"Legal" Pot Taxing CO Law Enforcement

[This_person]

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?

I think it's ok to shoot the fish in the barrel, as you describe it. To get to the micro-level I agree it would likely take more people.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I think it's ok to shoot the fish in the barrel, as you describe it. To get to the micro-level I agree it would likely take more people.

I disagree with that. I agree with the power of statehood, and if the majority of the people in these states want legalized medical or recreational marijuana, the worst thing to do is send in federal law enforcement.

That does nothing but make people fear their government when it should be the other way around.

I think the way it is works until they legalize it federally. Leave the feds to focus on large-scale operations and leave the small scale stuff to local and state police. It's what they are there for.

 

[This_person]

I disagree with that. I agree with the power of statehood, and if the majority of the people in these states want legalized medical or recreational marijuana, the worst thing to do is send in federal law enforcement.

That does nothing but make people fear their government when it should be the other way around.

I think the way it is works until they legalize it federally. Leave the feds to focus on large-scale operations and leave the small scale stuff to local and state police. It's what they are there for.

If we were talking about the kid in the quad selling loose joints, I'd agree. We're talking state-sponsored large-scale organizations like the banking industry and the state governments openly flipping off the people's representatives in the US Congress and the president. That's unacceptable.

It's unacceptable to just violate any laws with which you disagree on the excuse it's likely to change. Especially on such a grand scale.

 

[This_person]

I disagree with that. I agree with the power of statehood, and if the majority of the people in these states want legalized medical or recreational marijuana, the worst thing to do is send in federal law enforcement.

That does nothing but make people fear their government when it should be the other way around.

I think the way it is works until they legalize it federally. Leave the feds to focus on large-scale operations and leave the small scale stuff to local and state police. It's what they are there for.

WRT the power of states a la the 10th, Article 4 addresses that and supersedes. The states have the power and authority to change that, but until then...

 

[Chris0nllyn]

WRT the power of states a la the 10th, Article 4 addresses that and supersedes. The states have the power and authority to change that, but until then...

You keep bringing this up. Pages ago I linked a report, given to Congress, on the powers the federal govt. has in enforcing marijuana laws enacted by states.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

The United States is a party to various treaties that impose international obligations relating to the control of marijuana. These treaties generally seek to curb the use of controlled substances while carving out exceptions for “medicinal and scientific” uses. The principle governing treaty in international drug control, which has been agreed to by more than 180 nations, is the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Single Convention). The Single Convention imposes restrictions on the manufacturing, distribution, and trade in narcotic drugs by establishing a multischedule classification structure that applies varying controls for each schedule. This framework later served as the blueprint for the
CSA and other foreign drug control statutes.

“Cannabis” is listed as a Schedule I substance under the Single Convention and is therefore subject to the agreement’s most restrictive controls. For example, parties must “take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary ... to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs”; limit the quantity of the drug manufactured and imported to “the quantity consumed ... for medical and scientific purposes”; and furnish the International Narcotics Control Board with information, estimates, and statistics related to the consumption and production of the drug.

In addition to the Single Convention, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances requires that specific controls be placed by parties upon THC, the physiologically active chemical in marijuana, while the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances requires parties to establish criminal penalties for the possession, purchase, or cultivation of marijuana for nonmedicinal consumption, but only to the extent that such action is consistent with the “constitutional principles and basic concepts of [the country’s] legal system.”

Both the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the U.S. Department of State have determined that in order to comply with these international obligations, it is necessary that marijuana remain on either Schedule I or Schedule II of the federal CSA. The DEA, for example, has cited the nation’s obligations under the Single Convention as the legal justification for denying rulemaking petitions requesting that the Attorney General exercise his authority under the CSA to remove marijuana entirely from control, or to transfer marijuana to Schedule III or lower. The legalization measures enacted by Washington and Colorado would appear to be inconsistent with the obligations imposed upon the United States under existing international drug control treaties. However, existing jurisprudence suggests that a reviewing court may not view these treaty obligations, in and of themselves, as sufficient to preempt and invalidate the state laws.

It is well established that treaties, like federal statutes, may preempt conflicting state laws. The Supremacy Clause expressly provides that in addition to federal law, “all treaties made ... under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” Therefore, a state law is generally preempted to the same degree whether it is in conflict with a federal statute or an international treaty obligation. However, not all treaties are accorded “automatic” preemptive effect. Only where a treaty “constitute binding federal law,” without the “aid of any [implementing] legislative provision,” does it qualify as the “Supreme law of the land” for preemption purposes. Such treaties are known as “self-executing” treaties—meaning an international agreement with “automatic domestic effect as federal law upon ratification.”

The Supreme Court recently clarified the distinction between the preemptive effect of selfexecuting and non-self-executing treaties in Medellin v. Texas. Medellin involved an evaluation of whether a decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—and a series of underlying international agreements that required compliance with ICJ decisions—constituted enforceable federal law with the authority to preempt Texas procedural court rules. In holding that the state court rules were not preempted, the court noted that it had “long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that ... do not by themselves function as binding federal law.”
Although the ICJ decision had clearly represented an “international obligation,” it did not “of its own force constitute binding federal law that preempts state restrictions.”

Like the ICJ decision at issue in Medellin, neither the Single Convention nor the other international drug control treaties appear to be “self-executing.” Each treaty requires the signatory nation to give legal effect to the goals of the treaty through domestic implementing legislation. The provisions of the treaties do not themselves establish binding domestic law. The United States, for example, implemented the obligations of these treaties through the CSA. Because these treaties do not create binding law “of [their] own force,” it would apear unlikely that a U.S. court would accord the treaties direct preemptive effect. Indeed, in County of San Diego, the California court explicitly rejected treaty preemption arguments on the grounds that the Single convention is non-self-executing. Thus it would appear unlikely that the Washington and Colorado laws would be found to be preempted by existing international obligations.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf

 

[This_person]

You keep bringing this up. Pages ago I linked a report, given to Congress, on the powers the federal govt. has in enforcing marijuana laws enacted by states.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.



http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf

From the same link:

The Exemption/Authorization Distinction in Obstacle Preemption

Where the federal government has prohibited specific conduct, the Supreme Court appears to have expressed concern over state laws that go beyond exempting that conduct from state penalties, and instead attempt to actively “authorize” conduct in violation of federal law. In Michigan Canners & Freezers v. Agricultural Board, the Court held that a state law that permitted a state board to authorize a food producers association to act as an exclusive bargaining agent for all producers of a certain commodity was in conflict with a federal law that prohibited associations from interfering with an individual food producer’s decision to sell its products on its own or through an association.106 The Court determined that although it was possible to simultaneously comply with both the federal and state law, because the state board was empowered to “authorize[] producers’ associations to engage in conduct that the federal act forbids, it ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” Although the Court did not adopt an express distinction, the possibility that state “authorizations” may create a more substantial obstacle to the accomplishment of federal objectives than a state “exemption” from state penalties, could play a significant role in a court’s evaluation of the Colorado and Washington laws.

Consider, for example, the Oregon Supreme Court decision in Emerald Steel Fabricators v. Bureau of Labor and Industries. In that case the Oregon Supreme Court heard a challenge to the state identification card provisions of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. Under Oregon law, the state issued identification cards that permitted qualified individuals to “engage in the medical use … of marijuana” without the threat of state prosecution.109 In evaluating the state law, the Oregon Supreme Court first affirmed that it was not invalidating Oregon’s decision to simply exempt medical marijuana users from criminal liability under state law—suggesting that such measures were within the states’ authority and beyond the reach of Congress under the Tenth Amendment. The licensing provisions, however, which authorized an individual with an identification card to engage in the use of marijuana, were distinguishable. The Court held that by “affirmatively authorizing a use that federal law prohibits,” the Oregon law stood “as an obstacle to the implementation and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the Controlled Substances Act, ” and was therefore preempted. “[T]here is no dispute,” the court concluded, “that Congress has the authority under the Supremacy Clause to preempt state laws that affirmatively authorize the use of medical marijuana.”

...

In light of these varying approaches, it is apparent that the extent to which state marijuana provisions (whether medicinal or recreational) are preempted by the CSA is unsettled.

I am NOT a lawyer. Most of what I read was gobbledygook. The most important line to me was the last one I linked.

I get the international thing, but I wasn't concerned about that. I get the memos, but that seems to be acceptable as a varying thing based on whose administration it is.

While there have been court answers that say one thing, there are court answers that say something else. This will likely boil down to who brings suit, in what way, to the Supreme Court.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

From the same link:


I am NOT a lawyer. Most of what I read was gobbledygook. The most important line to me was the last one I linked.

I get the international thing, but I wasn't concerned about that. I get the memos, but that seems to be acceptable as a varying thing based on whose administration it is.

While there have been court answers that say one thing, there are court answers that say something else. This will likely boil down to who brings suit, in what way, to the Supreme Court.

We're going to have tio agree to disagree here.

The complete worst way to have citizens lose faith in, and gather animosity toward, their government is to bring in swarms of federal law enforcement (and let's be honest, using their firepower, armored vehicles, etc.) as if they're rescusing hostages (or Elian Gonzalez). Millions of Americans use marijuana and it's simply not going anywhere. States legalized it because the govt. continually drags its feet regarding the legalization, or even the re-classification of marijuana. Let's be honest, it's because of the stakes the govt. has at play with it. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs are kept because of marijuana (and drugs in general)? How many judges, clerks, cops, lawyers, etc. profit directly from locking people up for it?

So, while it's easy to say "well, federally it's illegal and that's that", it's a bit disingenuous and naive to believe the govt. will do something based on the will of the people, and not itself. At some point, states, and individuals, have to step in and flex their muscle.

 

[Larry Gude]

We're going to have tio agree to disagree here.

The complete worst way to have citizens lose faith in, and gather animosity toward, their government is to bring in swarms of federal law enforcement (and let's be honest, using their firepower, armored vehicles, etc.) as if they're rescusing hostages (or Elian Gonzalez). Millions of Americans use marijuana and it's simply not going anywhere. States legalized it because the govt. continually drags its feet regarding the legalization, or even the re-classification of marijuana. Let's be honest, it's because of the stakes the govt. has at play with it. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs are kept because of marijuana (and drugs in general)? How many judges, clerks, cops, lawyers, etc. profit directly from locking people up for it?

So, while it's easy to say "well, federally it's illegal and that's that", it's a bit disingenuous and naive to believe the govt. will do something based on the will of the people, and not itself. At some point, states, and individuals, have to step in and flex their muscle.

Every time 'will of the people' comes up I ask about term limits.

 

[This_person]

We're going to have tio agree to disagree here.

The complete worst way to have citizens lose faith in, and gather animosity toward, their government is to bring in swarms of federal law enforcement (and let's be honest, using their firepower, armored vehicles, etc.) as if they're rescusing hostages (or Elian Gonzalez). Millions of Americans use marijuana and it's simply not going anywhere. States legalized it because the govt. continually drags its feet regarding the legalization, or even the re-classification of marijuana. Let's be honest, it's because of the stakes the govt. has at play with it. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs are kept because of marijuana (and drugs in general)? How many judges, clerks, cops, lawyers, etc. profit directly from locking people up for it?

So, while it's easy to say "well, federally it's illegal and that's that", it's a bit disingenuous and naive to believe the govt. will do something based on the will of the people, and not itself. At some point, states, and individuals, have to step in and flex their muscle.

THAT!!!! We don't disagree overall - THAT is what I've been saying all along.

See, the federal government has outgrown its own limits. The ONLY way to stop it is to have the states reassert their control.

The states should NOT do this the worst way first - failure to work within the rules. They should do this the best, least confrontational, least revolutionary, most legal way first - use the authority they actually have to fix the problems.

 

[This_person]

Every time 'will of the people' comes up I ask about term limits.

The states can make that happen. They can do this much easier than "the people", because the people are only given two viable choices, and due to gerrymandering they are only given one viable choice. The parties control the primaries, the primaries determine the outcome of the election due to gerrymandering.

 

[Larry Gude]

The states can make that happen. They can do this much easier than "the people", because the people are only given two viable choices, and due to gerrymandering they are only given one viable choice. The parties control the primaries, the primaries determine the outcome of the election due to gerrymandering.

So, what do you think it is; we really don't want term limits or we just want the other to have term limits?

 

[This_person]

So, what do you think it is; we really don't want term limits or we just want the other to have term limits?

I think the vast majority of people want term limits, but that's not on the ballot. On the ballot is "same ol', same ol'" vs. "oh my goodness I could NEVER vote for that person". We've been gerrymandered to ensure that the people who think like that make up the majority of each district. Therefore, all each party has to do is offer up a strongly controllable person of the winning party, with essentially no competition within the party in the primary. They'll run JPC against Steny, but when was Steny last really challenged from a strong contender on the left? Since our district is so strongly gerrymandered to minimize the conservative vote under 45%, Steny wins because Steny has no competition in the primary, not because Steny has no competition in the election.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

THAT!!!! We don't disagree overall - THAT is what I've been saying all along.

See, the federal government has outgrown its own limits. The ONLY way to stop it is to have the states reassert their control.

The states should NOT do this the worst way first - failure to work within the rules. They should do this the best, least confrontational, least revolutionary, most legal way first - use the authority they actually have to fix the problems.

People spoke with their votes in their own states. They asserted their control by voting it in, establishing a system and regulatory scheme for it, and raking in the tax money from it.

But this whole time you've been advocating for that same govt. you admit has outgrown its own limits to step in a force states to comply with their rules, or else.

You can't have both.

 

[This_person]

People spoke with their votes in their own states. They asserted their control by voting it in, establishing a system and regulatory scheme for it, and raking in the tax money from it.

But this whole time you've been advocating for that same govt. you admit has outgrown its own limits to step in a force states to comply with their rules, or else.

You can't have both.

I can. In fact, any thinking person MUST have it both ways.

The federal government must enforce the laws it passes lest it become irrelevant, and people be even more upset that laws are arbitrarily enforced - that is to say, we know right now that people with strong political clout will not be held accountable for their crimes, and that "big business" runs things, etc., etc. All pot is right now is a special interest group that gets special favors in some states. Therefore, the federal government MUST enforce the laws it has on the books, otherwise it is just more crony capitalism and all the other crap people say.

Meanwhile, if the people of those states want it, they need to make a valid argument. If that valid argument falls on deaf ears in the federal government, then they need their state to take action. The states made the mistake of ratifying their irrelevance in the federal government, (well, 41 have) and nothing good has come from that. They need to take their relevance back (repeal the 17th) so they can have a say in "bad" laws again. If they don't do that, they need to exert their authority over we, the people, by putting term limits on federal representation to limit the corruption. If we, the people, don't like that, we change the STATE representation to fix THAT issue.

If it's not both way, it doesn't work. What we have now is a too authoritative federal government that is tolerated because on special-interest issues the government kinda-sorta looks the other way. Did you ever read Cat's Cradle but Vonnegut? This pot action is the special favors given to the big guys to beat up other islanders (if you've read the book, you'll remember that part).

 

[Merlin99]

THAT!!!! We don't disagree overall - THAT is what I've been saying all along.

See, the federal government has outgrown its own limits. The ONLY way to stop it is to have the states reassert their control.

The states should NOT do this the worst way first - failure to work within the rules. They should do this the best, least confrontational, least revolutionary, most legal way first - use the authority they actually have to fix the problems.

Why not, civil disobedience has been shown to work time and again. The mayor of Baltimore kept the cops to give the citizens room to riot, the black panthers have carte blanch to intimidate voters. Hell, a lot of people look forward to a good cop shooting just to get the shopping trip.

 

[This_person]

Why not, civil disobedience has been shown to work time and again.

Because that's a last resort.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

The states can make that happen. They can do this much easier than "the people", because the people are only given two viable choices, and due to gerrymandering they are only given one viable choice. The parties control the primaries, the primaries determine the outcome of the election due to gerrymandering.

You realize that those you are referring to as "the state" will be the same ones that did the gerrymandering so the end result would unlikely to be much different?

 

[This_person]

You realize that those you are referring to as "the state" will be the same ones that did the gerrymandering so the end result would unlikely to be much different?

I agree that in the end the party-above-country might be the same. But, the fights would be different. What I mean by that is that the whole deal with unfunded mandates would go away, federal budget issues would become state issues when the state legislatures are voted on and voting for who would be Senator, etc., etc. It brings the states into responsibility and accountability, and the people would need to pay more attention to their state legislation.

So, yes and no.