Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

My comment on the redlit article last week (7427818) applies here so I'll quote it verbatim:

The 1st District Democrat suggests adding a phrase to the section of the federal Controlled Substances Act where it talks about federal pre-emption of state law if there is a conflict. At that point - it's Section 903, to be precise - DeGette would add language that exempts from the act any state provisions "relating to marijuana."

I don't think that's a fix.

Section 903 disclaims "field preemption," a doctrine where states are not allowed to regulate areas if Congress has taken over. If federal drug laws preempted state laws entirely then states would not be allowed to make drug dealing illegal. Congress wanted drugs to be doubly illegal.

The fix is to add "...in violation of state law" in various places around the act. Such references to state criminal law are common in federal law. For example, the Mann Act makes it illegal to transport a minor across state lines for immoral acts. What constitutes an illegal act is defined by state law. RICO references state laws on extortion and the like. The substantive acts required to prove a RICO violation may vary slightly from state to state.

The controlled substances act could prohibit transporting marijuana with the intent that it be possessed or used in violation of state law. In the majority of states that would be no change. In the "legal" states the feds couldn't bust you, seize your property, etc. as long as you followed state rules.

This sounds like a neo-Confederate wet dream.

Interesting that a man who isn't pro-pot respects the laws having passed. This is sort of how I feel about abortion - personally despise it but it's none of my damn business what you do, and I'll always support that freedom of choice.

It's also refreshing that marijuana legalization is going mainstream. In our lifetimes (I'm 38), we'll all be going to the corner Walgreen's to get high. That's what we already do with booze, but no one ever got stoned and beat his wife.

So, the bill as proposed simply and only says "the Federal Controlled Substances Act will not supercede state laws on marijuana". Tight, focused. You guys might want to actually read the really, really short text instead of saying irrelevant things about nullification or the Confederacy. Good lord.

Token Anarchist: I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance

And yet our dimmer folks still call it "socialism." Oddly, no one ever said that about car insurance even at the state level. People were annoyed, but there was no FOX News telling them how a forced move of capital from citizens to private companies was commie f*g pinko 'socialism.'

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least I know what socialism is. Frankly, I'm kind of a fan of it. Democratic socialism, that is.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Token Anarchist: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Such as?

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance

Yep. Who says the Democrats don't love Big Business?

Only braindead rightists.

Or, maybe we could have federalism. I think I read about in some Papers or something.

jso2897: wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

There is no telling what it might be applied to. This is not a good idea.

There is telling! Go read it! It's a one-paragraph amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that specifically and only applies to marijuana! Jesus dick!

A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!

I don't really have much to add to that. It stands on it's own.

incendi: A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!

I don't really have much to add to that. It stands on it's own.

Damn right.

incendi: it's

How'd that get in there? Jesus dick!

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Interesting thread where the libs take off their little masks.....

Did your parents have any children they were proud of, or just you?

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

This. Sounds like a backdoor for those on the right to disregard anything D.C. says if they don't agree with it.

Emposter: Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.

I don't think this quite rises to level of "tear[ing] down our system of government." It does contribute, to some extent, to the speghettification of our legal code, which I disapprove of. I'd rather they just go ahead and deschedule it, which would basically have the same result of it still being illegal in most places. But it's not tearing down our system of government. Jesus dick.

Emposter: How about no?

Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.

Yes, you're right, a Federal amendment to a Federal law that provides a paper-thin delegation of authority to state governments on a single subject is the end of the Union. Of course.

incendi: Emposter: Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.

I don't think this quite rises to level of "tear[ing] down our system of government." It does contribute, to some extent, to the speghettification of our legal code, which I disapprove of. I'd rather they just go ahead and deschedule it, which would basically have the same result of it still being illegal in most places. But it's not tearing down our system of government. Jesus dick.

Yeah, that would be altogether better and make more sense, but in general I thought liberals were in favor of half-assed incrementalism.

jso2897: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

There is no telling what it might be applied to. This is not a good idea.

There is telling! Go read it! It's a one-paragraph amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that specifically and only applies to marijuana! Jesus dick!

And when the DEA challenges it in court? Well, the 99% probability is that the courts would toss it - but if they ruled in it's favor, they would be making new, scary law. I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.

So the DEA is going to challenge federal law in court? By what standard?

Beyond that... What new scary law? That the federal government is allowed, by federal statute, to delegate authority on certain subjects to the states? I hate to tell you this but that is settled darling law and has been for a long time.

jso2897: And when the DEA challenges it in court? Well, the 99% probability is that the courts would toss it - but if they ruled in it's favor, they would be making new, scary law. I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.

On what basis would the DEA challenge it, out of curiosity?

GAT_00: This proposal is absurd. State laws should never trump Federal laws, I don't care what you're talking about.

Good thing this is a federal law being proposed, innit, Mr. Prohibitionist?

My congressperson will

a) ignore me
b) politely tell me to go fark myself

as usual. Representative government is a pipe dream.

Anenu: While I support legalized marijuana and in fact most other drugs I can't help but feel that this law would be used as an reason to pass other laws that allow states to create laws contrary to the stance of the federal government. For all you naysayers out their what would be the legal difference between this law and a law that stated that the federal government should respect states wishes when it came to healthcare laws?

The federal government could pass that law now. Indeed, a limited version of that is the basis for the state exchanges under the ACA.