Federal drug laws and Marijuana

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,833
Anchorage
As I understand the Federal Government has basically turned a blind eye on States that have decided to allow Marijuana sales/use.

Why is this acceptable? Why isn't the Federal Government enforcing federal law and/or threatening to withhold highway funds like they did with seat-belt laws and minimum drinking age laws to these States? It is still a federally controlled substance and federal Interstate commerce laws still apply.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
As I understand the Federal Government has basically turned a blind eye on States that have decided to allow Marijuana sales/use.

Why is this acceptable? Why isn't the Federal Government enforcing federal law and/or threatening to withhold highway funds like they did with seat-belt laws and minimum drinking age laws to these States? It is still a federally controlled substance and federal Interstate commerce laws still apply.
Stop listening to everything Jeff Sessions says. Marijuana isn't so bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNut

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,833
Anchorage
  1. It brings massive amount of taxable sales and income.
  2. Marijuana usage is not a life threatening epidemic.
  3. The Feds have far more concerning priorities.
  4. Marijuana is not a partisan topic or concern.
1. Are you saying if something that is profitable is illegal it makes it okay to break the law?
2. Untrue. When you look at things impaired driving, second hand smoke and crimes connected to Marijuana use.
3. Like?
4. Don't care. If a law isn't going to be enforced why is it there?
 

Mac'nCheese

Suspended
Feb 9, 2010
3,732
4,967
As I understand the Federal Government has basically turned a blind eye on States that have decided to allow Marijuana sales/use.

Why is this acceptable? Why isn't the Federal Government enforcing federal law and/or threatening to withhold highway funds like they did with seat-belt laws and minimum drinking age laws to these States? It is still a federally controlled substance and federal Interstate commerce laws still apply.
This might help:

"Contrary to what you've written, states can't overrule what the federal government says. In this case, federal laws trump state laws. Even in a state which has legalized marijuana (Colorado, for example), technically, you can still be arrested and punished for possessing it under federal law. You see, under the federal law, marijuana is still a schedule 1 drug. However, in states where it has been legalized, federal authorities are not likely to get involved. Why? It comes down to prioritization of resources. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice laid out 8 enforcement priorities of the federal government in the Cole memorandum: "

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-state-legalize-and-sell-marijuana-when-it-is-illegal-under-Federal-law-but-when-the-federal-government-legalizes-gay-marriage-a-state-cant-say-no
 
  • Like
Reactions: vrDrew

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,376
4,362
Pumpkindale
Why isn't the Federal Government enforcing federal law and/or threatening to withhold highway funds like they did with seat-belt laws and minimum drinking age laws to these States?
In those two cases, legislation was passed by Congress that specifically stated the conditions and the amount of funding that could be withheld. Congress has the power of the purse, so Congress can decide how to spend monies, and what conditions to attach to those expenditures. If funding isn't made conditional as part of the law passed by Congress, then it can't be invented or imposed later, except by passing a law to modify the earlier law. In short, the condition is part of the law that provides the funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/

"Take care" clause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law

The above were easily found with the search terms: withhold federal highway funds
 
Last edited:

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,833
Anchorage
Impaired driving hasn't been studied enough yet, inconclusive.

99% of crimes connected to marijuana are related to it being illegal. If it were legal, there be almost no crimes related to marijuana.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Impaired driving is dangerous and can cause an accident and that people DO get into cars and drive after smoking.

1% or 99% does that matter we are talking about ignoring federal laws not the content or the reason for the law.
 

Mac'nCheese

Suspended
Feb 9, 2010
3,732
4,967
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Impaired driving is dangerous and can cause an accident and that people DO get into cars and drive after smoking.

1% or 99% does that matter we are talking about ignoring federal laws not the content or the reason for the law.
Well drinking and driving is illegal but alcohol isn't. So I guess its the same think. Pot is legal. get caught driving while impaired and youre in trouble.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
1. Are you saying if something that is profitable is illegal it makes it okay to break the law?
2. Untrue. When you look at things impaired driving, second hand smoke and crimes connected to Marijuana use.
3. Like?
4. Don't care. If it isn't going to be enforced why is it there?

  1. Illegal doesn't necessarily mean is has to be enforceable, especially with the changing of the times. For example, If Jay Walking in NYC was highly enforced, there would an overbearing pedestrian congestion at many intersections. You think the city is going to spend massive amounts of their budget to enforce something that's not worth enforcing and which will degrade the city's quality of life? The same applies to Marijuana, it's just not worth enforcing on such a level vs a substance as heroin.
  2. You can say the same for alcohol, over the counter medication, and etc.
  3. Are you serious with that question. Trump's speech today is a good example of something to be more concerned about.
  4. Exactly, you don't care. You just have a chip on your shoulder about Marijuana, probably from years of propaganda against it. You probably still believe in America's food pyramid.
 

Mac'nCheese

Suspended
Feb 9, 2010
3,732
4,967
  1. Illegal doesn't necessarily mean is has to be enforceable, especially with the changing of the times. For example, If Jay Walking in NYC was highly enforced, there would an overbearing pedestrian congestion at many intersections. You think the city is going to spend massive amounts of their budget to enforce something that's not worth enforcing and which will degrade the city's quality of life? The same applies to Marijuana, it's just not worth enforcing on such a level vs a substance as heroin.
  2. You can say the same for alcohol, over the counter medication, and etc.
  3. Are you serious with that question. Trump's speech today is a good example of something to be more concerned about.
  4. Exactly, you don't care. You just have a chip on your shoulder about Marijuana, probably from years of propaganda against it. You probably still believe in America's food pyramid.
UH, hello? Pot is very bad for you. Watch this and learn:




:p
 

shinji

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2007
1,306
1,497
Presidents do have some discretion in choosing not to completely enforce the law, at least in practice.

I don't know the specifics or how constitutional that actually is, but this isn't the first time it happened.
 

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
4. Don't care. If a law isn't going to be enforced why is it there?
There are many federal laws that go unenforced.
With the case of state legal weed, the arguments before SCOTUS have been the the CSA is covered under the interstate commerce clause, hence Congress can regulate it via the CSA.

But the counter argument is that if a state legalizes the consumption of a product that is grown and sold within its borders, that interstate commerce clause does not apply. SCOTUS currently disagrees with that, however more cases are being brought to test that assertion.

Another argument is if it took a constitutional amendment (18th) to ban alcohol, why are drugs any different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herdfan

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Sounds like someone needs to smoke up, grab a bag of Doritos, and watch 2001 ...

A Grab Bag of Doritos and a liter of Mountain Dew(my teenage breakfast) is more of a danger than Marijuana. My body is much more sensitive to things now, so I can't mess with Mountain Dew, but I sure miss it. Marijuana, no issues whatsoever for me. Doritos only on occasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ilovemykid3302012

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,833
Anchorage
  1. Illegal doesn't necessarily mean is has to be enforceable, especially with the changing of the times. For example, If Jay Walking in NYC was highly enforced, there would an overbearing pedestrian congestion at many intersections. You think the city is going to spend massive amounts of their budget to enforce something that's not worth enforcing and which will degrade the city's quality of life? The same applies to Marijuana, it's just not worth enforcing on such a level vs a substance as heroin.
  2. You can say the same for alcohol, over the counter medication, and etc.
  3. Are you serious with that question. Trump's speech today is a good example of something to be more concerned about.
  4. Exactly, you don't care. You just have a chip on your shoulder about Marijuana, probably from years of propaganda against it. You probably still believe in America's food pyramid.
1. You are Right a law does have be enforced however that leads to abuses and the law being selectively enforced.(E.G. At minorities)
2. No current federal law makes Alcohol use illegal.
3. It sounds like he has plenty of time on his hands to me.
4. You clearly do not know me very well. I am a one trick pony, I could care less about Marijuana.
 
Last edited:

D.T.

macrumors G3
Sep 15, 2011
8,919
6,734
Vilano Beach, FL
A Grab Bag of Doritos and a liter of Mountain Dew(my teenage breakfast) is more of a danger than Marijuana. My body is much more sensitive to things now, so I can't mess with Mountain Dew, but I sure miss it. Marijuana, no issues whatsoever for me. Doritos only on occasion.
Yikes, I haven't had a Mountain Dew in, er, a _long_ time. Actually vs. Doritos, I'd rather have some good regular corn chips and salsa.







Oh yeah, and the weed :D
[doublepost=1509056331][/doublepost]
I am a one trick pony, I could care less about Marijuana.
Well, it's good you reserved some additional caring less, don't want to go all in up front ...
 

PracticalMac

macrumors 68030
Jan 22, 2009
2,745
3,710
Houston, TX
As I understand the Federal Government has basically turned a blind eye on States that have decided to allow Marijuana sales/use.

Why is this acceptable? Why isn't the Federal Government enforcing federal law and/or threatening to withhold highway funds like they did with seat-belt laws and minimum drinking age laws to these States? It is still a federally controlled substance and federal Interstate commerce laws still apply.
Interesting read here
https://nifa.usda.gov/industrial-hemp

In addition Republicans are more for States rights, so they are letting the states make the decision, but for what ever reason they do not want to kill the Fed law.
2 days ago I got a letter from Ted Cruz (surprise!), he said MJ should be illegal, but he is deferring the decision to the states.

  1. It brings massive amount of taxable sales and income.
  2. Marijuana usage is not a life threatening epidemic.
  3. The Feds have far more concerning priorities.
  4. Marijuana is not a partisan topic or concern.
3b. It would cost billions to enforce.
[doublepost=1509056644][/doublepost]
2. No current federal law makes Alcohol use illegal.
Actually, you are wrong.
There is a federal laws makes Alcohol use illegal.
And it is pretty obvious.
 

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,833
Anchorage
Well, it's good you reserved some additional caring less, don't want to go all in up front ...
I am trying to discuss the issue of ignoring federal laws, not the content of a/the law. I was just using that situation as an example but everyone here just seems to what to argue why Marijuana use isn't "bad".
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,801
4,841
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
1. You are Right a law does have be enforced however that leads to abuses and the law being selectively enforced.(E.G. At minorities)
2. No current federal law makes Alcohol use illegal.
3. It sounds like he has plenty of time on his hands to me.
4. You clearly do not know me very well. I am a one trick pony, I could care less about Marijuana.
1. No one here has argued that there need to be federal level laws against marijuana.
2. There shouldn’t be one for weed either. Let the states decide.
3. Better that he wastes his own time only than the time of federal level law enforcement on chasing after potheads.
4. So what’s the point of this thread again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PracticalMac

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,833
Anchorage
4. So what’s the point of this thread again?
Why is the law there? If a law is going to be ignored by not only the people that are supposed to be following it AND the people that are suppose to be enforcing it, why is it there?

My opinion is we should have a mechanism in place for these types of things aside from the long process of having to set legal precedent in the courts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GermanSuplex

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,802
CT
Why is the law there? If a law is going to be ignored by not only the people that are supposed to be following it AND the people that are suppose to be enforcing it why is it there.

My opinion is we should have a mechanism in place for this types of things aside from the long process of having to set legal precedent in the courts.
The law shouldn’t be there but it gives the government power and we all know how much they love that. I thought the GOP wants less government regulation but when pot comes up they want more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeeGood