U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#41

Post by LanceH » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:33 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #12

danschumann wrote: post #8

I think weed should be legal. I also think Sessions should enforce every law, lest he pick and choose what is illegal and what is not, thus becoming the most powerful law-maker ( or unmaker ) in the land. Passing a law is the act of the legislative, and repealing a law is too. If he does not enforce all the laws, he basically is seizing the power of congress and repealing those laws, for his term. Imagine Sessions ch…

That's nice in theory, but there are so many laws on the books and limited resources, any executive branch has to choose what laws to go after.

What's nice in theory is having net neutrality established through legislation rather than regulation. Same thing here.

I cringe a little every time something I might want gets implemented merely through the benevolence of those in power because those people change.

This should be decided through legislation, or possible through judicial neutering of the commerce clause. But the commerce clause knows no bounds thanks to the decisions made regarding the ACA, so here we are.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#42

Post by saas_co_de » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

goalieca wrote: post #4

So much for « states rights » > Sessions, who has assailed marijuana as comparable to heroin and has blamed it for spikes in violence Pot smokers aren’t violent people because it tends to chill you out. The growers and dealers can belong to criminal organizations and cause problems. So naturally, keeping the gangs in business by keeping pot illegal is top priority.

Quite the contrary. I am glad he is doing this. It is a huge tactical blunder that will force the states' rights issue into court and either result in a victory for the states or massive public discontent about federal overthrow of popular state policies.

Either way the federal government is going to see their influence eroded here.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#43

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

danschumann wrote: post #8

I think weed should be legal. I also think Sessions should enforce every law, lest he pick and choose what is illegal and what is not, thus becoming the most powerful law-maker ( or unmaker ) in the land. Passing a law is the act of the legislative, and repealing a law is too. If he does not enforce all the laws, he basically is seizing the power of congress and repealing those laws, for his term. Imagine Sessions ch…

Have you heard of prosecutorial discretion?

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#44

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:35 PM UTC

SEJeff wrote: post #35

wildmusings wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the government has some prosecutorial discretion, the legal limits of which are uncertain. But there is no legal ambiguity or conflict as to federal government's authority to enforce drug laws (as I originally read your post to suggest, though perhaps you have edited it?). Federal law is supreme and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this particular issue, going so far as to allow the punishment of someone w…

Correct, and in specific, the supremacy clause of the constitution guarantees that federal law overrules state law. I don't see any state AG's having much luck suing the DoJ against this as it is clear as mud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

> against this as it is clear as mud:

Mud is opaque. The phrase "clear as mud" means "not clear at all", or "baffling".

(I only point this out because there are peoplereading HN with English as a second language, and some of them are interested in idiom. I don't care how you use language, and I'm not trying to "correct" you.)

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#45

Post by nsfmc » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:35 PM UTC

This reads like a strong warning to the already cautious payment processors that legalization hasn’t eased any of the uncertainty around processing payments for dispensaries or made banking any simpler for them despite a massive market having just opened.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#46

Post by conductr » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

This is poised to be a giant states rights issue/fight and there's nothing Trump likes more than a fight

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#47

Post by bradleyjg » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

If I were a US Attorney trying to bring pot cases in California, Colorado, or Washington I'd be very worried about jury nullification. Maybe I'd be able to solve the problem in voir dire but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#48

Post by e40 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

Bahamut wrote: post #26

tenpies wrote: post #10

Keep in mind this is based on two anonymous sources. The track record for those has been less than stellar since Trump began his administration.

Sometimes the leaks are intentional to gauge public reaction, and then actual action is taken based in part on feedback.

Leaks of this sort are almost always trial balloons. I'm sure this was an intentional leak. They're looking for a backlash, at which point they can quietly forget about it (if they don't want the fight) and pretend it never happened.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#49

Post by mieseratte » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #23

sedtrader wrote: post #21

> as polls show a solid majority of Americans believe the drug should be legal I am for the legalizing of marijuana, but considering the majority of Americans live in only 9 of the states, decisions should not be made based on the "majority". Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. 9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states an…

To flip this, the minority of the country that live in 39 states should not be able to dictate the law to the majority of the country who just happen to be concentrated in a relatively small area. That's tyranny of the minority, which is arguably far worse than the tyranny of the majority the framers feared.

On the other hand one could frame this as the majority of states decided and those nine states are the tyrannical minority.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#50

Post by wildmusings » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

SEJeff wrote: post #35

wildmusings wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the government has some prosecutorial discretion, the legal limits of which are uncertain. But there is no legal ambiguity or conflict as to federal government's authority to enforce drug laws (as I originally read your post to suggest, though perhaps you have edited it?). Federal law is supreme and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this particular issue, going so far as to allow the punishment of someone w…

Correct, and in specific, the supremacy clause of the constitution guarantees that federal law overrules state law. I don't see any state AG's having much luck suing the DoJ against this as it is clear as mud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Yep, though I do disagree with the logic of the Supreme Court case I mentioned. The federal government argued it was a legitimate exercise of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. But growing weed in your backyard for personal use is clearly neither interstate, nor commerce. Alas, the commerce clause has been widely abused in many similar ways with the Supreme Court’s blessing.