Those states would also be on their own for enforcement instead of depending on help from Federally-funded agencies like the DEA, so draconian enforcement would probably start looking less appealing pretty quick.
3 Likes
And yet Mississippi kept it up for decades all on their own.
I’m not saying some states won’t stubbornly continue to work against their own self-interest. I’m saying that possibility doesn’t mean we should force all the other states to live under Federal prohibition.
If you think the 21st Amendment was a good idea then I simply don’t see how this proposal is fundamentally different.
3 Likes
Sadly, I live in Utah. It won’t make a difference.
Or Potty McSmoke. 
1 Like
What about DMT? Hmmm?
I like them both.
1 Like
Maybe not right away, but even Utah eventually did away with most laws prohibiting sales of alcohol (even if the state still regulates the practice more heavily than most) so you never know.
My reply would be, “Kind of click baity picture… I mean… it worked, but a little dissapointing, bong bong.”
1 Like
This sounds like an excellent bill and goes along well with the Republican ideal of letting states determine their own fate. Too bad it is never going anywhere in the current congress.
Hopefully, you’re right. In the meantime, Utah will point their legislative fingers at all the surrounding states and accuse them of causing more problems, just like when Ok. and Ne. sued Co. over legalization.
DMT is fucking awesome.
You mean they’re lying, hypocritical assholes?
Being a non-US-constitutional-lawyer I only found out about the tenth and the use of the commerce clause to justice anti-drug laws within the last year or so when someone (I believe @anotherone) brought the relevant case up in these forums.
I can’t get over what obvious bullshit it is. I was going to say it’s stupid, but I don’t even think that. I don’t think the people who wrote that decision believed what they were writing. I don’t think they cared what they were writing. I think they just picked an outcome for political reasons and then generated nonsense text to fill out an appropriate number of pages.
I don’t have a strong opinion on how that part of the constitution is written. In Canada the federal government is solely responsible for criminal law, and I think there are advantages to that instead of having a province by province or state by state approach to crimes. If the constitution said the feds could write these laws, I’d think that’s fine. If it said they couldn’t, that might be fine too.
But the question of which one of those things it does say… all I can say is that it’s a shame that the US doesn’t have real judges - or even literate people with a passing interest in what the constitution actually says - on the supreme court.
3 Likes
I get why we did it. When we formed we weren’t a single people. There were no “Americans”. As we grew, the added territories as states so the model was still to our collective benefit. These days, the hodgepodge of laws is just silly and doesn’t serve us as a people. Going to jail because what you did in your home state is illegal in another is simply insane.
1 Like
Yeah, I think it’s a better model. At the same time, it feels like, I don’t know, an affront to democracy to have the court get there by interpreting the constitution to say the opposite of what it says.
1 Like
States can already enact incredibly harsh drug laws and most people are charged under the state laws. This just lifts the burden on states who have made a better choice.
1 Like
Bong bongs are never dissapointing in my experience. Bad for the lungs, but not disappointing.
Best thing I’ve seen all day!!
