October 20, 2015

Another Weedsburg Café...

P1140927

... in case you can't get enough.

P1140930

Oh, and here's some marijuana news: "Congressional action prohibits federal drug enforcers from shutting medical marijuana dispensaries that comply with state law, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Monday in a potentially precedent-setting case.":
The decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is the first known ruling by a federal judge to protect pot dispensaries under a budget amendment approved by Congress in December 2014 and in effect through this December, when backers plan to renew it for another year. It bars the Justice Department from spending any money to prevent California and other states from “implementing their own state laws” that authorize the medical use of marijuana.

18 comments:

Jason said...

I wonder if that same judge would ever use that logic to prevent federal officials from enforcing gun control laws to which the state objects.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Still think it's more dangerous than alcohol, eh?

You're a law professor. Isn't there enough data from those laboratories of democracy in CO, WA and OR by now to figure out whether armageddon did or did not actually occur where it was legalized?

LarsPorsena said...

Now and forever to be known as Charles "States Rights" Breyer.

Rhythm and Balls said...

These judicial activists are just pushing full on reefer madness, I tells ya!

Freeman Hunt said...

I like the doodling in full Technicolor on a huge scale.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't see the fascination with weed and acid at your age, ann. Is it a Meade thing?

It's the mask of her pretend-hippie bandwagon-jumping slipping. She obviously loves the personal freedom and freedom of expression they enjoyed, but still desperately wants to retain the baggage of her prudish upbringing (I'm assuming that's where it comes from) of what she was taught regarding sex, drugs, social authority and the narcissism that guards against loving others too much.

Yes, she should just get it out of her system, already. But she'd probably be too fearful of losing control to allow the experience to run anything resembling a natural course. I'd say it's about an even 50/50 bet that she might not mind it vs. being too shut out to even feel anything with it.

I used to not stand it either. The large diversity of current strains is supposed to ameliorate that, though.

MadisonMan said...

I like the doodling in full Technicolor on a huge scale.

Meh. I might not like it if I were a business owner near by -- depending on the type of clientele I was trying to attract.

I'm a bigger fan of the architecture along Main Street in Reedsburg. I think the doodling takes away from it.

MadisonMan said...

Walking tour of Reedsburg: Link.

Big Mike said...

Marijuana is not going to be legalized in Madison, Professor. The people who live in the hinterlands think you Madison folks are crazy enough without adding weed to the mix.

Chuck said...

All that I am trying to do is to figure out how to monetize the poor dumb stoners who spend their lives on legalized marijuana. And how to avoid them hitting me with their cars while driving.

ndspinelli said...

LOL! Mrs. Althouse is getting pummeled.

eric said...

Very selective. Marijuana is illegal. Police enforce the law. Imagine that.

Smilin' Jack said...

It bars the Justice Department from spending any money to prevent California and other states from “implementing their own state laws” that authorize the medical use of marijuana.

Oh noes! This will just encourage more people to take that "Land of the Free" bullshit seriously!

BN said...


"This will just encourage more people to take that "Land of the Free" bullshit seriously!"

Seriously?!!!

Fat chance.

Curious George said...

“It defies language and logic for the government to argue that it does not prevent California from implementing its medical marijuana laws by shutting down these ... heavily regulated medical marijuana dispensaries,” Breyer said.

That's just the weed talking.

Unknown said...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judge-s-handling-of-pot-ruling-seen-as-classic-2611463.php

Unknown said...

Curious, how does a Con Law prof consider State law preeminent compared to Fed Law?

Nichevo said...

Unknown, because she wants it and that's all that matters.

In her Church, they believe first and foremost in you.


http://www.montypython.net/scripts/crackpot.php

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDwQFjAIahUKEwjdk434r9TIAhXMPj4KHVAoAqk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.montypython.net%2Fscripts%2Fcrackpot.php&usg=AFQjCNE6Tb2Xatffv96UELRHstJP93sv_Q&sig2=3elDUotbLt5Xeo8d00LSvA