issue is stupid. If Texas decided that the federal law making slavery illegal just wasn't good and passed a state law allowing slavery, anyone outside Texas would be saying "fed gov pls! make them stop!".

Weed should have the same legal standing as alcohol. Unfortunately, I don't know of any methods to as accurately as a breathalyzer for alcohol test THC levels of an individual, so I can't be for a blanket total legalization of weed. And even then, this is a battle to be fought in federal law. First, why not petition and lobby more to have it removed as a schedule 1 controlled substance?
Click to expand...

You don't need a breathalyzer though. A standard sobriety test is often good enough. Plus it's a better way to diagnose their capacity than a metric that doesn't really give any good indication of their actual impairment.

Also, keep in mind that Alcohol Prohibition ended the same way Cannabis prohibition is. Prohibition was not repealed on a federal level until 20+ states bucked the feds and legalized it on their own.
 
smackababy said:
Marijuana isn't a health law, it is a drug law. And, he is merely arguing for the enforcement of an already on the books law. He isn't advocating for health law reform or anything similar. The fact he is fat, which is legal btw (even if it is disgusting), has nothing to do with him running on a platform of enforcing laws we already fucking have.
Click to expand...

The reasons he gives for 'supporting' prohibition are based on health. He says its bad and is a gateway drug.

The reasons he gives for 'enforcing' prohibition are that it's illegal federally.
 
Hope this fat fuck chokes to death on a cheeseburger. He mad because fat kids/people never get invited to the cool parties.
 
He just lost my vote.

Look... the economy is going to take care of itself. It's become crystal clear that every one of these candidates continues to be beholden to big business and will make sure that profitability continues. As a result, the only thing that's left are the social issues.

As someone with a nurse as a wife, and other family members in the health care industry, I know full well how incredibly positive marijuana can be in the correct situations. To continue this stupid witch hunt along with the war on drugs rather than legalizing them and regulating them....

It's sad. I thought he had a clue. But in one fell swoop he lost my vote. He seemed to be for fiscal responsibility, but I have to put a bigger priority on the social issues.

Dear Republicans: I so badly want to vote small government, low taxes, etc. Why do you continue to fuck it up by pandering to the religious and the control freaks?
 
The party of less government indeed. If only such stupidity was limited to Christie. Alas, Congress Republicans are all in lock step on this issue, threatening the mayor of DC with consequences for advocating smaller governments making the choice that's right for them. "But it's the law" is talk for a cop, not a policy maker in a position to change it. If the politicians are afraid disregarding the backwards laws on pot is bad, REPEAL THE LAW.
 
KMFJD said:
Is he scared the stoners are going to eat all his twinkies or something?
Click to expand...

Did you have to mention twinkies, the food of the Gods? I'm getting ready to go to the supermarket & the only way I can avoid buying some is to put the idea out of my mind.

Now you've fucked me up. It's all your fault, and Obama's, too.
 
Somebody get that man a joint and a box of donuts. He's going to need it before he blows some o-rings over his poll numbers.
 
Also I dont think this guy understands how big the mj lobby is getting. They will put the screws to his campaign ala 502 or whatever and its gonna be over. The people have spoken and mj is relatively safe and should be legal.
 
TechBoyJK said:
You don't need a breathalyzer though. A standard sobriety test is often good enough. Plus it's a better way to diagnose their capacity than a metric that doesn't really give any good indication of their actual impairment.

Also, keep in mind that Alcohol Prohibition ended the same way Cannabis prohibition is. Prohibition was not repealed on a federal level until 20+ states bucked the feds and legalized it on their own.
Click to expand...

The problem with no real "test" is that it is simply a cops idea if you are impaired or not and a blood test after the arrest isn't valid in terms of THC in the blood. At least, I don't believe the detectable amount. If it actually has a quick burn rate to determine "how high" you were around the time of arrest, I'd be fine with that.

I just don't want there to be no real way to enforce public intoxication and it effecting your operation of a motor vehicle. And for those that don't think it effects your motor skills, you've smoked yourself retarded.
 
Pulsar said:
Dear Republicans: I so badly want to vote small government, low taxes, etc. Why do you continue to fuck it up by pandering to the religious and the control freaks?
Click to expand...

Because they don't want smaller govt & lower taxes at all except when those serve the purposes of the financial elite. Witness Kansas. Cut taxes at the top. When they don't have enough money, raise taxes at the bottom. Just the idea makes 'em wanna squirt.

All the efforts of the Repub leadership are geared toward that goal or the goal of tearing down the opposition & pandering to an increasingly agitated base.
 
Last edited:
smackababy said:
The problem with no real "test" is that it is simply a cops idea if you are impaired or not and a blood test after the arrest isn't valid in terms of THC in the blood. At least, I don't believe the detectable amount. If it actually has a quick burn rate to determine "how high" you were around the time of arrest, I'd be fine with that.

I just don't want there to be no real way to enforce public intoxication and it effecting your operation of a motor vehicle. And for those that don't think it effects your motor skills, you've smoked yourself retarded.
Click to expand...

There's no way to enforce it now. Legalization won't change that. What it will change is the scapegoating of cannabis comsuming employees with piss tests.
 
Jhhnn said:
There's no way to enforce it now. Legalization won't change that. What it will change is the scapegoating of cannabis comsuming employees with piss tests.
Click to expand...

Currently, we don't have to "enforce" any kind of legal limit of THC. If you smell like weed, you will be searched and possibly detained, as it is illegal to possess any amount. When it becomes legalized, that won't be a valid tactic for enforcing doing things like driving while high.

That is really my only apprehension in legalization. I have no issues with people getting high at home similar to I have no issue with people getting drunk at home (or smoking crack and shooting heroin, for that matter). It is just that interaction outside the home easily becomes dangerous when someone is impaired.
 
smackababy said:
The problem with no real "test" is that it is simply a cops idea if you are impaired or not and a blood test after the arrest isn't valid in terms of THC in the blood. At least, I don't believe the detectable amount. If it actually has a quick burn rate to determine "how high" you were around the time of arrest, I'd be fine with that.

I just don't want there to be no real way to enforce public intoxication and it effecting your operation of a motor vehicle. And for those that don't think it effects your motor skills, you've smoked yourself retarded.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, do you know what Indicas and Sativas are?

An Indica will completely derail your motor skills. Nothing like being drunk, but it would still be enough to ruin your golf game.

Sativas, unless you're new to it, essentially don't interfere with motor skills. If you're somewhat experienced with cannabis, a moderate amount of Sativa won't really have an effect on your golf game.

I could be high as the ISS on Sativa and a cop won't be able to tell, nor would it have any effect on my ability to drive. A few puffs on a moderately strong Indica, and you want to sit down and avoid driving.
 
smackababy said:
The problem with no real "test" is that it is simply a cops idea if you are impaired or not and a blood test after the arrest isn't valid in terms of THC in the blood. At least, I don't believe the detectable amount. If it actually has a quick burn rate to determine "how high" you were around the time of arrest, I'd be fine with that.

I just don't want there to be no real way to enforce public intoxication and it effecting your operation of a motor vehicle. And for those that don't think it effects your motor skills, you've smoked yourself retarded.
Click to expand...

People smoke pot and drive even when smoking pot is illegal. The DUI issue is fairly irrelevant with regards to the legalization issue, and will eventually sort itself out.
 
TechBoyJK said:
Also, keep in mind that Alcohol Prohibition ended the same way Cannabis prohibition is. Prohibition was not repealed on a federal level until 20+ states bucked the feds and legalized it on their own.
Click to expand...

Ummm... no it didn't. Cannabis is prohibited at the Federal level by its inclusion in the schedule of controlled substances as part of the Controlled Substances Act. Alcohol was prohibited by Constitutional Amendment. There were zero states that enacted pro-alcohol laws while the Eighteenth Amendment was the law of the land, because those laws would have been unConstitutional. There were certainly states that may not have enforced the Eighteenth Amendment or the Volstead Act, but that's a far cry from having a law on your book directly contradicting Federal Law or the US Constitution on the matter.

That said, while this might not follow the exact path the alcohol prohibition followed, I agree that we're witnessing the tide breaking as cannabis prohibition gets swept away in this country. It's only a matter of time before it's, at the very least, recognized as a state's rights issue and not a matter for the feds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top