Ruggles Excused

[Punatic007]

I sincerely feel for Mr. Ruggles and pray he doesn't do any time. Why isn't decriminalization working here like it is in other states? But most importantly, why is Ruggles breaking the law as opposed to changing it?

[randomq]

Decriminalization would let anyone grow and smoke any weed. A slow transition to regulated recreational weed will make the right people rich.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by alohanaia

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chunkster
And then there's the matter of the statehood vote of 92% in favor.

---

This is the kind of landslide win only seen in places like North Korea, and always indicates a sham. In the case of Hawaii, non landowners (most hawaiians at the time) were exluded from the vote, while mainlanders were shipped here specifically to stuff the ballots, "legally". The actual statistic you refer to is about a third your claim, nothing to crow about.

You should probably also read up on the stolen lands of the ignominous States you quote as justifications, the writings of the recognized government at the time, never legally deposed, and the apology resolution.

---

What's done is done, and this one is done through and through.

Speaking Truth to Lies / Facts to Ignorance

[ironyak]

Punatic007 - Why isn't decriminalization working here like it is in other states?

Because Hawaii hasn't decriminalized it. As pointed out, no state has, some have just regulated it to varying degrees (medical, recreational, etc)

Punatic007 - But most importantly, why is Ruggles breaking the law as opposed to changing it?

You understand that all the states regulating marijuana use are breaking federal law right? The states are working to change the law by breaking it, as are some people. Bit of a time honored American tradition really, but if the feds were so inclined they could step in and legally arrest the millions of people involved. They don't however because of the enormous potential for serious backlash - the power of the law capitulating to the power of the people.

[ironyak]

More back on topic, Jen Ruggles entered this fight early on in her tenure. Does no one remember the Puna & Ka'u discrimination resolution? Note that it was also a civil rights issue.

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2017...esolution/
The resolution is based on a 2000 Federal Highways Administration Office of Civil Rights investigation that found the state Department of Transportation was underrepresenting populations of the rural subdivisions in Puna and Ka‘u when making long-range plans because of land use policies. That was considered a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act since it could deprive low income and Native Hawaiian residents of transportation services.
[...]
The resolution cites allegations made in the civil rights complaint, including those that say discrimination was deliberate and benefited Hilo, which don’t appear to be reflected in the report’s conclusions. It asks the county to acknowledge the report’s findings and make attempts to address the issue.

[randomq]

The discrimination resolution represented her district. Fighting for our share of fuel tax and timely first responder service represented her district. Not participating in county business is NOT representing her district.

No matter which oligarchs run the islands, people still need representation on local issues.

[Punatic007]

"You understand that all the states regulating marijuana use are breaking federal law right? The states are working to change the law by breaking it, as are some people. Bit of a time honored American tradition really, but if the feds were so inclined they could step in and legally arrest the millions of people involved. They don't however because of the enormous potential for serious backlash - the power of the law capitulating to the power of the people." -ironyak

Yeah, that's right I forgot. That's why the dispensaries in California were shut down. Perhaps the reason for all this turmoil is what I originally stated....daily habitual use is yet to be understood as unhealthy and a possible detriment to the user and society.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

daily habitual use is yet to be understood as unhealthy and a possible detriment to the user and society.

I have the same thought when I'm standing in line at the grocery store, looking at the items the people in front of me put on the checkout stand conveyor - - not food, unhealthy, not food, detrimental to their health, not food, empty calories...

Senior members of the Trump Administration described Trump's mood Wednesday as "volcanic." Wed, Sept 6, 2018

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ironyak

Punatic007 - Why isn't decriminalization working here like it is in other states?

Because Hawaii hasn't decriminalized it. As pointed out, no state has, some have just regulated it to varying degrees (medical, recreational, etc)

Punatic007 - But most importantly, why is Ruggles breaking the law as opposed to changing it?

You understand that all the states regulating marijuana use are breaking federal law right? The states are working to change the law by breaking it, as are some people. Bit of a time honored American tradition really, but if the feds were so inclined they could step in and legally arrest the millions of people involved. They don't however because of the enormous potential for serious backlash - the power of the law capitulating to the power of the people.

---

This opens up a whole new area of discussion, and I don't know how long the mod will put up with it, but here goes, (since somebody else raised the issue).

The Constitution set up a central govt whose jurisdiction is a mile wide and inch deep, with powers set forth in Article I Section 8 USC. The 10th Amendment make it clear that all other powers (other than the ones granted to the Fed. Government are reserved for the States and the people.

This arrangement was respected through prohibition when, absent an enumerated power to ban substances, they first got a Conditional Amendment, and then, based on that Amendment, passed the banning legislation.

Nowadays the Congress thinks the Constitutions means whatever they want it to mean on any particular day.

Bottom line is there is no Constitutional grant of power to the Federal Government to ban MJ or any thing else, but they do it anyway because, as the Founders knew and tried to guard against, those who seek power are never satisfied, and will always seek more and more and more and more and more and more.... Once the Interstate Commerce clause was "expanded" by fraudulent "interpretation" to mean *.*, it meant the beginning of the end of Constitutional government. The federal government has gone from a mile wide and inch deep to a mile wide and all the way to the bottom.

So yes, there is Federal Legislation banning it, and their conviction rate is about 95% and you aren't even eligible for parole until you've served something like 90% of your sentence. Not to mention "diesel therapy"!!!!!



Speaking Truth to Lies / Facts to Ignorance

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

I don't know how long the mod will put up with it, but here goes

Since you were wondering, here's a suggestion.
1) Go back and look at the locked topics.
2) See how many of those you contributed to, and commented on.
3) Within that sample, see how many contain the word "Constitution" which will almost always take the conversation away from a local discussion, into a national or federal discussion:

From the Punaweb Forum Main Page:
Note: National and world politics are not allowed. Local,
Hawaii County and State of Hawaii politics are allowed.