Sessions, Pot, The UNITED S Of A, & State Laws That Are Illegal

[TheTechnologist]

Cannabis has nothing to do with "narcotics".

Then petition Congress to remove it from Schedule 1. Otherwise your state is practicing sedition of the Union.

No it's not.

A state can have its own laws on how to regulate a substance, it doesn't have to match Federal Law, the Federal government has responsibility to enforce its own laws.

 

[Pogo]

Cannabis has nothing to do with "narcotics".

Then petition Congress to remove it from Schedule 1. Otherwise your state is practicing sedition of the Union.

My state is doing no such thing, nor does it mean that. What it means is that the federal government is in this case engaging in deliberate mendacity.

So your overall question really boils down to -- and it's a fair question --- does the state level have the right to trump a federal law that is clearly and provably based on bullshit?

Actually such a fed law should have been disembowled by the Judicial Branch eons ago. The original legislation in fact, was --- the "Marihuana Tax Act" declared you had to pay a tax on a substance that was already declared illegal, which is blatant self-incrimination.

 

[TheTechnologist]

The US government collects taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If those states are going to deal in it, there needs to be taxes paid on it.

I can't wait until states like Colorado and California gets their pot tax bill from the IRS.

The feds can't tax activity that is against fed law. All the states have done is repealed STATE laws making pot illegal. Federalism allows that. Now the feds could in theory prosecute people in pot-legal states for federal law violations.
For a libertarian, you aren't very libertarian.

Not entirely true. That's how the Feds took down Al Capone: Not for bootlegging and other crimes, but for tax evasion.

"A person’s taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally."

Taxation of illegal income in the United States - Wikipedia

State pot sellers have to pay federal income tax on profits.

For a libertarian, you aren't much of a libertarian.

Libertarians are fucking hypocrites who support Nazism.

I should know. I ran as a Libertarian for State Senate and got the highest votes of all the Libertarians who ran that year across the state in 2016. Because I could, and to help out a Democrat by taking votes from a Republican.

 

[JGalt]

The US government collects taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If those states are going to deal in it, there needs to be taxes paid on it.

I can't wait until states like Colorado and California gets their pot tax bill from the IRS.

The feds can't tax activity that is against fed law. All the states have done is repealed STATE laws making pot illegal. Federalism allows that. Now the feds could in theory prosecute people in pot-legal states for federal law violations.
For a libertarian, you aren't very libertarian.

Not entirely true. That's how the Feds took down Al Capone: Not for bootlegging and other crimes, but for tax evasion.

"A person’s taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally."

Taxation of illegal income in the United States - Wikipedia

State pot sellers have to pay federal income tax on profits.

For a libertarian, you aren't much of a libertarian.

There are also federal excise taxes that need to be paid. Breweries for example pay those, even though President Trump has reduced the rate small breweries have to pay.

And I'm not a libertarian, I'm a right-winger. I'm not down with the libertarian's view on legalizing pot and isolationism.

 

[TheTechnologist]

The US government collects taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If those states are going to deal in it, there needs to be taxes paid on it.

I can't wait until states like Colorado and California gets their pot tax bill from the IRS.

The feds can't tax activity that is against fed law. All the states have done is repealed STATE laws making pot illegal. Federalism allows that. Now the feds could in theory prosecute people in pot-legal states for federal law violations.
For a libertarian, you aren't very libertarian.

Not entirely true. That's how the Feds took down Al Capone: Not for bootlegging and other crimes, but for tax evasion.

"A person’s taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally."

Taxation of illegal income in the United States - Wikipedia

State pot sellers have to pay federal income tax on profits.

For a libertarian, you aren't much of a libertarian.

There are also federal excise taxes that need to be paid. Breweries for example pay those, even though President Trump has reduced the rate small breweries have to pay.

Define small, show the section and exact legal writing of the Bill.

All you do is spread lies and bullshit.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Use of legalized marijuana threatened as Sessions rescinds Obama-era directive that eased federal enforcement

Ok. So there's a conflict. Some states say pot is legal. The fed says it's not. Yet we are the UNITED states of America, bound under federal laws on certain vital issues to preserve the cohesion of the Union. Like it or not, narcotics are part of those federally regulated ideas. Presumably someone thought that it might not be good for productivity as a nation, nor as a strong citizenry to all be laced out on mind-altering drugs; easy pickin's for enemies internally and abroad.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. Likewise we have federal laws about immigration, collecting taxes, child trafficking, tampering with the mail, etc. etc.

What California, Colorado and all the other states that "legalized" pot did wrong was: they disobeyed federal law. Let's take CA as an example. There, some folks got a petition together to get an initiative on the ballot. The petition from there goes to Sacramento for approval for inclusion on the ballot. The minute a petition suggesting breaking federal law passed their desks in Sacramento, that's where the idea was mandated to die. Just because those people decided to let the farce continue, doesn't make it any more legal than if CA decided to vote on whether or not illegal aliens can become citizens without due process...or if CA decided on its own that the fed couldn't collect taxes there. Or if CA voted that the fed could no longer have military bases in CA.

The initiative "legalizing" pot is an illegal initiative. It is null and void upon its face. It was mandated to have never gotten beyond Sacramento's process of sifting through legal and illegal initiatives. That's where the failure was. Ignorance is no excuse. Not even in Sacramento. They are mandated to follow the law.

What should have been done by these states who wanted legal pot, or any other federal statute revoked for some new trend, would have been to lobby Congress to change the federal listing of pot as Schedule 1 first, then downgrade it to a "legal" substance for recreation. But they jumped the gun and did it wrong. There seems to be a lot of that going on lately where states suddenly adopt some trend, usually some social trend from CA, and then force all other 49 states to abide by changing the law from the bottom up, without Congress' (the other 49 states') input.

This is a VERY bad precedent to set. It threatens the Union when rogue states force other states without their representation, to adopt repugnant ideas or laws without having a single voice of say in the process. Think about it. Sometimes even just one rogue judge in one rogue state can radically change longstanding social mores of all 50 states without their input or say, outside the Constitution and Congress, if the appeals process is oiled well enough for that rogue decision....

How Does California's Ballot Measure Process Work?

The proponents must submit the draft proposal to the Attorney General’s Office where the public can view it online and comment on it. This comment period lasts 30 days, and the proponents have five days following the end of the comment period to amend the proposal.....Within 50 days of submission to the Attorney General, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Department of Finance conduct a joint analysis on the proposal’s expected impact on state and local revenues, as well as estimated costs. The Attorney General’s Office uses this analysis to write the title and summary for the measure, which will be submitted to the Secretary of State and included on the signature gathering petitions.

So the CA AG was remiss in allowing a federally-illegal proposal to go forward in the first place! I think this was Kamala Harris who allowed this illegal ballot measure to proceed. Those of you who invested tons and now stand to lose tons because you just realized pot is federally illegal, can thank Kamala Harris for leading you astray.

OK, I don't smoke pot, but I think this is a state issue; same as abortion.

 

[Pogo]

What should have been done by these states who wanted legal pot, or any other federal statute revoked for some new trend, would have been to lobby Congress to change the federal listing of pot as Schedule 1 first, then downgrade it to a "legal" substance for recreation. But they jumped the gun and did it wrong. There seems to be a lot of that going on lately where states suddenly adopt some trend, usually some social trend from CA, and then force all other 49 states to abide by changing the law from the bottom up, without Congress' (the other 49 states') input.

This is a VERY bad precedent to set. It threatens the Union when rogue states force other states without their representation, to adopt repugnant ideas or laws without having a single voice of say in the process.

OK, fair and logical point as regards the legal process. But when such legislation is entrenched and protected by the PTB, radical revolutionary backlash IS going to occur in whatever form. This too is a way of applying pressure to that federal code, as you described. If it's an illegal one, whelp, that's what the obtusity of the fed made necessary, isn't it.

Not that it's a great analogy but I believe granting women the right to vote was also done on state levels before the FG capitulated and wrote it into the Constitution. The old saying goes "when the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow".

 

[JGalt]

The US government collects taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If those states are going to deal in it, there needs to be taxes paid on it.

I can't wait until states like Colorado and California gets their pot tax bill from the IRS.

The feds can't tax activity that is against fed law. All the states have done is repealed STATE laws making pot illegal. Federalism allows that. Now the feds could in theory prosecute people in pot-legal states for federal law violations.
For a libertarian, you aren't very libertarian.

Not entirely true. That's how the Feds took down Al Capone: Not for bootlegging and other crimes, but for tax evasion.

"A person’s taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally."

Taxation of illegal income in the United States - Wikipedia

State pot sellers have to pay federal income tax on profits.

For a libertarian, you aren't much of a libertarian.

There are also federal excise taxes that need to be paid. Breweries for example pay those, even though President Trump has reduced the rate small breweries have to pay.

Define small, show the section and exact legal writing of the Bill.

All you do is spread lies and bullshit.

Whaa? What "small" are you referring to? And what "bill"?

 

[Silhouette]

Cannabis has nothing to do with "narcotics".

Then petition Congress to remove it from Schedule 1. Otherwise your state is practicing sedition of the Union.

No it's not.

A state can have its own laws on how to regulate a substance, it doesn't have to match Federal Law, the Federal government has responsibility to enforce its own laws.

We aren't merely talking about substances here. We are talking about LAWS OF THE UNION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION. Like it or not, the fed has decided that FOR THE UNION'S SAKE we regulate hard mind-altering drugs available to the citizens. The logic is most probably that unregulated flow of mind-altering substances would have a tendency to degrade the citizenry to a stupor that foreign or internal enemies could take advantage of...not to mention rendering our country less productive on the global markets: also a threat to the Union. Just your favorite "pot" is not the only drug regulated on Schedule 1 remember. So a state arbitrarily deciding, without the permission or participation of the rest of the Union (Congress) in debate, that its favorite Schedule 1`drug is no longer illegal, means that any drug on Schedule 1 is subject to the same rogue "legalization" without participation from the rest of the Union.

So there's the sedition of the Union. It's about following federal laws and changing them only with the permission of the Union. Otherwise, a state can just decide it doesn't want to pay federal taxes anymore, or host military bases, or deliver the mail. Maybe a state wants full on porn being shown on prime time children's channels (FCC) and makes a law saying that's "OK" now? You see where the problem is.

Kamala Harris was remiss in her duty to nix the proposition until her state and other states debated the matter at the federal level, where the law still sits as potent as the day it was written.

 

[Silhouette]

Federal laws are changed via debate of the WHOLE NATION.

 

[Silhouette]

OK, fair and logical point as regards the legal process. But when such legislation is entrenched and protected by the PTB, radical revolutionary backlash IS going to occur in whatever form. This too is a way of applying pressure to that federal code, as you described. If it's an illegal one, whelp, that's what the obtusity of the fed made necessary, isn't it.

Not that it's a great analogy but I believe granting women the right to vote was also done on state levels before the FG capitulated and wrote it into the Constitution. The old saying goes "when the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow".

So, next up....heroin.... Oh, wait, that will never happen from this precedent, right?

 

[Pogo]

Use of legalized marijuana threatened as Sessions rescinds Obama-era directive that eased federal enforcement

Ok. So there's a conflict. Some states say pot is legal. The fed says it's not. Yet we are the UNITED states of America, bound under federal laws on certain vital issues to preserve the cohesion of the Union. Like it or not, narcotics are part of those federally regulated ideas. Presumably someone thought that it might not be good for productivity as a nation, nor as a strong citizenry to all be laced out on mind-altering drugs; easy pickin's for enemies internally and abroad.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. Likewise we have federal laws about immigration, collecting taxes, child trafficking, tampering with the mail, etc. etc.

What California, Colorado and all the other states that "legalized" pot did wrong was: they disobeyed federal law. Let's take CA as an example. There, some folks got a petition together to get an initiative on the ballot. The petition from there goes to Sacramento for approval for inclusion on the ballot. The minute a petition suggesting breaking federal law passed their desks in Sacramento, that's where the idea was mandated to die. Just because those people decided to let the farce continue, doesn't make it any more legal than if CA decided to vote on whether or not illegal aliens can become citizens without due process...or if CA decided on its own that the fed couldn't collect taxes there. Or if CA voted that the fed could no longer have military bases in CA.

The initiative "legalizing" pot is an illegal initiative. It is null and void upon its face. It was mandated to have never gotten beyond Sacramento's process of sifting through legal and illegal initiatives. That's where the failure was. Ignorance is no excuse. Not even in Sacramento. They are mandated to follow the law.

What should have been done by these states who wanted legal pot, or any other federal statute revoked for some new trend, would have been to lobby Congress to change the federal listing of pot as Schedule 1 first, then downgrade it to a "legal" substance for recreation. But they jumped the gun and did it wrong. There seems to be a lot of that going on lately where states suddenly adopt some trend, usually some social trend from CA, and then force all other 49 states to abide by changing the law from the bottom up, without Congress' (the other 49 states') input.

This is a VERY bad precedent to set. It threatens the Union when rogue states force other states without their representation, to adopt repugnant ideas or laws without having a single voice of say in the process. Think about it. Sometimes even just one rogue judge in one rogue state can radically change longstanding social mores of all 50 states without their input or say, outside the Constitution and Congress, if the appeals process is oiled well enough for that rogue decision....

How Does California's Ballot Measure Process Work?

The proponents must submit the draft proposal to the Attorney General’s Office where the public can view it online and comment on it. This comment period lasts 30 days, and the proponents have five days following the end of the comment period to amend the proposal.....Within 50 days of submission to the Attorney General, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Department of Finance conduct a joint analysis on the proposal’s expected impact on state and local revenues, as well as estimated costs. The Attorney General’s Office uses this analysis to write the title and summary for the measure, which will be submitted to the Secretary of State and included on the signature gathering petitions.

So the CA AG was remiss in allowing a federally-illegal proposal to go forward in the first place! I think this was Kamala Harris who allowed this illegal ballot measure to proceed. Those of you who invested tons and now stand to lose tons because you just realized pot is federally illegal, can thank Kamala Harris for leading you astray.

Where's Jeff Sessions in this post? Funny, he's in the title but in the OP --- nowhere to be found. Seems to devolve into a rant against Kamala Harris.

 

[Pogo]

OK, fair and logical point as regards the legal process. But when such legislation is entrenched and protected by the PTB, radical revolutionary backlash IS going to occur in whatever form. This too is a way of applying pressure to that federal code, as you described. If it's an illegal one, whelp, that's what the obtusity of the fed made necessary, isn't it.

Not that it's a great analogy but I believe granting women the right to vote was also done on state levels before the FG capitulated and wrote it into the Constitution. The old saying goes "when the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow".

So, next up....heroin.... Oh, wait, that will never happen from this precedent, right?

Dafuck does "heroin" have to do with cannabis?

Where do you see a "precedent" from pulling the bullshittery out of a deliberate federal miscategorization? When did lying in law become a thing?

 

[martybegan]

OK, fair and logical point as regards the legal process. But when such legislation is entrenched and protected by the PTB, radical revolutionary backlash IS going to occur in whatever form. This too is a way of applying pressure to that federal code, as you described. If it's an illegal one, whelp, that's what the obtusity of the fed made necessary, isn't it.

Not that it's a great analogy but I believe granting women the right to vote was also done on state levels before the FG capitulated and wrote it into the Constitution. The old saying goes "when the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow".

So, next up....heroin.... Oh, wait, that will never happen from this precedent, right?

Slippery slope arguments can sometimes be valid, but cannot be assumed to be true without other factors.

Legalizing Pot would allow law enforcement to concentrate MORE on things like Heroin.

 

[Silhouette]

Where's Jeff Sessions in this post? Funny, he's in the title but in the OP --- nowhere to be found. Seems to devolve into a rant against Kamala Harris.

The very first sentence in the OP is a link to Jeff Sessions actions.

 

[Pogo]

Where's Jeff Sessions in this post? Funny, he's in the title but in the OP --- nowhere to be found. Seems to devolve into a rant against Kamala Harris.

The very first sentence in the OP is a link to Jeff Sessions actions.

Thanks. I missed it.

 

[Silhouette]

Slippery slope arguments can sometimes be valid, but cannot be assumed to be true without other factors.

Legalizing Pot would allow law enforcement to concentrate MORE on things like Heroin.

The ends do not justify the means my friend. This sets a TERRIBLE precedent for the Union's way of governing itself. You cannot cut out other states in debate on federal laws to justify rogue trends in weird western states particularly. CA and CO etc. were remiss in allowing any such internal vote or legislative process which was in defiance of federal law. CA is openly discussing overproducing pot for export. And those exports will reach other states where they don't want it. Yet they were allowed NO VOICE in the process within the Union. This is problematic and doesn't justify "now there's more time to focus on heroin."

Besides, you realize why we have a heroin epidemic right? It's coming from Mexico where they switched to heroin sales because pot prices plummeted after "legalization" began in rogue fashion in the US. You think it's a coincidence all the cartel wars and beheadings started going down exactly when states began going rogue on pot laws? Think again.

Not only have rogue actions on pot destabilized how we do the Union debates on federal laws, it has also destabilized a main market of the Mexican economy. Personally, I'd rather have Jose & Manuel using mule trains of whacky tobaccy across the border than deadly heroin. Sometimes it's better to have let sleeping dogs lie. Plus, you make pot more expensive by being illegal and it stays out the hands of kids better. We all know where this "legal pot" thing is heading; straight to high schools and jr highs across the nation. Except that some of the states were cut out of that debate by rogue "laws" passed in the West.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Use of legalized marijuana threatened as Sessions rescinds Obama-era directive that eased federal enforcement

Ok. So there's a conflict. Some states say pot is legal. The fed says it's not. Yet we are the UNITED states of America, bound under federal laws on certain vital issues to preserve the cohesion of the Union. Like it or not, narcotics are part of those federally regulated ideas. Presumably someone thought that it might not be good for productivity as a nation, nor as a strong citizenry to all be laced out on mind-altering drugs; easy pickin's for enemies internally and abroad.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. Likewise we have federal laws about immigration, collecting taxes, child trafficking, tampering with the mail, etc. etc.

What California, Colorado and all the other states that "legalized" pot did wrong was: they disobeyed federal law. Let's take CA as an example. There, some folks got a petition together to get an initiative on the ballot. The petition from there goes to Sacramento for approval for inclusion on the ballot. The minute a petition suggesting breaking federal law passed their desks in Sacramento, that's where the idea was mandated to die. Just because those people decided to let the farce continue, doesn't make it any more legal than if CA decided to vote on whether or not illegal aliens can become citizens without due process...or if CA decided on its own that the fed couldn't collect taxes there. Or if CA voted that the fed could no longer have military bases in CA.

The initiative "legalizing" pot is an illegal initiative. It is null and void upon its face. It was mandated to have never gotten beyond Sacramento's process of sifting through legal and illegal initiatives. That's where the failure was. Ignorance is no excuse. Not even in Sacramento. They are mandated to follow the law.

What should have been done by these states who wanted legal pot, or any other federal statute revoked for some new trend, would have been to lobby Congress to change the federal listing of pot as Schedule 1 first, then downgrade it to a "legal" substance for recreation. But they jumped the gun and did it wrong. There seems to be a lot of that going on lately where states suddenly adopt some trend, usually some social trend from CA, and then force all other 49 states to abide by changing the law from the bottom up, without Congress' (the other 49 states') input.

This is a VERY bad precedent to set. It threatens the Union when rogue states force other states without their representation, to adopt repugnant ideas or laws without having a single voice of say in the process. Think about it. Sometimes even just one rogue judge in one rogue state can radically change longstanding social mores of all 50 states without their input or say, outside the Constitution and Congress, if the appeals process is oiled well enough for that rogue decision....

How Does California's Ballot Measure Process Work?

The proponents must submit the draft proposal to the Attorney General’s Office where the public can view it online and comment on it. This comment period lasts 30 days, and the proponents have five days following the end of the comment period to amend the proposal.....Within 50 days of submission to the Attorney General, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Department of Finance conduct a joint analysis on the proposal’s expected impact on state and local revenues, as well as estimated costs. The Attorney General’s Office uses this analysis to write the title and summary for the measure, which will be submitted to the Secretary of State and included on the signature gathering petitions.

So the CA AG was remiss in allowing a federally-illegal proposal to go forward in the first place! I think this was Kamala Harris who allowed this illegal ballot measure to proceed. Those of you who invested tons and now stand to lose tons because you just realized pot is federally illegal, can thank Kamala Harris for leading you astray.

Oh look, another conservative who pretends the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist when it doesn't work for him.

 

[Pogo]

The ends do not justify the means my friend. This sets a TERRIBLE precedent for the Union's way of governing itself.

In principle, yeah maybe so.

That's why the Fed shouldn't have written bullshit into the Controlled Substances Act in the first place, isn't it. THERE, I submit, is your "terrible precedent".

Now that it's there, what are we gonna do? Just bend over for bullshit? One way or another the fed has to be shown that bullshit will not be tolerated.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Ok. So there's a conflict. Some states say pot is legal. The fed says it's not. Yet we are the UNITED states of America, bound under federal laws on certain vital issues to preserve the cohesion of the Union. Like it or not, narcotics are part of those federally regulated ideas.

Cannabis has nothing to do with "narcotics".

Presumably someone thought that it might not be good for productivity as a nation, nor as a strong citizenry to all be laced out on mind-altering drugs; easy pickin's for enemies internally and abroad.

Then it's curious no one thought of that until 1937. After literally thousands of years of human consumption.

Why 1937? What changed? Aye there's the rub.

According to an article I read once, it had to do with DuPont's manufacturing of nylon hosiery/rope vs hemp and silk hosiery/rope. The theory being that the family bribed the government to reduce competition.