Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/04/08 00:45:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.
Cruz asked this question...
“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”
...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.
It's the same ol' thing: States' Rights are something that Republicans agree with....until the states want to do something the Republicans disagree with.
Small Government is good, until a smaller government wants to do something that a larger government doesn't want.
Like cities legalizing protections for certain groups, and states saying nope. Or cities banning certain things, and states saying nope.
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist. Colorado can pass state laws decriminalizing marijuana but that has no effect on federal laws still existing and having to be enforced. The only thing keeping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws and anti marijuana laws in Colorado is the DoJ telling them not to enforce them. There is legal justification for the administration to tell the DoJ to have the DEA ignore violations of federal drug laws in Colorado. Federal agencies can't just arbitrarily decide not to enforce federal laws. The DEA is still busting people for marijuana in other states. Why does the DoJ get to pick and choose when and where federal drug laws get enforced and when and where they're allowed to be flaunted with impunity. If the administration thinks marijuana should be decriminalized they can get legislation introduced in Congress to strike marijuana laws off the books. What they can't legally do is just refuse to uphold their constitutional responsibility to enforce federal laws. That's not how the system works.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/04/08 00:49:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist. Colorado can pass state laws decriminalizing marijuana but that has no effect on federal laws still existing and having to be enforced. The only thing keeping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws and anti marijuana laws in Colorado is the DoJ telling them not to enforce them. There is legal justification for the administration to tell the DoJ to have the DEA ignore violations of federal drug laws in Colorado. Federal agencies can't just arbitrarily decide not to enforce federal laws. The DEA is still busting people for marijuana in other states. Why does the DoJ get to pick and choose when and where federal drug laws get enforced and when and where they're allowed to be flaunted with impunity. If the administration thinks marijuana should be decriminalized they can get legislation introduced in Congress to strike marijuana laws off the books. What they can't legally do is just refuse to uphold their constitutional responsibility to enforce federal laws. That's not how the system works.
Which doesn't change the fact that Republicans don't care about state's rights or small government, unless they ideologically agree with whatever is being proposed.
2016/04/08 00:51:15
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist. Colorado can pass state laws decriminalizing marijuana but that has no effect on federal laws still existing and having to be enforced. The only thing keeping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws and anti marijuana laws in Colorado is the DoJ telling them not to enforce them. There is legal justification for the administration to tell the DoJ to have the DEA ignore violations of federal drug laws in Colorado. Federal agencies can't just arbitrarily decide not to enforce federal laws. The DEA is still busting people for marijuana in other states. Why does the DoJ get to pick and choose when and where federal drug laws get enforced and when and where they're allowed to be flaunted with impunity. If the administration thinks marijuana should be decriminalized they can get legislation introduced in Congress to strike marijuana laws off the books. What they can't legally do is just refuse to uphold their constitutional responsibility to enforce federal laws. That's not how the system works.
While I agree ultimately decriminalization needs to be done via Congress, i don't see a problem with the executive branch issuing direction on how crimes and resources are prioritized by subordinate law enforcement agencies; it's not really different than prosecutorial discretion. The police don't have unlimited resources to prosecute every jaywalker; and there are countless examples of archaic laws still on the books but not enforced, or enforceable. How many states still have anti sodomy, or miscegenation laws still on the books? Like, a dozen states have clauses in their constitutions prohibiting atheists from holding office. Obviously, not enforceable.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/08 00:56:19
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/04/08 01:47:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
@d-USA I'm not disputing your claim that the Republican party only selectively cares about states rights. I agree with you on that but the failure to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado isn't about states rights about an administration selectively enforcing federal laws which is illegal and dangerous.
@Ouze The federal govt isn't ignoring marijuana laws everywhere just in Colorado. That's a problem and it's why other states are suing the federal govt over it. The federal govt is letting Colorado flaunt federal drug laws which is causing a dramatic increase in the trafficking of marijuana in neighboring states which is increasing crime rates and the cost of policing along the borders of neighboring states. The War on Drugs is still in effect the DEA is still seizing property and sending people to prison for marijuana trafficking. If the DoJ wants to give Colorado a special dispensation to break federal drug laws they need to find some legal justification for it beyond just making an arbitrary decision on enforcement policy. If we're going to establish a precedent that states can pass their own drug laws that nullify federal drug laws then we're overturning all the legal arguments that enforce federalism and we're going back to the nullification crisis of 1832. While I personally wouldn't mind giving states nullification powers that issue was decided rather decisively already and we've reinforced it with well over a century of case law.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/04/08 02:10:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 02:16:08
2016/04/08 02:38:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: The pollings between Clinton and Sanders has been whacky.
In one state it was whacky. Sanders needs probably four or more Michigans from here to win this thing.
I mean, where's there is life there is hope, but I wouldn't be too quick to put money on Sanders at this point, no matter what odds were offered.
He wasn't expected to win some of the states that he has... besides, *momentum* can be a 'thing' now:
Momentum is only really relevant early in a race. It is important in showing voters which candidates are a real shot, and which candidates are a 'wasted vote'. And it can lead to more positive news coverage, but that mild effect only matters when candidates are new and people are getting their first impressions. People have seen Clinton and Sanders for months now.
Nope. It's really about performing well in each of the next state's congressional districts.
Okay, I don't think you read what I said. The argument was made that Trump needed 60-odd% of the vote to win from here. I pointed out that number was irrelevant, because with a lot of winner take all primaries coming up, what matters is simply winning those states, and having good results in the loophole states (where 40 to 50% of the vote can translate in to 75% of the delegates, if things fall well for you).
We're headed to a contested convention bro.
Almost certainly. But what decides it from here isn’t the % of overall vote, but taking the winner take all states, and hitting the right numbers in the loophole states.
If Trump's the nominee, I can see the GOP voters sits at home giving the D's control in the WH/House/Senate (ala, 2008). Nothing the GOP leadership can do to ameliorate that imo.
But, if it's a "not-Trump"... we'll see. And at this point, it'll have to be either Cruz or Kasich. An outsider dropping in to "save the day" ain't going to happen.
If Trump is the candidate it will likely be a very bad election day for the Republicans. But if the party shuts him out despite him coming very close to 1,237, and handles it badly, then it could be just as bad, it might even be worse.
It depends on a lot of things. How many states Cruz wins in the last month of the campaign, if he can score some good wins and come in to the convention with ‘momentum’ and a reasonably close delegate count, then his win will look a lot better to the Republican base. And then there’s how well they sell the process, how much they make the convention and delegate movements look like a natural part of the process, and not the party deciding over the people.
And of course how well Trump plays it, and how well his inevitable dummy spit looks. Did you read his Wisconsin speech, that stuff is gonna be turned to 11 if the party shuts him out. If that plays well with a lot of the Republican base, and given the anti-elite tendencies in the party it might even play well with people who aren't Trump supporters, well then it could get really bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: The parties (both!) did this to themselves with these delegates and super delegates to try and prevent party darlings from losing to a populist candidate.
No, the reasons by which Trump will miss if he doesn’t reach 1,237, and the ways in which a Democratic winner might get shut out by superdelegates are very different. They are very different systems.
Bernie winning the pupular (i.e. regular delegate) vote would be fantastic.
Because then both parties will have to explain why the belief of the american people in "one person, one vote" isn't really in the people's best interest...lol....
Go and read about the 2008 Democratic primary. When Obama pulled ahead in the delegate lead, then all the superdelegates that had committed to Clinton simply swapped over to Obama. The party made the choice that they didn’t want to be seen as having insider ‘elites’ over-riding the unpledged delegates decided by popular vote. There is no reason to believe that wouldn’t happen again, if somehow Sanders managed to win the pledged delegates.
Oh, and would it interest you to know that the Sanders campaign has stated that he is looking to attract superdelegates to give him the win, even if he loses the unpledged delegates? He’s arguing they should flip to him because he’s more electable, even if he isn’t actually the winner of the pledged delegates.
This plucky little Sanders vs big, mean Clinton nonsense has to fething stop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 02:56:39
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/08 03:01:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: The pollings between Clinton and Sanders has been whacky.
In one state it was whacky. Sanders needs probably four or more Michigans from here to win this thing.
I mean, where's there is life there is hope, but I wouldn't be too quick to put money on Sanders at this point, no matter what odds were offered.
Oh... I don't really mean that Sanders is going to overcome Clinton's delegate lead. It's just that he doing just enough to keep Clinton in "Primary Campaign" mode. She's gotta be thinking that she should've have this wrapped up by now.
He wasn't expected to win some of the states that he has... besides, *momentum* can be a 'thing' now:
Momentum is only really relevant early in a race. It is important in showing voters which candidates are a real shot, and which candidates are a 'wasted vote'. And it can lead to more positive news coverage, but that mild effect only matters when candidates are new and people are getting their first impressions. People have seen Clinton and Sanders for months now.
That's actually a great point.
The thing is, Sanders is making just enough noise that the Clinton campaign has to exert energy/effort to keep him at bay. Which seems a little demoralizing where they were convinced that they would have this locked up already.
Nope. It's really about performing well in each of the next state's congressional districts.
Okay, I don't think you read what I said. The argument was made that Trump needed 60-odd% of the vote to win from here. I pointed out that number was irrelevant, because with a lot of winner take all primaries coming up, what matters is simply winning those states, and having good results in the loophole states (where 40 to 50% of the vote can translate in to 75% of the delegates, if things fall well for you).
I understood. There's not as much as the WTA states anymore.
NY has one, but Trump has to win EVERY congressional district by 50%. Not happening there...
I believe CT and NJ are WTA, so those are safe bets for Trump.
Almost certainly. But what decides it from here isn’t the % of overall vote, but taking the winner take all states, and hitting the right numbers in the loophole states.
No one is getting to 1237.
If Trump's the nominee, I can see the GOP voters sits at home giving the D's control in the WH/House/Senate (ala, 2008). Nothing the GOP leadership can do to ameliorate that imo.
But, if it's a "not-Trump"... we'll see. And at this point, it'll have to be either Cruz or Kasich. An outsider dropping in to "save the day" ain't going to happen.
If Trump is the candidate it will likely be a very bad election day for the Republicans. But if the party shuts him out despite him coming very close to 1,237, and handles it badly, then it could be just as bad, it might even be worse.
It depends on a lot of things. How many states Cruz wins in the last month of the campaign, if he can score some good wins and come in to the convention with ‘momentum’ and a reasonably close delegate count, then his win will look a lot better to the Republican base. And then there’s how well they sell the process, how much they make the convention and delegate movements look like a natural part of the process, and not the party deciding over the people.
And of course how well Trump plays it, and how well his inevitable dummy spit looks. Did you read his Wisconsin speech, that stuff is gonna be turned to 11 if the party shuts him out. If that plays well with a lot of the Republican base, and given the anti-elite tendencies in the party it might even play well with people who aren't Trump supporters, well then it could get really bad.
Trump is going to lose and he'll be such a sore loser that he'll even turn off his "anti-establishment" supporters imo.
From the nomination till the Nov election, that's a long time in politics, such that the events that transpired in Cleveland would be old news.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/08 03:02:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Remember that nasty fight in 2008 between Obama vs Clinton?
Same sorta thing.
Democrats turned out great... eh?
That was a long and close fight, where the winner was ultimately the guy who went to the convention with the most unpledged delegates, at which point most super-delegates supported him. The party conceded to the decision made by the base.
What’s being suggested here is the opposite of that. It’s as if 2008 went the other way, the superdelegates stuck by Clinton and gave her the win in spite of Obama’s lead in unpledged delegates. Which would have caused a whole lot of problems for the Democrats. Maybe not enough to cost them the general, but possibly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.
That’s a great summary, and one I will be stealing to make myself sound very wise and insightful Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Interesting perspective. I think "the bern" will fade, especially if Cruz is the nominee, because he's the bogeyman the left has been painting the GOP as for 15 years. He's very, very conservative, and doesn't try to hide it. I think that motivates a lot of lefties that might sit out an Al Gore nomination to block him.
Yeah, and in any other year I can see a Cruz nomination leading to a big Democratic win. But in this season, where people have gotten so worked up over a possibly Trump candidacy, it might be a lot harder for Democrats to get people worked up over Cruz - relief at no Trump might slide right through in to November.
What Cruz might do, more than any candidate since Reagan, is really cause a spike in turn out from the religious right. The problem is that Reagan was crazy charismatic on top of being conservative, and Cruz, well, isn't.
There's a great series of 538 graph that shows the problem in Cruz's plan.
That graph is showing how likely someone is to turn out and vote, by their political view. It shows the very conservative voters are already out, they were almost 85% in 2012. Pushing them harder won't produce that many more votes, because there just isn't that many more to get. And it also has issue with what states those votes are in - in raw votes Romney was much closer than McCain, but in swing states the results were even more solidly in favour of Obama, because the greater turn out of far right states was mostly in strong Republican states. Winning Texas is worth as much as winning Texas by lots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Oh... I don't really mean that Sanders is going to overcome Clinton's delegate lead. It's just that he doing just enough to keep Clinton in "Primary Campaign" mode. She's gotta be thinking that she should've have this wrapped up by now.
Yeah, she should have wrapped this up ages back. Remember how you were saying for a couple of years there that Clinton had to whitehouse all but taken, and I kept saying it’s nowhere near a foregone conclusion, for lots of reasons not least of which is that Clinton is a crappy campaigner? Well, yeah.
The thing is, Sanders is making just enough noise that the Clinton campaign has to exert energy/effort to keep him at bay. Which seems a little demoralizing where they were convinced that they would have this locked up already.
I’m not sure about the demoralising effect, but it’s certainly keeping her to stay to the left on many issues, when she probably would have like to swing back to the centre. The longer the primary lasts the harder it is to swing back to the centre. When you can start your general campaigning in March you’ve got lots more time to establish yourself as a centrist by November, than if you have to keep staying left into May and June.
I understood. There's not as much as the WTA states anymore.
There’s a lot more to come than there’s been so far. If he won all the winner take all states and managed his current vote share in all the other states he’s easily reach 1,237 votes. The problem is that there’s a couple of winner take all states he’s very unlikely to win.
Yeah, it looks like the Trump ceiling that 538 has been talking about since like, November last year, has finally kicked in. It was 25%, then 30%, then 35%, and now it’s 40%. The difference is that this time that ceiling looks real, and it looks like it could be enough in what’s almost become a two horse race.
Trump is going to lose and he'll be such a sore loser that he'll even turn off his "anti-establishment" supporters imo.
It could play out that way, and if it does, then the Republican leadership will be very relieved. About as relieved as they could be with Ted Cruz as a candidate
From the nomination till the Nov election, that's a long time in politics, such that the events that transpired in Cleveland would be old news.
Maybe. But I bet you know lots of people on this site alone who are still pissed about the 2000 general election. Some things go away quickly, some don’t. Time will tell on this one.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/08 03:39:12
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/08 05:02:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Last month, the George Mason University School of Law decided to honor the late Supreme Court Justice and rename their school the Antonin Scalia School of Law.
However, this month GMU decided that ASSoL may not be the most fitting of names, so they are now changing their name to the safer Antonin Scalia Law School, or ASLS.
2016/04/08 12:41:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Polonius wrote: The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.
That’s a great summary, and one I will be stealing to make myself sound very wise and insightful Thanks.
I should add that the GOP has really only had setbacks nationally, meaning the presidency. They're still stronger in the House, and while they might lose the Senate, they held it for six years. They also hold the majority of Governorships and state legislations.
2016/04/08 16:40:05
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
LSD was found during trials in the 60s to be quite effective as part of a treatment for some mental illnesses, I believe. MDMA has also been trialled, though not very much, in the same kind of way and seemed to be effective. Heroin of course has obvious medical applications as it is a very powerful opiate and so is a very effective painkiller. It is more commonly called diamorphine here in the UK and is used for things like epidurals where its powerful and fast acting effects are very useful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 16:44:56
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/04/08 16:46:06
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: I don't think Colorado should have selective enforcement (non-enforcement more accurately). If that's the crux of your beef, then I agree.
Ultimately I think marijuana along should just be legalized.
We're in agreement then.
One thing about Colorado (and Washington State) doing this is that they are acting as laboratories which the Fed can observe and (hopefully) make better policy decisions. At least that's my theory.
2016/04/08 16:57:22
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist.
What Constitutional obligation of the Federal Government?
Regardless, it is still a State rights issue because the guy is asking a leading question to a prospective US Attorney General about the actions she would take to get States into line with Federal law; law he has since argued should be left to the States. It smacks of political convenience.
Yes, it is. A guy who wants to run for President as a Republican says a lot of things about how the Federal government should make certain State's ban a controlled substance, then recants (but not really), because he wants to appear like he supports State's rights (a conservative issue). That's a standard Conservative tactic.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/08 17:29:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist.
What Constitutional obligation of the Federal Government?
Regardless, it is still a State rights issue because the guy is asking a leading question to a prospective US Attorney General about the actions she would take to get States into line with Federal law; law he has since argued should be left to the States. It smacks of political convenience.
Yes, it is. A guy who wants to run for President as a Republican says a lot of things about how the Federal government should make certain State's ban a controlled substance, then recants (but not really), because he wants to appear like he supports State's rights (a conservative issue). That's a standard Conservative tactic.
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
You're conflating two separate issues: Ted Cruz pandering and posturing to help his presidential campaign and the DoJ deliberately ignoring people who violate federal drug laws in Colorado for spurious reasons. I don't care about Cruz pandering I care about the federal govt choosing to ruin people's lives over marijuana trafficking in some states while deliberately allowing other people to flaunt those laws in Colorado. The DoJ isn't ignoring anti marijuana laws completely, they're selectively ignoring them in some places and enforcing them in others. That kind of hypocrisy has no place in govt policy and shouldn't be acceptable to anyone. Either we're all equal under the law or the system doesn't work at all.
Ouze wrote: I don't think Colorado should have selective enforcement (non-enforcement more accurately). If that's the crux of your beef, then I agree.
Ultimately I think marijuana along should just be legalized.
We're in agreement then.
One thing about Colorado (and Washington State) doing this is that they are acting as laboratories which the Fed can observe and (hopefully) make better policy decisions. At least that's my theory.
Yet the DoJ and the DEA are still putting people in prison and seizing their assets over marijuana laws in other parts of the country. What's the administration's legal justification for that hypocrisy? Why is it ok for them to enforce the law on some people in some areas and not on other people in other areas? Justice is supposed to be blind and the law is supposed to govern all of us equally. The federal govt can't allow states de facto nullification powers over federal law, we already fought a civil war over that and established that federalism doesn't allow nullification. Either enforce the law equally or push to repeal it but don't selectively enforce it based on geography. The DoJ can't just stop prosecuting drug crimes in Colorado because they feel like conducting a social experiment they have to provide legal justification for why its ok for them to not do their job and uphold federal law. How does the DoJ explain why its ok for them to prosecute somebody in Minnesota for trafficking in marijuana they bring in from Canada to distribute and sell while they deliberately ignore people the same thing violating the same laws in Washington state?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 17:37:15
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/04/08 17:42:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
2016/04/08 17:54:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 17:55:00
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/04/08 18:25:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
LSD was found during trials in the 60s to be quite effective as part of a treatment for some mental illnesses, I believe. MDMA has also been trialled, though not very much, in the same kind of way and seemed to be effective. Heroin of course has obvious medical applications as it is a very powerful opiate and so is a very effective painkiller. It is more commonly called diamorphine here in the UK and is used for things like epidurals where its powerful and fast acting effects are very useful.
My earlier post got eaten by a double, but MDMA helps with depression, LSD has been found to help a LOT with PTSD. Small amounts of Psilocybin(Magic Mushrooms) daily have been found to improve peoples lives by promoting happier thoughts by stimulating the production of dopamine. Lots and lots of medical uses for these things. But what it comes down to is "DRUGS GRRR" because prohibition has historically worked for this country.
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
So are you saying this is a black and white issue? It is all or nothing for laws? Because that isn't really how it works. I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but if something is illegal federally and a state legalizes it, is that not how you start towards ratification? How do you ratify anything if the Feds just show up and say "Nope, you can't even try it" and shut it down?
2016/04/08 18:30:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/04/08 18:36:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
It's because in the states that have no legalized it, it is, get this, still illegal. So that state still does not think it should be okay. So the Feds are doing their job their while letting states such as Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska test out how it is. I believe somebody said that states should be incubators of democracy. Something like that.....
2016/04/08 18:38:06
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You do still need a jury of your peers to convict you even in a Federal case right? One thing might be that they don't think they can find people to actually convict in a state that has legalized Marijuana?
Pointless to arrest and prosecute if you're not getting a conviction out of it.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
2016/04/08 18:57:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
What is the point of quoting something if you totally ignore what it said? The answer to the question you asked is in the text you quoted...
2016/04/08 19:23:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
LSD was found during trials in the 60s to be quite effective as part of a treatment for some mental illnesses, I believe. MDMA has also been trialled, though not very much, in the same kind of way and seemed to be effective. Heroin of course has obvious medical applications as it is a very powerful opiate and so is a very effective painkiller. It is more commonly called diamorphine here in the UK and is used for things like epidurals where its powerful and fast acting effects are very useful.
My earlier post got eaten by a double, but MDMA helps with depression, LSD has been found to help a LOT with PTSD. Small amounts of Psilocybin(Magic Mushrooms) daily have been found to improve peoples lives by promoting happier thoughts by stimulating the production of dopamine. Lots and lots of medical uses for these things. But what it comes down to is "DRUGS GRRR" because prohibition has historically worked for this country.
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
So are you saying this is a black and white issue? It is all or nothing for laws? Because that isn't really how it works. I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but if something is illegal federally and a state legalizes it, is that not how you start towards ratification? How do you ratify anything if the Feds just show up and say "Nope, you can't even try it" and shut it down?
There are a lot of drugs that can be used to benefit people when they're used under the direction of a doctor. Drugs shouldn't be illegal anyway. We had prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s and all it did was create a black market, increase revenue for criminal gangs and increase violent gang crime. That's why we repealed prohibition. Then for some reason we refused to acknowledge the lessons we learned and decided to prohibit certain drugs. The DoJ is consistently issuing reports about how prescription drugs are a huge problem but nobody wants to ban them yet people are afraid of letting people legally use marijuana or other banned drugs. People still use them anyway only we get the negative side effect of funneling money into violent gangs.
It is a black and white thing in principle yes. There's no reason to have the DEA chasing down and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in some states but not in others. Marijuana use isn't any more dangerous in states where it is still illegal versus in states that have decriminalized it.
The federal government can't use state laws as justification for not enforcing federal laws. States don't have the right to nullify federal laws. States have argued that they should have nullification rights but that's been put down by the federal government, most notably with the civil war. The Nullification Crisis of 1832 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) made that pretty clear. South Carolina declared federal tariffs to be null and void within the boundaries of South Carolina and the federal government threatened to use military force to make them comply with federal law.
On December 10 Jackson issued the Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, in which he characterized the positions of the nullifiers as "impractical absurdity" and "a metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impractical theory." He provided this concise statement of his belief:
"I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."[76]
The language used by Jackson, combined with the reports coming out of South Carolina, raised the spectre of military confrontation for many on both sides of the issue. A group of Democrats, led by Van Buren and Thomas Hart Benton among others, saw the only solution to the crisis in a substantial reduction of the tariff.
Ultimately the tariffs were replaced with new tariffs that were a palatable compromise for both sides. That's what the federal government should be doing with marijuana. If states are going to legalize drugs at the state level that are still illegal on the federal level then the federal government should either enforce the law or push for federal decriminalization or other measures that actually resolve the conflict instead of just ignoring it based on personal opinions instead of established legal precedent.
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
What is the point of quoting something if you totally ignore what it said? The answer to the question you asked is in the text you quoted...
Because that answer isn't applicable unless you ignore the results of the Nullification Crisis, issue of secession, and states rights as they've been established for the past 150+ years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 21:10:46
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/04/08 21:18:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
See, this is where your Nullification Crisis falls through. They did not nullify anything. What happened was they legalized it recreationally and the Government said "Alright, lets see how this goes." Now, the DEA is going to consider rescheduling the drug(as I posted earlier in the thread) and doing exactly what you are saying they should be doing. But they are going about it the smart way and running a social experiment instead of just opening the flood gates.
The Feds are enforcing drug laws in states where it is illegal, and watching states where it is not. If they did what you are arguing for, it would be counter productive to ending the prohibition and it would just continue to perpetuate the war on drugs.
2016/04/08 21:20:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The DEA is still actively pursuing and prosecuting marijuana trafficking. Again, why is importing and selling marijuana a problem in some states but perfectly fine in others? The DoJ isn't using the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana as a reason to reduce enforcement of federal drug laws, they're enforcing them just as vigorously in all the other states. On paper, on the federal level, marijuana is just as illegal in Colorado or Alaska as it is in New York or anywhere else in the US. If other states want to prosecute marijuana crimes that's the states' decision but the Feds don't have to get involved unless they choose to do so. They're choosing not to do so in Colorado but they are choosing to do so in other states. That's a hypocritical waste of resources and the continuation of a failed policy that even a cursory examination of history would have shown legislators was doomed to fail anyway. I'd prefer for the federal govt to learn from its mistakes and take action to govern smarter and better instead of just making stuff up as they go along and not even bothering to try to provide the public they serve with consistent reasoned legal justifications for their decisions and actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: See, this is where your Nullification Crisis falls through. They did not nullify anything. What happened was they legalized it recreationally and the Government said "Alright, lets see how this goes." Now, the DEA is going to consider rescheduling the drug(as I posted earlier in the thread) and doing exactly what you are saying they should be doing. But they are going about it the smart way and running a social experiment instead of just opening the flood gates.
The Feds are enforcing drug laws in states where it is illegal, and watching states where it is not. If they did what you are arguing for, it would be counter productive to ending the prohibition and it would just continue to perpetuate the war on drugs.
That's not a legitimate legal justification for not enforcing federal laws. The Feds refusing to enforce existing federal laws because of a state law is de facto nullification but nullification isn't legal. Any reason the Feds have to not enforce drug laws in Colorado is equally applicable to the Feds not enforcing federal laws in other states. State and Federal laws exist in parallel there are separate jurisdictions that don't influence each other. The DEA would be completely within their legal rights if they started prosecuting people for federal drug crimes in Colorado even if those actions were no longer criminalized under state laws. If the Feds can decide not to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado because they don't feel like doing it then they can decide to not enforce whatever federal law they don't feel like enforcing anywhere in the US at any time. Since we've established that fact we can now state that the rule of law on the federal level no longer exists because we no longer have a consistent impartial legal system, we have bureaucrats deciding what is and isn't legal based on personal whims and opinions. I don't see why anyone would want the system to break apart like that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 21:28:00
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/04/08 21:31:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Graham: Trump or Ryan as nominee will destroy the GOP
...
"Let me say this, my Republican friends: If you parachute somebody in just on electability -- Paul Ryan's a wonderful guy, doesn't want to be put in this position. I'm trying to get us the most viable nominee for 2016 that could win without destroying the party," Graham said. "I think Trump destroys the party. And if you parachute somebody in, and try to ignore millions of votes, you're going to destroy this party. So we're right back to Ted."
Asked how Republicans who dislike Cruz could support the Texas senator's campaign, Graham said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it."
...
jmurph wrote: That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The DEA is still actively pursuing and prosecuting marijuana trafficking. Again, why is importing and selling marijuana a problem in some states but perfectly fine in others? The DoJ isn't using the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana as a reason to reduce enforcement of federal drug laws, they're enforcing them just as vigorously in all the other states. On paper, on the federal level, marijuana is just as illegal in Colorado or Alaska as it is in New York or anywhere else in the US. If other states want to prosecute marijuana crimes that's the states' decision but the Feds don't have to get involved unless they choose to do so. They're choosing not to do so in Colorado but they are choosing to do so in other states. That's a hypocritical waste of resources and the continuation of a failed policy that even a cursory examination of history would have shown legislators was doomed to fail anyway. I'd prefer for the federal govt to learn from its mistakes and take action to govern smarter and better instead of just making stuff up as they go along and not even bothering to try to provide the public they serve with consistent reasoned legal justifications for their decisions and actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: See, this is where your Nullification Crisis falls through. They did not nullify anything. What happened was they legalized it recreationally and the Government said "Alright, lets see how this goes." Now, the DEA is going to consider rescheduling the drug(as I posted earlier in the thread) and doing exactly what you are saying they should be doing. But they are going about it the smart way and running a social experiment instead of just opening the flood gates.
The Feds are enforcing drug laws in states where it is illegal, and watching states where it is not. If they did what you are arguing for, it would be counter productive to ending the prohibition and it would just continue to perpetuate the war on drugs.
That's not a legitimate legal justification for not enforcing federal laws. The Feds refusing to enforce existing federal laws because of a state law is de facto nullification but nullification isn't legal. Any reason the Feds have to not enforce drug laws in Colorado is equally applicable to the Feds not enforcing federal laws in other states. State and Federal laws exist in parallel there are separate jurisdictions that don't influence each other. The DEA would be completely within their legal rights if they started prosecuting people for federal drug crimes in Colorado even if those actions were no longer criminalized under state laws. If the Feds can decide not to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado because they don't feel like doing it then they can decide to not enforce whatever federal law they don't feel like enforcing anywhere in the US at any time. Since we've established that fact we can now state that the rule of law on the federal level no longer exists because we no longer have a consistent impartial legal system, we have bureaucrats deciding what is and isn't legal based on personal whims and opinions. I don't see why anyone would want the system to break apart like that.
No, stop. It is not nullification. It is in no way nullification. Colorado did not say they do not recognize federal law. What Colorado did say was the state does not care. They did not ban the Feds from enforcing it in their state. They nullified nothing. So stop it.
Also, they did not stop enforcing federal drug laws "because they don't feel like doing it". That is just false, so, we have not established any facts at all here. They stopped so they could have a social experiment,, like I said earlier. That is not the same as "they don't feel like it" in any way, shape or form. You say this is not a black and white issue, but then you continue to paint it as a Black and White issue. "Is it federally illegal? Yes. Then prosecute them! But the state legalized it and they want to see what ending prohibition is like. Don't Care, prosecute them!" That is a black and white argument, you are not taking anything in to account on this other than "It is against the law!"
Thanks.
