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

201–208 of 208 posts

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

#201

Post by dragonwriter »

losvedir wrote: post #36
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 agree with you, but it's interesting to see the "worse-is-better" philosophy applied outside of tech. I would hope that most readers of HN who build systems for a living see the value in your argument of separation of concerns and clear interfaces: Congress makes laws, executive branch enforces those laws, states make their own laws within the latitude they have. That said, in life like in software, when subject to…

> It's my understanding that Congress didn't say marijuana should be illegal, but the DEA, right?

Incorrect. While the Attorney-General can add or remove drugs from the scehdules established under the Controlled Substances Act based on the criteria in the Act, with advice from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in practice, as I understand, this is delegated largely to the DEA in DoJ supported by the FDA in HHS), the initial scehdules were set by Congress, and it is Congress that initially placed Marijuana in Schedule I, from which it has not been moved, when the Act was passed.

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

#202

Post by wildmusings »

sbov wrote: post #127
wl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't? Prohibitionists wanted an amendment because at that point in time, no amendment had ever been overturned.

A properly-ratified amendment cannot be overturned, unless it decreases a state's share of the votes in the Senate without its consent. There are at least two reasons prohibitionists sought an amendment:

1) The Supreme Court at the time did not take the expansive view of the Commerce Clause that it has today, so it may very well have declared a federal prohibition law unconstitutional.

2) The amendment didn't give Congress the power to ban alcohol, it banned alcohol. That meant that legalizing alcohol required another amendment. This was a huge win for the prohibitionists.

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

#203

Post by dragonwriter »

wildmusings wrote: post #202
sbov wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't? Prohibitionists wanted an amendment because at that point in time, no amendment had ever been overturned.

A properly-ratified amendment cannot be overturned, unless it decreases a state's share of the votes in the Senate without its consent. There are at least two reasons prohibitionists sought an amendment: 1) The Supreme Court at the time did not take the expansive view of the Commerce Clause that it has today, so it may very well have declared a federal prohibition law unconstitutional. 2) The amendment didn't give Co…

> A properly-ratified amendment cannot be overturned

GP probably meant “repealed” rather than “overturned”.

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

#204

Post by Clubber »

sedtrader wrote: post #197
Clubber wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. Some framers were afraid of like Jefferson. Hamilton and Washington were federalists and favored a strong central government. I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option. Of course it has it's problems too. The…

> Not sure of the logic there. Its really simple, if you don't understand this, you need to question your own logic. Basically the Marijuana issue should be a state decision, not dictated by the Fed Govt. What don't you understand here?

>9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states and vice versa.

Because the 41 states are dictating to the 9 states that pot should be illegal, not the other way around.

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

#205

Post by dragonwriter »

Clubber wrote: post #160
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…

>Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. Some framers were afraid of like Jefferson. Hamilton and Washington were federalists and favored a strong central government. I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option. Of course it has it's problems too. The…

> I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option.

Note that that option was not at all available for those for whom their stated sucked due to the issue that was the original focus of the “states rights” controversy in the US. It's kind of interesting that you point to the Confederacy’s difficulties in raising revenue for the Civil War as a potential drawback of state over federal power, but not the issue which motivated the Confederacy.

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

#206

Post by RickJWag »

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…

Good post. I agree.

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

#207

Post by mieseratte »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #86
mieseratte wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Empty land doesn't have a right to suffrage, people do.

We're not talking about "empty land," we're talking about member states of a federation. Those members get to decide, you merely tell your state, vaguely, what you want.

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

#208

Post by Clubber »

dragonwriter wrote: post #205
Clubber wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. Some framers were afraid of like Jefferson. Hamilton and Washington were federalists and favored a strong central government. I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option. Of course it has it's problems too. The…

> I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option. Note that that option was not at all available for those for whom their stated sucked due to the issue that was the original focus of the “states rights” controversy in the US. It's kind of interesting that you point to the Confederacy’s difficulties in raising reve…

>Note that that option was not at all available for those for whom their stated sucked due to the issue that was the original focus of the “states rights” controversy in the US.

Because that would be a massive moral crusade tangent that nobody wanted to read and was hardly relevant to the discussion.

>It's kind of interesting that you point to the Confederacy’s difficulties in raising revenue for the Civil War as a potential drawback of state over federal power, but not the issue which motivated the Confederacy.

Everybody knows the issue that motivated the Confederacy that has half a brain. I assumed everyone on here did as well.

Post reply on HN