5 ms·

Not an apples to apples comparison. Marijuana laws are about States making(edit typo) laws to legalize something the federal government has laws against. That

Not an apples to apples comparison. Marijuana laws are about States making(edit typo) laws to legalize something the federal government has laws against. That can be settled if it goes to the supreme court. This situation is about the federal government not following the laws it sets for itself.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
9rx 2y ago
> Not an apples to apples comparison. The previous comment does not make a comparison. It questioned if anyone has pursued the federal government for not following through with cannabis enforcement, contrary to the expectations of the law, and wanted to know more about the outcome if so. But maybe this is your roundabout way of saying "no"?
- davorak 2y ago
  cma question is part of a conversation. If they wanted as a question independent of that conversation they could preference that that their question is independent of the current topic/conversation. I am going to let them assert that though and not take or assume your interpretation of their question.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    The question follows the discussion taking place. The specific subject was broached, but has been lacking in details. It would be inappropriate to state that it is independent of the topic. It is clearly not. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, that's okay, but inventing nonsense to make that statement is, well, curious. I suggest not responding is the best way to communicate that you do not wish to participate, but to each their own, I suppose.
    - davorak 2y ago
      cma's question was to me, after my comment, not to you. You are inserting your interruption into that. You argued that cma's question had a very particular interruption, sort of speaking for them, let them speak for themselves, or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you. edit or maybe a better way to put it is that I can not have a conversation with you when you seem to be trying to speak for them.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > cma's question was to me I clearly replied to your comment, not cma's. > You are inserting your interruption into that. There are no interruptions in a threaded discussion. cma can reply to your comment in parallel. I do appreciate you bringing your misunderstandings to light, though. > let them speak for themselves He can if he so wishes. > or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you. Oh? - "cma's question was to me" On an open public forum all comments are written for all users by default. Only through dissecting meaning with me would you be able to determine this to be the case. Why lie?
        davorak 2y ago
        > Why lie? I will refer you to the guidelines > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        9rx 2y ago
        Thanks. I don't really see how that applies, but I welcome us diving into your dissection so that we can clear up any misunderstandings and to learn from it for the sake of the future.
- cma 2y ago
  The answer seems to be Obama deprioritized enforcement and didn't announce he wouldn't enforce.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

9rx 2y ago

> Not an apples to apples comparison. The previous comment does not make a comparison. It questioned if anyone has pursued the federal government for not following through with cannabis enforcement, contrary to the expectations of the law, and wanted to know more about the outcome if so. But maybe this is your roundabout way of saying "no"?

davorak 2y ago
cma question is part of a conversation. If they wanted as a question independent of that conversation they could preference that that their question is independent of the current topic/conversation. I am going to let them assert that though and not take or assume your interpretation of their question.
- 9rx 2y ago
  The question follows the discussion taking place. The specific subject was broached, but has been lacking in details. It would be inappropriate to state that it is independent of the topic. It is clearly not. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, that's okay, but inventing nonsense to make that statement is, well, curious. I suggest not responding is the best way to communicate that you do not wish to participate, but to each their own, I suppose.
  - davorak 2y ago
    cma's question was to me, after my comment, not to you. You are inserting your interruption into that. You argued that cma's question had a very particular interruption, sort of speaking for them, let them speak for themselves, or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you. edit or maybe a better way to put it is that I can not have a conversation with you when you seem to be trying to speak for them.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > cma's question was to me I clearly replied to your comment, not cma's. > You are inserting your interruption into that. There are no interruptions in a threaded discussion. cma can reply to your comment in parallel. I do appreciate you bringing your misunderstandings to light, though. > let them speak for themselves He can if he so wishes. > or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you. Oh? - "cma's question was to me" On an open public forum all comments are written for all users by default. Only through dissecting meaning with me would you be able to determine this to be the case. Why lie?
      - davorak 2y ago
        > Why lie? I will refer you to the guidelines > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        9rx 2y ago
        Thanks. I don't really see how that applies, but I welcome us diving into your dissection so that we can clear up any misunderstandings and to learn from it for the sake of the future.
cma 2y ago
The answer seems to be Obama deprioritized enforcement and didn't announce he wouldn't enforce.