Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 208 posts

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

#101

Post by drvdevd »

saas_co_de wrote: post #42
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.

I agree. The cole memo was a real half-assed political approach in the first place, perhaps necessary at the time. This is a move coming at a time when this now state legal industry is gaining widespread popularity and acceptance and most importantly income.

It’s time to challenge the feds on the outdated CSA classification of marijuana as schedule one in general, in addition to forcing another states rights debate.

Also as I understand it, the only argument for the constitutional acceptance of the CSA is essentially the feds rights to govern interstate commerce. In this case they’re trying assert that right in an industry which is essentially operating within single states where the legality has been democratically assessed. IANAL, but I think this fact has some weight behind it in the states favor.

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

#102

Post by an_account »

dragonwriter wrote: post #80

“Legal” is incorrect in the headline, as there is no “legal pot” in the United States (well, aside from very narrow research, etc., allowed by the feds, which is not the focus of this policy.) The fact that states don't have espionage laws covering everything in the federal espionage act doesn't mean that those states have “legal espionage”.

You’re conflating two different things. In the former, states have set up legal framework for marijuana sales. In the later, state laws don’t have any opinion on the matter.

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

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

saas_co_de wrote: post #42
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.

> 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.

The states already lost; this already went to the Supreme Court before Congress restricted such prosecution, and the feds won completely.

What will go to court next—unless Rohrabacher-Farr fails to be renewed (it's included in the most recent stopgap spending measure, but that expires, IIRC, later this month) before any prosecutions under the new DoJ policy—will not be a Constitutional states rights issue, but a federal statutory interpretation issue over whether DoJ is prohibited by Congress from this action.

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

#104

Post by VLM »

karmelapple wrote: post #69
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…

Police officers can choose whether or not to enforce a law. Someone is driving 50 in a 35 mph zone. Police officer’s radar says it, the gun is calibrated, and it’s illegal to do that. Police officer pulls that person over, then after a little chat, decided to let them go with a warning. Presumably the reason for letting someone go is because they feel the penalty imposed by the law is too stiff in this case. Okay, th…

First five minutes of criminology 101 "Law Enforcement vs Policing"

Law Enforcement means replacing that cop with a very small shell script hooked up to a red light camera style radar gun and a ticket printer. Policing is a somewhat more nuanced human task.

With a side dish of the Peelian Principles that define the difference between an occupying military light infantry force and a police force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

So Peelian interpretation #2 its a speed trap intentional or unintentional

Peelian principle #4 if the cop was in anyway legitimately disrespectful the ticket should not be written.

Peelian principle #6 there is a diversity in humanity such that the law (aside from mandatory minimums) has always specified "up to". Its a very medical doctor Hippocratic oath like outlook of first do no harm, do the minimum necessary act to get the result.

Peelian principle #9 realistically there is no way to prevent speeding while driving the pregnant wife in labor to the ER, so why bother with a retributive ticket? Turn on the lights and escort them to make it safer, maybe. On the other hand business as usual idiot woke up late trying to speed to work to catch up, that can be permanently cured by a retributive ticket. Principle 9 is the logic behind how we treat medically impaired driving ; intentionally getting drunk equals ticket, having a heart attack means no ticket, although in an authoritarian law enforcement philosophy both are equally hazardous driving situation for the general public.

To some extent pot legalization is a classic law enforcement vs policing argument. By Peelian principles individual use while not endangering the public should never, ever, be enforced anyway regardless of law. By definition MJ can't be a hazard to yourself or the public as long as you're not driving or operating heavy machinery, so its simply not a police issue. Kinda like how some people argue immigration law enforcement is not a Peelian police issue.

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

#105

Post by khuey »

mcny wrote: post #17
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…

Why just marijuana? Why not every drug? In fact, why is possession of anything a crime? We already have laws about improper storage of hazardous materials. Possession of anything should be legal. Now distribution and sale is a trickier subject but pretty easy as well. As long as you don't misrepresent what you're selling, it should be legal as well. If we are for a small government, we have to walk the walk.

Should possession of 100 lbs of weapons grade uranium be a crime?

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

#106

Post by adventured »

throwawayjava wrote: post #77
adventured wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blackmarket alcohol is not uncommon in the US. Particularly among poor white and hispanic populations. Most cultures have their equivalent of moonshine. You can easily buy illegally manufactured alcohol in every corner of Appalachia, basically all of the south, and poorer areas of every blue state including California and New York (most of NY being rural, and not particularly affluent, there's a healthy trade in ille…

> Blackmarket alcohol is not uncommon in the US. But large criminal syndicates funded by blackmarket alcohol are very much a thing of the past. At least in the USA. I guess I technically know quite a few people who make "black market" whiskey. It's not legal to distill without lots of licensing and these people do sell bottles to friends and friends-of-friends. But it's Really Hard to understate the difference betwee…

> it's Really Hard to understate the difference between poor folks running cottage industries around moonshine and the sprawling violent criminal enterprises that flourished around the alcohol trade during prohibition.

Certainly. And it's some gargantuan scale different versus the illegal drug trade as a comparison (0.1% as large perhaps). My point was that it isn't particularly uncommon, the underground illegal alcohol trade (it's also not monetarily massive in size as you're noting, which is why it exists at all, local police mostly look the other way so long as it stays small'ish).

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

#107

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

Setting prosecutorial priorities is an important executive branch function, both in terms of resource management and in terms of avoiding injustice; criminal laws are not designed to be applied by automatons, and executive officials are not doing he job they are paid to do if they act like blind automatons in applying them.

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

#108

Post by saas_co_de »

pfg wrote: post #58
saas_co_de wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court already ruled against states' right on this matter in Gonzales v. Raich. That case was about medical marijuana, but I don't think that matters. (IANAL.)

The composition of the court has changed quite a bit since then as has public opinion.

Cannabis is now legal for medical use in 29 states. Many of these laws were passed through the referendum process. That is a lot of democracy to overrule from a bench in D.C.

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

#109

Post by shams93 »

If you look at the fine print he's still leaving the decision to crack down to each stares attorney general but sessions is doing exactly what you would want to do is you want to see the opiate crisis get much worse. These people in DC are so stupid they don't even have the brain power of an earthworm but they want to treat us lower than dogs like we were born to be Jeff Sessions slaves. I'm so sick of these bullies.

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

#110

Post by saas_co_de »

dragonwriter wrote: post #103
saas_co_de wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The states already lost; this already went to the Supreme Court before Congress restricted such prosecution, and the feds won completely. What will go to court next—unless Rohrabacher-Farr fails to be renewed (…

> The states already lost

precisely. which is why we need the feds to try and enforce the law again in order to relitigate it.

Post reply on HN