I enjoy listening to some of my more ignorant students pine to live in a state that legalized weed like it's some sort of 24-7 smoke-a-thon. I love reminding then that they're still too young to buy it legally anyhow and watching their dreams die.
I remember reading a quote - a loooooooong time ago - from some young adults in Amsterdam, who were asked about the awesomeness of legal drugs. The response was something like, "Yeah, it's really not as cool when your grandmother does it too."
I enjoy listening to some of my more ignorant students pine to live in a state that legalized weed like it's some sort of 24-7 smoke-a-thon. I love reminding then that they're still too young to buy it legally anyhow and watching their dreams die.
Drug dealers are not hard to find, I suspect even more so when weed is semi-legal. The only thing keeping those kids from having a 24-7 smoke-a-thon is contacts and money.
I enjoy listening to some of my more ignorant students pine to live in a state that legalized weed like it's some sort of 24-7 smoke-a-thon. I love reminding then that they're still too young to buy it legally anyhow and watching their dreams die.
I remember reading a quote - a loooooooong time ago - from some young adults in Amsterdam, who were asked about the awesomeness of legal drugs. The response was something like, "Yeah, it's really not as cool when your grandmother does it too."
"But mum! I don't want to go to nanna's for afternoon tea and joints!"
Drug dealers are not hard to find, I suspect even more so when weed is semi-legal. The only thing keeping those kids from having a 24-7 smoke-a-thon is contacts and money.
This is a point to the position that addicts will be addicts no matter what. Controlling whatever it is they are fixated on will only force someone to find another outlet.
Unless that thing is demonstratively harmful to yourself and others (tobacco, alcohol, rock cocaine, etc) then there really shouldn't be a societal level prohibition.
I was talking to my dad about 4 days after the elections were over and I brought up WA and CO and their legalization of marijuana. He didn't know that because he was upset over Romney losing (He's a birther. It's sad...) and when learning the news he said it was horrible.
I asked him why he thought this was and he said he didn't want to walk around a bunch of stoned people all day. I pointed out that he, in all likelihood, was already walking around and interacting with more stoned people on a daily basis than he was drunk or even slightly intoxicated people.
He got the point. ;-)
He also totally agrees it should be taxed but not legalized... I didn't press on. It hurt my head too much.
He also totally agrees it should be taxed but not legalized... I didn't press on. It hurt my head too much.
The Brits tried to tax the Rhode Island smugglers back in the 18th century. They retaliated. Burnt down a ship in 1775. Some consider it the first act of the Revolution. The rest of us just find it hilarious.
Is anyone else worried that the Obama administration isn't enforcing federal law? I mean, I'm in favor for legalizing weed, but this is setting a precedent for nullification.
I kind of thought this is what the states are supposed to do really, experiment and find out which ideas are the best. The Feds made a mistake and no one is willing to change it on the national stage, so the States are taking it into their own hands and performing a bit of civil disobedience on their part.
Granted, I can concoct scenarios where a slow rebellion of the states on an issue that is morally reprehensible, say slavery or segregation, that the Federal Government sought to rectify happens, but I think that would be unlikely to happen again.
Okay, time to necro this thread. I know you guys mostly disagree with me on this, but I'm mad enough about this tolerance of nullification that I actually wrote a letter to Holder. I haven't done this level of political activism since I was seven. If you agree with me, please copy and paste this letter into an email and send it to DoJ. If you disagree with me, please hear out my position and read the letter. I don't want to change your minds on the issue, just understand where I'm coming from.
Dear Mr. Attorney General Holder
I am writing to express my concerns with regards to your refusal to enforce federal laws onto nullifying states – an issue that has plagued this union since its conception. It is an issue that I believe is of far greater importance than any policy in this great nation's code, for its legality is based in the greatest and most basic of our laws, the Constitution. It is an issue that every great administration both Democrat and Republican have had a unified stance on, a stance you do not seem to take. I speak, of course, of your refusal to prosecute violations made by state legislatures in Colorado, Washignton, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, my home commonwealth of Massachussets, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Mississippi, and Nebraska to the Controlled Substances Act of 1971.
I, personally, agree with these laws. I believe that marijuana's place on Schedule 1 is unfair, given how many more dangerous drugs are lower schedule, or (in the case of alcohol, one of the most destructive of all drugs) legalized. I believe that it would benefit this great nation to have cannaboids made fully available to adults, regulated for the safety of the user, taxed for the good of the commonwealth, and prescribed to the patients of certain illnesses. However, this is a policy that the federal Congress has said must not be practiced within the borders of the Union. With such a law present in the federal law, state law must not contradict it. By allowing these offenses to go, you abandon the actions of every previous administration, legitimize the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and set a precedent for nullifying other federal policies.
By permitting this, you disregard the rules of the system you work in. It is not the Executive branch's place to decide which laws are just and unjust. That is the job of the Congress. It is your duty to merely carry out the laws that have been presented to you. Surely, this duty is evident to you, and I should not need to cite the precise article in which powers have been invested into your branch of government. It is because I trust that your knowledge of this matter is clear that worries me enough to be writing this letter. This blatant ignorance of the foundation of these united states and its system of checks and balances.
Furthermore, it sets a precedent for future nullification situations. The most iconic cases of nullification come from the 19th century, which seems far behind us. However, if this position is offered legitimacy, it would quickly be resurrected. What if a state tried to nullify federal laws regarding possession and sale of firearms? Surely you would prosecute in that situation, but they would be able to point towards the actions you are taking now, and say that it is unjust for you to pick and choose which laws to enforce. Their positions – while wrong – would be supported by the facts, and what could be a very quickly brushed off case would become highly ambiguous.
Consider the great presidents of the past. With Washington's objections to Madison and Jefferson's support of states rights, could the father of the nation feasibly support your position? Or the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln? With his militarist objections to states' rights, he would not be pleased by this stance. Or perhaps you wish to follow partisan lines, and seek the footsteps of Andrew Jackson, the man who your party was founded around. With his raving hatred of the nullifying acts of John C Calhoun, would he accept your refusal to enforce federal laws?
Nullification tore this country apart once. Even 150 years later, I do not fully believe it couldn't draw such a divide again. It is the job of the federal government to prevent such a divide from emerging in this great nation. We cannot let such a tear in the fabric of the Union evolve to a stray thread that frays until the cloth of this nation is no more.
Is anyone else worried that the Obama administration isn't enforcing federal law? I mean, I'm in favor for legalizing weed, but this is setting a precedent for nullification.
I actually wouldn't mind if DC legalized weed. It would be a federal law creating an exception in other federal law, as opposed to lesser powers (state legislatures) challenging the policies of the Union.
But that is not what happened. DC legalized weed via voters, not a federal law, and Congress, who basically have absolute control over DC, are going to kill it.
Also, federalism. Shit gets done quicker at the state level than at the national one. Sometimes it's good, sometimes not, but it pushes boundaries and forces change in a way that isn't really possible with Congress, especially now.
Also, federalism. Shit gets done quicker at the state level than at the national one. Sometimes it's good, sometimes not, but it pushes boundaries and forces change in a way that isn't really possible with Congress, especially now.
Federalism is based in the idea that the national government can override individual states. It's one thing for Wyoming to adopt women's suffrage, something that the federal government didn't yet have provisions around. It's another for Arkansas to refuse to accept the Civil Rights Act. As much as I'd like the case to be the former (and how is possession a form of interstate commerce in the first place?) but it's the latter, and the latter is dangerous.
So are all the states that passed laws allowing gay marriage in the wrong too?
You're wrong about what federalism is based on - it's about the powers reserved to the states and the feds, and where the line in the sand is between the two; 10th Amendment, "laboratories of democracy", and such.
So are all the states that passed laws allowing gay marriage in the wrong too?
There was no ban on same-sex marriage. DOMA only stated that such marriages wouldn't be federally recognized, and that got stuck down too for not being an enumerated power.
You're wrong about what federalism is based on - it's about the powers reserved to the states and the feds, and where the line in the sand is between the two; 10th Amendment, "laboratories of democracy", and such.
Sorry, but the 10th Amendment goes like this
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Possession, production, and distribution of marijuana is considered under the umbrella of interstate commerce, which is delegated to the United States Congress. An individual may believe that that shouldn't be the case and the law should be removed by the supreme court, like I do. However, until the Supreme Court hears on such an issue, it is the law of the land.
So are all the states that passed laws allowing gay marriage in the wrong too?
There was no ban on same-sex marriage. DOMA only stated that such marriages wouldn't be federally recognized, and that got stuck down too for not being an enumerated power.
It was still a federal law that the state's were flying in the face of by allowing gay marriage, same as with marijuana. By your logic, those states were in the wrong.
You're wrong about what federalism is based on - it's about the powers reserved to the states and the feds, and where the line in the sand is between the two; 10th Amendment, "laboratories of democracy", and such.
Sorry, but the 10th Amendment goes like this
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which has been interpreted to mean either a direct check on Congress to not fuck around with the states, or a reminder that the states are sovereign and that laws that fuck with them should take that into consideration.
Possession, production, and distribution of marijuana is considered under the umbrella of interstate commerce, which is delegated to the United States Congress. An individual may believe that that shouldn't be the case and the law should be removed by the supreme court, like I do. However, until the Supreme Court hears on such an issue, it is the law of the land.
The laws passed by Congress in regards to marijuana aren't part of the only real supreme law of the land, the constitution, but are just general laws, which is why state's have been able to allow medicinal marijuana and legalizing it wholesale over the last handful of years. Because state's are special, because federalism.
So are all the states that passed laws allowing gay marriage in the wrong too?
There was no ban on same-sex marriage. DOMA only stated that such marriages wouldn't be federally recognized, and that got stuck down too for not being an enumerated power.
It was still a federal law that the state's were flying in the face of by allowing gay marriage, same as with marijuana. By your logic, those states were in the wrong.
It wasn't a ban on same sex marriage. It refused to recognize same sex marriages in Federal programs. It's a huge difference. Had it been a ban on same sex marriage, the Massachusetts ruling in '04 would have been challenged and brought to the Supreme Court, where they would've made a ruling.
Which has been interpreted to mean either a direct check on Congress to not fuck around with the states, or a reminder that the states are sovereign and that laws that fuck with them should take that into consideration.
It is a check, but it's not one to be used by States. It is a check to be used by the Supreme Court. That's the point of the Supreme Court, to interpret whether what's in the Constitution fits with the law of the land.
The laws passed by Congress in regards to marijuana aren't part of the only real supreme law of the land, the constitution, but are just general laws, which is why state's have been able to allow medicinal marijuana and legalizing it wholesale over the last handful of years. Because state's are special, because federalism.
That's indirect violation of the Supremacy Claus. The Supreme Court has stated that Federal law supersedes State law going back to the Peters case of 1809. What legal precedent do you have for this belief?
Which has been interpreted to mean either a direct check on Congress to not fuck around with the states, or a reminder that the states are sovereign and that laws that fuck with them should take that into consideration.
It is a check, but it's not one to be used by States. It is a check to be used by the Supreme Court. That's the point of the Supreme Court, to interpret whether what's in the Constitution fits with the law of the land.
And this doesn't mean that Congress or the states act not knowing that this check exists. It's part of the dance they play.
The laws passed by Congress in regards to marijuana aren't part of the only real supreme law of the land, the constitution, but are just general laws, which is why state's have been able to allow medicinal marijuana and legalizing it wholesale over the last handful of years. Because state's are special, because federalism.
That's indirect violation of the Supremacy Claus. The Supreme Court has stated that Federal law supersedes State law going back to the Peters case of 1809. What legal precedent do you have for this belief?
Just about the entire history of the supreme court. States have been considered special from when the Constitution was ratified (technically before then as well) to today.
The existence of the supremacy clause may certainly make what they are doing technically illegal, but because it is coming from the states no one wants to really touch it with a ten foot pole unless they have to because state's are seen as special snowflakes.
Which has been interpreted to mean either a direct check on Congress to not fuck around with the states, or a reminder that the states are sovereign and that laws that fuck with them should take that into consideration.
It is a check, but it's not one to be used by States. It is a check to be used by the Supreme Court. That's the point of the Supreme Court, to interpret whether what's in the Constitution fits with the law of the land.
And this doesn't mean that Congress or the states act not knowing that this check exists. It's part of the dance they play.
I don't even understand what you meant by this statement.
Just about the entire history of the supreme court. States have been considered special from when the Constitution was ratified (technically before then as well) to today.
That's not legal precedent. That's a sweeping generalization without any cited sources. Ableman v Booth, Cooper v Aaron, and the Georgian conflict regarding treatise with the Cherokees are all rulings in favor of Federal supremacy. What cases demonstrate your side?
The existence of the supremacy clause may certainly make what they are doing technically illegal, but because it is coming from the states no one wants to really touch it with a ten foot pole unless they have to because state's are seen as special snowflakes.
Because no one wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole when Arkansas was nullifying Brown v Board of Ed, and no one wanted to bother John C Calhoun when he blatantly ignored federal tariffs. The reason no one's touching it is not because states are "special snowflakes", but because the current administration wants to advance this policy, even at the cost of a less perfect Union.
Comments
Unless that thing is demonstratively harmful to yourself and others (tobacco, alcohol, rock cocaine, etc) then there really shouldn't be a societal level prohibition.
I was talking to my dad about 4 days after the elections were over and I brought up WA and CO and their legalization of marijuana. He didn't know that because he was upset over Romney losing (He's a birther. It's sad...) and when learning the news he said it was horrible.
I asked him why he thought this was and he said he didn't want to walk around a bunch of stoned people all day. I pointed out that he, in all likelihood, was already walking around and interacting with more stoned people on a daily basis than he was drunk or even slightly intoxicated people.
He got the point. ;-)
He also totally agrees it should be taxed but not legalized... I didn't press on. It hurt my head too much.
Granted, I can concoct scenarios where a slow rebellion of the states on an issue that is morally reprehensible, say slavery or segregation, that the Federal Government sought to rectify happens, but I think that would be unlikely to happen again.
Dear Mr. Attorney General Holder
I am writing to express my concerns with regards to your refusal to enforce federal laws onto nullifying states – an issue that has plagued this union since its conception. It is an issue that I believe is of far greater importance than any policy in this great nation's code, for its legality is based in the greatest and most basic of our laws, the Constitution. It is an issue that every great administration both Democrat and Republican have had a unified stance on, a stance you do not seem to take. I speak, of course, of your refusal to prosecute violations made by state legislatures in Colorado, Washignton, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, my home commonwealth of Massachussets, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Mississippi, and Nebraska to the Controlled Substances Act of 1971.
I, personally, agree with these laws. I believe that marijuana's place on Schedule 1 is unfair, given how many more dangerous drugs are lower schedule, or (in the case of alcohol, one of the most destructive of all drugs) legalized. I believe that it would benefit this great nation to have cannaboids made fully available to adults, regulated for the safety of the user, taxed for the good of the commonwealth, and prescribed to the patients of certain illnesses. However, this is a policy that the federal Congress has said must not be practiced within the borders of the Union. With such a law present in the federal law, state law must not contradict it. By allowing these offenses to go, you abandon the actions of every previous administration, legitimize the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and set a precedent for nullifying other federal policies.
By permitting this, you disregard the rules of the system you work in. It is not the Executive branch's place to decide which laws are just and unjust. That is the job of the Congress. It is your duty to merely carry out the laws that have been presented to you. Surely, this duty is evident to you, and I should not need to cite the precise article in which powers have been invested into your branch of government. It is because I trust that your knowledge of this matter is clear that worries me enough to be writing this letter. This blatant ignorance of the foundation of these united states and its system of checks and balances.
Furthermore, it sets a precedent for future nullification situations. The most iconic cases of nullification come from the 19th century, which seems far behind us. However, if this position is offered legitimacy, it would quickly be resurrected. What if a state tried to nullify federal laws regarding possession and sale of firearms? Surely you would prosecute in that situation, but they would be able to point towards the actions you are taking now, and say that it is unjust for you to pick and choose which laws to enforce. Their positions – while wrong – would be supported by the facts, and what could be a very quickly brushed off case would become highly ambiguous.
Consider the great presidents of the past. With Washington's objections to Madison and Jefferson's support of states rights, could the father of the nation feasibly support your position? Or the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln? With his militarist objections to states' rights, he would not be pleased by this stance. Or perhaps you wish to follow partisan lines, and seek the footsteps of Andrew Jackson, the man who your party was founded around. With his raving hatred of the nullifying acts of John C Calhoun, would he accept your refusal to enforce federal laws?
Nullification tore this country apart once. Even 150 years later, I do not fully believe it couldn't draw such a divide again. It is the job of the federal government to prevent such a divide from emerging in this great nation. We cannot let such a tear in the fabric of the Union evolve to a stray thread that frays until the cloth of this nation is no more.
With great concern,
[your name]
WKUK - The Civil War on Drugs (FULL movie):
Also, federalism. Shit gets done quicker at the state level than at the national one. Sometimes it's good, sometimes not, but it pushes boundaries and forces change in a way that isn't really possible with Congress, especially now.
You're wrong about what federalism is based on - it's about the powers reserved to the states and the feds, and where the line in the sand is between the two; 10th Amendment, "laboratories of democracy", and such.
The existence of the supremacy clause may certainly make what they are doing technically illegal, but because it is coming from the states no one wants to really touch it with a ten foot pole unless they have to because state's are seen as special snowflakes.
But the Ohio initiative was a fucking disgrace setting up a constitutional monopoly on the industry.