3 ms·

I think these "no enforcement" things are the worst. It always leaves people in a legal grey-area where they want to do something, and they are allowed to do it

I think these "no enforcement" things are the worst. It always leaves people in a legal grey-area where they want to do something, and they are allowed to do it, but it's still technically illegal with all the baggage that goes along with that. In fact, it relieves pressure to legalize, since most people are now able to do what they like. Take speeding laws (in the US): (almost) everybody breaks them since the limits are so low, which gives officers discretion to basically go out and just start ticketing anybody they like. Everyone is guilty, but we just don't enforce it against you, at least for today. Clearly (I hope), when a large number of people are breaking a law, and we all just accept this - then it's not a good law. But speed limits don't get repealed, because very few people are actually prosecuted, so the general public doesn't get mad enough about it. If speed limits were universally enforced, the public would get mad and the limits would be removed or raised within a week.

dsl 4y ago
There is no gray area here. San Francisco can make murder legal and refuse to arrest people for it. State and federal law enforcement will just step in. The DEA still busts dispensaries and grow operations in California for example, it just isn't newsworthy.
- int_19h 4y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. When the state makes something legal and refuses to prosecute, it can do so because it possesses sufficient sovereignty for that under the commandeering doctrine. But the relationship between the state and its municipalities is not equivalent - the state has all the sovereignty while the municipalities only have such power that the state delegates to them, and that power can always be withdrawn (in the most extreme case, by de-chartering). Thus, the state can actually force San Francisco to remove this law, and compel its law enforcement agencies to enforce state law. It just chooses to not do so.

dsl 4y ago

There is no gray area here. San Francisco can make murder legal and refuse to arrest people for it. State and federal law enforcement will just step in. The DEA still busts dispensaries and grow operations in California for example, it just isn't newsworthy.

int_19h 4y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. When the state makes something legal and refuses to prosecute, it can do so because it possesses sufficient sovereignty for that under the commandeering doctrine. But the relationship between the state and its municipalities is not equivalent - the state has all the sovereignty while the municipalities only have such power that the state delegates to them, and that power can always be withdrawn (in the most extreme case, by de-chartering). Thus, the state can actually force San Francisco to remove this law, and compel its law enforcement agencies to enforce state law. It just chooses to not do so.