Obama administration considering ways to overturn marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado

This is a must watch video if your on the fence

Paternalism in government. Big Daddy-O
----------

Paternalism (or parentalism) is behavior, by a person, organization or state, which limits some person or group's liberty or autonomy. Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.[1][2]
The word paternalism is from the Latin pater for father, though paternalism should be distinguished from patriarchy. Paternalism is sometimes thought appropriate towards children and paternalism towards adults is sometimes thought to treat them as if they were children.[3]
Examples of paternalism include laws requiring the use of motorcycle helmets, a parent forbidding their children to engage in dangerous activities, and a psychiatrist confiscating sharp objects from someone who is suicidally depressed.

Soft and Hard Paternalism

The terms soft and hard are used in two quite different senses in this context. Philosophers, following Joel Feinberg's influential book Harm to Self (1986), usually use "soft paternalism" for paternalism towards a person whose action or choice is insufficiently voluntary to be genuinely hers. Hard paternalism in this usage means paternalism towards a person whose action or choice is sufficiently voluntary to be genuinely hers. Soft paternalism in this usage may also refer to interference with a person aimed to establish whether or not her action or choice is sufficiently voluntary. In contrast, economists and lawyers usually use "soft paternalism" for mild paternalism, that is paternalism that is not coercive, or not very "heavy-handed". For example, libertarian paternalism is soft paternalism in this sense. Hard paternalism in this usage is coercive paternalism.
[edit]Opponents of paternalism

See also: Social engineering (political science) and Nanny state
In his Two Treatises of Government, John Locke argues (against Robert Filmer) that political and paternal power cannot be identified. John Stuart Mill opposes state paternalism on the grounds that individuals know their own good better than the state does, that the moral equality of persons demands respect for others' liberty, and that paternalism disrupts the development of an independent character. In On Liberty he writes:
the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.[4]
Contemporary opponents of paternalism often appeal to the ideal of personal autonomy.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

John Sinclair is me, John Sinclair is you. Tomorrow.

Too many people will wake up if weed culture reaches the normal church culture.

Bull's Eye!

The states should not acknowledge the feds in this case by not showing up to court and not answering any summons.
Not accepting the feds authority is the first step in defeating it.
State and local police should arrest any outsiders who attempt to supersede state law as established by the voters of that state.
It's time the people stand-up to the central government. They are there to defend our right to choose our laws from foreign intrusion, not make the laws themselves.
Grow a set Americans, it's our birth right!

And the federal War on Marijuana is racist in its enforcement, ridiculous as a matter of science, outrageous in terms of personal liberty, and inimical to federalism. What we want - indeed demand - is the beginning of a review of whether the science justifies in any way the classification of cannabis as a Schedule One substance under federal law - making it as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. This didn't make any sense in 1970 when it took force; it makes even less sense today.

From: [link to andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com]

Big pharma sure ain't happy

Good post