4 ms·

This sounds like the confusing US laws. Cannabis is illegal (very illegal) nationally. But several states decided to stop prosecuting these crimes, and the st

This sounds like the confusing US laws. Cannabis is illegal (very illegal) nationally. But several states decided to stop prosecuting these crimes, and the states do most of the policing in the US - so it’s all but legal in many states. I wish there was a legal standard whereby if the state stops prosecuting a law, the law automatically can be invalidated by a court. We have lots of things that are illegal that are only used by prosecutors when they want to throw the book at someone.

withinboredom 4y ago
> the law automatically can be invalidated by a court. There are three parts to the law: 1. The legislature must draft the law 2. The executives must enforce the law. 3. The judicial must punish for breaking the law. If (2) never happens, then it never gets to (3). And courts can "invalidate" a law: jury nullification.
- Kerbonut 4y ago
  SCOTUS ought to invalidate the DEA and drug scheduling considering they’re overturning other perceived federal overreaches.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Did the DEA create the schedules? Or did the Congress? I thought it was a latter.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Congress created them originally, but they gave DEA very wide authority to change them. (This is also why federal drug legalization could, in theory, be achieved through executive order, if Dems had the spine for that.)
      - Kerbonut 4y ago
        Thanks didn’t know it was actually congress. Makes more sense to me now. But does congress even have authority to regulate that? Does it fall under unenumerated rights that fall to the people? I guess I remember hearing they regulate it under interstate commerce?
        int_19h 4y ago
        Yes, it's the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This is the Supreme Court case that fully fleshed out that doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Basically, if they can somehow connect it to interstate commerce - even if it very indirect, like in this case where growing something for personal consumption affected demand - it's "constitutional", supposedly. This is the case that explicitly extended this reasoning to drugs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - sjtindell 4y ago
    Republicans are in favor of the DEA and drug scheduling though.
    - nostromo 4y ago
      That’s no longer true - Republicans are split down the middle on legal pot. https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > courts can "invalidate" a law: jury nullification This doesn’t invalidate the law. It decides one case in a particular way. An invalidated law is unenforceable for everyone.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    If someone were willing to fund a campaign telling people why they should nullify a certain law, and the people agreed, eventually they’ll just stop prosecuting it because it won’t stick. Technically, there’s nothing illegal about a judge telling the jury about nullification either.
- kurthr 4y ago
  Hahaha... oh man! If you want to get kicked right off a jury start talking about nullification. Waiting in my jury pool to be called/dismissed one of the prospective jurors started handing out FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) flyers to anyone who was interested before we went into the courtroom. http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm The bailiff called him forcibly into the judges quarters and everyone he had spoken to was sent home.
chimeracoder 4y ago
> This sounds like the confusing US laws. Cannabis is illegal (very illegal) nationally. But several states decided to stop prosecuting these crimes, and the states do most of the policing in the US - so it’s all but legal in many states. That's not an accurate explanation of the situation in the US. Cannabis is illegal at the federal level. Separately, it is illegal in some states too (although fewer and fewer as the years go by). States do not have the power to prosecute people under federal law, so in states where the state has legalized marijuana, prosecutors (DA, AG, etc.) have no basis to file criminal charges. The federal prohibition means that people can be prosecuted for possession on federal land, or if a federal agency (such as the FBI) takes enough interest to enforce the federal law, but they rarely bother at this point. > I wish there was a legal standard whereby if the state stops prosecuting a law, the law automatically can be invalidated by a court. What you are describing is actually closer to the Dutch system. Marijuana is illegal there, but because it's been "tolerated" (best translation of the Dutch word) for long enough, it's not actually legal for them to enforce the law anymore. (Well, sort of).

withinboredom 4y ago

> the law automatically can be invalidated by a court. There are three parts to the law: 1. The legislature must draft the law 2. The executives must enforce the law. 3. The judicial must punish for breaking the law. If (2) never happens, then it never gets to (3). And courts can "invalidate" a law: jury nullification.

Kerbonut 4y ago
SCOTUS ought to invalidate the DEA and drug scheduling considering they’re overturning other perceived federal overreaches.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Did the DEA create the schedules? Or did the Congress? I thought it was a latter.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Congress created them originally, but they gave DEA very wide authority to change them. (This is also why federal drug legalization could, in theory, be achieved through executive order, if Dems had the spine for that.)
    - Kerbonut 4y ago
      Thanks didn’t know it was actually congress. Makes more sense to me now. But does congress even have authority to regulate that? Does it fall under unenumerated rights that fall to the people? I guess I remember hearing they regulate it under interstate commerce?
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Yes, it's the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This is the Supreme Court case that fully fleshed out that doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Basically, if they can somehow connect it to interstate commerce - even if it very indirect, like in this case where growing something for personal consumption affected demand - it's "constitutional", supposedly. This is the case that explicitly extended this reasoning to drugs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- sjtindell 4y ago
  Republicans are in favor of the DEA and drug scheduling though.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    That’s no longer true - Republicans are split down the middle on legal pot. https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-...
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> courts can "invalidate" a law: jury nullification This doesn’t invalidate the law. It decides one case in a particular way. An invalidated law is unenforceable for everyone.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  If someone were willing to fund a campaign telling people why they should nullify a certain law, and the people agreed, eventually they’ll just stop prosecuting it because it won’t stick. Technically, there’s nothing illegal about a judge telling the jury about nullification either.
kurthr 4y ago
Hahaha... oh man! If you want to get kicked right off a jury start talking about nullification. Waiting in my jury pool to be called/dismissed one of the prospective jurors started handing out FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) flyers to anyone who was interested before we went into the courtroom. http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm The bailiff called him forcibly into the judges quarters and everyone he had spoken to was sent home.

chimeracoder 4y ago

> This sounds like the confusing US laws. Cannabis is illegal (very illegal) nationally. But several states decided to stop prosecuting these crimes, and the states do most of the policing in the US - so it’s all but legal in many states. That's not an accurate explanation of the situation in the US. Cannabis is illegal at the federal level. Separately, it is illegal in some states too (although fewer and fewer as the years go by). States do not have the power to prosecute people under federal law, so in states where the state has legalized marijuana, prosecutors (DA, AG, etc.) have no basis to file criminal charges. The federal prohibition means that people can be prosecuted for possession on federal land, or if a federal agency (such as the FBI) takes enough interest to enforce the federal law, but they rarely bother at this point. > I wish there was a legal standard whereby if the state stops prosecuting a law, the law automatically can be invalidated by a court. What you are describing is actually closer to the Dutch system. Marijuana is illegal there, but because it's been "tolerated" (best translation of the Dutch word) for long enough, it's not actually legal for them to enforce the law anymore. (Well, sort of).