<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Marijuana Vote</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 07:43:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week &#124; US Presidential Election</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21197</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week &#124; US Presidential Election</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 03:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21197</guid>
		<description>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21196</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 03:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21196</guid>
		<description>[...] state laws providing for medicinal marijuana.Maybe it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] state laws providing for medicinal marijuana.Maybe it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week - DigaNews &#124; DigaNews</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21192</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week - DigaNews &#124; DigaNews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 00:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21192</guid>
		<description>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week &#124; WestPenn Journal</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21191</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points &#8212; Anniversary Week &#124; WestPenn Journal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 00:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21191</guid>
		<description>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friday Talking Points [209] &#8212; Anniversary Week &#171; Democrats for Progress</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21187</link>
		<dc:creator>Friday Talking Points [209] &#8212; Anniversary Week &#171; Democrats for Progress</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 00:08:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21187</guid>
		<description>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] it&#8217;s just that I wrote about this issue earlier in the week, but I was impressed that Pelosi had such strong words on the subject of medical marijuana, and the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChrisWeigant.com &#187; Friday Talking Points [209] -- Anniversary Week</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21185</link>
		<dc:creator>ChrisWeigant.com &#187; Friday Talking Points [209] -- Anniversary Week</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 23:36:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21185</guid>
		<description>[...] The Marijuana Vote [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Marijuana Vote [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21164</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 21:49:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21164</guid>
		<description>All I can say is that I am really REALLY glad that Obama has no desire to &quot;spike the football&quot; with regards to his minor role in taking down Bin Laden..

:D

Let&#039;s face it, when you have active duty and retired Navy SEALS telling the President to shut the frak up, you KNOW you&#039;ve stepped into the kaa kaa   :D

But, CW.. I have to give you kudos..  You took Obama to task over actions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with his behavior towards Republicans.   Good job!!  :D

If only everyone else here had a modicum of the integrity you displayed with this...  


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All I can say is that I am really REALLY glad that Obama has no desire to "spike the football" with regards to his minor role in taking down Bin Laden..</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Let's face it, when you have active duty and retired Navy SEALS telling the President to shut the frak up, you KNOW you've stepped into the kaa kaa   :D</p>
<p>But, CW.. I have to give you kudos..  You took Obama to task over actions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with his behavior towards Republicans.   Good job!!  :D</p>
<p>If only everyone else here had a modicum of the integrity you displayed with this...  </p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21163</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 18:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21163</guid>
		<description>tinsldr2 -

And a happy International Workers&#039; Day to you too!  Heh.

[I would call that &quot;throwing a Haymaker&quot;... but you&#039;d have to look it up to see why... heh.]

I responded to your posts over at HuffPost.  I&#039;ll try and copy and paste the responses in here later (HP is up to around 250 comments, so it&#039;s been exhausting this morning...).

I was glad to see how eye-to-eye we see on DOMA&#039;s unconstitutionality, though.  Just like &lt;em&gt;Loving v. Virginia&lt;/em&gt;, this law will not stand review.

:-)

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>tinsldr2 -</p>
<p>And a happy International Workers' Day to you too!  Heh.</p>
<p>[I would call that "throwing a Haymaker"... but you'd have to look it up to see why... heh.]</p>
<p>I responded to your posts over at HuffPost.  I'll try and copy and paste the responses in here later (HP is up to around 250 comments, so it's been exhausting this morning...).</p>
<p>I was glad to see how eye-to-eye we see on DOMA's unconstitutionality, though.  Just like <em>Loving v. Virginia</em>, this law will not stand review.</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tinsldr2</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21161</link>
		<dc:creator>tinsldr2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 14:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21161</guid>
		<description>Ok in my above post I wrote :

Until the court decides it is constitutional it will and must be enforced.

But that should say &quot;Until the court decides it is Unconstitutional it will and must be enforced.&quot;

The courts will definitely decide DOMA is UNconstitutional</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok in my above post I wrote :</p>
<p>Until the court decides it is constitutional it will and must be enforced.</p>
<p>But that should say "Until the court decides it is Unconstitutional it will and must be enforced."</p>
<p>The courts will definitely decide DOMA is UNconstitutional</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tinsldr2</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21160</link>
		<dc:creator>tinsldr2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 13:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21160</guid>
		<description>Chris,

While he can change from Schedule I to a Schedule II so medical use is ok the President can not and should not ignore the law.  It is just to much of a slippery slope.  

While you may or may not trust Obama to ignore laws he does not like what about future Presidents?  Where does it lead even though the road be paved with good intentions?

You wrote:  &quot;Then please explain what you are currently doing on the Defense of Marriage Act, which you have instructed your Justice Department to ignore.&quot;

But the justice department is not ignoring DOMA.  Legally married couples can not file their taxes &#039;Married filling Jointly&#039; for instance if the couple is the same sex, and Military members that are legally married do not get benefits if their spouse is the same sex to include healthcare for the spouse.  

What he instructed the justice depart to do, is to not defend DOMA on court challenges to it&#039;s constitutionality.  Until the court decides it is constitutional it will and must be enforced.

Now I think DOMA is unconstitutional and terrible, and even if the President thinks it is unconstitutional, it was signed into law by Clinton and it is a court decision not Obama&#039;s that is needed for the law to be overturned.  

Obama can not just ignore the law and grant federal recognition to same sex couples that are married.  As much as I think it would be the right thing to grant them that legal recognition, the precedent of ignoring laws we dont like is a dangerous one.  

Crossposted from huffpo since they moderated my earlier post out....

PS, happy May Day  ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>While he can change from Schedule I to a Schedule II so medical use is ok the President can not and should not ignore the law.  It is just to much of a slippery slope.  </p>
<p>While you may or may not trust Obama to ignore laws he does not like what about future Presidents?  Where does it lead even though the road be paved with good intentions?</p>
<p>You wrote:  "Then please explain what you are currently doing on the Defense of Marriage Act, which you have instructed your Justice Department to ignore."</p>
<p>But the justice department is not ignoring DOMA.  Legally married couples can not file their taxes 'Married filling Jointly' for instance if the couple is the same sex, and Military members that are legally married do not get benefits if their spouse is the same sex to include healthcare for the spouse.  </p>
<p>What he instructed the justice depart to do, is to not defend DOMA on court challenges to it's constitutionality.  Until the court decides it is constitutional it will and must be enforced.</p>
<p>Now I think DOMA is unconstitutional and terrible, and even if the President thinks it is unconstitutional, it was signed into law by Clinton and it is a court decision not Obama's that is needed for the law to be overturned.  </p>
<p>Obama can not just ignore the law and grant federal recognition to same sex couples that are married.  As much as I think it would be the right thing to grant them that legal recognition, the precedent of ignoring laws we dont like is a dangerous one.  </p>
<p>Crossposted from huffpo since they moderated my earlier post out....</p>
<p>PS, happy May Day  ...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dsws</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21159</link>
		<dc:creator>dsws</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 06:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21159</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;It&#039;s all about not getting caught, in other words.&lt;/i&gt;

Sort of.  It&#039;s all about not being identified as one of the bad guys.  

Sad to say, most people believe in arbitrary authority, not rule of law.  The authorities catch the bad guys, by definition, and they need to have the tools to put them away.  In other words, if you get busted for pot instead of getting off with a warning or getting ignored completely or having it handled by your school authorities without getting law enforcement involved, then you must have been one of the bad guys.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>It's all about not getting caught, in other words.</i></p>
<p>Sort of.  It's all about not being identified as one of the bad guys.  </p>
<p>Sad to say, most people believe in arbitrary authority, not rule of law.  The authorities catch the bad guys, by definition, and they need to have the tools to put them away.  In other words, if you get busted for pot instead of getting off with a warning or getting ignored completely or having it handled by your school authorities without getting law enforcement involved, then you must have been one of the bad guys.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Osborne Ink</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21157</link>
		<dc:creator>Osborne Ink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 04:28:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21157</guid>
		<description>I have to say that &quot;cannabis culture&quot; is in fact a culture. Put any culture under pressure and it will react negatively.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say that "cannabis culture" is in fact a culture. Put any culture under pressure and it will react negatively.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nypoet22</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/04/30/the-marijuana-vote/#comment-21155</link>
		<dc:creator>nypoet22</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5547#comment-21155</guid>
		<description>this has nothing to do with the drug itself and everything to do with preserving the pharmaceutical monopoly on THC-based drugs. the obama administration wouldn&#039;t piss off pharma that much in an election year, if ever. if he did, they&#039;d withdraw their funding from his campaign and their superpacs would throw the kitchen sink at him.
~joshua</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this has nothing to do with the drug itself and everything to do with preserving the pharmaceutical monopoly on THC-based drugs. the obama administration wouldn't piss off pharma that much in an election year, if ever. if he did, they'd withdraw their funding from his campaign and their superpacs would throw the kitchen sink at him.<br />
~joshua</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
