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

[Syriusly]

The Dems control the CA state legislature and Gov.

The Dems could have legalized without a ballot.

The Dems did not legalize.

A ballot did.

The Dems do not deserve any credit for doing NOTHING.

LOL yet it was the Democrats who voted in legalized pot- and the Republicans who opposed it.

 

[Syriusly]

My opinion? Legalize it like CO did. In order to get into a 420 store, you have to show valid ID that verifies your age as being over 21.

And don't give me that crap that the kids will get someone else to buy their marijuana for them. They already do that with alcohol.

OK kiddies, pop quiz in American Government. (multiple choice) "How do you get rid of a federal law that was enacted for the protection of the citizens of all 50 states?".

Who says it was enacted for the protection of the citizens?

 

[Syriusly]

The Dems could have legalized without a ballot.

The Dems did not legalize.

A ballot did.

They can't legalize it.

Certainly California and the other states can legalize pot under state law.

It cannot change Federal law.

 

[danielpalos]

The Dems control the CA state legislature and Gov.

The Dems could have legalized without a ballot.

The Dems did not legalize.

A ballot did.

The Dems do not deserve any credit for doing NOTHING.

LOL yet it was the Democrats who voted in legalized pot- and the Republicans who opposed it.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is also a Democrat initiative.

The right wing still has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost; coming up on an election cycle.

 

[danielpalos]

The Dems could have legalized without a ballot.

The Dems did not legalize.

A ballot did.

They can't legalize it.

Certainly California and the other states can legalize pot under state law.

It cannot change Federal law.

I agree to disagree. The right wing has nothing but legal fantasy not any valid legal arguments.

A State legalizing any Thing means it is Commerce and Must be Regulated by the general government of the Union.

 

[Silhouette]

My opinion? Legalize it like CO did. In order to get into a 420 store, you have to show valid ID that verifies your age as being over 21.

And don't give me that crap that the kids will get someone else to buy their marijuana for them. They already do that with alcohol.

OK kiddies, pop quiz in American Government. (multiple choice) "How do you get rid of a federal law that was enacted for the protection of the citizens of all 50 states?".

Who says it was enacted for the protection of the citizens?

The FDA. Unless you're proposing the FDA no longer has federal authority to regulate the distribution of drugs & narcotics to the United States?

 

[danielpalos]

My opinion? Legalize it like CO did. In order to get into a 420 store, you have to show valid ID that verifies your age as being over 21.

And don't give me that crap that the kids will get someone else to buy their marijuana for them. They already do that with alcohol.

OK kiddies, pop quiz in American Government. (multiple choice) "How do you get rid of a federal law that was enacted for the protection of the citizens of all 50 states?".

Who says it was enacted for the protection of the citizens?

The FDA. Unless you're proposing the FDA no longer has federal authority to regulate the distribution of drugs & narcotics to the United States?

Who cares what the FDA says about it; Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws, by standing around and talking about it and taking voice votes.

 

[Syriusly]

My opinion? Legalize it like CO did. In order to get into a 420 store, you have to show valid ID that verifies your age as being over 21.

And don't give me that crap that the kids will get someone else to buy their marijuana for them. They already do that with alcohol.

OK kiddies, pop quiz in American Government. (multiple choice) "How do you get rid of a federal law that was enacted for the protection of the citizens of all 50 states?".

Who says it was enacted for the protection of the citizens?

The FDA. Unless you're proposing the FDA no longer has federal authority to regulate the distribution of drugs & narcotics to the United States?

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

 

[Silhouette]

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

Nor do they have to. Presumably a federal body put pot on schedule 1. Therefore, a federal body must remove it first before it can become "commercially legal" in the US. Congress has not acted to do so. No singular state nor group of them not including the others has the power to make it "legal" outside a debate in Congress. That's because federal laws/statutes govern all 50 states, not just some, one or a few. As such, all 50 states belong in the debate about whether to keep or remove federal laws.

US Government 101.

 

[danielpalos]

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

Nor do they have to. Presumably a federal body put pot on schedule 1. Therefore, a federal body must remove it first before it can become "commercially legal" in the US. Congress has not acted to do so. No singular state nor group of them not including the others has the power to make it "legal" outside a debate in Congress. That's because federal laws/statutes govern all 50 states, not just some, one or a few. As such, all 50 states belong in the debate about whether to keep or remove federal laws.

US Government 101.

No, it doesn't. It is already legal in State markets. It is a form of Commerce. There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that Bad idea, last millennium.

 

[Syriusly]

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

Nor do they have to. Presumably a federal body put pot on schedule 1. .

"presumably' lol

 

[Syriusly]

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

Nor do they have to. Presumably a federal body put pot on schedule 1. Therefore, a federal body must remove it first before it can become "commercially legal" in the US. Congress has not acted to do so. No singular state nor group of them not including the others has the power to make it "legal" outside a debate in Congress. That's because federal laws/statutes govern all 50 states, not just some, one or a few. As such, all 50 states belong in the debate about whether to keep or remove federal laws.

US Government 101.

States can absolutely make something legal within the state even if Federal law doesn't.

U.S. Government 101.

 

[Silhouette]

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

Nor do they have to. Presumably a federal body put pot on schedule 1. Therefore, a federal body must remove it first before it can become "commercially legal" in the US. Congress has not acted to do so. No singular state nor group of them not including the others has the power to make it "legal" outside a debate in Congress. That's because federal laws/statutes govern all 50 states, not just some, one or a few. As such, all 50 states belong in the debate about whether to keep or remove federal laws.

US Government 101.

States can absolutely make something legal within the state even if Federal law doesn't.

U.S. Government 101.

Not if that thing is specifically against a federal law. Federal trumps.

 

[dblack]

States can absolutely make something legal within the state even if Federal law doesn't.

U.S. Government 101.

.
I appreciate your spirit, but if that were the case, there'd be no such thing as federal laws. What's going on is bordering on sedition. It's rightful, in my view, because the government has broken the Constitution. That justifies it, but it doesn't change what it is. I guess the hope is that support for prohibition will wane before things come to a head.

 

[dblack]

And, outside of ideology, or personal moral stance, I just have a hard time seeing how smoking pot to get you through the night is any different than drinking coffee to get you through the day.

 

[Syriusly]

States can absolutely make something legal within the state even if Federal law doesn't.

U.S. Government 101.

.
I appreciate your spirit, but if that were the case, there'd be no such thing as federal laws. What's going on is bordering on sedition. It's rightful, in my view, because the government has broken the Constitution. That justifies it, but it doesn't change what it is. I guess the hope is that support for prohibition will wane before things come to a head.

Well you are sort of where I am too- a state absolutely can legalize something within a state even if Federal law doesn't- but that of course is dependent on State's rights being recognized- and Federal law not overstepping its Constitutional boundaries.

Its not even close to bordering on sedition. Prior to the Civil War, States passed laws allowing the harboring of escaped slaves even though the Constitution actually forbade that. And no- States have no right to pass any unconstitutional law.

 

[Syriusly]

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

Nor do they have to. Presumably a federal body put pot on schedule 1. Therefore, a federal body must remove it first before it can become "commercially legal" in the US. Congress has not acted to do so. No singular state nor group of them not including the others has the power to make it "legal" outside a debate in Congress. That's because federal laws/statutes govern all 50 states, not just some, one or a few. As such, all 50 states belong in the debate about whether to keep or remove federal laws.

US Government 101.

States can absolutely make something legal within the state even if Federal law doesn't.

U.S. Government 101.

Not if that thing is specifically against a federal law. Federal trumps.

No- again you are missing the point of Federalism. The Federal government doesn't just to get to tell any state what it has to do. In this case- in my opinion- the Federal law actually violate the Constitution- and steps on the rights of States to regulate commerce within the state.

Federal law only trumps state law when the Federal government has the Constitutional right to tell States what to do.

 

[Silhouette]

The FDA is the federal body regulating the production & sale of drugs/narcotics. States don't control the FDA in rogue minority from underneath without the permission of Congress. (All 50 States)

 

[danielpalos]

The FDA doesn't say why laws are enacted.

Remember the FDA doesn't regulate either tobacco or alcohol- both of which are every bit as much drugs as pot.

Nor do they have to. Presumably a federal body put pot on schedule 1. Therefore, a federal body must remove it first before it can become "commercially legal" in the US. Congress has not acted to do so. No singular state nor group of them not including the others has the power to make it "legal" outside a debate in Congress. That's because federal laws/statutes govern all 50 states, not just some, one or a few. As such, all 50 states belong in the debate about whether to keep or remove federal laws.

US Government 101.

States can absolutely make something legal within the state even if Federal law doesn't.

U.S. Government 101.

Not if that thing is specifically against a federal law. Federal trumps.

No, it doesn't. States are sovereign within their jurisdiction. And, if legal for Commerce, it Must be Regulated as such by the general government of the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

States can absolutely make something legal within the state even if Federal law doesn't.

U.S. Government 101.

.
I appreciate your spirit, but if that were the case, there'd be no such thing as federal laws. What's going on is bordering on sedition. It's rightful, in my view, because the government has broken the Constitution. That justifies it, but it doesn't change what it is. I guess the hope is that support for prohibition will wane before things come to a head.

You are confusing a unitary form of "federal" government versus our federal form of government and Union.