If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Westword)   If there is a time to call your congressperson, it is now. Ask them to support the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" which would ensure that state laws regarding marijuana will not be pre-empted by the federal government   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 214
    More: PSA, Mike Coffman, Diana DeGette, federal government, state law, Controlled Substances Act, Earl Blumenauer, Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis  
•       •       •

1582 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Nov 2012 at 3:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-18 02:46:04 PM  
Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-18 02:56:35 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 03:06:15 PM  
SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?
 
2012-11-18 03:07:10 PM  

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


Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.
 
2012-11-18 03:07:28 PM  
This sounds like a neo-Confederate wet dream.
 
2012-11-18 03:08:27 PM  
With all the lessons from the GOP about unintended consequences of legislation made under party rule, you'd think us liberals would be smarter than that.

We are, apparently, not.
 
2012-11-18 03:10:05 PM  

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

Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.


Ah, so the Dem-o-rat war on women has a new life?
 
2012-11-18 03:11:09 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 03:11:36 PM  

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
 
2012-11-18 03:13:09 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-18 03:14:03 PM  

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


Please.. go to Canada and try Socialism first.
 
2012-11-18 03:18:08 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


This. The bill is incredibly narrow and only amends previous legislation. The federal government would be amending federal law, the horror.
 
2012-11-18 03:18:33 PM  

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

Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.

Ah, so the Dem-o-rat war on women has a new life?


You try too hard.
 
2012-11-18 03:19:50 PM  
Meh.
 
2012-11-18 03:20:20 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:21:31 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

R.I.P. John C. Calhoun
 
2012-11-18 03:23:42 PM  

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


This. Freedom is dangerous, as all good liberals know. Why, give people the ability to protest and nullify restrictive regulations that are for their own good (or for The Children) and anything might happen! Best to be safe.
 
2012-11-18 03:25:39 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-18 03:27:21 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:29:42 PM  
Or, maybe we could have federalism. I think I read about in some Papers or something.
 
2012-11-18 03:31:15 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:31:44 PM  
People sure love their weed.
 
2012-11-18 03:35:16 PM  

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!
 
2012-11-18 03:36:44 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:36:44 PM  
Interesting thread where the libs take off their little masks.....
 
2012-11-18 03:37:45 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:37:45 PM  

incendi: it's


How'd that get in there? Jesus dick!
 
2012-11-18 03:38:26 PM  

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?


Well, then maybe the cons should have STFU and let them go single payer instead of fighting for compromise on their lame vision of Obamacare and then not voting for what they had fought for. Obamacare is what the Republicans wanted, so fark them and fark you.
 
2012-11-18 03:38:29 PM  
How about no?

Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.
 
2012-11-18 03:39:08 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-18 03:40:57 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:21 PM  

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


As this is federal legislation being proposed, I think you may need to go learn what nullification actually is prior to trying to use the word in conversation.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:22 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:57 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:45:10 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:47:32 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:51:14 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 03:52:10 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-18 03:53:37 PM  
This proposal is absurd. State laws should never trump Federal laws, I don't care what you're talking about.
 
2012-11-18 03:54:47 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-18 03:55:23 PM  

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


more democracy, closer to the people.
 
2012-11-18 03:56:04 PM  
My congressperson will

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

as usual. Representative government is a pipe dream.
 
2012-11-18 03:57:59 PM  

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


THIS...
Or perhaps they want to through all civil rights laws out the window.
 
2012-11-18 04:01:51 PM  

incendi: 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?


On the basis that it would permit states to negate federal laws by passing contrary laws of their own.
The fact that the law is narrow in scope might not limit the principle established to the isuues in the law.
Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but I have seen the intention of other good laws twisted into very bad things in our courts.
You might be right - I tend to be paranoid about these things. But why not just put forward a bill to deschedule marijuana? Wouldn't that really be the right way to go here? Because if the argument for this is that it might be politically easier to do - that's just not a good argument.
 
2012-11-18 04:02:43 PM  
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?
 
2012-11-18 04:04:03 PM  
Stupid bill, just re-schedule it to Class III.

//Princess Di is my Congressidiot, she's a stereotypical Prima Dona.
 
2012-11-18 04:05:02 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-18 04:05:41 PM  

moothemagiccow: My congressperson will

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


c) farking pothead--who cares what you dope smokers think?
 
2012-11-18 04:05:51 PM  
I'm not going to ask my representatives in government to support an act that is clearly unconstitutional. Article VI, clause 2.
 
2012-11-18 04:05:58 PM  
This *almost* made me feel better about Mike Coffman winning. I really didn't expect him to support this.
 
2012-11-18 04:06:42 PM  
Sorry, subby, I'm for legalization but its near the bottom of my priority list
 
2012-11-18 04:08:22 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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?


To be fair, the article really didn't explain that point very well.
 
2012-11-18 04:09:36 PM  

PanicMan: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

To be fair, the article really didn't explain that point very well.


It wasn't really hard for me to click next and read the text of the bill.
 
2012-11-18 04:12:04 PM  

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


So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.
 
2012-11-18 04:12:05 PM  

madnessupmysoul: I'm not going to ask my representatives in government to support an act that is clearly unconstitutional. Article VI, clause 2.


I'm not convinced, but that is my fear. And the only arguments I've heard to the contrary here are to the effect that it's as plain as the nose on my face and i'm stupid for even having such a concern - not a good tack to take with me.
 
2012-11-18 04:14:32 PM  

cryinoutloud: moothemagiccow: My congressperson will

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

c) farking pothead--who cares what you dope smokers think?


No that's Obama's position. Also it's option A.
 
2012-11-18 04:14:57 PM  

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.


Dude. When I am stoned and am thinking way far into the future, like, millions of years. Thinking about aliens and space travel and zero-g bongs and shiat.
 
2012-11-18 04:15:05 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Can you believe how many people still do not know what ACA calls for? Jesus dick!
 
2012-11-18 04:19:09 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


/I see my work here is done.
//Tip of the hat(tm)
 
2012-11-18 04:19:40 PM  
No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".
 
2012-11-18 04:20:48 PM  
www.theworkofgod.org
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-18 04:21:05 PM  
Excweese, me, but federal law trumps state law. We need to address the real issue which is the federal law against pot. That's what needs to change.

/lib
 
2012-11-18 04:21:44 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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?


Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.
 
2012-11-18 04:22:41 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.


But there is noting in this case where state law would trump federal law, so talking about it is hardly relevant.
 
2012-11-18 04:24:04 PM  

hbk72777: No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".


My grandmother went through 6 years of cancer without chemo, so fark YOU and YOUR "aches and pains." Jesus dick!
 
2012-11-18 04:24:28 PM  

lilplatinum: Counter_Intelligent: Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.

But there is noting in this case where state law would trump federal law, so talking about it is hardly relevant.


Because ignorance abounds. Even in my case.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:24 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.


GAT has a history of being vocally pro-prohibition. Like, in every legalization thread ever. And, yes, there's nothing about this that is state law trumping federal law, it's federal law delegating certain authority to the states, which has about a million precedents throughout the US Code.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:26 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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?


It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.
 
2012-11-18 04:26:00 PM  

Blue_Blazer: [www.theworkofgod.org image 262x372]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x265]


Oh, I hope this is a thing now. It is one of my favorite ridiculous expletives ever.
 
2012-11-18 04:26:38 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.


So you're against Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA...
 
2012-11-18 04:27:07 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Blue_Blazer: [www.theworkofgod.org image 262x372]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x265]

Oh, I hope this is a thing now. It is one of my favorite ridiculous expletives ever.


I'm trying to do my part, you know, for America.
 
2012-11-18 04:27:55 PM  

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?


This!
 
2012-11-18 04:28:41 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.

So you're against Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA...


Yes, those are roughly the same thing.
 
2012-11-18 04:29:39 PM  
I've never been a big fan of the whole not owning slaves thing, so I'm just not going to follow that one. Not black people though, since that would be racist. I'll only nullify slavery for Eastern European ladies.
 
2012-11-18 04:30:13 PM  

hbk72777: No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".


Because it was the pot that made an unlicensed driver go 110mph at 3:35am, not his being an asshole.
 
2012-11-18 04:30:42 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.

So you're against Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA...

Yes, those are roughly the same thing.


They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:04 PM  
As much as I support legalization of pot, I don't like the idea of opening the door to state laws such as (but not limited to) charging abortion doctors with murder, school segregation (you know what states would if they could), and institutionalized religion at all levels of government and schools.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:36 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I've never been a big fan of the whole not owning slaves thing, so I'm just not going to follow that one. Not black people though, since that would be racist. I'll only nullify slavery for Eastern European ladies.


Good thing this is a federal law providing a narrow amendment to existing federal law, so there's no nullification concerns, right?
 
2012-11-18 04:32:11 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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


Legal Precedent
 
2012-11-18 04:32:45 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: As much as I support legalization of pot, I don't like the idea of opening the door to state laws such as (but not limited to) charging abortion doctors with murder, school segregation (you know what states would if they could), and institutionalized religion at all levels of government and schools.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-18 04:32:45 PM  
In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws. I would rather just see HHS reschedule marijuana. It obviously has medicinal properties, why should it remain schedule I?
 
2012-11-18 04:32:55 PM  

jso2897: I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.


i think you're mistaken there, dude. marijuana decreases short term memory retention and increases creative and novel thought processes in most people.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:11 PM  

jso2897: incendi: 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?

On the basis that it would permit states to negate federal laws by passing contrary laws of their own.


Only on the subject of marijuana - so the rest of your argument is invalid.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:22 PM  
Well since we're not using the Tenth Amendment to the USC, we may as well get a new one.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:26 PM  

Snapper Carr: A Dark Evil Omen: 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

Legal Precedent


This is a legislative issue, there would be no challenge here and no precedent because it is not remotely a constitutional issue. This is federal farking law deciding how it is going to apply itself. It is not state law claiming supremecy over a supreme court decision, which would be nullification.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:46 PM  
The title of the bill is what's causing all these knee-jerk reactions, since "State's Rights" has been a racist NeoConfederate dogwhistle of a century and change now. Unsurprising title, since the sponsor's a Republican, but theres' nothing wrong with the bill itself except not going far enough. As someone above said, they should just deschedule weed entirely, but this guy isn't the one to do it, since he's opposed to legalizing it, but feels that what the voters of Colorado said goes. I
 
2012-11-18 04:34:52 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I've never been a big fan of the whole not owning slaves thing, so I'm just not going to follow that one. Not black people though, since that would be racist. I'll only nullify slavery for Eastern European ladies.

Good thing this is a federal law providing a narrow amendment to existing federal law, so there's no nullification concerns, right?


I believe the argument is "slippery slope." If this were to happen, what is to prevent the things he is worried about? Then you get turtle marriages. No seriously, I do think this could be a slippery slope that could embolden the enemy, i.e. conservatives.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:59 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.


And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:09 PM  

Rwa2play: 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.


Actually it is a front door

With 31 states having a GOP governor maybe they would be okay with this.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:14 PM  

Snapper Carr: A Dark Evil Omen: 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

Legal Precedent


Wow.

Things I have learned in this thread:

- Any federal delegation of authority to the states is nullification, as opposed to be the exact opposite.
- A bill passed by the federal legislature is a legal case and provides precedent as opposed to be codified law that is open to legal challenges.

Wow.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:16 PM  

hbk72777: No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".


Too bad you live in a democracy, huh?
 
2012-11-18 04:35:32 PM  

Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.


If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:41 PM  
This reminds me, I should go see that new Lincoln movie.
 
2012-11-18 04:36:29 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.


Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.
 
2012-11-18 04:36:45 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.


Okay, so you disagree with the law. So say so. Don't talk disingenuous handwringing bullshiat that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
 
2012-11-18 04:37:13 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


The feds delegate power to the states?

Looks like someone doesn't understand the constitution

No big surprise
 
2012-11-18 04:37:26 PM  
I am totally for legalizing marijuana, but this is a bad idea. What is going to make it so states won't outlaw abortion using this?
 
2012-11-18 04:37:47 PM  

lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.


Yeah, this has been my point through the entire thread. Apparently the frightening thing about this is that it lays out a precedent where... the federal government can pass laws... regarding federal law.

How radical.
 
2012-11-18 04:38:46 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.


I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?
 
2012-11-18 04:38:54 PM  

lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.


It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.
 
2012-11-18 04:39:11 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: As much as I support legalization of pot, I don't like the idea of opening the door to state laws such as (but not limited to) charging abortion doctors with murder, school segregation (you know what states would if they could), and institutionalized religion at all levels of government and schools.


I don't see how this would lead to it.

The bill in question is incredibly narrow in scope and only deals with marijuana. It doesn't allow States to preempt federal law however they feel like.

The federal government has always had the power to delegate it's authority to the states, this would simply be another case of them doing just that.
 
2012-11-18 04:39:25 PM  

machoprogrammer: I am totally for legalizing marijuana, but this is a bad idea. What is going to make it so states won't outlaw abortion using this?


The text of the bill?

/farking lazy farkers
 
2012-11-18 04:39:50 PM  

machoprogrammer: I am totally for legalizing marijuana, but this is a bad idea. What is going to make it so states won't outlaw abortion using this?


How could states use the federal legislature to outlaw abortion?
 
2012-11-18 04:40:16 PM  
If Congress can keep GITMO open by refusing to fund its closure and moving of the prisoners then it can just de-fund the DEA from doing any marijuana enforcement.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:22 PM  

Blue_Blazer: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.


And they can still do it on anything, regardless of if there's a precedent. Legislation does not work that way.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:29 PM  

machoprogrammer: I am totally for legalizing marijuana, but this is a bad idea. What is going to make it so states won't outlaw abortion using this?


Because it's a narrow amendment to the Controlled Substances Act, and last time I checked fetuses were not a scheduled drug?

Look, here. For everyone, the text of the bill:

A BILL
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide thatFederal law shall not preempt State law
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
1
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
3
This Act may be cited as the ''Respect States' and
4
Citizens' Rights Act of 2012''.
5
SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.
6
Section 708 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
7
U.S.C. 903) is amended-
8
2(1) by striking ''No provision'' and inserting
1
''(A) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in sub-
2
section (b), no provision''; and
3
(2) by adding at the end the following:
4
''(b) SPECIAL RULE REGARDING STATE MARIHUANA
5 LAWS.-In the case of any State law that pertains to mar-
6
ihuana, no provision of this title shall be construed as indi-
7
cating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy
8
the field in which that provision operates, including crimi-
9
nal penalties, to the exclusion of State law on the same
10
subject matter, nor shall any provision of this title be con-
11
strued as preempting any such State law.''.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:45 PM  

Blue_Blazer: 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.

Dude. When I am stoned and am thinking way far into the future, like, millions of years. Thinking about aliens and space travel and zero-g bongs and shiat.


Hey, me too. I love weed, and still partake occasionally - but I don't take my pipe dreams seriously.
 
2012-11-18 04:41:02 PM  

Blue_Blazer: It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.


They won't have to point to this, they already have the power to write federal legislation - in fact thats pretty much their primary function.
 
2012-11-18 04:41:27 PM  

incendi: incendi: it's

How'd that get in there? Jesus dick!


eloquentscience.com


Fun story:

I was once in a discussion where someone said "God has no penis." I thought this was funny and all until I got to thinking... If Jesus ascended bodily into heaven and Jesus was fully God and fully man...
 
2012-11-18 04:42:23 PM  

Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws. I would rather just see HHS reschedule marijuana. It obviously has medicinal properties, why should it remain schedule I?


http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507
 
2012-11-18 04:42:37 PM  

actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?


Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.


This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.
 
2012-11-18 04:42:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: - A bill passed by the federal legislature is a legal case and provides precedent as opposed to be codified law that is open to legal challenges.


Good job completely missing my point.

/which is this. If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

/I'm pro-legalization (of pretty much everything - I don't think the govt. has any business telling competent adults what they can or can't introduce into their own bloodstreams) but if it's going to happen, it needs to happen federally.
 
2012-11-18 04:42:42 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I've never been a big fan of the whole not owning slaves thing, so I'm just not going to follow that one. Not black people though, since that would be racist. I'll only nullify slavery for Eastern European ladies.

Good thing this is a federal law providing a narrow amendment to existing federal law, so there's no nullification concerns, right?


Can I still keep some Romanians locked up in my basement?
 
2012-11-18 04:44:05 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

Yeah, this has been my point through the entire thread. Apparently the frightening thing about this is that it lays out a precedent where... the federal government can pass laws... regarding federal law.

How radical.


Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:10 PM  

GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?

Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.

This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.


Oh come one, you get that analogy.

/And the reference
//You want to federalize law enforcement, I thought it was a bit hasty.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:15 PM  

Snapper Carr: . If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.


But that's not what's going on here! There's no nullification! This is a federal law amending a federal law to delegate certain authority to the states! This is a nullification concern in the same way - once again - the state exchanges in ACA are a nullification concern, ie in no possible way.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:54 PM  

Snapper Carr: A Dark Evil Omen: - A bill passed by the federal legislature is a legal case and provides precedent as opposed to be codified law that is open to legal challenges.

Good job completely missing my point.

/which is this. If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

/I'm pro-legalization (of pretty much everything - I don't think the govt. has any business telling competent adults what they can or can't introduce into their own bloodstreams) but if it's going to happen, it needs to happen federally.


This. Is. Not. A. State. Law. Morons.
 
2012-11-18 04:45:23 PM  

actualhuman: GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?

Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.

This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.

Oh come one, you get that analogy.

/And the reference
//You want to federalize law enforcement, I thought it was a bit hasty.


I got the reference fine. The false equivalence overrode it.
 
2012-11-18 04:45:58 PM  
Pot is going to turn into "before, I was for it, but now, SOROS LIBBY SOSHULIZM KENYAN U.N. CONCENTRATION CAMP WHARGARBL" for the right. They will dig in their heels, clamp their jaws and close their eyes.

Sure, we use birth control and smoke weed. BIRTH CONTROL AND POT THREAT FREEDOM RELIGION MY MARRIAGE!!!11

This country is farked.
 
2012-11-18 04:46:38 PM  

lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.

They won't have to point to this, they already have the power to write federal legislation - in fact thats pretty much their primary function.


You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is that this would give the Right something to howl and scream and point at. That's my point. I do not think this law, in and of itself, will bring the end of federalism.
 
2012-11-18 04:47:24 PM  

GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?

Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.

This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.

Oh come one, you get that analogy.

/And the reference
//You want to federalize law enforcement, I thought it was a bit hasty.

I got the reference fine. The false equivalence overrode it.


So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?
 
2012-11-18 04:47:34 PM  

Blue_Blazer: A Dark Evil Omen: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

Yeah, this has been my point through the entire thread. Apparently the frightening thing about this is that it lays out a precedent where... the federal government can pass laws... regarding federal law.

How radical.

Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.


Look, I agree that descheduling is the better and proper approach, but let's debate things that are real. The "dogs" are already "barking" all over the south about derp; there's no slippery slope here nor any potential for one because you're worried about something happening that is already a thing.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:20 PM  

Blue_Blazer: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.

They won't have to point to this, they already have the power to write federal legislation - in fact thats pretty much their primary function.

You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is that this would give the Right something to howl and scream and point at. That's my point. I do not think this law, in and of itself, will bring the end of federalism.


The right will imagine whatever they require to justify whatever they want to do at any given point in time. I'd think this was well known by now.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:25 PM  

Blue_Blazer: You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is that this would give the Right something to howl and scream and point at. That's my point. I do not think this law, in and of itself, will bring the end of federalism.


Everything gives the right something to scream and howl and point at... trying to pass things that do not get them to do means you are doing your job poorly.

But this law has nothing to do with states rights, federalism, or nullification as many people on this thread bizzarely think.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:37 PM  

actualhuman: Snapper Carr: A Dark Evil Omen: - A bill passed by the federal legislature is a legal case and provides precedent as opposed to be codified law that is open to legal challenges.

Good job completely missing my point.

/which is this. If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

/I'm pro-legalization (of pretty much everything - I don't think the govt. has any business telling competent adults what they can or can't introduce into their own bloodstreams) but if it's going to happen, it needs to happen federally.

This. Is. Not. A. State. Law. Morons.


Say it a few more times. Maybe they'll finally get it.
 
2012-11-18 04:49:31 PM  
Call me crazy, but here's an idea. How about we legalize weed on a federal level and leave it up to the states to decide how they want to handle it?


/They're doing whatever the hell they want to anyway.
 
2012-11-18 04:49:53 PM  

actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?


They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.
 
2012-11-18 04:50:56 PM  

GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.


So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.
 
2012-11-18 04:51:21 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Blue_Blazer: A Dark Evil Omen: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

Yeah, this has been my point through the entire thread. Apparently the frightening thing about this is that it lays out a precedent where... the federal government can pass laws... regarding federal law.

How radical.

Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.

Look, I agree that descheduling is the better and proper approach, but let's debate things that are real. The "dogs" are already "barking" all over the south about derp; there's no slippery slope here nor any potential for one because you're worried about something happening that is already a thing.


I get your point, I just think this would be more ammo for them. You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration. They are arguably already up to 11, so maybe they can't turn it up any higher, but I just have visions of Arizonans trying to pass a law directing the federal government to ignore federal immigration laws in favor of state ones, and similar things. I always worry about anything with both Republican and Democratic support.
 
2012-11-18 04:54:38 PM  

Blue_Blazer: You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration.


They couldn't do it with immigration due to current federal case law about immigration being the purview of federal government. Similarly, someone mentioned abortion above, but you could not have the federal legislature legalize abortion since it would be a violation of a constitutional right to privacy which has already been incorporated at a state level..
 
2012-11-18 04:58:01 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.


Because in the other instances measurable good is done.
 
2012-11-18 04:58:20 PM  
While we are at it, lets also allow each state to determine what it's voting laws should be. You get to have marijuana, Texas gets to only allow white males over 40 to vote.
 
2012-11-18 05:00:27 PM  

hbk72777: No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".


DUI remains illegal. I'm glad you found one person who killed people while high on marijuana. 30 Americans die every day from someone driving under the influence of alcohol. That's over 10,000 a year. There's definitely nothing going on in their lives now.

About your mother? Perhaps you'll get over it.
 
2012-11-18 05:03:34 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.

Look, I agree that descheduling is the better and proper approach, but let's debate things that are real. The "dogs" are already "barking" all over the south about derp; there's no slippery slope here nor any potential for one because you're worried about something happening that is already a thing.

I get your point, I just think this would be more ammo for them. You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration. They are arguably already up to 11, so maybe they can't turn it up any higher, but I just have visions of Arizonans trying to pass a law directing the federal government to ignore federal immigration laws in favor of state ones, and similar things. I always worry about anything with both Republican and Democratic support.


Here's my position: If I come from a purely philosophical standpoint, then I don't care about any of this. It's all varying levels of repression courtesy of the capitalist state and this law can go on the bonfire with all other laws at every level. That, however, while it gives me a lens through which to view things, does not help me understand the workings of government.

I don't have the luxury of using who supports what as a shortcut because neither of the major parties resembles anything I have the slightest respect for. In the same way, however, that I can recognize that the Republicans are openly fascist as opposed to the Dems' capitalist business-as-usual positions, I can objectively analyze whether or not this carries any of the handwringing implications (particularly the especially dumb ones like "nullification" that have no bearing at all) without losing my philosophical grounding. At this point, all we're arguing is whether the slippery slope is fallacious in this case or not, and that is a very narrow point of contention.
 
2012-11-18 05:04:25 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.


So, yes, you're being a disingenuous toad and you don't believe "Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong" at all
 
2012-11-18 05:05:57 PM  

lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration.

They couldn't do it with immigration due to current federal case law about immigration being the purview of federal government. Similarly, someone mentioned abortion above, but you could not have the federal legislature legalize abortion since it would be a violation of a constitutional right to privacy which has already been incorporated at a state level..


That's just it. If they start trying to rewrite federal law to ignore federal law, then I'm not so sure where that ends. Obviously they aren't going to be able to ignore Constitutional matters. I just don't want to see this happening every day, and seeing people calling Democrats hypocrites. Once again, all of that will probably happen anyway. I'm not trying to claim that the sky is falling.
 
2012-11-18 05:06:00 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

So, yes, you're being a disingenuous toad and you don't believe "Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong" at all


Thank you for telling me what I think. You'd make a good Republican.
 
2012-11-18 05:06:28 PM  

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


Done in one. I'm for legalization, but that's a farking stupid idea.
 
2012-11-18 05:12:10 PM  
The problem with state-level drug laws is the same as the problem with state-level gun control laws: these things are easy to move across state lines. While I'm not a fan of current federal law in both areas, I think it only makes sense to make the policy at the national level.
 
2012-11-18 05:16:54 PM  

hbk72777: No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".


Do you realize that the kid in your link could have smoked pot days to weeks before the collision and still have tested positive? You do understand that pot metabolites stay in the body LONG after the effects wear off, right?

Also,

pbs.twimg.com
 
2012-11-18 05:23:26 PM  
You know, for all the effort being expended to keep the feds out of marijuana enforcement, you'd think you could get a bill that either downgrades it from a schedule I to a schedule II or III, or takes marijuana off the controlled substances list entirely.

That would solve the problem right there without having to resort to the slippry slope of federal vs state powers.
 
2012-11-18 05:26:23 PM  

MisterRonbo: The problem with state-level drug laws is the same as the problem with state-level gun control laws: these things are easy to move across state lines. While I'm not a fan of current federal law in both areas, I think it only makes sense to make the policy at the national level.


This - the DEA needs to deschedule pot - period.
 
2012-11-18 05:27:31 PM  

Ambivalence: You know, for all the effort being expended to keep the feds out of marijuana enforcement, you'd think you could get a bill that either downgrades it from a schedule I to a schedule II or III, or takes marijuana off the controlled substances list entirely.

That would solve the problem right there without having to resort to the slippry slope of federal vs state powers.


It would have as much chance of passing as this would.
 
2012-11-18 05:35:40 PM  
i18.photobucket.com 

Wow. Weed makes me calm - guess it doesn't effect everybody that way.
 
2012-11-18 05:39:16 PM  
So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.
 
2012-11-18 05:41:44 PM  
No.
 
2012-11-18 05:43:32 PM  

Silly Jesus: I can't keep up.

 

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-18 05:44:46 PM  
Put another way:

If there is a time to call your congressperson, it is now. Ask them to support the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" which would ensure that state laws regarding civil rights will not be pre-empted by the federal government.

/Short answer: No.
//Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
2012-11-18 05:44:51 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.


We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?
 
2012-11-18 05:46:39 PM  

Dafatone: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?


It is but it can't be measured so no.
 
2012-11-18 05:48:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.


No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.
 
2012-11-18 05:51:58 PM  

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


This. We would be stupid to do this batshiat again.
 
2012-11-18 05:52:50 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.


Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.
 
2012-11-18 05:57:09 PM  
Fark the federal govt, we don't need you in our states taking our rights away.
 
2012-11-18 06:01:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.


This libtard takes his marching orders on states' rights from this guy:

www.wired.com

/too soon?
 
2012-11-18 06:04:59 PM  

jso2897: No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.


Then how do you explain civil libertarian liberals support of gay marriage done through states? I think liberals are pro states rights when the state isn't trying to pass racist or sexist laws.
 
2012-11-18 06:16:30 PM  

actualhuman:
So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?


Because it would make the same act a crime under federal law in some states, but not in others. The 14th amendment, how does it work?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-18 06:22:12 PM  
MisterRonbo

We already have federal laws that make acts criminal or not depending on the laws of some state. The federal government is allowed to help states out by criminalizing use of interstate commerce to break state laws.
 
2012-11-18 06:25:09 PM  

lilplatinum:
But this law has nothing to do with states rights, federalism, or nullification as many people on this thread bizzarely think.


Passing a federal law allowing states to opt out of a federal law has nothing to do with federalism?

A Dark Evil Omen So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done?

Exactly what other federal criminal statutes are states allowed to opt out of?
 
2012-11-18 06:26:20 PM  
Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.
 
2012-11-18 06:34:08 PM  

chuggernaught: would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws


So slavery, segregation, Jim Crow....and legal marijuana? Not sure how weed fits into the 14th amendment.
 
2012-11-18 06:38:19 PM  

ZAZ: MisterRonbo

We already have federal laws that make acts criminal or not depending on the laws of some state. The federal government is allowed to help states out by criminalizing use of interstate commerce to break state laws.


I assume you're referring to things like the RICO act, which provide for additional charges if you've broken certain state laws. I'd like to see you come up with an actual example of an act which would be criminal under federal law in one state, but not in another - state criminal statutes are remarkably similar, particularly in the definition of terms. Apart from animal cruelty laws, I can't think of any felony crime statutes I've ever seen that had big differences across states (and I've looked up quite a few, I'm a bit of a crime buff).

If such a case actually arose, my GED in law makes me think there might be an appeals issue based on the equal protection clause. Something to ask a couple of my lawyer pals.
 
2012-11-18 06:42:17 PM  

MisterRonbo: Exactly what other federal criminal statutes are states allowed to opt out of?


...but if such person has one prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact involving a minor or ward, or sex trafficking of children, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 25 years nor more than 50 years,

People who have been previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in certain states would be punished less severely than people previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in other states, all other factors being equal in a subsequent prosecution under 18 USC 2251. This is determined by each state's decision on ages of consent - effectively, they're opting in or out of additional punishment for people who like to molest 17 year olds.

But, IANAL, and this is just toolin' around with google. I'm sure somebody can find a more direct example.
 
2012-11-18 06:50:35 PM  

chuggernaught: Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.


Doesn't work that way.

There is no constitutional ban on marijuana. There is a constitutional ban on slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws. In the case of slavery, the 13th amendment explicitly bans it in any form except in punishment of a crime, in the case of the other two the Supreme Court has ruled them to be illegal under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
 
2012-11-18 06:51:23 PM  

TheJoe03: jso2897: No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Then how do you explain civil libertarian liberals support of gay marriage done through states? I think liberals are pro states rights when the state isn't trying to pass racist or sexist laws.


It's great - and so are state laws that legalize pot - but this is not the way to fix the federal laws. the way to fix the federal laws is to fix the federal laws. Deschedule pot, repeal doma.
 
2012-11-18 06:53:16 PM  

incendi: MisterRonbo: Exactly what other federal criminal statutes are states allowed to opt out of?

...but if such person has one prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact involving a minor or ward, or sex trafficking of children, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 25 years nor more than 50 years,

People who have been previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in certain states would be punished less severely than people previously convicted of molesting 17 year olds in other states, all other factors being equal in a subsequent prosecution under 18 USC 2251. This is determined by each state's decision on ages of consent - effectively, they're opting in or out of additional punishment for people who like to molest 17 year olds.



If that is intended to include statutory rape, then why is the word "abusive" in there? Would it not just say "sexual contact involving a minor or ward" ?
 
2012-11-18 06:55:37 PM  

Dafatone: jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.


So the only people who want legalization are those who want to take risky shortcuts to get there? I disagree. I want legalization. I don't want to take this risky shortcut to get there.
And when I see so many Fark reactionaries, who normally shiat all over pot smokers, defending this, I suspect they see the same potential in it that I do.
 
2012-11-18 07:01:12 PM  

jso2897: Dafatone: jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.

So the only people who want legalization are those who want to take risky shortcuts to get there? I disagree. I want legalization. I don't want to take this risky shortcut to get there.
And when I see so many Fark reactionaries, who normally shiat all over pot smokers, defending this, I suspect they see the same potential in it that I do.


It's a law. Laws do what they say they do. It doesn't "set a precedent" or "open pandora's box" or anything like that. It does what it says it does. Precedents and such are judicial issues.

A federal law, say, making abortion illegal in states that pass laws that make it illegal would not be changed or made more valid by this law passing. This isn't planting any ideas in conservative lawmakers' heads.

It's not a risky shortcut. It's not even a shortcut. It's a step. When's the last time a federal law moving at all towards legalization was passed? Pretty much never. So this moves us closer to legalization. More laws can always be passed later to get us there. Let's demonstrate to those who disagree that Colorado and Washington won't melt down because of legalized marijuana.
 
2012-11-18 07:05:21 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

This. Freedom is dangerous, as all good liberals know. Why, give people the ability to protest and nullify restrictive regulations that are for their own good (or for The Children) and anything might happen! Best to be safe.


The supremacy clause ensures equal constitutional freedoms across all states. Undermining it is inherently dangerous.

lilplatinum: As this is federal legislation being proposed, I think you may need to go learn what nullification actually is prior to trying to use the word in conversation.


Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification

Holocaust Agnostic: more democracy, closer to the people.


Less Constitution != more democracy

Cyclometh: So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.


Did you just accuse me of being a GOP shill? Read ANYTHING I've posted on Fark and try again.
 
2012-11-18 07:07:20 PM  

Non-evil Monkey: chuggernaught: Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.

Doesn't work that way.

There is no constitutional ban on marijuana. There is a constitutional ban on slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws. In the case of slavery, the 13th amendment explicitly bans it in any form except in punishment of a crime, in the case of the other two the Supreme Court has ruled them to be illegal under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.


That's true. This law would not establish any right to smoke weed - indeed, rescheduling wouldn't either.
It would only get the fed out of pot enforcement, except for interdicting it's entry into the country.
It seems to me that any legislature that would pass the former would pass the latter - and that there is no chance that the legislature as it is currently composed would pass either. I'm trying really hard to see the point in this, because, emotionally, I want to believe. But I'm just not seeing it.
 
2012-11-18 07:12:31 PM  

doyner: Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification


This is not what nullification means. Nullification is a legal doctrine that states can just ignore federal law it feels is unconstitutional. This is the federal government attempting to change the scope of a law it has already passed.

There is no "Door" to be opened, congress had the power to do this 3 months ago and they will have the power to do it regardless of this bills existance (and inevitable failure to get passed).
 
2012-11-18 07:17:06 PM  

Dafatone: jso2897: Dafatone: jso2897: Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.

No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.

Or, people who don't like living in a country with the world's highest prison population. There's that.

/potheads are already getting high. That's why they're potheads. Legalization isn't just about getting high.

So the only people who want legalization are those who want to take risky shortcuts to get there? I disagree. I want legalization. I don't want to take this risky shortcut to get there.
And when I see so many Fark reactionaries, who normally shiat all over pot smokers, defending this, I suspect they see the same potential in it that I do.

It's a law. Laws do what they say they do. It doesn't "set a precedent" or "open pandora's box" or anything like that. It does what it says it does. Precedents and such are judicial issues.

A federal law, say, making abortion illegal in states that pass laws that make it illegal would not be changed or made more valid by this law passing. This isn't planting any ideas in conservative lawmakers' heads.

It's not a risky shortcut. It's not even a shortcut. It's a step. When's the last time a federal law moving at all towards legalization was passed? Pretty much never. So this moves us closer to legalization. More laws can always be passed later to get us there. Let's demonstrate to those who disagree that Colorado and Washington won't melt down because of legalized marijuana.


Laws become judicial issues when they get tested in court - and the DEA would challenge this as being an impediment to their enforcement of a law that would still exist. i can't imagine why anyone thinks that a legislature that would pass this law wouldn't pass one that simply descheduled pot. The latter would not legalize pot in states that didn't want it any more than the former would. Of course, the legislature we have now will not pass either, so it's a moot point.
And the fact that society won't melt down with legal weed is already evident to anybody with half a brain, and those who don't wouldn't change because of Colorado or Washington. Medical weed is working fine here in California - but try to point that out to an anti weed zealot, and ... well, I don't need to tel you what kind of response you get. Attitudes are changing because the old are dying and the young are taking over - not because anybody is changing their minds.
 
2012-11-18 07:18:16 PM  

doyner: Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification


It would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to... modify their marijuana possession laws. That's it.

If Congress wants to pass laws applying this principle to other issues, it can do so, whether or not this law passes. It's not like the passing of this law is going to make people in Congress go "oh, I hadn't thought of that! Now I can nullify anything! Mwahaha!"

This law doesn't change anything for other issues. The idea's already out there. If this is going to inspire members of Congress to try this for other issues, it's too late.
 
2012-11-18 07:23:26 PM  

lilplatinum: This is not what nullification means. Nullification is a legal doctrine that states can just ignore federal law it feels is unconstitutional. This is the federal government attempting to change the scope of a law it has already passed.


Fine. Call it Neonullification. SCOTUS has tied the Equal Protection Clause to Nullification already (Cooper v. Aaron) and this would be begging for such a challenge.

My original statement was eluding to the danger in states carving out exceptions from federal law. In that sense, it is opening the same can of worms as nullification.
 
2012-11-18 07:24:50 PM  

Jurodan: Put another way:

If there is a time to call your congressperson, it is now. Ask them to support the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" which would ensure that state laws regarding civil rights will not be pre-empted by the federal government.

/Short answer: No.
//Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


If your really think your elected parasite is going to listen to anything you say, or read anything you write that is not on the memo field of a substantial check, you are delusional.
 
2012-11-18 07:35:11 PM  

Dafatone: doyner: Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification

It would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to... modify their marijuana possession laws. That's it.

If Congress wants to pass laws applying this principle to other issues, it can do so, whether or not this law passes. It's not like the passing of this law is going to make people in Congress go "oh, I hadn't thought of that! Now I can nullify anything! Mwahaha!"

This law doesn't change anything for other issues. The idea's already out there. If this is going to inspire members of Congress to try this for other issues, it's too late.


This law will not pass the current congress. Conversely, when the makeup of Congress has changed to the point that it would, a law that simply descheduled pot would pass just as easily.
 
2012-11-18 07:38:20 PM  

Dafatone: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?


Drug use is not a right. Medical weed is still fine for those who need it and everyone else who gets a fake prescription.
 
2012-11-18 07:39:02 PM  
The really big plus to this win for legalization is with a decent length of copper wire and a big magnet we have a potentially unlimited and free energy source from Randolph Hearst spinning in his grave! Win win!
 
2012-11-18 07:50:13 PM  
Does this mean we can start a pro-pot spin off of the Democrat party called, 'The THC Party'?
 
2012-11-18 07:55:15 PM  

GAT_00: Dafatone: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?

Drug use is not a right. Medical weed is still fine for those who need it and everyone else who gets a fake prescription.


What's that have to do with having the largest prison population in the world?

Do you agree or disagree that that's a bad thing?
 
2012-11-18 07:57:20 PM  

dickfreckle: 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.


Sorry, have to degree. I beat my wife when I'm stoned all the time.

Scrabble, gin rummy, cribbage you name it. She just can't focus when she's high. >
 
2012-11-18 08:07:47 PM  

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

Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.

Ah, so the Dem-o-rat war on women has a new life?


Hi winterwhile.
 
2012-11-18 08:28:01 PM  
DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!
 
2012-11-18 08:41:20 PM  

SharkInfested: DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!


Ah DC citizen

Another fine run city, by dem-o-rats, get your patronage job here.

26K for each kid for school, murder rate sky high... what more do you want? A free Obama Phone as well?
 
2012-11-18 08:55:57 PM  
Um, no. States should not be able to supersede federal law. I will, hover, write to the president asking that we suspend the "War on Drugs" because it's a huge waste of time and lives.
 
2012-11-18 09:05:06 PM  

Mrbogey: Well since we're not using the Tenth Amendment to the USC, we may as well get a new one.


Bing.
 
2012-11-18 09:21:24 PM  

wongway: SharkInfested: DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!

Ah DC citizen

Another fine run city, by dem-o-rats, get your patronage job here.

26K for each kid for school, murder rate sky high... what more do you want? A free Obama Phone as well?


If DC is so bad, why does every right wing cocksucker in the country want me to send him there?
 
2012-11-18 09:27:04 PM  

vrax: 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?

Well, then maybe the cons should have STFU and let them go single payer instead of fighting for compromise on their lame vision of Obamacare and then not voting for what they had fought for. Obamacare is what the Republicans wanted, so fark them and fark you.


weknowmemes.com
 
2012-11-18 09:27:48 PM  
Doesn't Amendment X take care of this sort of thing?
 
2012-11-18 09:28:22 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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?


Name calling? Really? That all you got Poindexter? LOL!!!!
 
2012-11-18 09:30:53 PM  

doyner: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

This. Freedom is dangerous, as all good liberals know. Why, give people the ability to protest and nullify restrictive regulations that are for their own good (or for The Children) and anything might happen! Best to be safe.

The supremacy clause ensures equal constitutional freedoms across all states. Undermining it is inherently dangerous.

lilplatinum: As this is federal legislation being proposed, I think you may need to go learn what nullification actually is prior to trying to use the word in conversation.

Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification

Holocaust Agnostic: more democracy, closer to the people.

Less Constitution != more democracy

Cyclometh: So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.

Did you just accuse me of being a GOP shill? Read ANYTHING I've posted on Fark and try again.


This is so farking funny I almost can't stand it. The Fark Libs are now Constitutionalists! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO!
 
2012-11-18 09:40:26 PM  

dickfreckle: 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.


Goddamn right. I've known a number of cops that were pro-legalization of weed. They all said something similar. [paraphrased and combined] "I've never seen someone beat their wife or children while on pot. I've never seen someone stab a random person over a minor argument while on pot. I've never seen someone OD on pot. The only tragic results of pot have been more of the fact that it's illegal, and some unscrupulous people will take advantage of the fact that people want it."
 
2012-11-18 09:42:24 PM  
Funny, when we Californians voted against gay marriage you people didn't like state law or respect the voters will but now state law is sooooooooooo important. Hypocrisy.
 
2012-11-18 09:45:47 PM  

dickfreckle: 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.




This and this.
It would be great if all pregnancies occured under ideal circumstances but they rarely do, and as difficult and undesirable as abortions are to most people, I believe that it always has to be the woman's right to choose.
The hipocrisy of marijuana prohibition cannot be overstated in a society where conservatives scream bloody murder at the mere suggestion of not being a able to buy an AK-47 24 hours a day while drunk and on crack but yet some right-wing douchebag congressman or sherriff can blather on about the evils of marijuana and then go to happy hour and get a lap dance.
 
2012-11-18 10:11:34 PM  

wongway: SharkInfested: DC citizen, my rights are already being trampled in this regard by your elected reps.

Send a note for us, please!

Ah DC citizen

Another fine run city, by dem-o-rats, get your patronage job here.

26K for each kid for school, murder rate sky high... what more do you want? A free Obama Phone as well?


Are you too embarrassed to use your old account?
You didn't promise to cut your penis off if Obama won, did you? Because some of that has been going around.
 
2012-11-18 10:22:22 PM  

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

So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.


That's how the've been doing it for awhile now, yes.
 
2012-11-18 10:23:03 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Snapper Carr: . If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

But that's not what's going on here! There's no nullification! This is a federal law amending a federal law to delegate certain authority to the states! This is a nullification concern in the same way - once again - the state exchanges in ACA are a nullification concern, ie in no possible way.


This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law


Christ on a Triscuit. Do you morons get it now?
 
2012-11-18 10:30:09 PM  

Mija: Funny, when we Californians voted against gay marriage you people didn't like state law or respect the voters will but now state law is sooooooooooo important. Hypocrisy.


Funny, the Mormons money-bombed for bigotry. Also, bigotry. Please explain how out of state Mormons did not skew that vote, or how the black component of the vote for marriage inequality was not in itself hypocritical. Let's not gloss over nuance here.
 
2012-11-18 10:36:27 PM  
This is possibly the dumbest thread I've ever read.
 
2012-11-18 10:40:47 PM  

jso2897: the DEA needs to deschedule pot - period.


Sooner the better.
 
2012-11-18 10:59:38 PM  

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


Gosh, you think that's why so many "libertarians" love to push their pro-pot bullshiat on dumbass college kids?
 
2012-11-18 11:11:41 PM  
HAHAHA! Good luck with that.

In 12 months, the legalization bill of Colorado will be overturned. There will be no commercial sales of marijuana. However, since the demon weed will have already been legal for citizens to possess and grow, and the federal case will take at least a year, the state of Colorado, after the law is overturned, will not go after their citizens that already have their own gardens. It will ultimately be decriminalized, but still "illegal".

That's my prediction, we'll see how it turns out.
 
2012-11-18 11:12:30 PM  

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


Plenty of conservatives vote for this too. Don't be a partisan asshole.
 
2012-11-18 11:14:06 PM  
Yeah, no. That's not how our government works. Nice try, though, subby. Go smoke another bowl.
 
2012-11-18 11:15:09 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Yeah, no. That's not how our government works. Nice try, though, subby. Go smoke another bowl.


HEY! Was that some sort of stoner joke? Huh!? ;)
 
2012-11-18 11:28:53 PM  
playing chemical russian roulette with 2 billion years of evolution (your brain) is so, like, cool man.
 
2012-11-18 11:44:09 PM  
I will, unlike the liberals, consistently support states rights and I would support state law enforcement preventing federal law enforcement from arresting people who are engaged in activity that is implicitly legal under state laws provided said activity does not violate Constitutional issues.
 
2012-11-19 01:44:24 AM  

Linux_Yes: playing chemical russian roulette with 2 billion years of evolution (your brain) is so, like, cool man.


Yeah, it sucks humanity just invented drugs recently.
 
2012-11-19 03:06:12 AM  

Linux_Yes: playing chemical russian roulette with 2 billion years of evolution (your brain) is so, like, cool man.


So you don't ingest caffeine, any painkillers, nicotine, alcohol, or sugar, right?
 
2012-11-19 05:23:29 AM  

Leishu: Linux_Yes: playing chemical russian roulette with 2 billion years of evolution (your brain) is so, like, cool man.

So you don't ingest caffeine, any painkillers, nicotine, alcohol, or sugar, right?


I think the riskiest part is the increased Twinkies consumption. Was. Substitute Doritos.

/Any pro-pot states are welcome to attempt secession. Whenever, man.
 
2012-11-19 05:28:30 AM  

Leishu: Linux_Yes: playing chemical russian roulette with 2 billion years of evolution (your brain) is so, like, cool man.

So you don't ingest caffeine, any painkillers, nicotine, alcohol, or sugar, right?


without those life just aint worth livin ya know.....
 
2012-11-19 06:49:48 AM  

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


I agree, but I don't think the Feds should be dictating tot he state which drugs should be legal. Unless they are crossing state line it is none of their business.
 
2012-11-19 09:01:06 AM  

incendi: deschedule it


Jesus Dick!

/It's the new This!
//I was getting tired of This! anyway.
 
2012-11-20 02:39:58 AM  
The bill only alters the language of the CSA. Unfortunately it DOES still set a powerful precedent that could be used to undercut other federal laws at the state level. It's a bit of a slippery slope fallacy to suggest that this will automatically lead to Texas deciding they don't want to pay federal taxes or Kansas making abortion a capital offence, but it's still not a precedent I'd be comfortable with.

I'd rather see a bill removing the language that requires the ONDCP to adopt a position opposing the legalization or rescheduling of any controlled substance. It wouldn't generate as immediate of effect, but it would open the floor for rational discourse at the federal level rather than rote opposition.
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report