Even if you believe all that to be true, the law is still the law, and the executive branch doesn't (and shouldn't) get to pick and choose what laws should be enforced because they are "good" or not.
Even if you believe all that to be true, the law is still the law, and the executive branch doesn't (and shouldn't) get to pick and choose what laws should be enforced because they are "good" or not.
airdata
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2010
- 4,987
- 0
- 0
Are you saying you believe laws should remain in action if they were made based on false information?
I mean.. I guess we still went to war with Iraq even though we knew they had no WMD.
If there was a law saying I had to go jump off of a cliff... I would'nt do it, would you?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
Challenge the law in Federal court. Make your case with facts. Show legally that the law is flawed, not just in your opinion.
That gives you two avenues to enact the change.
Otherwise enjoy your attempts at building a criminal record.
Actually, yes. Whether a law was based on false information or not, it is a law and as such has to be enforced. If it's a bad law, then it either needs to be changed/removed by the legislature (with the president's sig of course), or a court has to find that the law is itself unconstitutional. Since neither of those things has happened, the law should be enforced, like it or not.
I hope you understand there's a difference between executive action versus legislation?
Nope, but then you'd either face legal consequences or fight the law in court and show that it was against your constitutional rights.
You can challenge the constitutionality of the law, but even then, flawed basis for the law is not a valid reason for the court to toss the law. Regardless of what the legislators were thinking when creating the law, the court has to interpret it and determine if the law -- as written -- violates the constitution in some way. Just because it's written based on bad data doesn't mean it violates anything.....
What if you have insufficient resources to make a serious attempt to enforce every law on the books? Isn't selective enforcement inevitable? And if it's inevitable, wouldn't we rather they enforced laws that preclude activity that is actually harmful?
Indeed, the executive branch has pretty wide leeway to determine where and how to most effectively spend resources to enforce the law. That's essentially why they didn't do anything on this front for the past couple of years. Their hand was forced because of the scale of the abuse taking place in CA and other states.
Edit: IMO (and I think this is what EK has been saying), had it remained a kind of "wink wink nudge nudge" where some people who don't really need it were using it along with those who actually have a medical need, there would have been no action. However, it's spread way beyond that, with millions being made selling a class 1 restricted drug openly and brazenly to those who admit to not having a medical need.
The whole "weed should be legal!" discussion is a completely separate one.
Last edited:
Well, EK's point was that people are now openly flouting the law but they weren't before. I think that is a factual premise that needs to be established. If memory serves, three years ago it was readily apparent that a large percentage of the people acquiring MJ in these dispensaries were recreational users. What has changed in the last 3 years?
- wolf
I don't know if the percentage of "legit" versus "just for fun" users has changed, but I do know the amount of money involved has increased drastically, which gets the feds' attention. Then you have doctors providing scripts for $5 and that kind of crazy stuff, with people openly saying they just got the script to buy pot etc, and you could see how it would be something that they'd get involved in.
**APPLAUSE**!!
that was awesome! thank you
marijuana is NON TOXIC. that alone should be grounds to have a prohibition law against marijuana prohibitions.
its not obama doing this though. its not the DEA or homeland security either. its their bosses'. this is international corporation ceo's. this is the owners of the international banks. these are your real presidents. this world already is the united nations of monopoly. marijuana is thought to hurt overall production on a work day, which means less billions for the top few. so the top few tell their lower chain of command "yeah, just put a non toxic plant in the most dangerous category known to man." and it happens through lobbying and lots of that same money thats generated off the backs of the people who get fucked by the frivolous laws.
and they JUST PASSED THAT DAMN LAW AGAIN!. "corporations can make unlimited donations to campaign funds, because corporations hold the same rights as people".
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! seriously. thats what they say. they just put 100% grade a BULLSHIT right on the table and go "here, you like this". a corporation that generates money through indenturing 36,000 people basically has 36,000x more advantage as any one person does when it comes to creating laws that we ALL have to live by. its actually more then that because that one person is working for $10 an hour while he is making the company $30 an hour or more.
and the best part is marijuana can keep millions of people with chronic illnesses much more productive then they are now with designer or other drugs that help very little. its just stupid. the whole thing. people are fucking retarded when put in close proximity of one another, yet separate them apart and they all pretty much say and want the same things. pretty cool how far we came in 2000 years but seriously, we need a lot more time to evolve.
Last edited:
if the feds really are going to do this though, its not a good time. people are already very protest-y as it is right now... if the feds blow in and destroy the proven pot industry, there is going to be massive amounts of pissed off people.
this economy thing is why alcohol prohibition couldnt stick. too much needed money was going to wrong hands. also, marijuana popularity has been a strong constant for decades now, and notably after the turn of the century it has been rapidly increasing new users. it is not like other drugs, like meth or heroin, where its use is generally attributed to availability and cost effectiveness. people use marijuana because it makes them feel better without hurting their bodies. there are no signs that marijuana prohibition will continue forever, so its just a shame nothing is being done about it now.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Do you realize how hard it is to jail a non-violent criminal? Especially in the State of California full of Pot Scolaws with the California legislators opting out of co-operation. It simply makes violating pot laws a Federal beef.
If the Feds want to make California pot clerks into a Federal crime, let the Feds provide the Prison space, let the Federal courts be responsible for trying those miscreants, and as far as Feds are concerned, if the feds want to the California local courts take the problems off their hands, the California courts, if nothing else, can simply issue an unlimited set of continuances and bail on their own recognizances, to effectively make the problems go away. In short there is not enough money in the world for the Feds to all by their selves enforce pot laws in the State of California.
Meanwhile back at the California ranch, its will be the best news real dangerous California criminals have heard, because as all Federal enforcement money is all diverted only enforcing pot laws, there will be no money left to investigate, try, or arrest more dangerous violators of other crimes.
In somewhat a tale out of school, I got a good view as a repeat student loan violator finally got caught dead to rights by the Feds. But the Feds had to wait two years to arrest her and take her off the street, because they did not have enough prison space to feed and house her post conviction. One day that reservation finally came, but that did not stop her from costing some $500,000 to the tax payers on her other frauds in the interim.
If the Feds want to make California pot clerks into a Federal crime, let the Feds provide the Prison space, let the Federal courts be responsible for trying those miscreants, and as far as Feds are concerned, if the feds want to the California local courts take the problems off their hands, the California courts, if nothing else, can simply issue an unlimited set of continuances and bail on their own recognizances, to effectively make the problems go away. In short there is not enough money in the world for the Feds to all by their selves enforce pot laws in the State of California.
Meanwhile back at the California ranch, its will be the best news real dangerous California criminals have heard, because as all Federal enforcement money is all diverted only enforcing pot laws, there will be no money left to investigate, try, or arrest more dangerous violators of other crimes.
In somewhat a tale out of school, I got a good view as a repeat student loan violator finally got caught dead to rights by the Feds. But the Feds had to wait two years to arrest her and take her off the street, because they did not have enough prison space to feed and house her post conviction. One day that reservation finally came, but that did not stop her from costing some $500,000 to the tax payers on her other frauds in the interim.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
The prison space issue is due to people coddling criminals.
Many have better living conditions that Section 8 people or those homeless that live in charity shelters.
Many have better living conditions that Section 8 people or those homeless that live in charity shelters.
thats not true eaglekeeper. even with cabletv and prison guards that are seemingly your best friends, jail is still jail. the worst is the people who would rather be there then live on the streets, but anything is better then trying to live alone in this society so its hard to blame those people completely.
it would be better to just garnish the paychecks of the non violent law breakers.
it would be better to just garnish the paychecks of the non violent law breakers.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
I do not blame the criminals - I blame those that require cable TV to be in the prison.
The idea of fines instead of jail time makes perfect sense.
The idea of fines instead of jail time makes perfect sense.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Yep, EK, take cable from all from Federal inmates will be an instant and universal panacea.
I fate worse than death.
But when it comes to the average CA pot clinic clerk, who may not use Pot in any way, because its just another job, its going to be a big and expensive law Federal enforcement law effort to prove the guilt of the owners of the drug clinics. The real part of the problem.
But even to fine someone takes this little thing like proof and the time of a Federal prosecutor to prove its true. Can you spell jury Nullification or previous alcohol prohibition that did not work?
I fate worse than death.
But when it comes to the average CA pot clinic clerk, who may not use Pot in any way, because its just another job, its going to be a big and expensive law Federal enforcement law effort to prove the guilt of the owners of the drug clinics. The real part of the problem.
But even to fine someone takes this little thing like proof and the time of a Federal prosecutor to prove its true. Can you spell jury Nullification or previous alcohol prohibition that did not work?
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter