Jump to content

crack down on pot from DOJ


Recommended Posts

Working both sites on this one eh Spindy? It will be interesting how the states(that have legal rec and med use) respond to this as i think it has been going well for them and Im sure they dont want to give it up. There could be some serious legal battles with the states and the fed. Not to mention alot of big corps are getting into it. Will be alot of money to fight the fed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Anler said:

Working both sites on this one eh Spindy? It will be interesting how the states(that have legal rec and med use) respond to this as i think it has been going well for them and Im sure they dont want to give it up. There could be some serious legal battles with the states and the fed. Not to mention alot of big corps are getting into it. Will be alot of money to fight the fed. 

the trump administration is pushing for the privatization of the entire prison system. there's some backs to be scratched here. this idea runs a lot deeper than "reefer madness" ideology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

the trump administration is pushing for the privatization of the entire prison system. there's some backs to be scratched here. this idea runs a lot deeper than "reefer madness" ideology.

Great more good news  :flush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

the trump administration is pushing for the privatization of the entire prison system. there's some backs to be scratched here. this idea runs a lot deeper than "reefer madness" ideology. 

Privatization of law enforcement is a serious conflict of interest and shouldnt even be entertained. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anler said:

Privatization of law enforcement is a serious conflict of interest and shouldnt even be entertained. 

trump's DOJ has already overridden obama's path to eliminate private prisons. they're going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Reality is its time to change the federal laws.   You cannot say you want to enforce all immigration laws and not enforce fed drug laws.   Be consistent, say you want the laws change but as POTUS you must enforce the laws on the books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Reality is its time to change the federal laws.   You cannot say you want to enforce all immigration laws and not enforce fed drug laws.   Be consistent, say you want the laws change but as POTUS you must enforce the laws on the books. 

When states have laws that directly contradict with federal laws. Yeah the feds need to back the fuck off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 minutes ago, Anler said:

When states have laws that directly contradict with federal laws. Yeah the feds need to back the fuck off. 

Depends on which laws take precedence.  I'm all for states rights but there are certain things the Constitution leaves to the Fed govt.  For example states that pass anti gay marriage laws.   Pot is one that should be up to the states in my book but if current law says fed govt has jurisdiction then it needs to be challenged in the courts or the laws changed.   POTUS should not just pick and choose which they want to enforce.  That's not how things work.  For example if I write a employee manual for our workers its not right for me to then just pick and choose what I want to enforce or allow.  

    

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Depends on which laws take precedence.  I'm all for states rights but there are certain things the Constitution leaves to the Fed govt.  For example states that pass anti gay marriage laws.   Pot is one that should be up to the states in my book but if current law says fed govt has jurisdiction then it needs to be challenged in the courts or the laws changed.   POTUS should not just pick and choose which they want to enforce.  That's not how things work.  For example if I write a employee manual for our workers its not right for me to then just pick and choose what I want to enforce or allow.  

    

I agree but if something is legal in a state the fed should not be able to intrude on that. This is supposed to be a democratic republic, the will of the people should decide. 

I would agree that immigration should fall on the fed as that involves national security. States cant allow people to enter that can freely move to other states when they shouldnt be. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
9 minutes ago, Anler said:

I agree but if something is legal in a state the fed should not be able to intrude on that. This is supposed to be a democratic republic, the will of the people should decide. 

I would agree that immigration should fall on the fed as that involves national security. States cant allow people to enter that can freely move to other states when they shouldnt be. 

Not arguing and I've never looked into the constitutionality of the federal drug laws.  I would say if we are going to keep them or some of them illegal then the fact that drugs cross state lines so much as well as international borders into the US makes it hard keeping them (feds) out of the loop so to speak.  

I do believe from watching law enforcement shows that states with legal medical use laws cause havoc for law enforcement.   State or Federal.  What I do believe we have to hold true to court rulings even if you harshly disagree.   I would not support Trump overiding the 9th circuit on the temp immigration ban even though I think its completely constitutional.  

Wiki

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This created significant legal and enforcement conflict between federal and state government laws. Courts have since decided that a state law in conflict with a federal law concerning cannabis is not valid. Cannabis is restricted by federal law (see Gonzales v. Raich). In 2010 California Proposition 19 (also known as the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act) was defeated with 53.5% 'No' votes, and 46.5% 'Yes' votes.[7]

 

 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...