5 ms·

How is it inaccurate? Cannabis is legal in much of the country (at the state level) and the businesses are blocked from much of the banking system because it's

How is it inaccurate? Cannabis is legal in much of the country (at the state level) and the businesses are blocked from much of the banking system because it's federally illegal. Edit: OP, if you're going to completely change the last sentence of your post after people respond, which then changes your point, at least highlight that you've made a significant change.

adam_arthur 4y ago
It’s illegal everywhere due to federal law… states altering their laws doesn’t change that. The federal government just doesn’t enforce it in most cases. The DEA can start enforcing tomorrow if they wanted
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > The DEA can enforce and arrest people tomorrow if they wanted I’m sure it would go down really really well if the DEA started arresting people for simple possession in states where it’s perfectly legal.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    Regardless of your perspective on the morality of it, cannabis is still illegal nationally. Which is the point of this thread To say its legal is simply wrong
    - jjulius 4y ago
      >To say its legal is simply wrong To say that is "simply wrong" is to ignore nuance and, in point of fact, is "simply wrong". It is legal at the state level, meaning no state official will punish you for it. It is illegal at the federal level, meaning a federal official could punish you for it. Isn't nuance fun!? :)
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      Just because there’s a jurisdictional overlap doesn’t make it illegal at state level.
      - salawat 4y ago
        Federal law supercedes State law. That is why the Constitution is "the highest law of the Land". It's also why so much is pushed for to be done at the Federal level, because it completely sidesteps the chance for States to make their own local laws on the matter. The danger there, is that as it turns out, different places/populations have different views on things, which often do not exactly line up with D.C.'s. Hence why Federal overreach side of things has been a hot button topic in politics for decades.
        sgjohnson 4y ago
        But it doesn’t. The states are free to ignore federal law. Yes, the states can’t stop the feds from doing enforcement themselves, but it would be basically unprecedented outside of a few limited examples. So no, the line is definitely not as clear as “federal law supersedes state law, period.” It’s a lot more nuanced than that, and in practice, in most situations it’s the state law that reigns supreme.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        The constitution is above both federal and state laws, which are much more on par than you're suggesting.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The constitution is above both federal and state laws, The Constitution is a subset of federal law > which are much more on par than you're suggesting. The Constitution disagrees; Art VI ¶ 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
  - salawat 4y ago
    The problem is the process of producing it (manufacture) and selling it (commerce), are inextricably tied to Interstate commerce, thanks to some stupid case about how wheat grown for intra-state non-commerce is inextricably still covered by Federal jurisdiction because that intra-state non-sale effects the interstate market. I kid you not. Link below, read it. The same logic that is applied to making production of fully automatic weapons for personal use a no-no in a State that explicitly allows it is the exact same legal logic that makes THC prosecutable at will by the Feds. You can't take out one without taking out the other, because they both stem from the most abusable pieces of jurisprudence ever admitted to the U.S. code. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Enjoy. If you are a U.S. citizen, this is the case that basically gave the Feds carte blanche to drop in on anything because of whatever tenuous excuse the judges/DA's in question decided to apply to link it to Interstate Commerce. I have come across few cases that make me scream more than Wickard v. Filburn.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      What I find more riduculous than the Wickard v. Filburn case is the fact that it was partially overturned by a gun case. > Possession of a handgun near a school is not an economic activity and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is unconstitutional. And even more riduculous is the fact that certain justices dissented on this opinion. Of course it’s all heavily politicized, but the federal government really loves milking the commerce clause ad absurdum.
eternalban 4y ago
As of now, you can definitely get your daily supply of Cannabis if you want. There are a lot of little businesses that legally sell it. So these federal laws are not preventing you from exercising your legal right to get high in e.g. NY state. I would like to get the pulse of hn on this: What do we think if e.g. the Coca-Cola Company got in the pot business? Is the fact that these Federal constraints are keeping big business out of the pot business good or bad?
- kube-system 4y ago
  All of those businesses that sell cannabis are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. They are, quite plainly, operating businesses that are illegal under federal law. The reason you don't see too many DEA raids (anymore) is that the feds don't have any money to enforce it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher%E2%80%93Farr_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher%E2%80%93Farr_amend...
  - trillic 4y ago
    The overton window has shifted. It is no longer popular for armies of feds to raid businesses acting entirely within state laws and only performing intrastate commerce. The President of the United States, head of Executive branch, directed with enforcement of Federal law has pardoned ALL federal marijuana convictions and doesn't plan to pursue more. It is effectively legal federally, no matter how much that makes you clutch your pearls. The current federal government has determined it to be an issue left to the states. Reducing the influence the federal government has in everyday American's lives, it's left the Republican party in quite an ironic situation.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      > It is effectively legal federally It is not "effectively legal". You cannot do any of these while possessing and/or using marijuana: * Pass federal employment drug tests * ̶F̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶e̶ * Buy a gun etc.
kube-system 4y ago
Cannabis is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act everywhere within the US. The feds are voluntarily[0] turning a blind eye to states that have changed their own state laws... but federal law has not changed. 0: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/305201382913275685...
- jjulius 4y ago
  Fully aware. This discrepancy is exactly what this article is about.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Which is why I'm specifically criticizing the framing of the headline. It's celebrating a victory that hasn't happened. A better headline would be "Most of America wants cannabis to be legal, but federal law still bans it." I think that implying that it's "legal" in certain places, which has happened repeatedly over the last decade, is part of the problem. If everyone thinks cannabis is already legal, then who is going to push for federal legalization?
    - 33955985 4y ago
      It’s not misleading. It reflects the lived experience of most Americans. That it’s “technically illegal” under federal law means nothing to anyone except — as the article points out — for the industry itself. And since when were national laws made by consumers? Federal legalization will happen when a big industry partner wants it it be legalized and not before.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        The law is inherently technical. "Technically illegal" is simply "illegal". And it is completely false that this only affects the "industry itself". There are other federal laws that concern the rights and privileges of people who use illegal drugs. For instance, if you use federally illegal drugs, you may not legally purchase (or possess) a firearm. There are other examples in terms of employment, etc.

adam_arthur 4y ago

It’s illegal everywhere due to federal law… states altering their laws doesn’t change that. The federal government just doesn’t enforce it in most cases. The DEA can start enforcing tomorrow if they wanted

sgjohnson 4y ago
> The DEA can enforce and arrest people tomorrow if they wanted I’m sure it would go down really really well if the DEA started arresting people for simple possession in states where it’s perfectly legal.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Regardless of your perspective on the morality of it, cannabis is still illegal nationally. Which is the point of this thread To say its legal is simply wrong
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >To say its legal is simply wrong To say that is "simply wrong" is to ignore nuance and, in point of fact, is "simply wrong". It is legal at the state level, meaning no state official will punish you for it. It is illegal at the federal level, meaning a federal official could punish you for it. Isn't nuance fun!? :)
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    Just because there’s a jurisdictional overlap doesn’t make it illegal at state level.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Federal law supercedes State law. That is why the Constitution is "the highest law of the Land". It's also why so much is pushed for to be done at the Federal level, because it completely sidesteps the chance for States to make their own local laws on the matter. The danger there, is that as it turns out, different places/populations have different views on things, which often do not exactly line up with D.C.'s. Hence why Federal overreach side of things has been a hot button topic in politics for decades.
      - sgjohnson 4y ago
        But it doesn’t. The states are free to ignore federal law. Yes, the states can’t stop the feds from doing enforcement themselves, but it would be basically unprecedented outside of a few limited examples. So no, the line is definitely not as clear as “federal law supersedes state law, period.” It’s a lot more nuanced than that, and in practice, in most situations it’s the state law that reigns supreme.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        The constitution is above both federal and state laws, which are much more on par than you're suggesting.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The constitution is above both federal and state laws, The Constitution is a subset of federal law > which are much more on par than you're suggesting. The Constitution disagrees; Art VI ¶ 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
- salawat 4y ago
  The problem is the process of producing it (manufacture) and selling it (commerce), are inextricably tied to Interstate commerce, thanks to some stupid case about how wheat grown for intra-state non-commerce is inextricably still covered by Federal jurisdiction because that intra-state non-sale effects the interstate market. I kid you not. Link below, read it. The same logic that is applied to making production of fully automatic weapons for personal use a no-no in a State that explicitly allows it is the exact same legal logic that makes THC prosecutable at will by the Feds. You can't take out one without taking out the other, because they both stem from the most abusable pieces of jurisprudence ever admitted to the U.S. code. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn Enjoy. If you are a U.S. citizen, this is the case that basically gave the Feds carte blanche to drop in on anything because of whatever tenuous excuse the judges/DA's in question decided to apply to link it to Interstate Commerce. I have come across few cases that make me scream more than Wickard v. Filburn.
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    What I find more riduculous than the Wickard v. Filburn case is the fact that it was partially overturned by a gun case. > Possession of a handgun near a school is not an economic activity and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is unconstitutional. And even more riduculous is the fact that certain justices dissented on this opinion. Of course it’s all heavily politicized, but the federal government really loves milking the commerce clause ad absurdum.

eternalban 4y ago

As of now, you can definitely get your daily supply of Cannabis if you want. There are a lot of little businesses that legally sell it. So these federal laws are not preventing you from exercising your legal right to get high in e.g. NY state. I would like to get the pulse of hn on this: What do we think if e.g. the Coca-Cola Company got in the pot business? Is the fact that these Federal constraints are keeping big business out of the pot business good or bad?

kube-system 4y ago
All of those businesses that sell cannabis are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. They are, quite plainly, operating businesses that are illegal under federal law. The reason you don't see too many DEA raids (anymore) is that the feds don't have any money to enforce it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher%E2%80%93Farr_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher%E2%80%93Farr_amend...
- trillic 4y ago
  The overton window has shifted. It is no longer popular for armies of feds to raid businesses acting entirely within state laws and only performing intrastate commerce. The President of the United States, head of Executive branch, directed with enforcement of Federal law has pardoned ALL federal marijuana convictions and doesn't plan to pursue more. It is effectively legal federally, no matter how much that makes you clutch your pearls. The current federal government has determined it to be an issue left to the states. Reducing the influence the federal government has in everyday American's lives, it's left the Republican party in quite an ironic situation.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    > It is effectively legal federally It is not "effectively legal". You cannot do any of these while possessing and/or using marijuana: * Pass federal employment drug tests * ̶F̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶e̶ * Buy a gun etc.

kube-system 4y ago

Cannabis is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act everywhere within the US. The feds are voluntarily[0] turning a blind eye to states that have changed their own state laws... but federal law has not changed. 0: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/305201382913275685...

jjulius 4y ago
Fully aware. This discrepancy is exactly what this article is about.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Which is why I'm specifically criticizing the framing of the headline. It's celebrating a victory that hasn't happened. A better headline would be "Most of America wants cannabis to be legal, but federal law still bans it." I think that implying that it's "legal" in certain places, which has happened repeatedly over the last decade, is part of the problem. If everyone thinks cannabis is already legal, then who is going to push for federal legalization?
  - 33955985 4y ago
    It’s not misleading. It reflects the lived experience of most Americans. That it’s “technically illegal” under federal law means nothing to anyone except — as the article points out — for the industry itself. And since when were national laws made by consumers? Federal legalization will happen when a big industry partner wants it it be legalized and not before.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      The law is inherently technical. "Technically illegal" is simply "illegal". And it is completely false that this only affects the "industry itself". There are other federal laws that concern the rights and privileges of people who use illegal drugs. For instance, if you use federally illegal drugs, you may not legally purchase (or possess) a firearm. There are other examples in terms of employment, etc.