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

[Pogo]

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.

Yeah I've heard that, from Jello Biafra.

It was also a time that was (a) just after Prohibition was repealed and Harry Anslinger needed a new witch to burn, and (b) a time of blatant bigotry created out of economics and migration. That's why the new law that nobody ever thought of before used "Eebil Mexicans and Negroes" to market itself to the masses. Because save the white women.

​

 

[bendog]

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.

I don't see why the feds have any interest in how some state wants to expend the tax revenue it has for law enforcement. Long before most states, Denver and the entire state informally chose not to prosecute possession of personal use of pot. The feds never did prosecute that. Then Colo chose to capture tax revenue that had previously been part of "the underground economy." That may or may not be a socially good thing. However, I don't really see much of a distinction between pot and prohibition.

Big gummit folks seek to alter bad behavior with laws. But people have been getting high one way or another since .... people. We've also been fucing people of the same sex, btw. But if one misuses oxy, one will be an addict. Beer will make you fat. Lots of vodka will make you look like Steve Bannon. People should be aware of that. And how aids and STD's are transmitted.

You are right that it is likely easier to get weed by driving to Colo for a two week vacation, along with mountain camping, than finding a dealer locally. Smoking is not ok with my employer

 

[martybegan]

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.

I'm sorry, but there is no good reason for the feds to have any say in something like Pot regulations at a State level. Alcohol is done at the State level and has worked just fine. Lumping pot together with all other drugs is just the lazy way out.

And spare me the "think of the children" crap that has been used to curtail the rights of adults for no reason other than as a crutch for crappy parenting.

 

[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.

Yeah I've heard that, from Jello Biafra.

It was also a time that was (a) just after Prohibition was repealed and Harry Anslinger needed a new witch to burn, and (b) a time of blatant bigotry created out of economics and migration. That's why the new law that nobody ever thought of before used "Eebil Mexicans and Negroes" to market itself to the masses. Because save the white women.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I knew the source was sketchy.

Then again, he could be dead on.

Maybe just dead?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Then whether or not it is "bullshit" is for debate by all 50 states, not just one unilateral decision that affects all 50 states without their input.

 

[BluesLegend]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

One causes cancer and the other causes happiness. Any other stupid questions?

Idiot, the American Lung Association has found smoking pot has most all the same cancer causing substances that smoking Tobacco does, there now you are less stupid.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Then whether or not it is "bullshit" is for debate by all 50 states, not just one unilateral decision that affects all 50 states without their input.

The whole idea of federalism is that for some things the States don't have to care what other States do.

While the constitution doesn't prohibit something like the Controlled Substances act, it also doesn't require something along those lines either.

Pot should be treated like alcohol and regulated as such.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

What you do is you pick the fights you can win. Banning marijuana is no more than a replacement nanny-law Prohibition, and in the end will be defeated.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

The whole point of liberty is that citizens be treated as adults, not dependent children of the federal government.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yeah I've heard that, from Jello Biafra.

It was also a time that was (a) just after Prohibition was repealed and Harry Anslinger needed a new witch to burn, and (b) a time of blatant bigotry created out of economics and migration. That's why the new law that nobody ever thought of before used "Eebil Mexicans and Negroes" to market itself to the masses. Because save the white women.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I knew the source was sketchy.

Then again, he could be dead on.

Maybe just dead?

Ah you left out the "Kennedy" part.

​

 

[BluesLegend]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

The whole point of liberty is that citizens be treated as adults, not dependent children of the federal government.

I should be able to purchase plastic explosives at my local Ace hardware store?

 

[Pogo]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

One causes cancer and the other causes happiness. Any other stupid questions?

Idiot, the American Lung Association has found smoking pot has most all the same cancer causing substances that smoking Tobacco does, there now you are less stupid.

Link?

Or would actually putting meat on the bones of an ass-ertion be "stupid"?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

The whole point of liberty is that citizens be treated as adults, not dependent children of the federal government.

I should be able to purchase plastic explosives at my local Ace hardware store?

What do plastic explosives have to do with marijuana?

 

[debbiedowner]

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.

Have you let mold grow on your cheese head? they have been paying taxes.

Millions in marijuana cash roll headed to IRS on Tax Day

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Your legal analysis, as always, is completely wrong and ridiculous.

There is no federal law that "mandates" states to have laws of their own. If the federal government wants to arrest old ladies with glaucoma for smoking weed in California, they can do so - but they can't force the state of California to arrest those old ladies.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm sorry, but there is no good reason for the feds to have any say in something like Pot regulations at a State level. Alcohol is done at the State level and has worked just fine. Lumping pot together with all other drugs is just the lazy way out.

And spare me the "think of the children" crap that has been used to curtail the rights of adults for no reason other than as a crutch for crappy parenting.

You realize that the protocol for changing federal laws is at the federal level? Otherwise individual states could vote to ban federal tax collection, mail delivery, FCC regulations and a whole gamut of things they could justify are "good for their state no matter what the fed says". You understand how precedent and law works, right?

You understand that the reason we're called the UNITED states of America is because we have united under a federal umbrella for the mutual good and mutual protection. When federal laws are passed for the good of the entire 50-state Union, they can be repealed only by debate and consent of the 50-state Union (Congress)...not by unilateral-force or pressure from one or two or seven rogue states without debate from all the others' representatives.

These states went about legalizing the wrong way. They were mandated to petition Congress for repeal of Schedule 1. They failed to do this. Ignorance of due process is no excuse and doesn't give one a free pass to tyranny against the other states.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Did you intend for your screen name to be ironic?

 

[Syriusly]

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...

I ignored most of your post because you run on and on- but this is a rare case where you bring up a legitimate question- though as usual you have no clue what the actual legal situation is.

In general- States have the right to pass laws governing what happens in their states- while the Federal government supposedly has control over things that happen between states. The reason there could be a nation wide ban on alcohol during Prohibition was because there was a Constitutional amendment- Congress didn't simply pass a bill outlawing the consumption or sale of alcohol across the entire United States because frankly it wouldn't have held up under the Constitution.

Federal drug laws- on their face- seem to be unconstitutional- in that they intrude upon the states rights to regulate drugs within the states.

And before you go down your favorite rabbit hole of Obergefell- Obergefell was decided on Constitutional grounds- there is no part of the Constitution that implies that the Federal government can dictate to the states about drug use.

Now- that being said- I don't believe that there has been a constitutional test between the states and the federal government yet regarding drug laws- and there should be.

(oh and states pass laws that violate the Constitution fairly often- nothing prevents a state from passing a law that is unconstitutional or violates Federal law- but that law can very likely be overturned by Federal action)

 

[martybegan]

I'm sorry, but there is no good reason for the feds to have any say in something like Pot regulations at a State level. Alcohol is done at the State level and has worked just fine. Lumping pot together with all other drugs is just the lazy way out.

And spare me the "think of the children" crap that has been used to curtail the rights of adults for no reason other than as a crutch for crappy parenting.

You realize that the protocol for changing federal laws is at the federal level? Otherwise individual states could vote to ban federal tax collection, mail delivery, FCC regulations and a whole gamut of things they could justify are "good for their state no matter what the fed says". You understand how precedent and law works, right?

Which is why congress should remove pot from the Controlled Substances act and let the States handle it.

The difference there is in those cases there are federal agencies enforcing federal law. They don't go and tell the State to do it for them.

The issue is if the feds truly wanted to enforce federal pot law they would have to do it themselves in States where it is legal, which is to me a huge waste of time.

 

[Syriusly]

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 states aren't dealing in pot- they are allowing private business's to deal in pot.

And yes- they are paying taxes on it- both Federal and State.