Pot legalization in OH

[Skylar]

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.

No, you've told me what my argument is......and were laughably wrong. Its known as the strawman fallacy.

You can't actually address my argument as it exists. You can only awkwardly try and paraphrase me, changing my argument in the process. There's no need. My argument is one sentence long:

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.

And it continues to stump you cold.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

No, you've told me what my argument is......and were laughably wrong. Its known as the strawman fallacy.

You can't actually address my argument as it exists. You can only awkwardly try and paraphrase me, changing my argument in the process. There's no need. My argument is one sentence long:

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.

And it continues to stump you cold.

Yes... and I asked you a question to test your argument.
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]

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

The commerce clause covers interstate trade, and there is no mention of congress having explicit control over drug laws.

As a strict constructional federalist, I see the States having the power to decide drug laws in their own borders.

 

[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

The commerce clause covers interstate trade, and there is no mention of congress having explicit control over drug laws.
As a strict constructional federalist, I see the States having the power to decide drug laws in their own borders.

Congress having power to regulate intrastate commerce that affects interstate commerce is well established and has been for decades.

 

[Skylar]

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?

My argument would be that its not my assessment that matters. But the executive who is enforcing those laws. As I've already made ludicrously clear in my comments on prosecutorial discretion.

And you predictably ignored.

And as you've already abandoned your 'a law's existence mandates its enforcement' nonsense, you'll need more than the existence of federal pot laws to mandate the allocation of resources to enforce it. And you don't have any such argument.

Which is my point.

 

[Skylar]

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.

No, you've told me what my argument is......and were laughably wrong. Its known as the strawman fallacy.

You can't actually address my argument as it exists. You can only awkwardly try and paraphrase me, changing my argument in the process. There's no need. My argument is one sentence long:

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.

And it continues to stump you cold.

Yes... and I asked you a question to test your argument.
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?

No, you told me what my argument was. You can't actually address my argument as its written.

As for your question, please refer to my comments on prosecutorial discretion.

 

[BlackFlag]

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.

Oh the money will be going to 10 American LLC's instead of the cartels that are destroying our southern neighbors and fueling illegal immigration?! The horror!

 

[M14 Shooter]

My argument would be that its not my assessment that matters. But the executive who is enforcing those laws.

Convenient.
Perhaps someday this will be tested; should that be the case, I look forward to your responses.

 

[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?

Supremacy Clause
Commerce Clause
"Substantial Effect” Commerce Clause Power

The commerce clause covers interstate trade, and there is no mention of congress having explicit control over drug laws.

As a strict constructional federalist, I see the States having the power to decide drug la

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

The commerce clause covers interstate trade, and there is no mention of congress having explicit control over drug laws.
As a strict constructional federalist, I see the States having the power to decide drug laws in their own borders.

Congress having power to regulate intrastate commerce that affects interstate commerce is well established and has been for decades.

And in-state legalization of pot affects interstate commerce how?

And not some 3 degrees of separation progressive approved link, a tangible link.

 

[Skylar]

My argument would be that its not my assessment that matters. But the executive who is enforcing those laws.

Convenient.

Consistent. As my comments on prosecutorial discretion demonstrate. Comments which precede your question by pages.

And of course, the courts have long since recognized this discretion as a function of the Executive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you told me what my argument was. You can't actually address my argument as its written.

I don't really need to - your 'argument' is based n your assessment of the law; you take no issue with the refusal to enforce because you believe the law is "irrational and poorly thought through".
This is your subjective opinion, not an "argument".

 

[M14 Shooter]

My argument would be that its not my assessment that matters. But the executive who is enforcing those laws.

Convenient.

Consistent

Even if true, that does not preclude it being convenient.

 

[BlindBoo]

The federal laws prohibiting the use of cannabis/hemp are unconstitutional. It took a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol. The original prohibitory tax was deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Skylar]

My argument would be that its not my assessment that matters. But the executive who is enforcing those laws.

Convenient.

Consistent

Even if true, that does not preclude it being convenient.

Intellectual consistency is often pretty tidy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The federal laws prohibiting the use of cannabis/hemp are unconstitutional.
It took a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol. The original prohibitory tax was deemed unconstitutional.

Hmm.
Do you then agree that the federal law banning the sale of 'assault weapons' was similarly unconstitutional?
If not, why not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

My argument would be that its not my assessment that matters. But the executive who is enforcing those laws.

Convenient.

Consistent

Even if true, that does not preclude it being convenient.

Intellectual consistency is often pretty tidy.

Which, again, does not preclude it from being convenient.

 

[Skylar]

No, you told me what my argument was. You can't actually address my argument as its written.

I don't really need to - your 'argument' is based n your assessment of the law; you take no issue with the refusal to enforce because you believe the law is "irrational and poorly thought through".
This is your subjective opinion, not an "argument".

Actually, its based on the logic used by the courts when they found prosecutorial discretion a function of the executive. I happen to agree with them to the extent that it doesn't violate rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you told me what my argument was. You can't actually address my argument as its written.

I don't really need to - your 'argument' is based n your assessment of the law; you take no issue with the refusal to enforce because you believe the law is "irrational and poorly thought through".
This is your subjective opinion, not an "argument".

Actually, its based on the logic used by the courts when they found prosecutorial discretion a function of the executive. I happen to agree with them to the extent that it doesn't violate rights.

You standard, as you stated, is "irrational and poorly thought through".
That is subjective.

 

[BlindBoo]

The federal laws prohibiting the use of cannabis/hemp are unconstitutional.
It took a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol. The original prohibitory tax was deemed unconstitutional.

Hmm.
Do you then agree that the federal law banning the sale of 'assault weapons' was similarly unconstitutional?
If not, why not?

I do. The only way to get around the 2nd Amendment is to amend the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

No, you told me what my argument was. You can't actually address my argument as its written.

I don't really need to - your 'argument' is based n your assessment of the law; you take no issue with the refusal to enforce because you believe the law is "irrational and poorly thought through".
This is your subjective opinion, not an "argument".

Actually, its based on the logic used by the courts when they found prosecutorial discretion a function of the executive. I happen to agree with them to the extent that it doesn't violate rights.

You standard, as you stated, is "irrational and poorly thought through".
That is subjective.

Absolutely. As is the assessment of virtually every priority. But subjectivity doesn't preclude the executive's authority to apply his/her best judgement in assessing those priorities. And allocating resources appropriately.

And that application of judgment to set priorities is what the court's found as a function of the executive.

I think its a poor application of resources to enforce stupid, irrational, and poorly thought through laws. And I can make a pretty solid argument that pot laws are such laws.