Some sanity in the politics of drugs.

[TooTall]

The Tenth Amendment defines it.

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.

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So then the power of nullification which is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution.

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

Yes, they can, and they should be able to. That doesn't negate the nullification.

 

[TooTall]

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

Yes, they can, and they should be able to. That doesn't negate the nullification.

I guess I am slow, but has the federal law been nullified?

 

[there4eyeM]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

 

[TooTall]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

That will be changed before long and you will be able to stay stoned legally.

 

[there4eyeM]

Getting there is the hard part.

 

[FA_Q2]

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

Yes, they can, and they should be able to. That doesn't negate the nullification.

I guess I am slow, but has the federal law been nullified?

In Colorado and Washington it essentially has.

 

[TooTall]

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

Yes, they can, and they should be able to. That doesn't negate the nullification.

I guess I am slow, but has the federal law been nullified?

In Colorado and Washington it essentially has.

Tell me what the word nullified means and then explain this:
Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using pot off-duty

 

[FA_Q2]

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

Yes, they can, and they should be able to. That doesn't negate the nullification.

I guess I am slow, but has the federal law been nullified?

In Colorado and Washington it essentially has.

Tell me what the word nullified means and then explain this:
Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using pot off-duty

Workers should be able to be fired for using pot as they should for drinking or nay other thing that the company does not condone.

 

[TooTall]

The problem is the conflict between federal and state law on the legalization of MJ. The Judicial has the Constitutional duty to settle disputes between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, etc., etc. This is what the Judge ruled on and if the state wants to nullify the federal law, they can file suit in a federal court. In the meantime, it is against a federal law to use MJ and that is the end of this discussion.

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

Yes, they can, and they should be able to. That doesn't negate the nullification.

Full Definition of NULLIFY
transitive verb
1
: to make null; especially : to make legally null and void
2
: to make of no value or consequence

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Or they can just ignore federal law, which is what they're doing.

One Judge did not ignore the federal law and that is why we are having this discussion. If a person ignores the federal law and smokes dope, he/she may get fired from their job.

And the rest of the state has.

This has nothing to do with the rest of the state. ANY employer can fire someone who breaks the federal law by smoking pot if they want too.

Yes, they can, and they should be able to. That doesn't negate the nullification.

I guess I am slow, but has the federal law been nullified?

The state making marijuana legal is nullifying the federal law, yes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

And when a state nullifies a law it doesn't make the law disappear, it merely states that the law has no force within the borders of the state.

 

[TooTall]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

And when a state nullifies a law it doesn't make the law disappear, it merely states that the law has no force within the borders of the state.

Full Definition of NULLIFY
transitive verb
1
: to make null; especially : to make legally null and void
2
: to make of no value or consequence

 

[TooTall]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

And when a state nullifies a law it doesn't make the law disappear, it merely states that the law has no force within the borders of the state.

Tell it to the Judge.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

And when a state nullifies a law it doesn't make the law disappear, it merely states that the law has no force within the borders of the state.

Full Definition of NULLIFY
transitive verb
1
: to make null; especially : to make legally null and void
2
: to make of no value or consequence

Except that the idea of state nullification refers to the idea that each state can decide for itself whether it will enforce a federal law. Colorado, for example, has decided that they will not enforce federal drug laws, therefore they have nullified those laws within their borders. That doesn't mean that the federal drug laws disappear, but merely that Colorado will not enforce them. This case may cite the federal law, but it doesn't undermine the state's position because nobody thinks that private businesses shouldn't be able to fire people for using recreational drugs in the first place.

 

[TooTall]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

And when a state nullifies a law it doesn't make the law disappear, it merely states that the law has no force within the borders of the state.

Full Definition of NULLIFY
transitive verb
1
: to make null; especially : to make legally null and void
2
: to make of no value or consequence

Except that the idea of state nullification refers to the idea that each state can decide for itself whether it will enforce a federal law. Colorado, for example, has decided that they will not enforce federal drug laws, therefore they have nullified those laws within their borders. That doesn't mean that the federal drug laws disappear, but merely that Colorado will not enforce them. This case may cite the federal law, but it doesn't undermine the state's position because nobody thinks that private businesses shouldn't be able to fire people for using recreational drugs in the first place.

That is correct as far as it goes. The State has changed the state law allowing the use of medicinal and recreational MJ, which does nullify the state law that made it illegal. But it does not nullify the federal law. The feds can still arrest someone for illegally dealing or using it. They have the FBI, DEA and other law enforcement agencies that have guns and can arrest citizens that break federal laws. And, the case DID cite, not may cite, the federal law in allowing private businesses to fire people for using MJ and who told you that NOBODY thinks they shouldn't be able too?

 

[SwimExpert]

Except that the idea of state nullification refers to the idea that each state can decide for itself whether it will enforce a federal law. Colorado, for example, has decided that they will not enforce federal drug laws, therefore they have nullified those laws within their borders.

Incorrect. Nullification refers to states unilaterally making the decision that a federal law is unconstitutional, and thus null and void. Colorado has not nullified any federal law. The federal law remains in place, and remains constitutional; the state of Colorado has made no attempt whatsoever to have the federal law deemed unconstitutional. They have simply repealed their own state laws that made marijuana illegal. Thus, it's sale and use is permissible under the laws of the state. Typically, states don't enforce federal laws. States enforce state laws, while the federal government enforces federal laws.

 

[TooTall]

Except that the idea of state nullification refers to the idea that each state can decide for itself whether it will enforce a federal law. Colorado, for example, has decided that they will not enforce federal drug laws, therefore they have nullified those laws within their borders.

Incorrect. Nullification refers to states unilaterally making the decision that a federal law is unconstitutional, and thus null and void. Colorado has not nullified any federal law. The federal law remains in place, and remains constitutional; the state of Colorado has made no attempt whatsoever to have the federal law deemed unconstitutional. They have simply repealed their own state laws that made marijuana illegal. Thus, it's sale and use is permissible under the laws of the state. Typically, states don't enforce federal laws. States enforce state laws, while the federal government enforces federal laws.

At last you posted what I was too slow to put in words. Thanks!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, Federal prohibition of the substance remains ridiculously in place.

And when a state nullifies a law it doesn't make the law disappear, it merely states that the law has no force within the borders of the state.

Full Definition of NULLIFY
transitive verb
1
: to make null; especially : to make legally null and void
2
: to make of no value or consequence

Except that the idea of state nullification refers to the idea that each state can decide for itself whether it will enforce a federal law. Colorado, for example, has decided that they will not enforce federal drug laws, therefore they have nullified those laws within their borders. That doesn't mean that the federal drug laws disappear, but merely that Colorado will not enforce them. This case may cite the federal law, but it doesn't undermine the state's position because nobody thinks that private businesses shouldn't be able to fire people for using recreational drugs in the first place.

That is correct as far as it goes. The State has changed the state law allowing the use of medicinal and recreational MJ, which does nullify the state law that made it illegal. But it does not nullify the federal law. The feds can still arrest someone for illegally dealing or using it. They have the FBI, DEA and other law enforcement agencies that have guns and can arrest citizens that break federal laws. And, the case DID cite, not may cite, the federal law in allowing private businesses to fire people for using MJ and who told you that NOBODY thinks they shouldn't be able too?

Has there been an example of anybody who thinks they shouldn't be able to? I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but none have stood out. Regardless, yes, that's exactly what nullification is: The state not enforcing the federal law. That the feds still enforce the federal law is not in question. Now, I would of course like to see the states stand up for themselves and also let the feds know that if they try to enforce their law then they will be arrested under state law, but that doesn't have to be the case for it to be nullification.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that the idea of state nullification refers to the idea that each state can decide for itself whether it will enforce a federal law. Colorado, for example, has decided that they will not enforce federal drug laws, therefore they have nullified those laws within their borders.

Incorrect. Nullification refers to states unilaterally making the decision that a federal law is unconstitutional, and thus null and void. Colorado has not nullified any federal law. The federal law remains in place, and remains constitutional; the state of Colorado has made no attempt whatsoever to have the federal law deemed unconstitutional. They have simply repealed their own state laws that made marijuana illegal. Thus, it's sale and use is permissible under the laws of the state. Typically, states don't enforce federal laws. States enforce state laws, while the federal government enforces federal laws.

Colorado won't say they nullified federal law, but yes I'm afraid that's exactly what they did. They themselves deemed it a dumb law so they went around it and legalized it for themselves. That is nullification.