"Legal" Pot Taxing CO Law Enforcement

[philibusters]

I have no argument with the potential we'll consider it similar to the Prohibition Era. It's certainly possible.

But, it's pretty clear the states don't have the authority to legalize it. They can take the authority, via 3/4 of them agreeing to a change to the constitution, but as of today they do not have the authority to pick and choose what federal laws they like or don't. Since the 17th amendment was passed, they gave up their republican role in the federal government (contrary to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution). So, the discussion of whether it is legal or not is moot.

Meanwhile, the job of the AG is represent the United States in terms of law and law enforcement. I would rather he do his job than not.

I would argue the 10th amendment gives states the right to prohibit or not to prohibit drugs within its own borders. Find something in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate drugs within a state. The only thing that is close is the interstate commerce clause, but my instinct is that they could only prohibit people from transporting drugs across state lines.

Remember the 10th amendment says all powers NOT given to the federal gov't are reserved to the states. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the feds the right to regulate drugs.

 

[Hijinx]

Why argue about it . ? Pot smokers are going to want it made legal and those who don't need the crutch are not going to use it anyway.

Just like drunks need liquor and others can take it or leave it.

 

[Merlin99]

Why argue about it . ? Pot smokers are going to want it made legal and those who don't need the crutch are not going to use it anyway.

Just like drunks need liquor and others can take it or leave it.

Why argue about it, because it's what we do here.

 

[Hijinx]

Why argue about it, because it's what we do here.

Good point.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why argue about it, because it's what we do here.

...in our forum...our....discussion....forum...our idea exchanging, arguing, debating discussion forum....

 

[This_person]

Again, the report I linked discusses the DOJ's options.

Via prosecutorial discretion, the DOJ has issued 3 memos outlining their stance on the issue begining in 2009.


In 2011,


In 2013,


The report also offers examples of ways the DOJ can respond. i.e. criminal prosecutions, forefiture, civil lawsuit, and denying firearms to users.

And, in 2017, the DOJ can (and should) write a new memo that says, "we're going to enforce drug laws, regardless of state law". How else does one maintain respect for law and order when one does not enforce law and order?

 

[This_person]

I would argue the 10th amendment gives states the right to prohibit or not to prohibit drugs within its own borders. Find something in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate drugs within a state. The only thing that is close is the interstate commerce clause, but my instinct is that they could only prohibit people from transporting drugs across state lines.

Remember the 10th amendment says all powers NOT given to the federal gov't are reserved to the states. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the feds the right to regulate drugs.

The tenth is not in play here, because the states have given that authority to the federal government. Article IV, Section 4 is what is in play here. Unless the states choose to take their authority back, they've already given it up.

 

[Merlin99]

And, in 2017, the DOJ can (and should) write a new memo that says, "we're going to enforce drug laws, regardless of state law". How else does one maintain respect for law and order when one does not enforce law and order?

How does one maintain respect for the federal government when they go to war against individual states?

 

[Merlin99]

The tenth is not in play here, because the states have given that authority to the federal government. Article IV, Section 4 is what is in play here. Unless the states choose to take their authority back, they've already given it up.

No they haven't.

 

[This_person]

How does one maintain respect for the federal government when they go to war against individual states?

Are we talking civil war, 1860's here?

They have a Drug Enforcement Agency. The DEA establishes drug regulation, enforceable as law. No specific state is singled out, or group of states. It's just the law.

 

[This_person]

No they haven't.

They ratified the 17th amendment. They gave up their role in federal law making by doing so.

 

[Merlin99]

Are we talking civil war, 1860's here?

They have a Drug Enforcement Agency. The DEA establishes drug regulation, enforceable as law. No specific state is singled out, or group of states. It's just the law.

And if the DEA were in the Constitution I'd agree with you, but it's not so I won't.

 

[Merlin99]

They ratified the 17th amendment. They gave up their role in federal law making by doing so.

I don't see that, but believe what you will.

 

[This_person]

And if the DEA were in the Constitution I'd agree with you, but it's not so I won't.

Did you read Article IV, Section 4?

 

[This_person]

I don't see that, but believe what you will.

How were the states involved in passing federal law prior to the 17th amendment? How are they involved now? What did it take to make the 17th amendment pass into enforceable law?

 

[nutz]

Considering the state of Colorado made so much money from taxing it that they had to write a check to each resident, it seems they can afford extra law enforcement.

With an average of $21.00 per person being returned?? With federal workers being in a legally non-participatory status, maybe that average should be split differently. Lets not forget all the employers with drug detection programs, they and their staff should probably be cut from the windfall too.

 

[Larry Gude]

TP, I'm gonna nickname you Chief Justice Taney in honor of celebrating the letter of the law over the spirit!

One need simply to search Portugal and their 15 years of actual experience with decriminalization and the absolute widespread societal improvement for their people from disease to drug related crime. Oddly enough, it mirrors our experience when we got smart enough to end prohibition. The first time. But, alas, the Stupid set back in.

 

[This_person]

TP, I'm gonna nickname you Chief Justice Taney in honor of celebrating the letter of the law over the spirit!

One need simply to search Portugal and their 15 years of actual experience with decriminalization and the absolute widespread societal improvement for their people from disease to drug related crime. Oddly enough, it mirrors our experience when we got smart enough to end prohibition. The first time. But, alas, the Stupid set back in.

I did not realize we were a nation of spirit of laws, not men. I thought we were a nation of laws, not men.



That said, those who wish to see the law changed need to change it on the federal level, not the state level. Changing it on the state level is like saying the speed limit is whatever YOU say it is, not what the sign says, because YOU passed a law that inside your car only your laws matter. It's just as true as a state doing it contrary to federal law, given the Constitution (that the states ratified) says the Constitution and federal laws passed under it are of a higher authority than state laws.

 

[nutz]

TP, I'm gonna nickname you Chief Justice Taney in honor of celebrating the letter of the law over the spirit!

One need simply to search Portugal and their 15 years of actual experience with decriminalization and the absolute widespread societal improvement for their people from disease to drug related crime. Oddly enough, it mirrors our experience when we got smart enough to end prohibition. The first time. But, alas, the Stupid set back in.

Maybe we should look to the Netherlands

 

[Larry Gude]

I did not realize we were a nation of spirit of laws, not men. I thought we were a nation of laws, not men.



That said, those who wish to see the law changed need to change it on the federal level, not the state level. Changing it on the state level is like saying the speed limit is whatever YOU say it is, not what the sign says, because YOU passed a law that inside your car only your laws matter. It's just as true as a state doing it contrary to federal law, given the Constitution (that the states ratified) says the Constitution and federal laws passed under it are of a higher authority than state laws.

Everything I know of history shows, time after time after time, we are a nation of men, not laws. Laws are the guidelines, the general principles but we should not and, happily, can not, ever be a nation strictly of laws.