Larry Gude
Strung Out
Did they do what Portugal did or are you shopping for a model that is different but wasn't as successful?
"Legal" Pot Taxing CO Law Enforcement
- Thread starter This_person
- Start date
Did they do what Portugal did or are you shopping for a model that is different but wasn't as successful?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Disagree. People have been fighting back against the non sense of federal prohibition from day one and it's taken this long to get to a tipping point. You, any conservative, should be elated with the states experimenting with decriminalization for all the reasons conservatives USED to support that sort of thing; the states as laboratories, places of experiment so we can find, real world, what works and what doesn't.
Further prove of my theory we ALL have FAR more in common than our differences.
in the same way through their elected representatives, as to the second part of the question I don't understand the question.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Well, for me, the principle is that the fed gov says, "no pot, period" through law/regulation. States say, "FU, fed, we're gonna do what we want." As a principle, the fed should say, "nuh uh."
None of this is about the law itself (whether pot is legal or not is not my contention). This is about the rule of law, and the constitution. Like marriage laws, I do not see why the fed is involved. But, as I said, when the states opted out of being represented in federal law, the states essentially and effectively abdicated their authority to the federal government. Therefore, the fed says it, the states have to follow it. That's not being done, and it should be done.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Disagree. People have been fighting back against the non sense of federal prohibition from day one and it's taken this long to get to a tipping point. You, any conservative, should be elated with the states experimenting with decriminalization for all the reasons conservatives USED to support that sort of thing; the states as laboratories, places of experiment so we can find, real world, what works and what doesn't.
Further prove of my theory we ALL have FAR more in common than our differences.
I am all for that laboratory stuff - fully on-board. But, not in violation of the constitution.
The law needs changed before the states get to play with it. I am 100% for CO saying, "toke 'em if you got 'em" while Nebraska says, "no pot here, losers." I am 100% for that. But, that's not in accordance with the laws as written. It's not interpretation, or "the spirit" to allow medicinal let alone recreational pot outside of highly regulated pharmaceutical laboratories doing R&D.
Change the law, and we're all on the same side.
This_person
Well-Known Member
The first question: How were states involved in passing federal law prior to the 17th amendment?
Your answer: In the same way, through their elected representation.
That's not exactly right. See, prior to the 17th, the people elected members of the House (as is done now), but the state legislatures sent representatives to the Senate. Thus, the Senate was the representation of the states, not the people of the states. Now, you can argue that the people of the states elected the state legislature representatives, but that misses the point. Today, the Senate is not recallable by the state legislatures, and the people there (the Senators) are trying to get re-elected based on the People, not based on the states re-sending them. Thus, their charge is VERY different from what it was, which was to look out for the interests of the state governments. They now answer to a completely different constituency.
So, as I said, the states gave up their right to be involved by ratifying the 17th amendment, and Article IV Section 4 says the laws the fed passes supersede the state laws, and the fed says you can't smoke pot recreationally (or sell it). So, we're back at square one here.
The second question, then, is that the states are not involved at all in the making of federal law. not at all. They do nothing. Not even a single thing. They used to be directly represented, now they have no representation. None. I hope I'm making this point clearly.
So, my assertion that the states did this to themselves comes in the form of the third question - what did it take to ratify the 17th amendment. It took 36 states, and by April of 1913 that was complete. As of today, 41 of the 50 states have ratified this amendment. They chose, 41-9 (really 41-1, as the only state that said "No" as a final answer was Utah) to allow it.
Last edited:
I'm not seeing how this has nullified the 10th amendment.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Because Article IV, Section 4 says that federal law supersedes state law. So, by opting out of federal law, they abdicate that authority to the federal government. If the federal government can manufacture a clause in Article One, Section Eight that allows them to do something, the states have no standing or argument against that something, that law. They have effectively nullified the 10th amendment (from the point of view of the states, not the people) by doing so.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Sounds to me like they ought to sell it back to Colorado... And $3M in "law enforcement drug dollars" is about as much is recovered every day at a border stops between Mexico and the US. Doesn't even measure as a drop in the bucket.
This_person
Well-Known Member
"His team" is in Colorado. Pot is still illegal in CO if you're not on the list of people allowed to grow/sell it. The state is telling other states "hold on, we're learning more about his and you shouldn't legalize pot in your states until we figure our crap out." The black market skyrocketed. Illegal drugs in surrounding (and further) states has skyrocketed, and CO sees themselves as the supplier. The CO Governor is suggesting they need to lower the taxes and increase the fines on illegal pot to make it less profitable (less attractive) for the illegal growers/sellers.
In other words, most of the stuff they said would be better is worse, except the tax revenue, which does not offset the new costs they didn't expect.
The Netherlands are retreating from their position and are staring to enforce marijuana laws, they have had a long standing of it's illegal but....Their new regime doesn't like it and pressure from the International Narcotics Control Board may not help. Personally, I'm not really on either side of the issue.
https://www.incb.org/incb/en/about.html
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
That's all fine and dandy, except, no where in the enumerated powers in the Constitution does it say anything about making these kind of laws. Congress does not, nor has it ever, have the power to create these laws. Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Like the 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The 10th certainly applies here as well.
The enumerated powers granted to Congress:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
See anything here about the DEA?
That's all fine and dandy, except, no where in the enumerated powers in the Constitution does it say anything about making these kind of laws. Congress does not, nor has it ever, have the power to create these laws. Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Like the 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The 10th certainly applies here as well.
The enumerated powers granted to Congress:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
See anything here about the DEA?
This_person
Well-Known Member
It does not matter if I see it. It matters if the SCOTUS can see it. If the federal government can make the case that the commerce clause allows it, or the general welfare of the United States allows it, then it's all good.
But, I submit to you, who would have standing to challenge it? Not the states, because if the states don't like it then they can amend the Constitution to prohibit it. Not a person - what's the damage to you as an individual, and if you don't like it you can contact your representation in Congress to change it. Who?
Nope nore was most of what FDR did covered .... the Commerce Clause was perverted to give the FED Unlimited POWER
That's because he threatened to keep adding justices until he had enough to pass anything. Since they didn't have a countermove they rolled over.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Why not?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Because, at a federal level, they simply don't enforce it.
In 2016, federal law enforcement sentenced a mere 3,534 people on marijuana charges, with the vast majority charged with trafficking. This is almost half of the number of arrests than in 2012.
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...nual-reports-and-sourcebooks/2016/Table33.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs12st.pdf
Compare that to states where 1 in 9 arrests are for drug posession which comes out to about 1.25 million drug posession arrests per year. About half of those (574,000) were for marijuana (which is more than all violent crime arrests).
https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/10/...man-toll-criminalizing-drug-use-united-states
Without signifigantly expanding the size and scope of the law enforcement wing of the federal government, they simply can't do it on such a micro level. The feds tend to focus on the "big fish" and rely on states to enforce their own interpretation of federal drug laws. It's easy to say "Feds need to enforce their own laws!", but practically speaking, it's not possible unless you;re advocating for a "shooting fish in a barrel situation" where federal agencies run sweeping raids throughout Colorado, Washington, and the 28 other states (and DC) with medical or recreational marijuana legalized. I don't see that turning out to be a good thing.
This_person
Well-Known Member
That's different than "can't."
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Well considering the manpower difference, I'd say they can't.
Which is why I also said they they'd have to substantially increase the size of federal law enforcement. Are you okay with that?