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

[bendog]

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. CA & CO did not seek permission from the other states to produce a substance their people object to. They didn't even have a chance for their reps to debate it. It was just dubbed upon their existence like a royal decree from a throne. That's not how we do things in the country.

You have no clue how 'we do things in this country'.

Really- this is just another example of your idiotic interpretation of the law. There is a real issue here- but you don't have a clue what it is.

Them damn Yankees done made us promise not to make any STATE laws making slavery legal again if'n we wanted our state gummits back. Taint fair. (-:

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It would be- what will likely happen is that some zealous local Federal prosecutor will target some medium level legal distributor in California that doesn't have big money behind it, to use as an example to try to scare off other distributors.

They will have to do the entire thing with federal forces- no local police or sheriffs as usually happens with a federal bust- they will have to use FBI or BATF or even Customs officers for the bust. Just to make an example and waste our money.

But according to you, the fed doesn't have the authority to do that if CA has voted a federal regulation into nonexistence without the permission of the other states (Congress)..

Maybe CA should introduce an initiative to the ballot that says Californians don't have to pay federal taxes anymore? I mean, unilateral override is unilateral override, right?

You're still not understanding.

The State of California didn't "vote a federal regulation into nonexistence". They voted a state regulation into nonexistence.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Where was the national "debate" that made cannabis illegal in the first place?

 

[Syriusly]

You aren't understanding how this stuff works.

A state can't pass a law that tells the federal government what to do, any more than the federal government can pass laws to tell the state government what to do.

Well then I guess any state can adopt a law that legalizes illegal aliens, bans the distribution of mail, guts the enforcement of the FCC, bans collection of federal taxes, evicts military bases and makes heroin legal...?

No, they can't, can they?

Nope. Because those are all legal functions of the Federal government. Lets go down your laundry list(except for heroin)

1. legalizing illegal aliens- the status of immigrants is a federal function per the Constitution.
2. The post office is provided for in the Constitution also
3. The FCC controls communications that also cross state lines.
4. Federal taxes again- provided for under the Constitution.
5. Military bases- again provided for under the Constitution.
6. Heroin legal- yes- states could legalize heroin just like they have legalized pot. It is the exact same issue as pot- different drug- same issue.

Anything provided for under the U.S. Constitution over-rides any State law. But Federal laws do not always apply to the State- because again of the U.S. Constitution- State's have their own Constitution's and laws- and Federal laws are restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

The question is whether Federal laws against drug use within a state are Constitutional. Frankly reading the Constitution no- they aren't. But that doesn't mean lawyers won't argue both ways- and doesn't mean that the Supreme Court would agree with me.

 

[Syriusly]

It would be- what will likely happen is that some zealous local Federal prosecutor will target some medium level legal distributor in California that doesn't have big money behind it, to use as an example to try to scare off other distributors.

They will have to do the entire thing with federal forces- no local police or sheriffs as usually happens with a federal bust- they will have to use FBI or BATF or even Customs officers for the bust. Just to make an example and waste our money.

But according to you, the fed doesn't have the authority to do that if CA has voted a federal regulation into nonexistence without the permission of the other states (Congress)..

Maybe CA should introduce an initiative to the ballot that says Californians don't have to pay federal taxes anymore? I mean, unilateral override is unilateral override, right?

California hasn't voted on any federal regulation. California just passed a law regulating the use of marijuana within the State of California. Just like Oregon, Washington and Colorado had done previously.

 

[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 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.

Legal pot business's have an obligation to pay Federal taxes and are doing so- remember- the Feds got Al Capone for not paying income taxes on his illegal alcohol business.
Millions in marijuana cash roll headed to IRS on Tax Day

Yes. But the fed govt may not attempt to collect some tax for licensing the activity of growing or selling pot so long as it's illegal under federal law. The feds levy specific taxes on the manufacture of alcohol and tobacco products.

Federal Excise Taxes Imposed on Alcohol Products

The recent tax bill provided "goodies" for "craft" brewers, but just who is a craft brewer was of dispute.

LOL- well yes- as long as pot is illegal Congress can't pass a law taxing its production or sale.

But all of those legal Pot growers and sellers in Colorado and Washington and Oregon better be paying their Federal income taxes or they are going to jail- and they know it.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Certainly if the Supreme Court finds that Federal laws banning the sale of marijuana within a state are an unconstitutional infringement on State rights- then technically the same would likely apply to heroin.

Does that mean that any state would rush to legalize heroin? No.

We already have legalized opioids in the United States- which hasn't led to any attempt to legalize recreational use of heroin.

 

[Silhouette]

The Federal government does not have the right to enforce any Federal law in any state- because Federal laws themselves can violate the Constitution.

I guess Sessions is out then to test your theory.

 

[bendog]

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.

Legal pot business's have an obligation to pay Federal taxes and are doing so- remember- the Feds got Al Capone for not paying income taxes on his illegal alcohol business.
Millions in marijuana cash roll headed to IRS on Tax Day

Yes. But the fed govt may not attempt to collect some tax for licensing the activity of growing or selling pot so long as it's illegal under federal law. The feds levy specific taxes on the manufacture of alcohol and tobacco products.

Federal Excise Taxes Imposed on Alcohol Products

The recent tax bill provided "goodies" for "craft" brewers, but just who is a craft brewer was of dispute.

LOL- well yes- as long as pot is illegal Congress can't pass a law taxing its production or sale.

But all of those legal Pot growers and sellers in Colorado and Washington and Oregon better be paying their Federal income taxes or they are going to jail- and they know it.

What truly sucks is suppose you're just a happy pot grower in Calif, and your field goes "up in smoke" in a wildfire. I don't think you can claim a loss like Trump does when one of his "casinos" goes bankrupt. LOL

 

[Silhouette]

Yep^

 

[Silhouette]

Certainly if the Supreme Court finds that Federal laws banning the sale of marijuana within a state are an unconstitutional infringement on State rights- then technically the same would likely apply to heroin.

Does that mean that any state would rush to legalize heroin? No.

We already have legalized opioids in the United States- which hasn't led to any attempt to legalize recreational use of heroin.

Then I guess all it would take is a state deciding they wanted to profit off of heroin sales and voila! Heroin is legal via the pot precedent....the other 49 states be damned...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once again conservatives and Republicans demonstrated just how out of touch they are with a majority of Americans.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Certainly if the Supreme Court finds that Federal laws banning the sale of marijuana within a state are an unconstitutional infringement on State rights- then technically the same would likely apply to heroin.

Does that mean that any state would rush to legalize heroin? No.

We already have legalized opioids in the United States- which hasn't led to any attempt to legalize recreational use of heroin.

Then I guess all it would take is a state deciding they wanted to profit off of heroin sales and voila! Heroin is legal via the pot precedent.

Essentially, yes. But I don't see the majority of any state voting to legalize heroin. Do you?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

 

[Silhouette]

Essentially, yes. But I don't see the majority of any state voting to legalize heroin. Do you?

Yes I do. If the same rationale is applied to heroin as it was to pot. Are you really that daft? I'll bet the revenues a state could glean off of legal heroin sales would be huge.

You know...I hear heroin is getting really popular these days with recreational use...

 

[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.

Legal pot business's have an obligation to pay Federal taxes and are doing so- remember- the Feds got Al Capone for not paying income taxes on his illegal alcohol business.
Millions in marijuana cash roll headed to IRS on Tax Day

Yes. But the fed govt may not attempt to collect some tax for licensing the activity of growing or selling pot so long as it's illegal under federal law. The feds levy specific taxes on the manufacture of alcohol and tobacco products.

Federal Excise Taxes Imposed on Alcohol Products

The recent tax bill provided "goodies" for "craft" brewers, but just who is a craft brewer was of dispute.

LOL- well yes- as long as pot is illegal Congress can't pass a law taxing its production or sale.

But all of those legal Pot growers and sellers in Colorado and Washington and Oregon better be paying their Federal income taxes or they are going to jail- and they know it.

What truly sucks is suppose you're just a happy pot grower in Calif, and your field goes "up in smoke" in a wildfire. I don't think you can claim a loss like Trump does when one of his "casinos" goes bankrupt. LOL

It's not a total loss if he stood next to the fire and breathed deeply.

 

[August West]

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.

Why aren`t we seeing a spike in lung cancer cases among people who don`t smoke cigarettes?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
UCLA Professor Finds Marijuana Is Safer to Smoke Than Tobacco
Who`s the stupid one here? The American Lung Association apparently doesn`t know shit either so don`t feel too bad.
http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201212-127FR
Worth repeating: marijuana decreases risk of lung cancer

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Essentially, yes. But I don't see the majority of any state voting to legalize heroin. Do you?

Yes I do. If the same rationale is applied to heroin as it was to pot. Are you really that daft? I'll bet the revenues a state could glean off of legal heroin sales would be huge.

You know...I hear heroin is getting really popular these days with recreational use...

The "rationale" you're describing isn't the main reason why people have voted to legalize marijuana. They voted that way because the average American just doesn't think weed is that bad anymore.

 

[Syriusly]

Fed law trumps state law. I do think sessions is biased cause he is about lazy as fuck when it comes to his job. THIS is what is important?
Fed gov shouldnt have a say in pot anyways. You know, the Constitution and all. Pretty sure the COTUS trumps fed law

The easy way out is for Congress to modify the Controlled Substances act of 1971 to remove pot from the list of banned substances.

But Congress won't- because they are all too chickenshit to do the responsible thing.

None of them want to be labeled as 'soft on drugs'.

Which is why it was left to the states to do the right thing.

The problem is it creates a situation where people in the trade still run the risk of federal prosecution. And all Obama's directive did was de-emphasize federal interest in pot cases where pot is legal, it never told them to stop.

Democrats could gain a wedge issue if they tried to get this in the floor, and I bet they could get enough republicans onboard.

All this does is force the issue, and that's a good thing, even if Sessions intentions are different.

I think Trump would sign a modification to the 1971 controlled substances act if congress acted.

Frankly I have no clue where Trump would go with the issue.

But I will state again- I think that the majority of Congress- on both sides- are too chickenshit to make any move on this.

Frankly if the Democrats did make that move, the GOP would be all over them labelling them soft on drug- AND soft on crime. And frankly the Democrats would do the same to any GOP congressman.

It would take a bipartisan group of congess with the balls to bring it forward- and I don't see much interest in bipartisan anything in Washington right now.

 

[Silhouette]

Just because Congress is "chickenshit" doesn't mean individual states may override their decision process...