5 ms·

> I wonder how many state has to legalize it before the federal government in USA is forced to change their classification. It's already arguably legal under f

> I wonder how many state has to legalize it before the federal government in USA is forced to change their classification. It's already arguably legal under federal law under the equal protection clause because congress legalized it in DC. As far as I know the feds aren't locking anyone up for possession of small amounts. E.g.: https://novacriminalattorney.com/marijuana/marijuana-legalization-same-sex-marriage-and-the-14th-amendment/ https://novacriminalattorney.com/marijuana/marijuana-legaliz...

ilyanep 8y ago
Am I missing something or is your link making the exact opposite point that you made?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nzealand 8y ago
  You are not missing anything. The link does make the exact opposite point: "you will not be able to argue that you should be protected by the Constitution."
- Alex3917 8y ago
  In this case the author is talking about using the 14th amendment to strike down state laws, but I was just talking about federal law. E.g. if the federal government allows people in DC to do something, then it has to allow everyone else to do that thing also. The author is right that strictly speaking the equal protection clause only applies to state laws, but the supreme court has also retroactively applied it to federal laws as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe
- dpatru 8y ago
  The parent post was arguing that it would be hard to prosecute marijuana possession under federal law because federal law allows possession in DC. The link argues that state laws against marijuana are not affected by federal law. So in Virginia, you won't be able to escape prosecution for marijuana possession under Virginia's law just because it is not illegal under federal law or another state's law.
dgzl 8y ago
I would argue that the 10 amendment in the Bill of Rights is all that a person would need to nullify gross overreaches of power by the federal government.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  In practice your assets will be civily forfeited, you'll be held in pre-trial detention (prison) for months, and then every lawyer will laugh you out of the room when you tell him you want to do a constitutional defense. "Just take the plea, I can get them down to 2 years. Otherwise youre facing 9 to 20 years."
  - dgzl 8y ago
    What even are rights anymore.
    - anoncoward111 8y ago
      We have them on paper. But, de facto, we do not have many at all. It is worse than anarchy. It is arbitrary democracy.
      - dgzl 8y ago
        Not to point fingers, but I feel like some generations were sleeping hard on the government. The Constitution is almost entirely built to give citizens the power, and to limit the role of government as much as possible. And now society has fallen into a trap of misinformation and distraction. Can future generations push out the corrupt leaders after they pass away? #termlimitsoncongress
        anoncoward111 8y ago
        Oh, we're screwed. I mean, thats my opinion at least. They'll continue dividing us one by one and limiting our rights and livelihoods. Take a look around-- how many of your friends have jumped multiple social classes in the past decade?

ilyanep 8y ago

Am I missing something or is your link making the exact opposite point that you made?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nzealand 8y ago
You are not missing anything. The link does make the exact opposite point: "you will not be able to argue that you should be protected by the Constitution."
Alex3917 8y ago
In this case the author is talking about using the 14th amendment to strike down state laws, but I was just talking about federal law. E.g. if the federal government allows people in DC to do something, then it has to allow everyone else to do that thing also. The author is right that strictly speaking the equal protection clause only applies to state laws, but the supreme court has also retroactively applied it to federal laws as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe
dpatru 8y ago
The parent post was arguing that it would be hard to prosecute marijuana possession under federal law because federal law allows possession in DC. The link argues that state laws against marijuana are not affected by federal law. So in Virginia, you won't be able to escape prosecution for marijuana possession under Virginia's law just because it is not illegal under federal law or another state's law.

dgzl 8y ago

I would argue that the 10 amendment in the Bill of Rights is all that a person would need to nullify gross overreaches of power by the federal government.

anoncoward111 8y ago
In practice your assets will be civily forfeited, you'll be held in pre-trial detention (prison) for months, and then every lawyer will laugh you out of the room when you tell him you want to do a constitutional defense. "Just take the plea, I can get them down to 2 years. Otherwise youre facing 9 to 20 years."
- dgzl 8y ago
  What even are rights anymore.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    We have them on paper. But, de facto, we do not have many at all. It is worse than anarchy. It is arbitrary democracy.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      Not to point fingers, but I feel like some generations were sleeping hard on the government. The Constitution is almost entirely built to give citizens the power, and to limit the role of government as much as possible. And now society has fallen into a trap of misinformation and distraction. Can future generations push out the corrupt leaders after they pass away? #termlimitsoncongress
      - anoncoward111 8y ago
        Oh, we're screwed. I mean, thats my opinion at least. They'll continue dividing us one by one and limiting our rights and livelihoods. Take a look around-- how many of your friends have jumped multiple social classes in the past decade?