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

181–190 of 208 posts

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

#181

Post by cmurf »

Shivetya wrote: post #136
rufugee wrote: post #112

Is there an easy way to track donations from alcohol/big pharma lobbyists to the Republican party? I'm betting quite a bit of money, rather than concern for the prole's welfare, is behind this. Sessions said this in March: "I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marij…

If you follow the donations in this sector its usually boring and more towards whomever is in power. I would concentrate more on police and sheriff PACs and those related to the prison systems; not private but public which are most covered by PACs while I find some things to like about this Administration as a Libertarian it stops when confronted with Sessions. then again all this opens the door to more opportunities…

The executive branch can't repeal laws, they can choose to selectively enforce them. Also, the previous administration via the state department, was working on unwinding the many agreements we have with other countries on marijuana legalization, it's hardly tenable to legalize it at a federal level while we're still giving (let's call it slush) money to governments who make it illegal, and punishing those who don't.

This administration has castrated the state department, so near as I can tell, none of that effort is happening anymore. And in fact any government paying attention would refuse to take such moves seriously now that the AG is reversing the prior administration's efforts thus far.

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

#183

Post by cmurf »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #138
existencebox wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was considering writing this on a throwaway but no, this makes me so incensed I have to speak up as myself. As a long-term, gainfully employed and rather successful engineer, marijuana was the _one_ reason I was able to get my unhealthily low body weight up to par after years of attempting other methods. I would go multiple days without eating/without an appetite, between this and my weight resulting in a multitude…

sessions isn’t talking about Med, he’s talking about Rec. fuck him, anyway. i’m glad weed gets you feeling better. it was only ever made illegal because racism and the cotton lobby. fuck this system. fuck these entrenched interests. fuck you, dad! i’m smoking weed no matter what u say!

This is wrong. Sessions is absolutely talking about medical marijuana when he's heavily lobbying Congress to repeal Rohrabacher-Farr. The whole point of that amendment is to prevent DOJ from interfering in state legalized medical marijuana use.

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

#184

Post by cmurf »

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…

This is a deeply naive view of how government works. The exclusive domain of the purse string rests with the legislature, that is in the constitution. If the legislature makes something illegal, but they do not fund enforcement, and the president signs that into law, there is nothing the executive can do to get more money for enforcement, they simply can't enforce it. And there are all kinds of examples of this.

Enforce every law is just nonsense talk. Absolutely they pick and choose what to enforce and what not to enforce. It's all a resource allocation, and ideology and politics determines a lot of how it gets allocated, which is why elections matter.

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

#185

Post by chc »

mmmBacon wrote: post #11
gervase wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that these are federal prosecutors, not state prosecutors; they have no incentive to respect state law over federal law. In particular, if the Justice Department intended to respect states' rights, then I suspect they wouldn't have changed these regulations. Of course, this isn't an official announcement; we can save most of the hand-wringing, moral outrage, and/or smug satisfaction (depending on your views) unt…

Actually they do have incentives to care about local and state laws because they need cooperation from local and state governments to enforce the law.

They were busting California medical marijuana dispensaries left and right as recently as 10 years ago, which is more than a decade after we passed Proposition 215. It seems a bit optimistic to think that now they'll bow to state law.

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

#186

Post by aerotwelve »

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.

Kansas and California both have equal representation in the Senate, which every federal law must pass through; there is no taxation without representation comparison to be made here.

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

#187

Post by vikascoder »

DanBC wrote: post #44
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

> 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.)

Unless sarcasm is intended

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

#188

Post by zeveb »

hnal943 wrote: post #74
zeveb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree regarding enforcement of every law, but I would also point out that the federal drug laws — like other laws still on the books which are not enforced — are unconstitutional, and thus that he has a responsibility given his oath of office to refrain from enforcing them.

No. The executive branch does not have the power to strike down laws it sees as unconstitutional. That is the power of the courts. The executive should follow the laws as written.

If two laws contradict one another, the executive must make a determination which to follow; it cannot follow both. It could choose to follow the newest, or the oldest, but fortunately the Constitution itself spells out the precedence of the laws: 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'

The Constitution takes precedence over federal law, and the executive must refrain from executing a law which is unconstitutional.

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

#189

Post by ryandrake »

jdblair wrote: post #159
BearGoesChirp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that prosecutorial discretion allows racism and other prejudice to be reflected in enforcement. However, every practical system will have prosecutorial discretion because resources are always limited.

Except, Congress's ability to create a never-ending stream of new laws seems to be limitless. Maybe we should require a 3/4 majority and "slow" process to create a law but only a 1/4 minority and fast track needed to repeal one.

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

#190

Post by hfourm »

DanBC wrote: post #158
hfourm wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The real solution to opioid death is adequate treatment for pain" Like.... medical marijuana? Hard to believe you wrote those three sentences without putting two and two together. Regardless if I partially agree with you, further criminalizing marijuana is also NOT the solution to opioid deaths.

There's not much evidence of efficacy for cannabis as a treatment for long term pain.

To replace all instances of opioids? No.

It does a very good job with neuropathic pain though.

Post reply on HN