4 ms·
>Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down. Or the federal government can just use it as a means to arrest pot-smoking undesira
by tga_d 13y ago
>Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down.
Or the federal government can just use it as a means to arrest pot-smoking undesirables at will? I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. When it's a federal law granting someone a right (e.g. Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment) then the federal government gets to go in and change state laws, but I've never heard of a case of federal laws changing because something it criminalizes was explicitly legalized in state laws. The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply. Unless you're saying that states would pass a constitutional amendment, which seems a little far fetched to me, though not impossible.
- cstejerean 13y agoLook at what is happening with gay marriage. It started changing at the state level, and once the public sentiment changed enough some of the previous federal restrictions are starting to fall as well. The same could (in theory) happen with marijuana if a critical mass of states begin to legalize.
- ojbyrne 13y agoExcellent point. Consensus seems to come at the state level. Another example that seems to be happening lately is reforming of mandatory sentencing/3 strikes laws.
- ISL 13y agoSome would argue that this is the point of federalism. Many small experiments carried out in parallel. The good ideas get adopted; the poor ones get dropped. It's a little like the MVP of government.
- MichaelApproved 13y agoOn a similar note but different law, some feel abortion was federally legalized before the states had a chance to fully settle it. Some say the previous abortion battle was never fully litigated and that's why there's a resurgence in anti-abortion laws. There's an advantage to allowing the states to hash out laws. It's frustrating because it's slow but it also gives people a chance to catch up with the progression.
- throwaway0094 13y agoWashington state actually (partially) legalized alcohol ahead of the Federal repeal of prohibition. So there's a kind of historical example.
- mburns 13y agoExcept prohibition was a constitutional amendment, and the Supremecy Clause of said Constitution says that an amendment take precedence over any state (or federal) law. Drug prohibition laws are federal, but not part of the constitution. Very different, legally speaking.
- emiliobumachar 13y agoThe difference you pointed out seems to make the precedent stronger, favoring the theory that states may just contradict the feds on the drug issue.
- jfoutz 13y agoIt turns out it's really really expensive to enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement. One example (i think) is New York's repeal of prohibition.
- benihana 13y ago>I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
- rayiner 13y ago> The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply By 1928, long before the repeal, 28 states had stopped funding prohibition enforcement: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/view-tenth/2013/dec/5/dec-5-1933-prohibition-repealed-after-state-resist http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/view-ten.... This effectively killed the law in those states that refused to enforce, because the federal government simply couldn't.