4 ms·

Marijuana laws are much like gun laws - you live in the US, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the sa

Marijuana laws are much like gun laws - you live in the US, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same country. It's mind-numbing that a citizen of the US would have to know 50 sets of laws just to travel around their own country.

aaronblohowiak 12y ago
We have a Federal system, though states' rights have been weakened over time. A US State has sovereignty that the Feds may not impede on. The boundary between state sovereignty and national sovereignty has been contentious throughout history. States rights are good because it allows California to be a leader in emissions laws (example.) States rights are bad because they make inter-state commerce and travel more perilous.
- fjolthor 12y ago
  Hence the name 'United States', and not Germany or Canada.
  - eru 12y ago
    Federal Republic of Germany. Just `Germany' is roughly equivalent to saying just `America'. As an example, education is in the purview of the German states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany Canada also has a federal system. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism
  - Solarsail 12y ago
    Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.) The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves (tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law. The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign states than the members of some federations without United in their names.
    - some_guy_there 12y ago
      Canadian federal government has much more power than US feds can ever imagine to have. The criminal law is entirely up to the Canadian Parliament, and this is highly unlikely to ever fly in US. Further more, the courts have held that Canadian federal government can spend its money any way it likes to influence provincial policy. While the US Supreme court has allowed some percentage of money to be tied to state legislation (viz 21 year drinking age), it has also struck down laws which forces states to take up new spending or lose all the earlier grant from federal government (viz Medicare expansion in Obamacare). Each US state maintains its own Constitution and individual Judiciary, while the Canadian Supreme Court sits on top of any case of controversy in Canada, US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to, as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.
- bdamm 12y ago
  And yet the legal age of drinking is magically 21 in the entire country. That one really makes my head spin.
  - JWLong 12y ago
    You caught where he said, '... though states rights have been weakened over time..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act_of_1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_... "The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent."
w1ntermute 12y ago
In practice, such variance in the law is rarely of relevance to an interstate traveler. And the advantages federalism provides more than make it worth it.
GauntletWizard 12y ago
You live in the EU, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same political union. It's mind numbing that a citizen of the EU would have to know 26 sets of laws just to travel around the Schengen Area. "States" in the American sense have nearly all of the powers and differences that "Countries" have in europe. Each one is as large as a european country, and nearly as socially diverse. The only difference is that we've long since figured out the whole Unified Currency and Freedom of Travel thing, while it's still a morass of bickering in Europe.
- cloakanddagger 12y ago
  Please keep in mind you are comparing a continent to a country. So no, north america has not 'figured out' the unified currency & freedom of traveling thing nor the bickering.
  - GauntletWizard 12y ago
    3.119 million sq miles - Continental US. 3.931 million sq miles - Europe. 1.691 million sq miles - The EU. No, not a huge difference.

aaronblohowiak 12y ago

We have a Federal system, though states' rights have been weakened over time. A US State has sovereignty that the Feds may not impede on. The boundary between state sovereignty and national sovereignty has been contentious throughout history. States rights are good because it allows California to be a leader in emissions laws (example.) States rights are bad because they make inter-state commerce and travel more perilous.

fjolthor 12y ago
Hence the name 'United States', and not Germany or Canada.
- eru 12y ago
  Federal Republic of Germany. Just `Germany' is roughly equivalent to saying just `America'. As an example, education is in the purview of the German states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany Canada also has a federal system. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism
- Solarsail 12y ago
  Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.) The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves (tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law. The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign states than the members of some federations without United in their names.
  - some_guy_there 12y ago
    Canadian federal government has much more power than US feds can ever imagine to have. The criminal law is entirely up to the Canadian Parliament, and this is highly unlikely to ever fly in US. Further more, the courts have held that Canadian federal government can spend its money any way it likes to influence provincial policy. While the US Supreme court has allowed some percentage of money to be tied to state legislation (viz 21 year drinking age), it has also struck down laws which forces states to take up new spending or lose all the earlier grant from federal government (viz Medicare expansion in Obamacare). Each US state maintains its own Constitution and individual Judiciary, while the Canadian Supreme Court sits on top of any case of controversy in Canada, US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to, as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.
bdamm 12y ago
And yet the legal age of drinking is magically 21 in the entire country. That one really makes my head spin.
- JWLong 12y ago
  You caught where he said, '... though states rights have been weakened over time..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act_of_1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_... "The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress. It punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent."

w1ntermute 12y ago

In practice, such variance in the law is rarely of relevance to an interstate traveler. And the advantages federalism provides more than make it worth it.

GauntletWizard 12y ago

You live in the EU, but legal activity in one place is a felony worthy of decades in prison a few miles away - in the same political union. It's mind numbing that a citizen of the EU would have to know 26 sets of laws just to travel around the Schengen Area. "States" in the American sense have nearly all of the powers and differences that "Countries" have in europe. Each one is as large as a european country, and nearly as socially diverse. The only difference is that we've long since figured out the whole Unified Currency and Freedom of Travel thing, while it's still a morass of bickering in Europe.

cloakanddagger 12y ago
Please keep in mind you are comparing a continent to a country. So no, north america has not 'figured out' the unified currency & freedom of traveling thing nor the bickering.
- GauntletWizard 12y ago
  3.119 million sq miles - Continental US. 3.931 million sq miles - Europe. 1.691 million sq miles - The EU. No, not a huge difference.