4 ms·

Isn't it odd calling this form of law Texas-inspired, when Texas got the idea from states working to legalize drugs? Stopping the war on drugs sounds grrat, bu

Isn't it odd calling this form of law Texas-inspired, when Texas got the idea from states working to legalize drugs? Stopping the war on drugs sounds grrat, but it also sounds like the reporting here is biased.

golemotron 5y ago
Gotta love California's governor essentially saying "this is terrible, so we are going to do it."
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  That's a total mischaracterization. It's more of a shot across the bow, a warning along the lines of "you really want to open this Pandora's box?" A big focus of the Supreme Court arguments was that if the Texas law was allowed to stand, then any constitutional right, especially gun rights that are near and dear to conservatives, could be ignored in this manner, and that was the line of argument that appeared to have the biggest impact on more conservative judges like Kavanagh. CA doing this is basically a warning to SCOTUS justices that if they allow the Texas law to stand, it's game on.
  - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
    It will be interesting to see what happens. I think California may face a more difficult argument since 2nd Amendment rights are in the Constitution, but Roe v. Wade is just court precedent. That said, it depends on how the law they propose to inact will work. The right to own a firearm is not the same as the right to manufacture or sell a firearm. They might drive firearm manufacturing and sales out of state, but not be able to prohibit someone buying a firearm out of state and bringing it home.
    - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
      > I think California may face a more difficult argument since 2nd Amendment rights are in the Constitution, but Roe v. Wade is just court precedent. That's a distinction without justification. Constitutional rights are basically however the Supreme Court interprets them. With respect to gun rights, there has been a long debate over whether the 2nd amendment applies to any individual, or just to "a well-regulated militia". The only reason it applies to any individual is because that's how the court interpreted it (and more recently than Roe v Wade) - through "court precedent", as you say.
      - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
        >> That's a distinction without justification. Constitutional rights are basically however the Supreme Court interprets them. Good point. That distinction is more artificial than I perceived it.
      - beej71 5y ago
        And I'm not even sure that's in play here. The state isn't banning anything; they're just saying private citizens can sue manufacturers and sellers for up to $10k, right?
  - golemotron 5y ago
    > That's a total mischaracterization. It's more of a shot across the bow, a warning along the lines of "you really want to open this Pandora's box?" Fine reasoning, except it's already open. SCOTUS allowed the law to stand. Any barrier to laws of that type will have to come from the US Congress or the state legislatures.
    - tzs 5y ago
      > Fine reasoning, except it's already open. SCOTUS allowed the law to stand. They declined to issue an injunction to block the law until the case is decided. They have not yet ruled on the merits of the issue.
      - golemotron 5y ago
        Whether an injunction would be Constitutional was the issue, and it's been decided.
JaimeThompson 5y ago
What drug legalization laws allow citizens to sue others like the Texas law allows?
sofixa 5y ago
I don't get it. Legalising drugs on a state level, hoping the federal government does nothing ( because its still illegal for them) is one thing, but I don't see the connection to allowing anyone, not related to anything, to sue anyone even remotely involved in an abortion. To an extent there's a link, both acts are about bodily autonomy and personal choice, but one is a right and the other a crime, federally. Allowing any random person to sue for cash for the thing that is allowed vs regulating and taxing the sale of forbidden substances seem wildly different.

golemotron 5y ago

Gotta love California's governor essentially saying "this is terrible, so we are going to do it."

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
That's a total mischaracterization. It's more of a shot across the bow, a warning along the lines of "you really want to open this Pandora's box?" A big focus of the Supreme Court arguments was that if the Texas law was allowed to stand, then any constitutional right, especially gun rights that are near and dear to conservatives, could be ignored in this manner, and that was the line of argument that appeared to have the biggest impact on more conservative judges like Kavanagh. CA doing this is basically a warning to SCOTUS justices that if they allow the Texas law to stand, it's game on.
- thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  It will be interesting to see what happens. I think California may face a more difficult argument since 2nd Amendment rights are in the Constitution, but Roe v. Wade is just court precedent. That said, it depends on how the law they propose to inact will work. The right to own a firearm is not the same as the right to manufacture or sell a firearm. They might drive firearm manufacturing and sales out of state, but not be able to prohibit someone buying a firearm out of state and bringing it home.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    > I think California may face a more difficult argument since 2nd Amendment rights are in the Constitution, but Roe v. Wade is just court precedent. That's a distinction without justification. Constitutional rights are basically however the Supreme Court interprets them. With respect to gun rights, there has been a long debate over whether the 2nd amendment applies to any individual, or just to "a well-regulated militia". The only reason it applies to any individual is because that's how the court interpreted it (and more recently than Roe v Wade) - through "court precedent", as you say.
    - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
      >> That's a distinction without justification. Constitutional rights are basically however the Supreme Court interprets them. Good point. That distinction is more artificial than I perceived it.
    - beej71 5y ago
      And I'm not even sure that's in play here. The state isn't banning anything; they're just saying private citizens can sue manufacturers and sellers for up to $10k, right?
- golemotron 5y ago
  > That's a total mischaracterization. It's more of a shot across the bow, a warning along the lines of "you really want to open this Pandora's box?" Fine reasoning, except it's already open. SCOTUS allowed the law to stand. Any barrier to laws of that type will have to come from the US Congress or the state legislatures.
  - tzs 5y ago
    > Fine reasoning, except it's already open. SCOTUS allowed the law to stand. They declined to issue an injunction to block the law until the case is decided. They have not yet ruled on the merits of the issue.
    - golemotron 5y ago
      Whether an injunction would be Constitutional was the issue, and it's been decided.

JaimeThompson 5y ago

What drug legalization laws allow citizens to sue others like the Texas law allows?

sofixa 5y ago

I don't get it. Legalising drugs on a state level, hoping the federal government does nothing ( because its still illegal for them) is one thing, but I don't see the connection to allowing anyone, not related to anything, to sue anyone even remotely involved in an abortion. To an extent there's a link, both acts are about bodily autonomy and personal choice, but one is a right and the other a crime, federally. Allowing any random person to sue for cash for the thing that is allowed vs regulating and taxing the sale of forbidden substances seem wildly different.