Republicans will call you far worse than that anyway, regardless of anything you do or say as an elected Democrat. It’s not like voting against this bill would make them take you more seriously when you oppose states’ rights to restrict gay marriage.
I find it pleasing that the name of the bill deliberately turns the right wing’s own doublespeak against it. Let them find some other euphemism for opposing something that most voters approve of.
I just think of links like that as: oh, I guess I didn’t want to go there anyways.
when the other side demands that each state should decide for themselves on same sex marriage and gun laws.
Gun laws: regulated by the 2nd amendment. “Well regulated” to be clear, since it’s right in there.
Gay Marriage: determined to exist under the equal protection clause of the Constitution by SCotUS. So therefore cannot be left up to the states to determine.
Marijuana: Probably the commerce clause, although I don’t know how the Supreme Court has ruled on regulating food and drugs. But states should still have internal power to override FDA decisions (for good or bad) barring anything I might not have heard about.
If it’s just the optics of the issue, you might have a point, but any politician who takes a pro-legalisation stance will be prepared to be attacked for it. However, with public opinion shifting on this issue, this might be the moment when it becomes a vote winning stance overall.
Also, there are actual practical differences here. If you’re married, you have to remain married when you cross a state line, whereas we’re talking about something consumable- As with the abolition of the previous round of prohibition, it’s possible to have “dry” states and counties and allowing them to exist will make general prohibition easier to repeal.
I feel like they’re seeing the kind of income pot is bringing in where legalized, rubbing their little hands together, and pushing this bill hard.
Probably because that is their typical M.O.
Criminalization is immoral and unsupportable but wouldn’t this law allow states to enact harsher penalties and continue prohibition even if the plant is taken off the schedule 1 list?
The Koch brothers have been pushing Republicans to legalize cannabis for decades.
“But in the Latin alphabet, Kush starts with a ‘C’…”
Mississippi was officially a dry state until 1966 but the 21st Amendment was still pretty much the end of alcohol prohibition for most of the country.
This is part of why I’m not sure this bill is a good idea.
I don’t follow. Do you think the 21st Amendment was a bad idea?
The state of the Tenth has a lot to do with the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the commerce clause, which admittedly has been very broad. Anything that can be transported, or sold across state lines (regardless if it actually does cross state borders), is considered within the federal government’s power to regulate.
If you change that interpretation to be narrower, you could necessarily preclude other regulation. While I agree we should outright end drug prohibition, and just regulate it. I think we need to think carefully about the effects of interpreting the constitution differently.
There are a lot of causes that I believe both parties want to be addressed at the federal level, that might not be possible to do under a new interpretation. For example from the Democratic side, banning guns near schools was struck down by the Supreme Court under the Tenth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez Similarly Another ruling took away women’s right to sue attackers who targeted them because of their gender under the Violence against women act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison However further in the past, other civil rights laws were upheld under the commerce clause, such as protections against racial discrimination in public accommodations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States
It’s a double-edged sword, it provides the government with a lot of potential to do good, as well as a lot of potential to do evil. Personally, if I were to amend one thing about our state/federal system, is I would tackle the horribly unrepresentative mess that is or voting system. Proportional, and truly representative elections would do more to fix the problems we have right now.
I haven’t partaken in a really long time (Clinton was still president), but what the hell has happened to the MJ? It’s really stinky now. It’s either a new strain, or the following scenario applies:
- A skunk or other mustelid boils down some cabbage for several hours
- Aformentioned critter expresses its anal scent glands into the boiled cabbage. Also shits in it for good measure, and tops it off with half a bottle of Heineken (or Corona Extra if Hiney’s unavailable).
- Critter drains off the resulting liquid and uses it for bongwater. In public.
As it seems unlikely that we can effectively get people to stop burning ropes, or otherwise smoldering hemp, in public places, can we at least add a rider to the bill prohibiting the mustelid scenario?
I remember driving thru there with my family in 1981 or 1982, and my dad couldn’t buy some kind of medicine because it had alcohol in it. It might’ve been a Sunday, though.
The party that actually makes cannabis legal will enjoy majority control of the federal government for many years.
Not at all. I’m saying that just like with Mississippi and alcohol prohibition, this law will empower states to hold on to marijuana prohibition at the state level longer than it might be upheld at the federal level.
Think about it, if marijuana is taken off the schedule 1 list and decriminalized at the federal level, a law allowing states to set their own marijuana policy might lead to people being locked up for marijuana in some states even when it is no longer a crime at the federal level.
And the award for understatement of the year goes to…
It’s the exception that swallowed all the rules. This drives me nuts about our jurisprudence. Current law is based on a terrible ruling, but so much law has been based on it since that they don’t dare unravel it. So it stands that something grown in your home for your own consumption that has never been bought or sold or crossed a state line counts as “interstate commerce”. It’s baldly on its face wrong, but it’s a mistake that can never be corrected, and that continues to kneecap and subvert the amendment’s purpose.
I would think a state that is that draconian may have trouble attracting businesses, tourists and keeping taxpayers. But I might be naive.
Yes, exactly like the 21st Amendment.
It wouldn’t necessarily end all penalties for marijuana everywhere, but it would be a heck of a lot better than the situation we have now. Even in states that chose to continue marijuana prohibition there would be few people who ended up worse off than they are under Federal prohibition.