Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds such obvious good sense.
But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned... is anyone here bothered by this decision?
PT wrote: > Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal > pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for > medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds > such obvious good sense.
Count me among those who applaud this. It seems like a no-brainer to conclude that this is a good thing.
> But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
What issue is that?
> is anyone here bothered by this decision?
Bothered by it? Are you asking if anyone here would actually prefer that the US government continues to pursue such prosecutions? (I hope that no one here would answer that question in the affirmative.)
On Oct 30, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
> > Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal > > pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for > > medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds > > such obvious good sense.
> Count me among those who applaud this. It seems like > a no-brainer to conclude that this is a good thing.
> > But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
> What issue is that?
Constitutional authority.
> > is anyone here bothered by this decision?
> Bothered by it?
The legislature legislates, and appropriates funds to the executive to implement the legislation.
But now, by wave of his mghty scepter, and consensus of his holy mission, the Messiah is empowered to select which statutes to enforce.
Oath of office? Preserve the constitution? bah, how archaic in our Brave New America -
> Are you asking if anyone here would actually prefer that > the US government continues to pursue such prosecutions?
I was sort of hoping that someone here would think a bit -
On Oct 30, 7:31 pm, PT <ptanenb...@consultant.com> wrote:
> Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal > pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for > medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds > such obvious good sense.
> But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned... > is anyone here bothered by this decision?
I'm bothered when people say he's got to enforce things he disagrees with, if he in fact doesn't.
I'm also bothered if Congress doesn't change whatever law would require federal prosecution.
But selective enforcement of the law is ubiquitous and has been all my life. And the solution is not for them to do something wrong instead.
On Oct 31, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Oath of office? Preserve the constitution? > > bah, how archaic in our Brave New America -
> You must be talking about Rule of Law. How passe.
> The funny part is, not too many understand the > implications of its failure.
I believe there is a strong argument Boyama could make, to justify non-enforcement of the federal pot statutes. However, it's an argument he will never proffer, as he'd shoot himself in the foot -
PT wrote: > On Oct 30, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>>>Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal >>>pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for >>>medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds >>>such obvious good sense.
>>Count me among those who applaud this. It seems like >>a no-brainer to conclude that this is a good thing.
>>>But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
>>What issue is that?
> Constitutional authority.
Constitutional authority? What do you mean? Are you saying that Obama lacks the constitutional authority to *refrain* from pursuing these marijuana persecutions? If so, what does *that* mean?
>>>is anyone here bothered by this decision?
>>Bothered by it?
> The legislature legislates, and appropriates > funds to the executive to implement the > legislation.
OK, I'm with you so far.
> But now, by wave of his mghty scepter, and > consensus of his holy mission, the Messiah > is empowered to select which statutes to enforce.
Mighty scepter? Consensus? Holy mission? Messiah? Dude, what are you smoking? :-D
But seriously. All officials who have responsibility for law enforcement have some discretion in how they do their jobs. Including the president and his attorney general.
> Oath of office? Preserve the constitution? > bah, how archaic in our Brave New America -
Are you saying that Obama's policy on marijuana persecutions violates his oath of office and threatens the constitution? If so, could you elaborate on that?
>>Are you asking if anyone here would actually prefer that >>the US government continues to pursue such prosecutions?
> I was sort of hoping that someone here > would think a bit -
I'm perfectly willing to "think a bit." If, at some point, you present an argument against Obama's policy on marijuana persecutions, I'll be happy to consider it.
PT wrote: > On Oct 31, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Oath of office? Preserve the constitution? >>>bah, how archaic in our Brave New America -
>>You must be talking about Rule of Law. How passe.
>>The funny part is, not too many understand the >>implications of its failure.
> I believe there is a strong argument Boyama could make, > to justify non-enforcement of the federal pot statutes.
I thought you were saying that you *objected* to Obama's new policy regarding federal marijuana persecutions. Did I misunderstand you?
> However, it's an argument he will never proffer, as he'd > shoot himself in the foot -
OK, let me see if I have this right. You're not actually objecting to Obama's new policy. What you are objecting to is the (presumed) fact that, if asked to defend his decision, Obama would not give the right argument.
On Nov 4, 6:02 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
> But seriously. All officials who have responsibility for law enforcement > have some discretion in how they do their jobs. Including the president > and his attorney general.
Ha...that's the problem, I think!
If only there were some alternative, eh?
Still, there are methods by which laws can be mandated to be enforced...I always thought that was one of the functions of a Writ of Mandamus, if that's how it's spelled.
Naturally, that would rest on some judge who (if not an alien) has some discretion too. And then there are the other judges, the enforcers, the enforcers of the enforcers and so on and on.
What a kickin' violation of A is A---just CALL it Rule of Law, and you won't have Rule of Men!
On Nov 4, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
> >>>Oath of office? Preserve the constitution?
> >>You must be talking about Rule of Law. How passe. > >>The funny part is, not too many understand the > >>implications of its failure.
> > I believe there is a strong argument Boyama could make, > > to justify non-enforcement of the federal pot statutes.
> I thought you were saying that you *objected* to Obama's > new policy regarding federal marijuana persecutions. Did I > misunderstand you?
heh I was musing... arguing both sides - you eavesdropped and got confused - none but yourself to blame-
> > However, it's an argument he will never proffer, as he'd > > shoot himself in the foot -
> OK, let me see if I have this right. You're not actually > objecting to Obama's new policy.
I oppose the War on Politically Unprotected Drugs, as does any intelligent person. Let them smoke pot, as Marie Antoinette might say -
However, the ban on mary jane is the law; since when can the executive choose which laws to enforce?
It's a bad precedent, and the slippery slope problems arise -
There's an adage: hard cases make bad law.
> What you are objecting to is the (presumed) fact that, > if asked to defend his decision, Obama would not > give the right argument.
The right defense is to invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments, nullifying the War on Droogs. But that would open the way to eviscerating vast swaths of the imperium. Boyama, a left wing fascist, committed to unlimited growth of the state, who in 2016 may wield more power than any ceo ever, will never contemplate that,
In fact, their rationalization is "because we feel like it" -
On Oct 31, 3:43 pm, PT <ptanenb...@consultant.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
> > > Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal > > > pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for > > > medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds > > > such obvious good sense.
> > Count me among those who applaud this. It seems like > > a no-brainer to conclude that this is a good thing.
> > > But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
> > What issue is that?
> Constitutional authority.
The way the constitution reads, it's not within the federal government's power to regulate the sale within the state of *any* drugs, not just Mary Jane. The only way the federal government derives this power is the Supreme Court decided to use the interstate commerce clause to prevent people from growing for their own use and not for sale, as, in their infinite wisdom, "it would still affect the prices of marijuana across state lines." Nevermind the whole tenth amendment bit about reserving powers not explicitly relegated to the fed for the states.
|
