Pot legalization in OH

[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.

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.
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.

Then, as I said -- your argument is based on your admittedly subjective opinion, and need not be addressed.

 

[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.
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.

Then, as I said -- your argument is based on your admittedly subjective opinion, and need not be addressed.

When subjective judgment has been accepted as the basis of prosecutorial discretion by the courts, its immediately relevant.

And with you having rejected the 'a law's existence justifies its enforcement' nonsense, you have no rational reason to dedicate resources to enforcing pot laws. Merely the will to do so.

Will without reason......is a historically poor basis to make decisions from.

 

[Flopper]

Comes up for a vote today.
If passed, the state will license 10 farms to grow pot for recreational consumption.

Of course, this will result in any number of federal felonies and lengthy terms in federal prisons - or at least it would if the federal government is serious about enforcing its laws.

Laws are only enforced it enough people want them enforce. Pot usage is a good example but also immigration laws, prohibition laws, and laws that were never meant to be enforced. There are so many laws in the country that you're probably violating one just by breathing.

 

[MikeK]

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.

Maybe this is why the fed hasn't moved against Alaska, Oregon and Colorado. The pot-prohibitionists in Congress who are well-greased by a special-interest lobby fear the consequent court battle and the likelihood they will lose.

 

[MikeK]

I find it encouraging that the topic has evolved into a moot court discussion on the relevant laws rather than arguments for and against the use of marijuana. This suggests a weakening of the Reefer Madness fanatics' position.

 

[Skylar]

I find it encouraging that the topic has evolved into a moot court discussion on the relevant laws rather than arguments for and against the use of marijuana. This suggests a weakening of the Reefer Madness fanatics' position.

Its a tough position to advocate on its merits. Even the 'a laws existence justifies its enforcement' mantra is some weak tea. As there are *lots* of stupid laws on the books that aren't enforced.

 

[Auld Phart]

Ohio
Issue 3 - Legalize Marijuana
Updated Tue Nov 03 2105 EST 2015 - 15% reporting
34%

Yes
263,450 votes
66%

No
502,961 votes

 

[Auld Phart]

It died.

Ohio votes down legalizing pot for medical, recreational use

 

[sealybobo]

I find it encouraging that the topic has evolved into a moot court discussion on the relevant laws rather than arguments for and against the use of marijuana. This suggests a weakening of the Reefer Madness fanatics' position.

Oh their position has been weak for a very long time. I've been smoking pot illegally for 20 years but now I have a medical marijuana card. I wasn't hurting anyone before or now.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ohio had a sudden bout of sanity! Houston voted down their ridiculous LBGT law too. It gives some hope that the future won't be quite so bleak.

 

[jillian]

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.
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.

Then, as I said -- your argument is based on your admittedly subjective opinion, and need not be addressed.

as opposed to everyone else's opinions?

 

[jillian]

Ohio had a sudden bout of sanity! Houston voted down their ridiculous LBGT law too. It gives some hope that the future won't be quite so bleak.

it's LGBT....

what's wrong with not discriminating?

oh yeah, i forgot what type of people you are.

 

[Katzndogz]

Kentucky finally got a GOP Governor.

It might be the start of a rebellion against liberalism.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Maybe this is why the fed hasn't moved against Alaska, Oregon and Colorado. The pot-prohibitionists in Congress who are well-greased by a special-interest lobby fear the consequent court battle and the likelihood they will lose.

As we have seen in illegal immigration enforcement, federal enforcement without the cooperation of local law enforcement is nearly impossible. DEA agents lack the CI's, knowledge of neighborhoods and the logistical support of local police. When state statues are in conflict with federal law, local law enforcement will invariable enforce state and local laws. Federal law enforcement, simple places arresting people for using and selling pot in states where it is legal, at low priority.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Why? Pot being illegal is wildly inconsistent.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not the 'legalized all drugs!' advocate. I think its perfectly legitimate for a society to deem the social harm of a drug too high to be legal. But once an acceptable level of social harm has been determined, logic would follow that anything less harmful than that level would also be legal.

I mean, if its legal to go 35 in a 35mph zone, surely its legal to go 33.

And we've established our acceptable level of harm: alcohol. In what world is pot more dangerous than alcohol?

My world and the world of those who developed anxiety and depression issues caused by pot. Add to that the threat of pot users inflicting their drug onto others and you have way more reason to keep pot illegal. Your ignorance or denial of these realities is no excuse to permit more irresponsibility.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Why? Pot being illegal is wildly inconsistent.

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

Which is wildly inconsistent. As pot is less dangerous than alcohol....which we've already determined creates an acceptable level of social harm.

Outlaw alcohol also.

 

[MikeK]

My world and the world of those who developed anxiety and depression issues caused by pot. Add to that the threat of pot users inflicting their drug onto others and you have way more reason to keep pot illegal. Your ignorance or denial of these realities is no excuse to permit more irresponsibility.

Of the many, many millions of Americans who enjoy the effects of marijuana, you belong to an extreme minority of those who simply should not use it because of biological or psychological reasons.

 

[MikeK]

Why? Pot being illegal is wildly inconsistent.

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

Which is wildly inconsistent. As pot is less dangerous than alcohol....which we've already determined creates an acceptable level of social harm.

Outlaw alcohol also.

You might be interested to learn that was already tried. It was called Prohibition and it turned out to be a disaster -- much like marijuana prohibition has been.

 

[auditor0007]

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

Most pot smokers voted against it due to the monopoly that a few people would have growing it. That along with the fact that they wanted to make pot candy for sale also, which was a bad idea. It went down by a 2 to 1 margin, even though the majority of Ohioans support legalization.

 

[strollingbones]

even stoners know a bad idea when they see it....the monopoly shit did not fly