3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThe 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.
- 33955985 4y agoThe law outside its application is meaningless. That’s why there’s so many “Did you know it’s illegal to wash your aardvark on Wednesday” laws still on the books. Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know. Also, employers can drug test for nicotine, which is legal, and deny employmet.
- kube-system 4y agoI picked those examples specifically because they are enforced. > Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know. All gun dealers must record form ATF form 4473 for each gun purchase, which specifically asks questions about drug use. If you say yes, you will be denied the gun. If you lie, you may face up to 5 years in prison plus $10K fines. If your state has a medical marijuana registry, this may be cross referenced. If you are later found to be in possession of a gun and marijuana (or evidence of use like a marijuana card), you are a "prohibited person" in illegal possession of a firearm. These still happen, they just get reported as "weapons charges" because that's what they are. > Also, employers can drug test for nicotine, which is legal, and deny employmet. Federal jobs (or federally regulated jobs, i.e. being a pilot[0]) don't ban it. 0: https://www.kgns.tv/content/news/Colorado-pilot-fired-after-marijuana-mishap-496270131.html https://www.kgns.tv/content/news/Colorado-pilot-fired-after-...
- 33955985 4y agoCircling back to your original point, then: the headline’s framing is misleading because it leaves out potential gun buyers and people applying to federal jobs? Seems like an awfully small minority to be concerned with in… a headline for a national newspaper. How would you write the headline?
- kube-system 4y agoGun owners alone are 1/3 of US adults. The US government is the largest employer in the US (and in the world). I said how I'd write the headline above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34118464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34118464
- 10000truths 4y agoAn "unenforced" law is more dangerous than a repealed law because it provides the opportunity for selective enforcement. A perfect avenue for discrimination of protected classes, parallel construction to bypass due process, and other such abuses of people's civil liberties with impunity - all stemming from pushing people into the precarious status of "you technically violated the law but we'll ignore it as long as..."
- sebzim4500 4y agoWhat is written on some bit of paper somewhere is irrelevant. What matters is what is being enforced. If you can wave cannabis around in front of a policeman and have no fear of repercussions than it is legal in practice.
- kube-system 4y agoThose examples are being enforced.