Pot legalization in OH

[Skylar]

I've heard its also illegal to dress a chicken as a Franciscan monk. 'Chicken Frocking' has been illegal in the state for at least the last century.

 

[TNHarley]

Not to mention our founders would roll in their graves if they knew we outlawed something that grows in a ditch.

 

[BlackFlag]

Considering its level of acceptance and the obvious momentum toward legalization, if the federal government made an aggressive move against marijuana users and (approved) sellers in states where it is now legal (or decriminalized)...

The law is the law - isn't it?
Doesn't the President take an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through.

I see - so as ling as you find a law "irrational and poorly thought through", you have no issue with the law not being enforced.

What argument then do you have for laws that you find "rational and well-thought through" not being enforced because those that refuse to enforce it disagree with your assessment?

Do you honk your horn when you pass a car you criminal?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Considering its level of acceptance and the obvious momentum toward legalization, if the federal government made an aggressive move against marijuana users and (approved) sellers in states where it is now legal (or decriminalized)...

The law is the law - isn't it?
Doesn't the President take an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

Other laws that are not enforced in Ohio:
- 5 women cannot live in the same house
- women cannot wear leather shoes in public
- you must honk your horn when passing a car
- it is illegal to sell colored chickens

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sister and 2 brothers, 4 nephews and 2 nieces, and their spouses, have already voted against it this morning.

I plan to vote against it after work.

why

I agree with the tenets of issue 2 and disagree with the tenets of issue 3.

 

[Skylar]

Considering its level of acceptance and the obvious momentum toward legalization, if the federal government made an aggressive move against marijuana users and (approved) sellers in states where it is now legal (or decriminalized)...

The law is the law - isn't it?
Doesn't the President take an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through.

I see - so as ling as you find a law "irrational and poorly thought through", you have no issue with the law not being enforced.

More accurately:

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through. I think rational laws that are more beneficial to society should receive a far higher priority and more resources.

In Idaho its illegal to ride a merry go round on Sundays. I would think its a better use of resources to target say, drunk drivers than serial Sunday merry go rounders.

Generally speaking if you're editing out my actual reply in order to paraphrase your own version.....your argument needs some work.

 

[BlackFlag]

Considering its level of acceptance and the obvious momentum toward legalization, if the federal government made an aggressive move against marijuana users and (approved) sellers in states where it is now legal (or decriminalized)...

The law is the law - isn't it?
Doesn't the President take an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

Other laws that are not enforced in Ohio:
- 5 women cannot live in the same house
- women cannot wear leather shoes in public
- you must honk your horn when passing a car
- it is illegal to sell colored chickens

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

A stupid law is a stupid law. Doesn't matter the scope.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The law is the law - isn't it?
Doesn't the President take an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through.

I see - so as ling as you find a law "irrational and poorly thought through", you have no issue with the law not being enforced.

More accurately:

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through. I think rational laws that are more beneficial to society should receive a far higher priority and more resources.

Generally speaking if you're editing out my actual reply in order to paraphrase your own version.....your argument needs some work.

Speaking of which, I did not see your answer:
What argument then do you have for laws that you find "rational and well-thought through" not being enforced because those that refuse to enforce it disagree with your assessment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The law is the law - isn't it?
Doesn't the President take an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the US?

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

Other laws that are not enforced in Ohio:
- 5 women cannot live in the same house
- women cannot wear leather shoes in public
- you must honk your horn when passing a car
- it is illegal to sell colored chickens

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

A stupid law is a stupid law. Doesn't matter the scope.

In this case, you are discussing apples and oranges.

 

[Skylar]

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through.

I see - so as ling as you find a law "irrational and poorly thought through", you have no issue with the law not being enforced.

More accurately:

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through. I think rational laws that are more beneficial to society should receive a far higher priority and more resources.

Generally speaking if you're editing out my actual reply in order to paraphrase your own version.....your argument needs some work.

Speaking of which, I did not see your answer:
What argument then do you have for laws that you find "rational and well-thought through" not being enforced because those that refuse to enforce it disagree with your assessment?

I have argued that laws that are irrational and poorly thought through should be given lower priority and fewer resources than those laws that are more rational and actually benefit society.

That's my argument. Address it if you wish. Or ignore it. But it doesn't magically morph because you have no rational counter for it.

 

[Skylar]

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

Other laws that are not enforced in Ohio:
- 5 women cannot live in the same house
- women cannot wear leather shoes in public
- you must honk your horn when passing a car
- it is illegal to sell colored chickens

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

A stupid law is a stupid law. Doesn't matter the scope.

In this case, you are discussing apples and oranges.

You're arguing enforcement because it is a law. Using your standard, its apples and apples.

As you're arguing that stupid laws should be enforced because they're laws. Well, embrace the stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through.

I see - so as ling as you find a law "irrational and poorly thought through", you have no issue with the law not being enforced.

More accurately:

I find the law irrational and poorly thought through. I think rational laws that are more beneficial to society should receive a far higher priority and more resources.

Generally speaking if you're editing out my actual reply in order to paraphrase your own version.....your argument needs some work.

Speaking of which, I did not see your answer:
What argument then do you have for laws that you find "rational and well-thought through" not being enforced because those that refuse to enforce it disagree with your assessment?

I have argued that laws that are irrational and poorly thought through should be given lower priority and fewer resources than those laws that are more rational and actually benefit society.

That's my argument. Address it if you wish. Or ignore it. But it doesn't magically morph because you have no rational counter for it.

Yes... and I asked you a question to test your argument, should you be on the other side.

What argument do you have for laws that you find "rational and well-thought through" but are not being enforced because those that refuse to enforce it disagree with your assessment?

Well?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

Other laws that are not enforced in Ohio:
- 5 women cannot live in the same house
- women cannot wear leather shoes in public
- you must honk your horn when passing a car
- it is illegal to sell colored chickens

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

A stupid law is a stupid law. Doesn't matter the scope.

In this case, you are discussing apples and oranges.

You're arguing enforcement because it is a law. Using your standard, its apples and apples.
As you're arguing that stupid laws should be enforced because they're laws. Well, embrace the stupid.

i explained the difference.
if you can't handle it, I'm not too worried about it.

 

[BlackFlag]

Its the prerogative of any enforcer of the law to prioritize what area of the law is most important. Its called 'prosecutorial discretion."
And I can see a president making a stupid, wildly inconsistent law a lower priority than more rational laws.

So... because you don;t like the law, you have no issue with the law not being enforced.
Correct?

Other laws that are not enforced in Ohio:
- 5 women cannot live in the same house
- women cannot wear leather shoes in public
- you must honk your horn when passing a car
- it is illegal to sell colored chickens

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

A stupid law is a stupid law. Doesn't matter the scope.

In this case, you are discussing apples and oranges.

If you look at the effect legalization has had in Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska you would be inclined to say I'm comparing apples and apples.

 

[martybegan]

Why? Pot being illegal is wildly inconsistent.

Except that it isn't -- it is illegal everywhere under federal law.

I don't know how many pot plants you can grow on 49 acres, but i do know that it falls under the maximum possible federal penalty for trafficking.

How do the Feds gain control over this anyway? If the farms are in Ohio, and the sales are in Ohio, and the people of Ohio want it, why should the feds hold jurisdiction?

 

[Skylar]

Other laws that are not enforced in Ohio:
- 5 women cannot live in the same house
- women cannot wear leather shoes in public
- you must honk your horn when passing a car
- it is illegal to sell colored chickens

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

A stupid law is a stupid law. Doesn't matter the scope.

In this case, you are discussing apples and oranges.

You're arguing enforcement because it is a law. Using your standard, its apples and apples.
As you're arguing that stupid laws should be enforced because they're laws. Well, embrace the stupid.

i explained the difference.
if you can't handle it, I'm not too worried about it.

Your difference is irrelevant to your standard. As you are quite literally arguing that a law should be enforced *because it exists*.

Either a laws existence mandates its enforcement...or it doesn't. Pick one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why? Pot being illegal is wildly inconsistent.

Except that it isn't -- it is illegal everywhere under federal law.

I don't know how many pot plants you can grow on 49 acres, but i do know that it falls under the maximum possible federal penalty for trafficking.

How do the Feds gain control over this anyway? If the farms are in Ohio, and the sales are in Ohio, and the people of Ohio want it, why should the feds hold jurisdiction?

Supremacy Clause
Commerce Clause
"Substantial Effect” Commerce Clause Power

 

[Alystyr]

If passed, the state will license 10 farms to grow pot for recreational consumption.

There is that, and if you noticed, all 10 farms would belong to the 10 big investors that make up ResponsibleOhio.
Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Issue 3 (2015) - Ballotpedia

Well that's lame. You want to keep that money in the hands of the cartels huh?

See above. The money will still be going to a cartel, but it would be a group of 10 LLCs instead of outright criminals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

These are current federal felonies that lead to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail?
No?
Thanks.

A stupid law is a stupid law. Doesn't matter the scope.

In this case, you are discussing apples and oranges.

You're arguing enforcement because it is a law. Using your standard, its apples and apples.
As you're arguing that stupid laws should be enforced because they're laws. Well, embrace the stupid.

i explained the difference.
if you can't handle it, I'm not too worried about it.

Your difference is irrelevant to your standard. As you are quite literally arguing that a law should be enforced *because it exists*.
Either a laws existence mandates its enforcement...or it doesn't. Pick one.

As i said: if you can't handle it, I'm not too worried about it.

Now then:
What argument do you have for laws that you find "rational and well-thought through" but are not being enforced because those that refuse to enforce it disagree with your assessment?

Well?

 

[martybegan]

When we ended prohibition usage AND alcohol related offenses(crimes) went DOWN. WHO in their RIGHT mind wouldn't want the same for bud?

Its partly inertia, and partly a fear that it will lead to other drugs being legalized. I figure its time to at least try pot legalization, and hopefully we can see a reduction in the militarization of the our police forces.

The drug war isn't working, time to try something else, including removing some of the drugs from the banned list to concentrate on the ones that truly are detriments to society.