• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Recreational use of Marijuana under fire from SCROTUS

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hayabusa Rider said:
How will it be enforced? Federal agents. That criminals have a license at a state level does not mean protection from Federal law. Right now state law violates treaty and federal law, just as if a state said "This is a tax free state. No one has to pay anything to anyone"
Click to expand...

Those 'criminals' are acting in good faith that they are not breaking law, as evidenced by their state-issued business licenses, and the taxes that they are in fact paying from the proceeds of their 'criminal' operations. Those treaty-violating state laws were passed by popular vote, with supermajorities in a couple states IIRC.
Like I said, there's no mens rea. So maybe the feds shut down some growers and dispensaries and seize a bunch of pot for their personal use, they're still not going to get convictions in court. But they will piss off a whole bunch of people, and not just potheads.
 
Vic said:
He's already in purgatory. The House has pushed back his infrastructure plan until next year. And that was supposed to be near the top of Trump's first 100 days agenda.
Click to expand...
If you listen to the ex-speaker of the house Boener, ACA is just going to be repaired which I just fine with the Dems. Don't know how well this news is going to go over with the batshit crazies.
 
vi edit said:
You can move to a state that doesn't allow legal weed. That's your right.
Click to expand...

I don't care about weed. I care about the rule of law. The subject of this thread should not be state's rights. It should be imploring the DEA to drop marijuana from the controlled substance list. Have them do that and the states can with it as they please. There's no Constitutional crisis here
 
Sea Ray said:
I don't care about weed. I care about the rule of law. The subject of this thread should not be state's rights. It should be imploring the DEA to drop marijuana from the controlled substance list. Have them do that and the states can with it as they please. There's no Constitutional crisis here
Click to expand...

Bah party pooper. Anarchy? hardly. Rule of law? whose law? states? Fed? Rule of law would also affect all the Medical Marijuana states, good luck with rolling back the clock on that.

More state stats here http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881
28-states-map-2.png


And until they figure it out all I can say be excellent to each other and party on dude!
 
Our laws say that the feds control substances just like they control security at airports and firearms just to name a couple. States legalizing a substance doesn't change that. States can't put an initiative on the ballot to set up shops where they can sell Rx drugs like Vicodin, Valium, beta blockers or even Viagra w/o a doctor's permission. It doesn't work that way.
 
vi edit said:
Ok, instead of legal, then not not criminalized. However you want to spin the words to fit the narrative there. As for civil rights, gay marriage, abortion, and who can use what bathroom certain are applicable there. If you want to fit under the terms of legal vs illegal, then states will do just as they did with pot and not punish for it.
Click to expand...

There is no spin. I want to see MJ decriminalized but the concept of doing away with established law by giving it a finger results in the potential issue here. In terms of "not punishing" I don't think AZ would have fared well under Holder and Obama if they did the same. In fact they didn't and rightfully so.

This is not a hard concept.
 
Sea Ray said:
Our laws say that the feds control substances just like they control security at airports and firearms just to name a couple. States legalizing a substance doesn't change that. States can't put an initiative on the ballot to set up shops where they can sell Rx drugs like Vicodin, Valium, beta blockers or even Viagra w/o a doctor's permission. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...


Well thanks for the civics lesson. You say it doesn't work that way but yet there is evidence right in front of you that it does, I don't know what else to say.
 
Vic said:
Those 'criminals' are acting in good faith that they are not breaking law, as evidenced by their state-issued business licenses, and the taxes that they are in fact paying from the proceeds of their 'criminal' operations. Those treaty-violating state laws were passed by popular vote, with supermajorities in a couple states IIRC.
Like I said, there's no mens rea. So maybe the feds shut down some growers and dispensaries and seize a bunch of pot for their personal use, they're still not going to get convictions in court. But they will piss off a whole bunch of people, and not just potheads.
Click to expand...


Do I really have to link to the CSA?

As far as "popular vote" that has nothing whatsoever to do with it and in a state court there may not be convictions, but in Federal? Yeah that can happen.

The argument being put forward is that the Constitution, binding treaty and Federal law should be tossed by popular state vote. Well hells bells there's no moral argument for me following any law then, just consequences by the powerful, and Trump is acting just fine if he does the same.

No, that can't stand and where were you people when this was going on thinking that ignoring federal law would be approved in perpetuity? Why didn't you hold your own to account?
 
soulcougher73 said:
How about we all just stay out of other peoples lives? As long as whatever they are doing does not impact your life directly in a negative way. Live and let live and leave your personal morals at the door.
Click to expand...

One of the principals behind the original war on drugs was that it was presumed that it was impacting other people's lives, via crime and whatnot. I mean it was a complete fallacy (the hard drug usage was/is a symptom, not a cause, and pot wasn't really even in the equation), but this was at least one instance where at least some portion of the original concept wasn't simply 'tell you how to live' politics.
 
As long as MJ use is against federal law anyone who works for the government or has a CDL or works at or for a company that services refineries, chemical plants, or DOT regulated business, those who live in the states that have legalized MJ will still be subject to random drug screens.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
As long as MJ use is against federal law anyone who works for the government or has a CDL or works at or for a company that services refineries, chemical plants, or DOT regulated business, those who live in the states that have legalized MJ will still be subject to random drug screens.
Click to expand...

This, I won't truly consider it legalized until a govt civvie can poke smot without getting shitcanned.

Mil I'll exclude because they're always behind the times, sometimes for good reason.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Do I really have to link to the CSA?

As far as "popular vote" that has nothing whatsoever to do with it and in a state court there may not be convictions, but in Federal? Yeah that can happen.

The argument being put forward is that the Constitution, binding treaty and Federal law should be tossed by popular state vote. Well hells bells there's no moral argument for me following any law then, just consequences by the powerful, and Trump is acting just fine if he does the same.

No, that can't stand and where were you people when this was going on thinking that ignoring federal law would be approved in perpetuity? Why didn't you hold your own to account?
Click to expand...


I understand the Supremacy clause and the controlled substance act. But the point remains that I feel we are falsely represented. It has to take states showing up en mass and voting it in as a majority that it's something "the people want". The fact that it has passed in so many states already just further makes me scratch my head at the resistance to at least reschedule it. Let alone further try and punish for it.

But that's the GOP way. Oppress, oppress, oppress and look confused why your outcomes never turn out the way you want. See also: slipping church attendance, pregnancy to abstinence rates, prohibition and the war on drugs.
 
Thebobo said:
Well thanks for the civics lesson. You say it doesn't work that way but yet there is evidence right in front of you that it does, I don't know what else to say.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your definition of "works". It's not legal for states to sell schedule 1 drugs. Just because the feds haven't enforced the law doesn't mean it's working. These states are susceptible to a federal raid and it'd be perfectly legal to do so. "I don't know what else to say."
 
Londo_Jowo said:
As long as MJ use is against federal law anyone who works for the government or has a CDL or works at or for a company that services refineries, chemical plants, or DOT regulated business, those who live in the states that have legalized MJ will still be subject to random drug screens.
Click to expand...

So let me get this right you are saying that in states with Legal Marijuana that US gov employees in that state are subject to random drug screens?
 
vi edit said:
I understand the Supremacy clause and the controlled substance act. But the point remains that I feel we are falsely represented. It has to take states showing up en mass and voting it in as a majority that it's something "the people want". The fact that it has passed in so many states already just further makes me scratch my head at the resistance to at least reschedule it. Let alone further try and punish for it.

But that's the GOP way. Oppress, oppress, oppress and look confused why your outcomes never turn out the way you want. See also: slipping church attendance, pregnancy to abstinence rates, prohibition and the war on drugs.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard Chuck Shumer or any other powerful Dem campaign on dropping pot as a controlled substance
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Do I really have to link to the CSA?

As far as "popular vote" that has nothing whatsoever to do with it and in a state court there may not be convictions, but in Federal? Yeah that can happen.

The argument being put forward is that the Constitution, binding treaty and Federal law should be tossed by popular state vote. Well hells bells there's no moral argument for me following any law then, just consequences by the powerful, and Trump is acting just fine if he does the same.

No, that can't stand and where were you people when this was going on thinking that ignoring federal law would be approved in perpetuity? Why didn't you hold your own to account?
Click to expand...

My argument is that there is no mens rea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
 
Been 30 years with the Federal government and never had or heard of any drug testing for the majority of employees. Yes there are sensitive positions where it is done but its not normal
 
Heh. Prohibition is snake bit. Expect a lot of drama before it's truly dead. The only reason it could ever stand & be marginally effective was because of state law & local enforcement, not to mention decades of reefer madness propaganda. There never was any Justice to it.

It was broken back in 1996 when the Clinton Admin allowed MMJ in CA and damaged beyond repair with the passage of A64 here in CO in 2012. President Mitt could have shut down Retail but the Feds can't effectively enforce possession & personal cultivation prohibition w/o local support. They don't have the manpower or the support of the population required to avoid jury nullification, either, prosecutors' worst nightmare.

Forced to choose, Obama & Holder did the right thing. The only thing Trump & Sessions can accomplish is to force it underground, deny state revenue & provide market opportunities for criminal cartels. It would also engender more disrespect for the Law than we already have.

The other side of it is that well cultivated fear of the unknown is fading fast because, unsurprisingly, facts really do have a Liberal bias. With all the data gathered here in CO it's perfectly obvious that legalization is superior public policy. Even poorly informed country folk in Jeff's home state know that CO isn't suffering from the effects.

Ol' Jeff can go post-truth with this if he wants but I don't think it will sell & will actually damage Admin credibility even further.

Every dollar spent on Federal (and State) marijuana law enforcement is a dollar diverted from law enforcement wrt to drugs that ruin lives & kill people. Not that Jeff seems to care about much other than making the prison industrial complex into more of a profit center than it already is-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-private-prisons-sessions_us_58af529ce4b0a8a9b780669a

It really doesn't matter who gets locked up or why when there's money to be made. Not to the stockholders- the more the merrier, just so long as it's not them.
 
Thebobo said:
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anything about testing?
Click to expand...
Even though you been selected in years, all federal employees are subject to random drug testing. In the event of a work place accident a drug screen will be done. This has been in effect since 1986.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top