61–70 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point you cross the line between philosophical noodling and outright advocating the execution of everyone involved in the drug trade.
[flagged]
À nation of lotus eaters. What could go wrong?
As someone who had an alcoholic stepfather growing up, me and my mother would both ultimately have preferred a lotus eater. Alcohol is already legal (and always will be, as prohibition showed us), so there's no point in criminalizing any drug that's less destructive than alcohol is.
The 22nd state to stop separately making marijuana illegal on top of federal laws. Since federal law applies everywhere, marijuana is still technically illegal everywhere in the US. It’s fascinating, however, that under three presidents spanning both parties, the federal authorities have given up on enforcing the ban in states that have removed marijuana laws from their own books. Perhaps this is a glimpse into the l…
But also Congress has forbid the federal government from spending to interfere with state medical marijuana laws, which federal courts have (with slight variations in details between the Circuit Courts) ruled prohibits not only direct actions against states, but also prosecutions of private parties for acts consistent with (and, in at least one Circuit, even in technical violation of) state medical marijuana laws. While this does not cover non-medical use, it does put a significant practical “asterisk” to the idea that marijuana is illegal everywhere in the US.
> It’s fascinating, however, that under three presidents spanning both parties, the federal authorities have given up on enforcing the ban in states that have removed marijuana laws from their own books.
That would be quite interesting, but nothing like that has actually happened. The reason we have a conflict in circuits on the scope of the funding restrictions is that the feds have continued to prosecute marijuana violations, even in states which have legalized some or all marijuana use, and even for acts which are closely connected to those states medical-use rules. (The First Circuit decision on the scope of the prohibition is from 2022.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has always selectively enforced laws, it’s simply beneficial in this case. 22 states have legalized recreational marijuana and the world hasn’t ended. Maybe it’s okay federal statute isn’t enforced in this particular circumstance, from a rationalist perspective. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S....
On the flip side, the federal government is still prosecuting people for distributing cannabis, albeit at a decreasing rate: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-marijuana-arrests-co... If the federal government isn't arresting folks in legal states, how can they justify arresting others? We're close to half the US legalizing cannabis, when will the federal ban end?
They are, though, and enough that there are circuit court cases as recently as last year addressing the limitation of the funding prohibition Congress has established since 2015 on federal interference with state-legal medical marijuana programs.
The 22nd state to stop separately making marijuana illegal on top of federal laws. Since federal law applies everywhere, marijuana is still technically illegal everywhere in the US. It’s fascinating, however, that under three presidents spanning both parties, the federal authorities have given up on enforcing the ban in states that have removed marijuana laws from their own books. Perhaps this is a glimpse into the l…
If only the states held most of the power (and collected most of the taxes), you know, the way the Founders intended. Marijuana legalization is a good example of why this 'labrstory' model works: State A legalizes and collects tons of taxes, so neighboring states see the success and want in on the action. Likewise, policies that crash and burn are small in scale (i.e. small enough to be reversible) and people can, wo…
It does not work when one state wants to keep slavery legal.
Like everything, a balance needs to be made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can disagree all you want. It’s still illegal at the federal level. A fed could still cite you even though you are in CA, regardless of the CA legalization.
Caveat is Congress enjoined the DOJ from enforcing against medical marijuana use. Get a medical card (suuuuuuuper easy) and you’ve derisked. Sucks to have to hack around stupidity wrt federal policy on marijuana, but This Is America. It also reduces the tax you pay (typically, ymmv based on state) vs recreational purchases. https://www.mpp.org/policy/federal/are-consumers-or-cannabis... > There are some exceptions. I…
Caveat to the caveat is that DOJ keeps pushing the limit on the medical marijuana prosecution prohibition, and that in California (and the rest of the Ninth Circuit), the controlling case law is that the prohibition only applies to strict compliance with state medical use rules, and that even minor technical violations (even in states that also allow non-medical use) allows federal prosecution (the First Circuit last year established a slightly different rule).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said it’s a bad thing that the feds aren’t enforcing this. All I said is: 1. It’s inaccurate to claim that marijuana is legal anywhere in the US, and 2. The situation is fascinating.
This is debatable depending on your precise usage of “legal.” Marijuana use, particular when compatible with the Attorney General’s 2013 memo regarding federal enforcement of the CSA, is widely considered to be de facto legal. There’s a reason the terms de facto and de jure exist when discussing jurisprudence.
Something that is true de facto is true in effect despite not being true legally.
It is hard when you have little kids and the air is filled with the smell.
À nation of lotus eaters. What could go wrong?
Edit: And that number even includes people who have used it "at least once", so the number of regular/habitual users would be lower than that.