8 ms·

I think weed should be legal. I also think Sessions should enforce every law, lest he pick and choose what is illegal and what is not, thus becoming the most p

• scarface74 9y ago
  That's nice in theory, but there are so many laws on the books and limited resources, any executive branch has to choose what laws to go after.
  • LanceH 9y ago
    What's nice in theory is having net neutrality established through legislation rather than regulation. Same thing here. I cringe a little every time something I might want gets implemented merely through the benevolence of those in power because those people change. This should be decided through legislation, or possible through judicial neutering of the commerce clause. But the commerce clause knows no bounds thanks to the decisions made regarding the ACA, so here we are.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• mcny 9y ago
  Why just marijuana? Why not every drug? In fact, why is possession of anything a crime? We already have laws about improper storage of hazardous materials. Possession of anything should be legal. Now distribution and sale is a trickier subject but pretty easy as well. As long as you don't misrepresent what you're selling, it should be legal as well. If we are for a small government, we have to walk the walk.
  • Pigo 9y ago
    Unfortunately the loudest in this country are definitely not for small government. If it wasn't for the crooked party system, we might have a President right now that wants the government to take everything and make every decision for you. Those Trudeau wrong think laws are making their way into New York, it's just a matter of time.
  • djsumdog 9y ago
    > In fact, why is possession of anything a crime? Child pornography. Do you want possession to not be a crime? This is one of the most fascinating cases since it is one of the core limitations of free speech. Richard Stallman actually has some very interesting and very controversial arguments about this in regards to speech.
    • Clubber 9y ago
      I think the government has gone way overboard on sentencing of having a video, as abhorrent as it may be. If you can take the morality out of it.
    • Lev1a 9y ago
      I'm fairly confident that the "anything" in GP refers to the concept of "any substance", as in flour, butter, chunks of metal, kilo of coke, some amount of olive oil, etc. Y'know, the usual stuff, not something like your example.
  • khuey 9y ago
    Should possession of 100 lbs of weapons grade uranium be a crime?
    • tzahola 9y ago
      Nuclear weapons can hurt other people. Me using drugs can only hurt me.
      • zimpenfish 9y ago
• brightball 9y ago
  IMO that's the correct answer. The only reason it was flourishing was due to lack of enforcement of federal law. It needs to be addressed at the federal level or there needs to be a clear method for states to veto/nullify/ignore federal laws that they feel overreach. I can't remember the procedure, but isn't there some method for a state to nullify a federal law that it disagrees with?
  • buttcoinslol 9y ago
    Uh, some states tried to use the concept of nullification to keep slavery around and failed. Not exactly a shining endorsement.. edit: It's important to learn about history.
    • Clubber 9y ago
      As mentioned before, slavery was legal during the antebellum period, and Lincoln never publicly said he would abolish it (until he did). The political theory though is if new states are required to be slave-free, then the South would end up being suffocated by anti-slave votes over time. It's an interesting time to try to understand.
  • owenmarshall 9y ago
    There is a method for states to nullify federal laws they disagree with; the last time we tried it, though, the side effects were a bit undesirable.
    • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Slavery was not against federal law when that happened. It only happened much later toward the end of the war with the 13th amendement.
      • Clubber 9y ago
        As an aside, if you believe the Emancipation Proclamation to be legally binding, slavery was legal in the North longer than it was in the South.
• dbingham 9y ago
  Unfortunately that's not how it works, at all. Especially when there are legal conflicts between the state and federal governments like this. There are so many laws on the books, many of them horribly outdated, and legislatures are overworked / grid locked. Often, the only way for us to have a working body of law that makes sense is for the government to simply stop enforcing the outdated ones. In the case of the Obama era Pot rules, the federal government had basically said "Rather than enforce our unilateral law, we're going to allow individual states to decide how they feel and only enforce the prohibition in states that continue to request it." Which makes perfect sense. Once enough states had legalized it, it would create momentum to legalize it on the federal level. It made perfect sense for the federal government to get out of the way and let that process play out. Enforcing the federal law in states that legalize it is just going to set up a battle between those states and the federal government, with a lot of very costly court cases and headaches for the various agencies tasked with enforcement.
  • marcoperaza 9y ago
    Yes, the government has some prosecutorial discretion, the legal limits of which are uncertain. But there is no legal ambiguity or conflict as to federal government's authority to enforce drug laws (as I originally read your post to suggest, though perhaps you have edited it?). Federal law is supreme and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this particular issue, going so far as to allow the punishment of someone who was growing marijuana in his backyard for personal use in compliance with the state medical marijuana law. The feds could legally walk into a recreational pot shop and arrest all the employees and customers, and legal arguments to the contrary wouldn’t really go anywhere. But it’s worth noting that they can no longer do the same thing to medical marijuana dispensaries and patients because of the relatively recent Rohrabacher–Farr amendment in the federal budget that prohibits spending money on enforcing federal drug laws against medical marijuana programs that are compliant with state laws.
    • SEJeff 9y ago
      Correct, and in specific, the supremacy clause of the constitution guarantees that federal law overrules state law. I don't see any state AG's having much luck suing the DoJ against this as it is clear as mud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
• grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  You say this as if Sessions is a good-faith actor, when clearly he is not.
  • marcoperaza 9y ago
    I keep seeing this “good-faith” buzzword everywhere lately. It seems that the current political usage is just a way to dismiss any legitimate arguments or actions made by someone who is supposed to be a villain in the narrative.
    • SEJeff 9y ago
      But remember, Jeff Sessions was denied a federal judgeship in 1986 with the reason being, "He was too racist". Now how racist did you have to be in 1986 to be too racist?! This is the same guy who in March of 1986 said he would refer to a white civil rights lawyer as (and I quote), "A disgrace to his race." He then went on to refer to the ACLU, NAACP, and National Council of Churches as communist inspired and un-american. I'd almost argue it is hard to find anything he has done in good faith given his bias towards laws that overwhelmingly target racial minorities. I say this as a pasty white dude who is appalled by the overwhelming amount of racism in our current executive branch.
      • Clubber 9y ago
        >Now how racist did you have to be in 1986 to be too racist?! About as racist as today. If you want to see what racism really looks like (and not merely bigotry), look to the 60s and prior.
        • watwut 9y ago
          This is really racism too. Just milder then kkk.
          • Clubber 9y ago
            Well yes, what Sessions was accused of doing is systemic racism, which IMO is much worse than idiots throwing around pejoratives. Granted, the systemic racism is a lot better overall than it was. I mean lynching was legal, rape was legal, assault was legal and fighting back got your mobbed or worse. Racism is the belief that a group of people are inferior to another group of people based solely on what they look like. I mean inferior as in inferior beings or sub-human, like a dog. Historically, US racism was particularly nasty. If you are interested, there is an iTunes podcast from Yale on Reconstruction (the whole war era really). The things you hear turn your stomach. The WW2 propaganda about the Japanese as a dumb people is a good recent example. Of course the Japanese were very fierce and brutal fighters who would rather die than surrender. That's probably not going to get enlistment up though.
• exabrial 9y ago
  As an example, Kansas tried to pass a law about firearm suppressors. If it was made in Kansas and strictly used inside Kansas, it would be legal. This ended in the unfortunate federal conviction of a few men. http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article126014949.html http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article126014... Selective enforcement is very terrible indeed. I have my doubts Trump will go after weed farmers, I think he might press Congress however for a solution.
• losvedir 9y ago
  I agree with you, but it's interesting to see the "worse-is-better" philosophy applied outside of tech. I would hope that most readers of HN who build systems for a living see the value in your argument of separation of concerns and clear interfaces: Congress makes laws, executive branch enforces those laws, states make their own laws within the latitude they have. That said, in life like in software, when subject to resource constraints and a deadline, it's so much easier to just slap in some hardcoded conditions or let this module take on a little more responsibility than it should. I think that's what happened here in the Obama era, and like C, we had a pretty good outcome from it. But again, like C, if we let it fester too long it can cause no end of pain down the road. So I'm actually happy with this outcome - Obama hacked in a proof of concept that seems to be working, and Sessions (though perhaps not his intention) is tackling the tech debt. I don't see this going any way but marijuana being legalized federally down the road. (All that said, the current "system" is not great in terms of separation of concerns. It's my understanding that Congress didn't say marijuana should be illegal, but the DEA, right? The DEA should totally have no say over it.)
  • aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    As a U.S. Attorney in Alabama in the 1980s, Sessions said he thought the KKK "were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/jeff-sessions-coming-war-on-legal-marijuana-214501 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/jeff-session...
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It's my understanding that Congress didn't say marijuana should be illegal, but the DEA, right? Incorrect. While the Attorney-General can add or remove drugs from the scehdules established under the Controlled Substances Act based on the criteria in the Act, with advice from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in practice, as I understand, this is delegated largely to the DEA in DoJ supported by the FDA in HHS), the initial scehdules were set by Congress, and it is Congress that initially placed Marijuana in Schedule I, from which it has not been moved, when the Act was passed.
• sliverstorm 9y ago
  Have you heard of prosecutorial discretion?
  • javajosh 9y ago
    I think he has heard of it. He's making a case for how things should be not how things are. And his point is consistent with Socrates, who chose to live in compliance with the law even though it meant his death; and with Lincoln, who famously said "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Not bad company.
• zeveb 9y ago
  I agree regarding enforcement of every law, but I would also point out that the federal drug laws — like other laws still on the books which are not enforced — are unconstitutional, and thus that he has a responsibility given his oath of office to refrain from enforcing them.
  • hnal943 9y ago
    No. The executive branch does not have the power to strike down laws it sees as unconstitutional. That is the power of the courts. The executive should follow the laws as written.
    • zeveb 9y ago
      If two laws contradict one another, the executive must make a determination which to follow; it cannot follow both. It could choose to follow the newest, or the oldest, but fortunately the Constitution itself spells out the precedence of the laws: 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.' The Constitution takes precedence over federal law, and the executive must refrain from executing a law which is unconstitutional.
• karmelapple 9y ago
  Police officers can choose whether or not to enforce a law. Someone is driving 50 in a 35 mph zone. Police officer’s radar says it, the gun is calibrated, and it’s illegal to do that. Police officer pulls that person over, then after a little chat, decided to let them go with a warning. Presumably the reason for letting someone go is because they feel the penalty imposed by the law is too stiff in this case. Okay, then how about we reduce the penalty? I guess I’ve always been confused why officers are allowed to do this, and unsure if this is wise.
  • ams6110 9y ago
    That's still enforcing the law. Not enforcing the law would be witnessing the person driving 50 in a 35 zone and doing nothing.
  • VLM 9y ago
    First five minutes of criminology 101 "Law Enforcement vs Policing" Law Enforcement means replacing that cop with a very small shell script hooked up to a red light camera style radar gun and a ticket printer. Policing is a somewhat more nuanced human task. With a side dish of the Peelian Principles that define the difference between an occupying military light infantry force and a police force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles So Peelian interpretation #2 its a speed trap intentional or unintentional Peelian principle #4 if the cop was in anyway legitimately disrespectful the ticket should not be written. Peelian principle #6 there is a diversity in humanity such that the law (aside from mandatory minimums) has always specified "up to". Its a very medical doctor Hippocratic oath like outlook of first do no harm, do the minimum necessary act to get the result. Peelian principle #9 realistically there is no way to prevent speeding while driving the pregnant wife in labor to the ER, so why bother with a retributive ticket? Turn on the lights and escort them to make it safer, maybe. On the other hand business as usual idiot woke up late trying to speed to work to catch up, that can be permanently cured by a retributive ticket. Principle 9 is the logic behind how we treat medically impaired driving ; intentionally getting drunk equals ticket, having a heart attack means no ticket, although in an authoritarian law enforcement philosophy both are equally hazardous driving situation for the general public. To some extent pot legalization is a classic law enforcement vs policing argument. By Peelian principles individual use while not endangering the public should never, ever, be enforced anyway regardless of law. By definition MJ can't be a hazard to yourself or the public as long as you're not driving or operating heavy machinery, so its simply not a police issue. Kinda like how some people argue immigration law enforcement is not a Peelian police issue.
• jdblair 9y ago
  > Sessions will instead let federal prosecutors where pot is legal decide how aggressively to enforce federal marijuana law, the people said. He's pushing the choice to whether "to defend every law" down to regional federal prosecutors. Prosecutors always decide what laws to enforce by deciding how to allocate their scarce resources. This is an established legal custom called "prosecutorial discretion."
  • BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    Prosecutional discretion is legalized bigotry. The legal system has a strong history of allowing sexist, racist, and classist thought to drive how laws are enforced. Any fair or just system would allow no such discretion.
    • jdblair 9y ago
      I agree that prosecutorial discretion allows racism and other prejudice to be reflected in enforcement. However, every practical system will have prosecutorial discretion because resources are always limited.
      • ryandrake 9y ago
        Except, Congress's ability to create a never-ending stream of new laws seems to be limitless. Maybe we should require a 3/4 majority and "slow" process to create a law but only a 1/4 minority and fast track needed to repeal one.
• ApolloFortyNine 9y ago
  I feel the same way. Passing 'laws' (maybe decrees is a better word?) through the Executive Branch and even a memo in this case just sets up horrible precedent, as well as being temporary. In a perfect world, this would actually ignite the public to the point where the Federal Government is forced to actually remove Marijuana from the banned substance list. Republicans aren't so against it today where they wouldn't be able to get it in through a compromise bill of some sort.
• dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I also think Sessions should enforce every law, lest he pick and choose what is illegal and what is not, thus becoming the most powerful law-maker ( or unmaker ) in the land. Setting prosecutorial priorities is an important executive branch function, both in terms of resource management and in terms of avoiding injustice; criminal laws are not designed to be applied by automatons, and executive officials are not doing he job they are paid to do if they act like blind automatons in applying them.
• DINKDINK 9y ago
  >I also think Sessions should enforce every law Do you appreciate what that would entail? Laws exists on the books so that when the political class wants someone squashed, they can. They are swinging swords of Damocles above the throats of citizens that are snipped when convenient.
• jartelt 9y ago
  By your logic, Sessions should be directing police officers everywhere to harshly enforce all traffic signs, to harshly enforce jay walking laws, and to go bust every small poker game for illegal gambling. Enforcing all our laws with equal effort is a massive waste of resources. Plus, we still have a lot of fairly crazy old laws on the books that no one cares to enforce. It took until 2003 for the Supreme Court to say laws against sodomy were illegal. We don't want to rely on congress to choose which laws to enforce, we want to rely on smart and empathetic prosecutors. Unfortunately Sessions does not seem very empathetic.
• cmurf 9y ago
  This is a deeply naive view of how government works. The exclusive domain of the purse string rests with the legislature, that is in the constitution. If the legislature makes something illegal, but they do not fund enforcement, and the president signs that into law, there is nothing the executive can do to get more money for enforcement, they simply can't enforce it. And there are all kinds of examples of this. Enforce every law is just nonsense talk. Absolutely they pick and choose what to enforce and what not to enforce. It's all a resource allocation, and ideology and politics determines a lot of how it gets allocated, which is why elections matter.
• squozzer 9y ago
  I agree, and taking into account objections / observations raised by other commentors, the most practical method is to stop enforcing outdated laws. BUT, in the last ten years, we have seen same-sex marriage go from "cops looking the other way" to legitimate laws in many states (37) to a SCOTUS ruling which overturned the ban. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-un... And thanks to Obama and the State of Colorado, we have evidence - albeit subject to interpretation - instead of Summer of Love / Reefer Madness conjectures. At the very least, the Congress should consider amending the meaning of Schedule I to distinguish marijuana from heroin -- a phrase similar to "toxic in large doses." IOW, the danger posed by a drug should have weight in its scheduling. Schedule I - drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml
• RickJWag 9y ago
  Good post. I agree.