5 ms·

> 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 pos

> 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.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > The Constitution is a subset of federal law I said "laws" specifically so the ambiguity you are using would not exist.
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.

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.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > The Constitution is a subset of federal law I said "laws" specifically so the ambiguity you are using would not exist.

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.