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

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

#91

Post by saas_co_de » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #29

dbingham wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately that's not how it works, at all. Especially when there are legal conflicts between the state and federal governments like this. There are so many laws on the books, many of them horribly outdated, and legislatures are overworked / grid locked. Often, the only way for us to have a working body of law that makes sense is for the government to simply stop enforcing the outdated ones. In the case of the Oba…

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…

Contrary to the idealistic view courts do not simply judge cases on the merits and the law but most definitely do take into account practical concerns about enforceability and public opinion.

Courts will generally not make rulings that undermine their own authority, so if they see that their ruling will be ignored anyway, that does shape their opinion.

After many state referendums legalizing cannabis, especially in western states which are already hostile to the federal government, the Supreme Court would think long and hard about the potential constitutional crisis that could arise from going against the popular will on this issue.

I expect they will find some new justifications for a more nuanced approach if the issue is put to them again.

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

#92

Post by Clubber » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

SEJeff wrote: post #51

wildmusings wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this “good-faith” buzzword everywhere lately. It seems that the current political usage is just a way to dismiss any legitimate arguments or actions made by someone who is supposed to be a villain in the narrative.

But remember, Jeff Sessions was denied a federal judgeship in 1986 with the reason being, "He was too racist". Now how racist did you have to be in 1986 to be too racist?! This is the same guy who in March of 1986 said he would refer to a white civil rights lawyer as (and I quote), "A disgrace to his race." He then went on to refer to the ACLU, NAACP, and National Council of Churches as communist inspired and un-amer…

>Now how racist did you have to be in 1986 to be too racist?!

About as racist as today. If you want to see what racism really looks like (and not merely bigotry), look to the 60s and prior.

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

#93

Post by throwawayjava » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #73

vel0city wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't look at profits to gauge how big a company is, you should look at revenues. Otherwise, Amazon would until recently be considered a tiny company. CoreCivic generates around $1.7B in revenues, far greater than your $200M figure. If your ratio of 200m = 3k cops, CoreCivic would be closer to ~25k cops.

The profit motive is a common argument about the private prison complex, which is why I used the $200m. I believe it was very justified as the reference point. That $200m goes to the shareholders, owners, in theory. That's the profit motive sum in their business. I don't disagree that also referencing the $1.7b in sales is relevant. It's just as tiny looking when stacked up against the monster that is a million unnec…

A few thoughts:

1. I don't think you have to disagree with vel0city to make your point. Just agree that the private prison complex is large and dangerous to society (as you apparently have) and point out that the unnecessary aspects of the public sector prison complex are also large and dangerous.

2. Any time someone can have a financial stake is something like a prison while also holding immense political power, we should all be very scared and concerned. This is why there's so much well-placed concern over the private prison industry. Of course, it's worth noting that there are also lots of ways to make lots of money off of public prisons. And those mechanisms should also be choked off.

3. Damon Hininger makes about $1M/yr in salary. Presumably if total revenue were only $200M, he'd be making a lot less in salary.

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

#94

Post by BearGoesChirp » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

jdblair wrote: post #81

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…

> Sessions will instead let federal prosecutors where pot is legal decide how aggressively to enforce federal marijuana law, the people said. He's pushing the choice to whether "to defend every law" down to regional federal prosecutors. Prosecutors always decide what laws to enforce by deciding how to allocate their scarce resources. This is an established legal custom called "prosecutorial discretion."

Prosecutional discretion is legalized bigotry. The legal system has a strong history of allowing sexist, racist, and classist thought to drive how laws are enforced. Any fair or just system would allow no such discretion.

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

#95

Post by wildmusings » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #72

SEJeff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's only half the picture. There's also the 10th Amendment, which says that powers not delegated to the feds belong to the states or the people. Federal drug laws rely on the interstate commerce power, even though they also regulate conduct that is sometimes purely intrastate and/or purely non-commercial. The most natural reading of the Constitution is that the feds have no authority here. The Supreme Court disagr…

I'm all for a faithful reading of the Constitution, and I agree that the federal government has overstepped the intended bounds, but it's ultimately irrelevant. For legal purposes, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. If you want them to be more faithful to the original meaning, appoint judges who feel the same way.

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

#96

Post by swarnie_ » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #9

This guy is messing with my gains. Can't he go rant about tax deductions and too much regulation like a normal republican?

Budz off 37% already today.

Hope sessions and his boyfriend had short positions on this dumpster fire

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

#97

Post by BearGoesChirp » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:01 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.

That's why States Rights is the solution. Let each state control what the law is for them and only for them. Tyranny of thy own self.

(Ignoring for the moment state level tyranny of the majority.)

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

#98

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #56

knieveltech wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uh uh. Quirks of population distribution should certainly not permit a minority of citizens from driving policy in directions the rest of the country doesn't want to go. One person, one vote.

California getting to decide the will of Kansas is a broken system. It feels a lot like, say, the king of England ruling the colonies without representation.

Except it's not California. It's millions of American Citizens

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

#99

Post by bradleyjg » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #65

bradleyjg wrote: post #47

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.

Most people don't know what jury nullification is, and the courts specifically do not instruct juries on it. Hence, it is not a big concern really.

People don't need to know what jury nullification or be instructed on it in order to engage in it. It was happening in England before this country even existed. Ask any prosecutor and she'll tell you about a case where it happened to her.

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

#100

Post by alexanderstears » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 4:04 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.

The doctrine of States' rights is presupposes federal supremacy and a legalistic viewpoint. Marijuana can't be a State's rights issue because it's a federal issue. This is why you often hear the states' rights advocates call for a smaller federal government - states rights can only flourish without the shadow of federal jurisdiction.

Right now marijuana is illegal federally - all States' rights proponents acknowledge this. The old policy of being hands off but reserving the right to bring the iron fist down on otherwise legal businesses was a bad policy. The uncertainty and risk profile killed a lot of investment - to this day, the tax burden on pot businesses is insanely high because they're not permitted to deduct business expenses related to growing/distributing marijuana because those activities are federally illegal.

Thankfully, Sessions is legalistic. If congress got off their butts and legalized it/returned the legality decisions to the state, Sessions would surely respect their decision.

I enjoy marijuana more than most and I suppose Sessions enforcing the law - it's a bad law and collectively we need the motivation to make it better. This legal twilight zone is complete bogus - bring it into the open and drive out the criminal element and let the best organization flourish.