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

[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.

Link?

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

So -------------------------------------- no link. Because you can't link your ass.

Exactly.

^^^ lazy liberal alert, ignorant and fakes inability to use google.

 

[busybee01]

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?

Federal taxes are a part of the Constitution. Tell me where in the Constitution does it even mention drugs. I oppose marijuana legalization but I believe even more that states have the right to set laws within their borders as long as it stays within state borders and does not conflict with the Constitution.

 

[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.

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

Go argue with the American Lung Association shit for brains, good luck with that.

 

[Syriusly]

Opioids & Meth are out of control, yet Sessions want's to divert resources attention away to attack Pot!

All are Schedule 1. He must attack all of them equally by law. \

No he doesn't. What you are referring to is 'prosecutorial discretion'.

The government has limited resources- and prosecutors have the discretion on how to use those resources- Sessions has decided to release more of those resources to prosecute marijuana dealers- which will take away resources from the prosecution of heroin dealers.

 

[OKTexas]

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 supreme court trumps the Constitution, ask any regressive. They granted the feds the authority, the only remedy is a reversal in the court, which ain't gonna happen or a constitutional amendment to put the leviathan back in it's cage. Either way it could reverse a hundred years of interstate commerce clause rulings.


.

 

[LOki]

The initiative "legalizing" pot is an illegal initiative. It is null and void upon its face.

No. The laws prohibiting folks from smoking pot are illegal. The "War on Drugs" is illegal, and is OBVIOUSLY the illicit rationalization for violating the rights of thousands of US citizens annually.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — U.S. Constitution. Amend. IX​

People own themselves; they are themselves sovereign--the primary sovereign from which all sovereign powers of the Federal Government are derived and delegated--and they retain the right to smoke dope.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." — U.S. Constitution. Amend. X​

Outlawing smoking dope cannot be a power that the people can delegate; they have the right to smoke dope, and the government is prohibited from denying or disparaging rights retained by the people. Outlawing pot is repugnant to the rights retained by the people; it's repugnant to the Constitution.

States can certainly declare that, within their jurisdictions, smoking dope is legal according to the (legal, constitutional) constraints each State considers appropriate--particularly in the face of Federal prohibitions.

And since such prohibition is repugnant to the Constitution,

"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." — John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802​

Sessions is wrong, and (broken clocks, blind squirrels, and such notwithstanding) California, Colorado and all the other states that "legalized" pot are right.

Finally.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

How many times do I have to explain this before it will get through your head?

Immigration, the post office, the FCC, the IRS and the military are not under the purview of any state governments. The state government has no power over them, and therefore can't pass laws to control them in any way.

On the other hand, local law enforcement is entirely under the purview of the state it's in - and therefore the state has control over them.

When a state "legalizes" marijuana, they are essentially just ordering the state's law enforcement that possession or sale of marijuana is no longer a crime, and they should no longer arrest people for it. That's all the "legalization" does. If the DEA wants to go to Colorado and arrest some hippies, they can do that - and the state can't do anything about it.

Where states might go- and this is just a wild hare- is that the State's may take some action to involve themselves in pot operations so that any prosecution within a state will involve the state somehow- so that the State can pursue a Constitutional case in the courts against the law.

If the Feds pursue this in California, I am fairly certain California would seek some avenue to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal laws in this case.

No, I doubt that anyone is going to court to fight the constitutionality of making drugs illegal.

This isn't going to be resolved by the court. Marijuana will become legal when Congress votes to legalize it, there's no other avenue there.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

If it is grown in the state and does nor cross state lines then the federal government has no jurisdiction. In that case the federal government has no jurisdiction. Nor does it violate any provision of the constitution. Interesting that Obama acceded to states rights but alleged conservative Sessions does not.

LMAO, they supreme court gave the feds the power to regulate everything, even if it doesn't leave your property. And it was you regressive that pushed those rulings, enjoy your handy work.


.

 

[Boss]

This may be the one issue that can get passed by both parties. Public opinion is in favor of at least letting the States handle it.

You could be right. Sessions is not in the wrong here. He is simply advocating an enforcement of federal law, whether you like the federal law or not. I think he kind of sees it as hypocritical to say... well, we're going to enforce THIS law because we like it but not THAT law because we don't like it. He is going to enforce all laws equally because that's what the AG is supposed to do.

This debate is not about whether pot should or shouldn't be legal. It's not really even about state's rights. The issue is federal laws criminalizing marijuana which need to be changed to allow states to regulate instead of the feds. In that regard, Sessions pushing this issue is actually a good thing because it will ultimately force congressional action. That's a positive for those who seek decriminalization, whether you support legalization or not.

 

[SavannahMann]

This thread, like all the others before it, are completely full of shit. Jury Nullification is going to make the entire thing a waste of time and money.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Illegal income has to be reported.

Does income from illegal activity need to be - TurboTax Support

Also, federal law supersedes state law.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): Overview

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Even though the states violating federal law need to have their dicks slapped by the DOJ, Sessions shouldn't be wasting his time on this shit. He really needs to be working on locking up the previous administration for their crimes instead.

What makes you think it would be a waste of time, the could confiscate billions in illegal profits and assets from these State run drug cartels.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This may be the one issue that can get passed by both parties. Public opinion is in favor of at least letting the States handle it.

You could be right. Sessions is not in the wrong here. He is simply advocating an enforcement of federal law, whether you like the federal law or not. I think he kind of sees it as hypocritical to say... well, we're going to enforce THIS law because we like it but not THAT law because we don't like it. He is going to enforce all laws equally because that's what the AG is supposed to do.

This debate is not about whether pot should or shouldn't be legal. It's not really even about state's rights. The issue is federal laws criminalizing marijuana which need to be changed to allow states to regulate instead of the feds. In that regard, Sessions pushing this issue is actually a good thing because it will ultimately force congressional action. That's a positive for those who seek decriminalization, whether you support legalization or not.

If the Attorney General's job was to "enforce all laws equally", why would it matter who the AG was?

It's a political position for a reason. Not all laws are created equal.

 

[bendog]

This may be the one issue that can get passed by both parties. Public opinion is in favor of at least letting the States handle it.

You could be right. Sessions is not in the wrong here. He is simply advocating an enforcement of federal law, whether you like the federal law or not. I think he kind of sees it as hypocritical to say... well, we're going to enforce THIS law because we like it but not THAT law because we don't like it. He is going to enforce all laws equally because that's what the AG is supposed to do.

This debate is not about whether pot should or shouldn't be legal. It's not really even about state's rights. The issue is federal laws criminalizing marijuana which need to be changed to allow states to regulate instead of the feds. In that regard, Sessions pushing this issue is actually a good thing because it will ultimately force congressional action. That's a positive for those who seek decriminalization, whether you support legalization or not.

I think Sessions may have been poking a bit of fun at himself, but the statement was not without truth.
he thought Klan members were "OK, until he learned that they smoked marijuana."
Jeff Sessions' Ku Klux Klan "Joke" Reveals That More Than His Humor Is Off

He's just from a bygone era. Trent Lott saying Strom Thurmond was right about laws making private discrimination illegal. He may have been right, or at least partially right because Wal-Mart is colorblind and took over all of the "no blacks" stores, but it's still about times past.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

Why 1937? Simple...............because of some government agent named Anslinger who hated black and brown people, and was looking for an easy way to lock them up. Since they were the primary consumers of cannabis, he figured that if he made the plant illegal, he could lock up all the non whites.

He got financial backing from DuPont and Hearst, who also didn't want any competition from the plant, because DuPont was working with chemicals (didn't want the competition from hemp oil), and Hearst had large timber holdings (didn't want competition from hemp paper). He then got the propaganda movie Reefer Madness made, and then sold the plan to Congress and got it illegal.

Also explains why the penalties for having it were so draconian.

 

[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?

How many times do I have to explain this before it will get through your head?

Immigration, the post office, the FCC, the IRS and the military are not under the purview of any state governments. The state government has no power over them, and therefore can't pass laws to control them in any way.

On the other hand, local law enforcement is entirely under the purview of the state it's in - and therefore the state has control over them.

When a state "legalizes" marijuana, they are essentially just ordering the state's law enforcement that possession or sale of marijuana is no longer a crime, and they should no longer arrest people for it. That's all the "legalization" does. If the DEA wants to go to Colorado and arrest some hippies, they can do that - and the state can't do anything about it.

Where states might go- and this is just a wild hare- is that the State's may take some action to involve themselves in pot operations so that any prosecution within a state will involve the state somehow- so that the State can pursue a Constitutional case in the courts against the law.

If the Feds pursue this in California, I am fairly certain California would seek some avenue to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal laws in this case.

No, I doubt that anyone is going to court to fight the constitutionality of making drugs illegal.

This isn't going to be resolved by the court. Marijuana will become legal when Congress votes to legalize it, there's no other avenue there.

We will see how this plays out- the first question is whether any of Sessions boys decide to prosecute.

 

[JGalt]

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?

Even though the states violating federal law need to have their dicks slapped by the DOJ, Sessions shouldn't be wasting his time on this shit. He really needs to be working on locking up the previous administration for their crimes instead.

What makes you think it would be a waste of time, the could confiscate billions in illegal profits and assets from these State run drug cartels.


.

Perhaps that's the motivation behind Session's new war on pot: The government always wants a cut of the action. I'm not defending it or complaining about it because either way, I don't smoke the stuff.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

How many times do I have to explain this before it will get through your head?

Immigration, the post office, the FCC, the IRS and the military are not under the purview of any state governments. The state government has no power over them, and therefore can't pass laws to control them in any way.

On the other hand, local law enforcement is entirely under the purview of the state it's in - and therefore the state has control over them.

When a state "legalizes" marijuana, they are essentially just ordering the state's law enforcement that possession or sale of marijuana is no longer a crime, and they should no longer arrest people for it. That's all the "legalization" does. If the DEA wants to go to Colorado and arrest some hippies, they can do that - and the state can't do anything about it.

Where states might go- and this is just a wild hare- is that the State's may take some action to involve themselves in pot operations so that any prosecution within a state will involve the state somehow- so that the State can pursue a Constitutional case in the courts against the law.

If the Feds pursue this in California, I am fairly certain California would seek some avenue to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal laws in this case.

No, I doubt that anyone is going to court to fight the constitutionality of making drugs illegal.

This isn't going to be resolved by the court. Marijuana will become legal when Congress votes to legalize it, there's no other avenue there.

We will see how this plays out- the first question is whether any of Sessions boys decide to prosecute.

Yes, that is the question. I don't really see him doing it, at least not on any large enough scale that it would matter.

 

[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 supreme court trumps the Constitution, ask any regressive.


.

Tell us about you regressives.

We liberals believe that the Constitution trumps Federal law- and that the Supreme Court enforces the Constitution.

Why do you believe that the Supreme Court trumps the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

How many times do I have to explain this before it will get through your head?

Immigration, the post office, the FCC, the IRS and the military are not under the purview of any state governments. The state government has no power over them, and therefore can't pass laws to control them in any way.

On the other hand, local law enforcement is entirely under the purview of the state it's in - and therefore the state has control over them.

When a state "legalizes" marijuana, they are essentially just ordering the state's law enforcement that possession or sale of marijuana is no longer a crime, and they should no longer arrest people for it. That's all the "legalization" does. If the DEA wants to go to Colorado and arrest some hippies, they can do that - and the state can't do anything about it.

Where states might go- and this is just a wild hare- is that the State's may take some action to involve themselves in pot operations so that any prosecution within a state will involve the state somehow- so that the State can pursue a Constitutional case in the courts against the law.

If the Feds pursue this in California, I am fairly certain California would seek some avenue to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal laws in this case.

No, I doubt that anyone is going to court to fight the constitutionality of making drugs illegal.

This isn't going to be resolved by the court. Marijuana will become legal when Congress votes to legalize it, there's no other avenue there.

We will see how this plays out- the first question is whether any of Sessions boys decide to prosecute.

Yes, that is the question. I don't really see him doing it, at least not on any large enough scale that it would matter.

Yeah- Sessions didn't announce a war on pot- so far supposedly he hasn't even told his offices to prosecute the laws- but has allowed them the discretion to. I really don't know where this will go yet- but I suspect there will be zealous prosecutors looking to raise their political profile that will prosecute cases.