Obama and marijuana
PT
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?
---
Paul T.
Mark N
> 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.)
Mark
PT
> > 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 -
---
Paul T.
Jim Klein
> 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.
jk
Piet de Arcilla
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.
PT
> > 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 -
---
Paul T.
Mark N
> 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.
Mark
x
x
Mark N
> 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.
Is *that* what you're saying?
Mark
Jim Klein
> 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!
jk
PT
> >>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" -
---
Paul T.
"It was a musing."
Ryurgin
>
> > > 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.