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

121–130 of 208 posts

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

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

an_account wrote: post #102
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.

If a state like California sets up an imprisonment scheme under it's laws that violates federal law (to choose an example that has happened recently), it's still illegal prison overcrowding, not legal prison overcrowding.

A system under state law in violation of valid federal law is, because of the supremacy clause, an illegal system.

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

#122

Post by mrkstu »

saas_co_de wrote: post #108
pfg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure conservatives would put up w/cannabis in exchange for effectively overturning Roe vs Wade, which is the effect this would have precedentally.

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

#123

Post by adventured »

throwawayjava wrote: post #93
adventured wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I still don't get the hysteria-like concern over private prisons, when the extreme majority of all harm and money has related to the government prison system, which almost never gets tagged eg on HN in conversations like these. I've brought it up a dozen times over the years, and I'm usually the only person in the thread bringing it up. Yet the fear about the private side of it, is dramatic. That upside-down concern doesn't make any sense to me. That isn't to play down the negatives of the private prison industry, rather, it's to highlight that the public system is radically larger and just as financially motivated. Some of the strongest and best funded advocate groups against pot legalization have been government prison & police groups / unions / lobbyists; they all have a truly vast, financial stake in the government prison system.

Those people earn relatively decent wages. There are maybe 2.5 million of them total in the system, across all government prisons and law enforcement related jobs. They vote. Their representatives lobby aggressively. They hold immense collective political influence, far beyond anything the private prison industry could muster.

Hiniger makes $1 million? The total cost of 8 or 12 government cops. We've got 300k or 500k too many. Yet, again, the private side gets a hugely lopsided amount of attention.

What's the total prison population scale difference between government & private prisons, between 1980 and 2017? 20 to 1? More than that?

If we're adding up lives destroyed, the number of people harmed by being unjustly put into government or private prison, the economic value of all those destroyed lives, how would that come out? How many millions of people were put into government prisons over 30-40 years that shouldn't have been and how does that compare to the private industry? We must surely be talking about trillions of dollars more in real cost to society from the government side vs the private side.

The real comedy of the fear? The US prison population finally began to stop rising and began to fall, as the private prison system has gotten larger. And pot is getting legalized during that time as well. Peak war on drugs existed during peak government prison complex. Nobody likes to talk about that.

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

#124

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Clubber wrote: post #85
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery was not against federal law when that happened. It only happened much later toward the end of the war with the 13th amendement.

As an aside, if you believe the Emancipation Proclamation to be legally binding, slavery was legal in the North longer than it was in the South.

That would be equivalent to an executive order, I’m not sure if you could call it a law, more like a regulation. But maybe things were a bit different back then.

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

#127

Post by sbov »

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…

> 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.

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

#128

Post by existencebox »

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…

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 of unfortunate ailments. To say that pot "destroyed" my life is about as far from the truth as you can get.

This is such a heartless decision, paramount in my mind to the same corrupt ideologues who enabled prohibition; and while I'm in no means surprised, I feel like there needs to be stronger action at this point to fight back.

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

#129

Post by wcchandler »

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.

Thanks for reiterating this point. It’s hard to focus on the silver lining when it’s issues you care about.

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

#130

Post by creaghpatr »

conductr wrote: post #33
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.

> Pot smokers aren’t violent people because it tends to chill you out This is not a great argument. I'd say pot smokers aren't violent people because they are everyone as in they are average people not drug addicts, which is mostly true (in my dataless opinion). Most people don't causally or recreationally use heroin, but like alcohol, a large portion of average people do enjoy regular MJ use.

The referenced violence in the parent comment is related to the trafficking of rather than the usage of pot, I believe.
Post reply on HN