4 ms·

> In ever US state where it is legal I'm assuming you know that marijuana remains illegal due to (a) federal law and (b) the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

> In ever US state where it is legal I'm assuming you know that marijuana remains illegal due to (a) federal law and (b) the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. I mean this with complete sincerity and genuine curiosity: Why did you choose wording that suggests the activity is wholly legal in those states?

teh_infallible 7y ago
Because you can walk into a store and buy it?
romansul 7y ago
Unless the federal government wants to get into a serious fight over state’s rights, weed is effectively/wholly legal in states like California (I don’t know the specific laws outside of CA) If you’d like to argue that the federal government - through the supremacy clause - has the power to override States that legalize marijuana, perhaps you’re right in theory. But I think it’s a fantasy that the federal government will want to die on that hill. There are politically valuable reasons to avoid addressing the tension between state’s rights and the federal government’s power.
- cloverich 7y ago
  It is a kind of ironic situation. Modern states rights arguments tend to reside on the right, but that is also where anti-drug legalization sentiment resides as well. I'd be very interested to hear a debate where a right winger insists the fed should step in, and a left winger replies "Personally I support states rights". Just to see where it all goes.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    Whenever power in Washington changes from one party to the other, the other party rediscovers the importance of states' rights.
    - asveikau 7y ago
      Personally whenever I hear "states rights" my mind jumps immediately to people using that term to justify the pro-slavery side of the Civil War.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  It sounds like we're using different definitions of the word "illegal". It's unfortunate that English makes it cumbersome to draw the necessary distinction.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    Given that the federal government has consistently grabbed more power than our founding documents actually gave them, forgive me for not really giving a shit what the federal government's opinion is.
liability 7y ago
Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...)
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  > Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...) It seems to me that saying "pot is legal in MA" is precisely as incorrect as saying "pot is illegal in MA". They're both half-truths. I believe there's rhetorical and political power, however, in repeating an untruth without anybody challenging it. HN is intended to be a site for serious discussion and honest debate, and I choose to not let use this rhetorical device go unchallenged. It costs me karma every time, and I consider it a cost worth paying.
  - lovich 7y ago
    Does your distinction matter? If the state of Delaware declares driving a red cars illegal everywhere on the planet, would you jump to correct people saying driving red cars is legal in Germany and let them know it isn't? Most people would not do so because there is no feasible way of Delaware enforcing their opinions in Germany. If you're not willing to take your viewpoint to the extreme then you're making an implicit declaration that you think the federal government does have the power to override the states here and will do so. That's why people are downvoting when you say you're just exposing an "untruth". It's similar to hen people say they don't care about politics which really implies that the current status quo suits them well enough to not be involved
    - njarboe 7y ago
      The US federal government has many ways of enforcing their opinions on US states and does so regularly. Almost all banks will not open accounts for pot related businesses due to federal banking laws. In the past the federal government convinced the states that did not have a drinking age of 21 to up the age by withholding federal highway funds from those states until they did.
hprotagonist 7y ago
Pragmatically, this is a question of enforcement. Federal LEOs shall not compel state LEOs to enforce federal law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act and the 10th Amendment for why, but this fact has very long precedent. So if nice Mr DEA man goes to the state police and say "help me bust these grow operations", the head of the state police says "go piss up a rope, those are tax-paying law abiding citizens who are breaking no law I have the responsibility to enforce." And this is called state's rights. Rhetorically I am well within the realm of sanity to describe purchasing weed at the dispensary down the street as legal. Feel free to insert the implicit footnoted "persuant to the laws of the state of oregon" in your head, if you like, for completeness.

teh_infallible 7y ago

Because you can walk into a store and buy it?

romansul 7y ago

Unless the federal government wants to get into a serious fight over state’s rights, weed is effectively/wholly legal in states like California (I don’t know the specific laws outside of CA) If you’d like to argue that the federal government - through the supremacy clause - has the power to override States that legalize marijuana, perhaps you’re right in theory. But I think it’s a fantasy that the federal government will want to die on that hill. There are politically valuable reasons to avoid addressing the tension between state’s rights and the federal government’s power.

cloverich 7y ago
It is a kind of ironic situation. Modern states rights arguments tend to reside on the right, but that is also where anti-drug legalization sentiment resides as well. I'd be very interested to hear a debate where a right winger insists the fed should step in, and a left winger replies "Personally I support states rights". Just to see where it all goes.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  Whenever power in Washington changes from one party to the other, the other party rediscovers the importance of states' rights.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    Personally whenever I hear "states rights" my mind jumps immediately to people using that term to justify the pro-slavery side of the Civil War.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
It sounds like we're using different definitions of the word "illegal". It's unfortunate that English makes it cumbersome to draw the necessary distinction.
- LocalH 7y ago
  Given that the federal government has consistently grabbed more power than our founding documents actually gave them, forgive me for not really giving a shit what the federal government's opinion is.

liability 7y ago

Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...)

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...) It seems to me that saying "pot is legal in MA" is precisely as incorrect as saying "pot is illegal in MA". They're both half-truths. I believe there's rhetorical and political power, however, in repeating an untruth without anybody challenging it. HN is intended to be a site for serious discussion and honest debate, and I choose to not let use this rhetorical device go unchallenged. It costs me karma every time, and I consider it a cost worth paying.
- lovich 7y ago
  Does your distinction matter? If the state of Delaware declares driving a red cars illegal everywhere on the planet, would you jump to correct people saying driving red cars is legal in Germany and let them know it isn't? Most people would not do so because there is no feasible way of Delaware enforcing their opinions in Germany. If you're not willing to take your viewpoint to the extreme then you're making an implicit declaration that you think the federal government does have the power to override the states here and will do so. That's why people are downvoting when you say you're just exposing an "untruth". It's similar to hen people say they don't care about politics which really implies that the current status quo suits them well enough to not be involved
  - njarboe 7y ago
    The US federal government has many ways of enforcing their opinions on US states and does so regularly. Almost all banks will not open accounts for pot related businesses due to federal banking laws. In the past the federal government convinced the states that did not have a drinking age of 21 to up the age by withholding federal highway funds from those states until they did.

hprotagonist 7y ago

Pragmatically, this is a question of enforcement. Federal LEOs shall not compel state LEOs to enforce federal law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act and the 10th Amendment for why, but this fact has very long precedent. So if nice Mr DEA man goes to the state police and say "help me bust these grow operations", the head of the state police says "go piss up a rope, those are tax-paying law abiding citizens who are breaking no law I have the responsibility to enforce." And this is called state's rights. Rhetorically I am well within the realm of sanity to describe purchasing weed at the dispensary down the street as legal. Feel free to insert the implicit footnoted "persuant to the laws of the state of oregon" in your head, if you like, for completeness.