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

[JGalt]

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.

If that's your reasoning, I can't wait to hear the equally-verbose reason why the "racist" government targets black folks for their crack cocaine usage.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well it really shouldn't matter who the AG is. The law is the law. The laws aren't supposed to depend on who is in political power at the moment. No law is ever passed under the condition it is in effect when this party is in power and not in effect when the other party is in power, that would be kind of stupid and we'd need two entirely different sets of laws.

I mean, I know that millennial liberals are really dumb when it comes to how laws and western civilization in general are supposed to work but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, there is one part of this conversation that very few are bringing up.

If Sessions goes after the legal marijuana dealers, he's going to be killing a BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR INDUSTRY in CO alone. CO also gets loads of money in taxes from the marijuana industry. The first year they legalized it, they got so much in tax revenue that everyone in the state got a tax refund on their state taxes.

You guys are so hot to tout Trump and his job creation, so why are you supporting Sessions? If he manages to kill the marijuana industry, that will be a HUGE hit on the economy in those states, and would also result in a lot of people being unemployed.

Why does Sessions hate jobs?

 

[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.

If that's your reasoning, I can't wait to hear the equally-verbose reason why the "racist" government targets black folks for their crack cocaine usage.

It's not my "reasoning", it's the truth. Check out a documentary called "Grass" sometime, narrated by Woody Harrelson. It tells you exactly how it became illegal.

And, you might want to read up on Anslinger sometime.

Harry J. Anslinger - Wikipedia

 

[WillowTree]

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.

So what if the states decided not to pay taxes?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Well it really shouldn't matter who the AG is. The law is the law. The laws aren't supposed to depend on who is in political power at the moment. No law is ever passed under the condition it is in effect when this party is in power and not in effect when the other party is in power, that would be kind of stupid and we'd need two entirely different sets of laws.

I mean, I know that millennial liberals are really dumb when it comes to how laws and western civilization in general are supposed to work but this is getting ridiculous.

As I already stated before, not all laws are created equal, and not all laws are enforced equally.

For example, it's illegal in California to bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time. Do you think the AG of California should expend much energy going after the parents of twins for violating that law as they should arresting murderers and rapists?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

So what if the states decided not to pay taxes?

States don't pay taxes. People do.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

So what if the states decided not to pay taxes?

States don't pay taxes. People do.

Oh, well then why do states collect them?

 

[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. 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.

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, it has everything to do with:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The supreme court expanded that power to extend to all commerce and some activities that never involve commerce but may have some minute effect on it.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

So what if the states decided not to pay taxes?

States don't pay taxes. People do.

Oh, well then why do states collect them?

States collect state taxes. Then they keep them. They don't pay those taxes to anyone else.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am really starting to dislike this Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions asshole. Establishment hack motherfucker!!!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You tolerated it when the supreme court upheld fines for a farmer growing wheat for use on his own farm. Enjoy the regressive handy work.


.

 

[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.

So what if the states decided not to pay taxes?

States don't pay taxes, they collect them.

Also, taxation is theft.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

So what if the states decided not to pay taxes?

States don't pay taxes. People do.

Oh, well then why do states collect them?

States collect state taxes. Then they keep them. They don't pay those taxes to anyone else.

Incorrect. States collect .local. City. State, and federal taxes ie on cigarettes, gasoline, and guns and ammo. What if they decideded they did not have to comply with federal law and forward the federal taxes. Would that be okay wit ewe?

 

[WillowTree]

Are you libtards okay with states ignoring Federal immigration law?

 

[WillowTree]

How about if we just disregard all federal laws?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, it has everything to do with:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The supreme court expanded that power to extend to all commerce and some activities that never involve commerce but may have some minute effect on it.

I thought you were a "conservative" type guy. That's a grossly overboard interpretation of the Commerce Clause that has rendered the 10th Amendment meaningless. EVER FUCKING THING ON EARTH is considered commerce to hack statist authoritarian ass wipes.

THIS is why we need a Constitutional Convention. We need to clarify the Commerce Clause to prevent SCOTUS commie abuse.

I propose this Randy Barnett's "Federalism Amendment":

Section 1: Secession. Any State or Indian tribe may, by an act of its legislature, secede from the United States.

Section 2: Nature of the Union. From the perspective of the United States, the States are sovereign and are the parties to the Constitution, which is a compact among the States.

Section 3: Nullification.

(a) When a national majority the States of the United States declares a decision by any federal court to be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, the said decision shall thereby be negated and precedent restored. The States shall convey their declarations to the U.S. Solicitor General, who in turn will notify the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to take appropriate measures consistent with this Section.

(b) Any federal treaty, executive agreement, statute, regulation, administrative ruling, executive order, or the like may be nullified by a national majority of the States, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 3(a).

(c) Any person holding an office of the United States government may be removed from office by a national majority of the States, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 3(a).

Section 4: Interstate Highway Funds. The United States is prohibited from placing any conditions on any grants of interstate highway funds not directly and reasonably related to the purpose of establishing interstate transportation.

Section 5: Free Market. An internal free market, being necessary to the prosperity of a national economy, the interstate commerce clause set forth in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 shall henceforth be construed, with respect to commerce among the states, to give Congress only the power to prohibit State restrictions on interstate trade; and in no event shall this power or any other power in the Constitution be construed to give the Congress plenary legislative or police power. This Section is subject to the limits set forth in Section 1.

Section 6: Income Tax. The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby immediately repealed, and any person convicted of the crime of federal tax evasion, whether currently in prison or not, whether currently living or not, whether also convicted of other crimes or not, is hereby pardoned.

Section 7: Election of Senators. The 17th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby immediately repealed.

Section 8: State Pardon Power. The governor of each State shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons to any individual convicted of any crime by any federal court who (a) is currently imprisoned within the territory of said State; (b) is a current or previous resident of said State; or (c) committed the acts serving as the basis for said conviction while present in said State.

Section 9: Federal Judiciary. The judicial power of the United States includes the power to nullify (a) any federal law or policy (1) that is not expressly authorized by this Constitution, or (2) that prohibits or unreasonably regulates of a rightful exercise of liberty; and (b) any state law expressly prohibited by a provision of this Constitution or by a constitutional federal statute; but does not include the general power to nullify or review other state laws. This Section is subject to the limits set forth in Section 1.

Section 10: Posse Comitatus. No member of the United States' armed forces or any other armed federal official, employee or agent may be present or bear arms in the territory of a State without the express written permission of the governor of said State. No federal military installation may be placed in the territory of a State without the express written permission of the governor of said State.

Section 11: Original Understanding. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Well it really shouldn't matter who the AG is. The law is the law. The laws aren't supposed to depend on who is in political power at the moment. No law is ever passed under the condition it is in effect when this party is in power and not in effect when the other party is in power, that would be kind of stupid and we'd need two entirely different sets of laws.

I mean, I know that millennial liberals are really dumb when it comes to how laws and western civilization in general are supposed to work but this is getting ridiculous.

As I already stated before, not all laws are created equal, and not all laws are enforced equally.

For example, it's illegal in California to bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time. Do you think the AG of California should expend much energy going after the parents of twins for violating that law as they should arresting murderers and rapists?

In California they turn illegal murderers loose!

 

[bendog]

It might help if the feds passed an effective immigration law.

 

[The Derp]

Pot is legal in some form in 29 states that covers about 60% of the population. So society has determined that it is safe. Let's legalize it and move on.