On Trump and his administration policies

[Slade3200]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

You did so good in the first half of that sentence but then you screwed it all up! Close though, i'll give you credit for that

I don't need drug tweaked losers breaking into my home stealing my property to support their habit or killing people on public roads and streets. So fine take all the drugs you want, but if you commit a crime you pay a heavy price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

 

[BluesLegend]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

You did so good in the first half of that sentence but then you screwed it all up! Close though, i'll give you credit for that

I don't need drug tweaked losers breaking into my home stealing my property to support their habit or killing people on public roads and streets. So fine take all the drugs you want, but if you commit a crime you pay a heavy price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

 

[OKTexas]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it.


.

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing..

Wrong. Take a course in ConLaw, your simple explanation is much more complicated than you know. You may wish that States Rights are sacrosanct, they are not, nor are most of the Bill of Rights.

Remember, I'm talking to a regressive, I have to keep it simple. But even people going to Harvard law aren't required to take Conlaw, why should I bother? The Constitution isn't nearly as complicated as most people try to make it. Of course that's totally different than the Constitution as annotated.


.

 

[Slade3200]

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing.

.

The Pot law has to do with regulation it is not a constitutional issue unless you can show me where in the constitution it outlaws the use of pot. The supreme court deals with constitutional issues.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.


.

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the powers of the Courts and gives Congress the power to organize it, which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789

SECTION 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


The courts have no authority to rewrite or alter laws in any manner, that is left to congress. Also you didn't provide the authority the feds have over marriage, at least drugs can be covered under the interstate commerce clause.


.

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 

[OKTexas]

they would have to amend the CSA. They need to remove it from the schedule drug list and be done. They dont need to legalize it. Thats needless.
Its retarded its even on there but big pharma and alcohol LOVE IT

It is the same thing! Removing it from the list legalizes it. It takes an act of congress. Why are we nit picking over this, do you not understand my point?

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?


.

 

[Slade3200]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

You did so good in the first half of that sentence but then you screwed it all up! Close though, i'll give you credit for that

I don't need drug tweaked losers breaking into my home stealing my property to support their habit or killing people on public roads and streets. So fine take all the drugs you want, but if you commit a crime you pay a heavy price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Slade3200]

It is the same thing! Removing it from the list legalizes it. It takes an act of congress. Why are we nit picking over this, do you not understand my point?

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing.

.

The Pot law has to do with regulation it is not a constitutional issue unless you can show me where in the constitution it outlaws the use of pot. The supreme court deals with constitutional issues.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.


.

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the powers of the Courts and gives Congress the power to organize it, which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789

SECTION 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


The courts have no authority to rewrite or alter laws in any manner, that is left to congress. Also you didn't provide the authority the feds have over marriage, at least drugs can be covered under the interstate commerce clause.


.

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

 

[BluesLegend]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

You did so good in the first half of that sentence but then you screwed it all up! Close though, i'll give you credit for that

I don't need drug tweaked losers breaking into my home stealing my property to support their habit or killing people on public roads and streets. So fine take all the drugs you want, but if you commit a crime you pay a heavy price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We have never had a war on drugs. The Phillipines has a war on drugs. Singapore had a war on drugs and pretty much won. There is no such thing as a war until there are active steps taken against the object of war. We have had an accommodation of drugs, counseling, half way houses, rehab, medical care, alternative sentencing, but no war on drugs. We need one. Drag the addicts out of the beds and shoot them in the park. China had a war on drugs until they found a use for addicts.

 

[OKTexas]

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

And Sessions has every right under federal law to confiscate every dime they make on it and shut them down.


.

 

[bendog]

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

 

[OKTexas]

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

 

[bendog]

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Grow a pair.

 

[OKTexas]

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

I never considered it a 10th amend issue, but you're right that the fed govt has never had the power to force the states to use stage funded resources to simply enforce a federal law. The feds have in instances basically coerced state behavior by sending them money. So if a state wants to consider pot as a legal substance, it can. The FBI can still come in and bust all the pot dispenceries under fed law, but that would not be politically wise move.

It's not a 10th amendment issue as long as you accept the feds having the authority to regulate everything that might even have a tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether that commerce be legal or illegal.


.

Grow a pair.

Is that really the best you got? LMAO


.

 

[Slade3200]

The Pot law has to do with regulation it is not a constitutional issue unless you can show me where in the constitution it outlaws the use of pot. The supreme court deals with constitutional issues.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.


.

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the powers of the Courts and gives Congress the power to organize it, which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789

SECTION 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


The courts have no authority to rewrite or alter laws in any manner, that is left to congress. Also you didn't provide the authority the feds have over marriage, at least drugs can be covered under the interstate commerce clause.


.

Agreed, The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws and set precedent as to how they are regulated and enforced. They do not write law. The supreme court didn't write a law in the marriage case. The decided that DOMA was unconstitutional as it discriminated against classes of people and denied them equal protection under the equal protections clause of the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Wrong they ignored the fact that faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, there was no discrimination or denial of due process. But SCOTUS took it upon themselves to rewrite the ACA twice and instituted an unconstitutional direct tax while they were at it.


.

Whoa, now we are onto the ACA?? Slow down turbo. What did they rewrite? They deemed DOMA, which is a law, unconstitutional and explained their reasoning. Homosexuals did not have the same rights under that law and it was in conflict with the constitution according to their decision.

 

[Slade3200]

You did so good in the first half of that sentence but then you screwed it all up! Close though, i'll give you credit for that

I don't need drug tweaked losers breaking into my home stealing my property to support their habit or killing people on public roads and streets. So fine take all the drugs you want, but if you commit a crime you pay a heavy price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody needs that and that isn't what im advocating. Do you think because I support legalizing drugs i'm supporting more people to use them? Try rethinking that, you are completely incorrect

I understand the chemical addiction of drugs, your policy would result in a significant increase in addicts, those addicts will commit crimes, innocent people will suffer, fact. So what should be the consequence?

Is that what has happened in Washington and Colorado? What about other countries where drugs are legal? Where is your evidence to back up that claim? Also, what if the revenue generated went into anti-drug education campaigns and rehabilitation centers and quality control. Those efforts would reduce use, addiction, and death...

Seattle Times - Acknowledging the presence of open-air drug dealing and associated crime in Seattle’s downtown core, city and police officials and business leaders say they are embarking on an ambitious effort to shut down the markets and take the most violent offenders off the street.

Good... If open air drug dealing is illegal then they should crack down. Take the turf war and dealers off the streets and Control the process in designated places of business.

 

[Slade3200]

We have never had a war on drugs. The Phillipines has a war on drugs. Singapore had a war on drugs and pretty much won. There is no such thing as a war until there are active steps taken against the object of war. We have had an accommodation of drugs, counseling, half way houses, rehab, medical care, alternative sentencing, but no war on drugs. We need one. Drag the addicts out of the beds and shoot them in the park. China had a war on drugs until they found a use for addicts.

Are you trying to be serious?

 

[Slade3200]

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So where do the States get the power to establish their own drug cartels in defiance of federal law?
.

The 10th amendment gives them that right. The act is still illegal and enforceable at a federal level but states are not required to enforce the federal laws.

And Sessions has every right under federal law to confiscate every dime they make on it and shut them down.


.

He has the right to enforce the law sure. I don't know if confiscation is justified, there will definitely be legal battles, plus that fact that it would be perhaps the dumbest move that the DOJ and the Trump administration could take at this point.