Here’s the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/us/06marijuana.html?_r=1&hp
It’s so nice to see these assholes acting on their free market principles. Anyway I’m sick and motherfucking tired of watching these assholes campaign on “fiscal conservatism” and then pull shit like this.
Oh yeah, this is waaayy more important than getting people back to work. Glad to see they got their priorities straight. :rolleyes:
Yah I know the statute is the will of the people as evidenced by the fact that it was enacted by popular vote, but that doesn’t matter. It isn’t the will of Republicans, is it? That is all that matters.
I am your father, Montana!
This is just all kinds of stupid. I think marijuana should be legal, but lots of people don’t. If you think something is really harmful to people and society, you don’t ignore that just for the sake of “fiscal conservatism”.
It’s not an either-or situation.
The people of Montana apparently do.
Would you be in favor of eliminating codeine because it’s really dangerous to people and society?
Would you be in favor of banning sudafed because it’s possible to make an illegal drug out of it?
Would you eliminate nitrous oxide because people get high off it?
Hell, would you eliminate gasoline because people huff it?
We’re not talking about marijuana. We’re talking about MEDICAL marijuana and, yes, I get that you’re in favor of legalization but I’m just ranting here because I truly do not get the problem. We trust doctors every day around the country to prescribe codeine in a responsible and effective manner. We trust dentist every day to use nitrous oxide safely but when needed. We trust pharmacists every day to keep sudafed stocked, but safely guarded. And you can get gas on most every street corner.
So why this hangup about medical marijuana? Not marijuana. Medically prescribed marijuana. Why? I don’t get it.
If we held to the same standard that because some people abuse medicine X, we must outlaw all medicine X there wouldn’t be a drug left in this country.
These guys ran on a platform that declares that it ain’t the gummint’s job to clense the world of all its ills. “Fiscal conservatism” is simply shorthand for that (alleged) principle.
What I don’t understand is the republican fervor to disallow this as a states right. It seems like a prime states right thing.
The FDA classifies drugs, the States criminalize them and set up their medical systems. It’s reasonable within the constitution for the federal government to protect the welfare by classifying and regulation the safety of drugs while the states handle distribution (figuratively).
But for some reason, republicans in the federal government are overwhelmingly against letting anything like this happen. On the other hand, states? who cares. I couldn’t care less if montana turns into a hellhole. I’m not moving there.
Please, if you think that’s their main motivation, you’re seriously deluding yourself. As someone else mentioned, the GOP in general in the last election campaigned on a platform of libertarianism. I would figure this type of thing would fall into the realm of personal responsibility.
Also, when in recent years have the Republicans shown much concern about eliminating things that are “really harmful to people and society”?
I think the OP and some other folks are conflating ‘fiscal conservativism’ with ‘small government’.
Yes, these Repubs are hypocrites - because this move is inconsistent with the ‘small government’ ethos they espouse that claims to value free enterprise and individual liberty.
AFAIK, the Republican platform has never endorsed the legalization of marijuana, medicinal or otherwise. I’m open to being corrected on that point.
And if it gets repealed, apparently they do not. Your turn.
Not all the ills. Just this one.
Maybe. But it’s not shorthand for the idea that the government shouldn’t get rid of any ills.
Regardless of whether it gets repealed, are you suggesting that direct referendum is not a better indicator of the will of the people than a legislative action? 
A distinction without a difference. Small government every other day (i.e. small government yesterday and small government tomorrow, but never small government today) is clearly not small government at all.
One item vs every item is “a distinction without a difference”? Tell me you’re joking…
Small government is not the same as no government.
This complaint boils down to: How dare the Republicans not live up to the sweeping generalizations and stereotypes I make up about them?
The GOP has never advocated the legalization of pot. Period. They have certain things they want to get rid of and certain things they don’t.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that it was initially voted in through referendum. I agree with you.
There are other possibilities:
It was voted in thru referendum, but a few folks (and it wouldn’t take many in MT) don’t like the way it turned out.
More people voted in the last election than voted in the one w/ the referendum, and the vote skewed more towards conservative.
Even in CA, we’re seeing some negative reaction to the pot clubs popping up all over the place.
Can the Legislature even repeal it without a second referendum? I know that in CA if the Legislature want’s to repeal something passed via a ballot initiative it has go on the ballot at the next general elections.