|
This whole "states rights" thing with the Marijuana legalization just reeks of no-confederatism. Last time we let states trump the federal government we had slavery and a civil war. I'm afraid I have to agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on this issue: Recreational Marijuana use should remain 100% illegal. I'm a little pissed with Obama on this subject, what with his recent "marijuana is not as bad as alcohol" remarks. That really rubbed me the wrong way. Thankfully the facts are still on my side (for now anyways) since during Obama's first 4 years in office there were 8 times as many federal raids on medical marijuana facilities as there were in all 8 years of Bush. I think it's safe to say Obama's comments were just for show since his actions on this position haven't changed a bit (thank god).
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Whoa! I'm so upset with you right now, let me just get to typing hundreds of words real quick
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This whole "states rights" thing with the Marijuana legalization just reeks of no-confederatism. Last time we let states trump the federal government we had slavery and a civil war. I'm afraid I have to agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on this issue: Recreational Marijuana use should remain 100% illegal. Almost got me. Gave yourself away with that last sentence (thank god).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This whole "states rights" thing with the Marijuana legalization just reeks of no-confederatism. Last time we let states trump the federal government we had slavery and a civil war. I'm afraid I have to agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on this issue: Recreational Marijuana use should remain 100% illegal. Welp, I'm glad legalizing weed in two states has led to the civil war we're currently amidst. And my heart goes out to all those poor slaves harvesting the plant. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This whole "states rights" thing with the Marijuana legalization just reeks of no-confederatism. Last time we let states trump the federal government we had slavery and a civil war. I'm afraid I have to agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on this issue: Recreational Marijuana use should remain 100% illegal. The only slavery Freakazoid_ fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This whole "states rights" thing with the Marijuana legalization just reeks of no-confederatism. Last time we let states trump the federal government we had slavery and a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Welp, I'm glad legalizing weed in two states has led to the civil war we're currently amidst. And my heart goes out to all those poor slaves harvesting the plant. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Stupidog posted:With that said, glad to see Colorado hasn't fallen into a sea of degenerate hell for legalizing it. I'm looking out the window at a few feet of fresh snow so if anything hell has some of the best skiing and snowboarding I've had in years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
KrautHedge posted:Almost got me. Gave yourself away with that last sentence (thank god). You think it's "trolling" to have literally the same position on this issue as Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren? Really dude? You think everyone who voted for Obama were just trolling? We all lied when we said we supported him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
You're trying way too hard here and in the automation thread. You'd have much better success if you focused on one at a time.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:You think it's "trolling" to have literally the same position on this issue as Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren? I supported what he said he was gonna do, then like pretty much every politician ever he shat all over his promises and supporters. All those people are lame as gently caress and have the positions they do because it means they get support from gigantor corporations and private interests that want to gently caress me over as hard as possible. So yes you are definitely trolling, also possibly a retard. Also last time we had states trump the federal government we got gay marriage, before that it was civil rights, before that we go prohibition nullified, before that we got prohibition instated, etc, etc. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:
Actually we had federal laws forcing states to desegregate against their will. It was a federal law that ended prohibition, not state laws. Federal law is also used to force states to obey gun control legislation when they don't want to. You are ok with the federal government legalizing gay marriage and individual states nullifying that law, saying "nah, we are not gonna allow that here". That is ok with you? Would you also be ok if states said "we don't want to obey your federal assault weapons ban. From now on, machine guns for everyone!" That's perfectly ok with you too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Those federal laws only got passed once a critical mass of states decided they did not agree with the existing federal law and stopped enforcing it and/or made their own laws regarding the issues (much like what will happen with marijuana.) Also I wouldn't mind owning a machine gun so I'm not sure where you are going with that. If enough states wanted to end the assault weapon ban, and legalized assault weapons, I would expect the federal government to follow suit. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Actually we had federal laws forcing states to desegregate against their will. It was a federal law that ended prohibition, not state laws. Federal law is also used to force states to obey gun control legislation when they don't want to. Is there anyone robotic enough to fall for this 'Beep-Boop, my think must fall into the same camp at all times' mindset? "Civil rights protestors violated the law, but how would you feel if people violated the law in order to eat babies? So when you say you like the end of Jim Crow, I guess that means you're ready to eat a baby on a hoagie roll. Feel your mind melt away as I overwhelm you with my inescapable logic!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Actually we had federal laws forcing states to desegregate against their will. It was a federal law that ended prohibition, not state laws. Federal law is also used to force states to obey gun control legislation when they don't want to. Three things: 1. States rights and nullification are generally going to be used for lovely means. You are correct about this. 2. States using states rights and nullification to legalize marijuana will give conservatives a rhetorical and possible legal talking point to use. You are correct about this. 3. Those supportive of using states rights and nullification to legalize marijuana are generally aware of 1 and 2, and still consider the benefits to outweigh the costs of conceding those points. I think that there is a very legitimate argument to be made that when laws are made that deliberately ignore: a. public opinion towards the law (most Americans favor some sort of decriminalization or legalization) b. scientific data that contradicts the rationale of the law (there's clear-cut evidence that marijuana has medicinal benefits, making its scheduling incorrect), and c. Constitutional guidelines regarding warrants, searches, and seizure of property ("I smell marijuana, get out of the car") --that those laws are unconstitutional and undemocratic in a way that does more damage to the country's legal and governmental authority than the ways in which states rights arguments do damage. I'm not saying you're wrong and you raise good points. I think it comes down to a judgment call about how damaging the states right argument is vs. how damaging the War on Drugs is. I also think it's relevant that right-wingers are going to use states rights and nullification rhetoric regardless of what states do with marijuana. Sure, it'll give them another talking point, but it's not like they hesitate to spin them out of whole cloth already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:You are ok with the federal government legalizing gay marriage and individual states nullifying that law, saying "nah, we are not gonna allow that here". That is ok with you? Would you also be ok if states said "we don't want to obey your federal assault weapons ban. From now on, machine guns for everyone!" That's perfectly ok with you too? Personally I could give two shits about "assault weapons" bans because it's an ill-defined category of weapon resulting in poorly drafted statutes based on cosmetic accessories, and they're attention-grabbing outliers compared to handguns which are by far the bigger problem (but also runs into 2nd Amendment issues after Heller & McDonald), but that's for another thread. Elotana fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
quote:Alejandro Hope runs one of the precious few blogs that regularly provides data-based drug policy analysis, and his work is always worth reading. The latest example is his Bloomberg View essay Legal U.S. Pot Won’t Bring Peace to Mexico. So you see, the “honest analyst” is “forced” to “return” to the “basic principle” that Al Capone was simply a product of his context, time, and place, which of course had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with alcohol Prohibition. Whereas the “not-insane analyst” is “free” to “conclude” that cartel-related violence might be expected to rise temporarily as they fight to retain revenues and sort out control over artificially excessively lucrative (due solely and directly to prohibition) but shrinking (due to other factors, as there was no significant change in prohibition policy that this can be attributed to) markets (as well as consider other contributing factors such as escalation of violence on the government side of the drug-war). I wonder whether we can we expect to see nefarious cartel chiefs on street corners selling bootleg DVDs out of suitcases. KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
RBC and Kleiman's clique are a bunch of prohibitionists whose only distinction is that they're slightly smarter than Michele Leonhart in that they can read a poll, so they're furiously digging a second trench of the Drug War slightly behind the current one, where they might agree with some abstract idea of ending prohibition on cannabis but will find endless disagreements with any actual framework that attempts to implement it, whether it's their fear of a price floor, their SAHMSA addiction figures inflated by treatment-or-jail sentencing, the ludicrous scare stories about Big Marijuana, or proposing ignorant regulations like banning sweeteners from cannabis edibles (gotta make them completely disgusting, For The Children). If it's not some idiosyncratic Cass Sunstein fantasy like a state monopoly monitoring people's weekly intake to make sure they're not stoners then they won't have it. And don't even talk to them about any of the harder stuff, what are you some Kochhead libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Elotana posted:RBC and Kleiman's clique are a bunch of prohibitionists whose only distinction is that they're slightly smarter than Michele Leonhart in that they can read a poll, so they're furiously digging a second trench of the Drug War slightly behind the current one, where they might agree with some abstract idea of ending prohibition on cannabis but will find endless disagreements with any actual framework that attempts to implement it, whether it's their fear of a price floor, their SAHMSA addiction figures inflated by treatment-or-jail sentencing, the ludicrous scare stories about Big Marijuana, or proposing ignorant regulations like banning sweeteners from cannabis edibles (gotta make them completely disgusting, For The Children). If it's not some idiosyncratic Cass Sunstein fantasy like a state monopoly monitoring people's weekly intake to make sure they're not stoners then they won't have it. And don't even talk to them about any of the harder stuff, what are you some Kochhead libertarian? As a regular reader of RBC and now banned commenter, this sums this bunch up perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Three things: So no consistency is necessary when make these arguments then. "States rights!" (when its something I agree with), "Federal Rules!" (when it's something I disagree with). Being logically consistent doesn't matter. I guess I kinda see your point though. Making that argument could help us get the most desirable outcome. What's a good way to convince people that it's ok to have two totally contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time though, and how do we convince them to support both contradictory positions equally? It feels like a hard goal to accomplish. We are going to have to teach them some form of "2-way thinking". Do you have any thoughts on how to get people to go along with this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So no consistency is necessary when make these arguments then. "States rights!" (when its something I agree with), "Federal Rules!" (when it's something I disagree with). Being logically consistent doesn't matter. I guess I kinda see your point though. Making that argument could help us get the most desirable outcome. There's nothing contradictory about being for good laws and against lovely ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Yeah given our calcified and goofy system of federalism it's silly as hell to put procedural formalism or consistency ahead of policy gains. Highlighting Our Dumb Way Of Life is important because the problem isn't related to federalism per se but the underlying contradictions of our society (race hierarchy, capitalism etc) that "required" marijuana to be prohibited to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:There's nothing contradictory about being for good laws and against lovely ones. That's actually a pretty good talking point to start getting people to "2-way think" these issues. I think you are on the right track. Federal law always trumps state law when the federal version is "good". State law always trumps federal law when the state version is "good". I wonder if we can get the supreme court on board with this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Federal law always trumps state law when the federal version is "good". State law always trumps federal law when the state version is "good". I wonder if we can get the supreme court on board with this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:That's actually a pretty good talking point to start getting people to "2-way think" these issues. I think you are on the right track. I'm not sure what the problem is here. There are more laws that the federal government can prosecute effectively so you put the effort into dealing with certain ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Context doesn't exist! Machine guns and marijuana should be treated exactly the same! Any delegation of power to a state is literally equivalent to slavery! I have no ability to discern nuance!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Elotana posted:It's not a matter of one law "trumping" another law, it's one law versus absence of another law. It's a matter of enforcement. States don't have to enforce federal law except under very specific circumstances, this is actual existing Supreme Court precedent. See my above post on Printz. Oh my mistake. I didn't realize there were no federal laws on marijuana. I guess you are right that it is an example of a state creating a new law because of an absence of a federal law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Oh my mistake. I didn't realize there were no federal laws on marijuana. I guess you are right that it is an example of a state creating a new law because of an absence of a federal law. I'm pretty sure you're being obtuse on purpose, but it's the other way around; it's simply the states not choosing to enforce the federal law. Which, as Elotana said, Supreme Court precedent says is legal. The DEA has to enforce federal drug law, but there's nothing forcing state law agencies to do the same, since that's the job of the DEA. The things the states are doing are just explicitly saying "we won't be using our own resources to enforce that federal law anymore". Edit: Says is legal. That was an unfortunate typo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Oh my mistake. I didn't realize there were no federal laws on marijuana. I guess you are right that it is an example of a state creating a new law because of an absence of a federal law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Elotana posted:No, the absence is on the state side. If federal law bans cannabis, but state law doesn't, the states can basically tell them "not my job, send the DEA if you care so much" But see if states fail to enforce any part of federal law, next thing you know, BAM! Slavery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Elotana posted:No, the absence is on the state side. If federal law bans cannabis, but state law doesn't, the states can basically tell them "not my job, send the DEA if you care so much" Sorta like not letting African Americans into white schools then and forcing federal troops to show up. So "extreme states rights" is your position? You are an anti-federalist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Sorta like not letting African Americans into white schools then and forcing federal troops to show up. So "extreme states rights" is your position? You are an anti-federalist? This is the least convincing line of argument dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:This is the least convincing line of argument dude. Isn't that the system "working as intended" though? There was a civil rights act on the national level, not on the state level. States decided not to enforce it and federal troops were called in. This is "works as intended" right? You would defend the states right to ignore federal civil rights legislation, even if you disagreed with them? If Texas wants to ban abortion you would be cool with that too right? You would just argue in favor of sending federal agents to Texas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Isn't that the system "working as intended" though? There was a civil rights act on the national level, not on the state level. States decided not to enforce it and federal troops were called in. I would argue that it would be a worthwhile use of federal authority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Our adversarial legal system holds sacred the principle that contradictions and ambiguities in the law should be resolved in favor of our own interest. (Or at least, that would be convenient for my position in this argument, so I'm going to talk as if such principles were real, good, and on my side, and hope it makes me seem authoritative)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I would argue that it would be a worthwhile use of federal authority. Ok so if there was a thread in posted in D&D tomorrow saying "Texas passes law to make abortion illegal state wide", your first post in the thread would be: "I, Dusseldorf, support Texas in this decision 100% from a legal point of view. I'm against it morally of course, but they did absolutely nothing from from a legal standpoint and banning abortion was fully within their rights." You would make a post like that right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This is "works as intended" right? You would defend the states right to ignore federal civil rights legislation, even if you disagreed with them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:States don't get to ignore federal legislation. If the VRA says that states have to conduct elections in a certain manner, then states have to follow those rules. States are not responsible for enforcing federal legislation that creates requirements for individuals. If I break a federal law, states are not obligated to help the federal government arrest me. If a state breaks a federal law, the state is obligated to change their behavior, but arguing the state should assist the federal government arrest itself is sort of odd. Requirements on governments (you are not allowed to ban abortion) are different from requirements on individuals (you are not allowed to grow marijuana). Explain how "you are not allowed to have an abortion" is different from "you are not allowed to grow marijuana"? What about "you are not allowed to teach evolution in school". Is that different too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Procedural formalism is idiotic as hell and has nothing to do with how anyone, including reactionaries, makes decisions or policy. Principle is important but Federalism is a red herring that doesn't matter to anyone. It's a sort of collective myth or culturally agreed-upon obscuring factor in policy debates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Ok so if there was a thread in posted in D&D tomorrow saying "Texas passes law to make abortion illegal state wide", your first post in the thread would be: Because abortion is the same thing as cannabis, and forbidding something is literally the same thing as allowing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:27
|
|