Why the pot referendums mean nothing....

[Matt Collins]

The referendums only repeal state law, they don't repeal or nullify federal law. The feds are still free to "police" their laws in the state, unless of course the state government passes a law interposing their citizens. Fortunately the Feds tend not to have the resources to police these laws for the most part.

If you look at how alcohol prohibition was ended, the state of NY simply told the Feds "we are repealing our state law against alcohol, and our law enforcement agencies will not be spending our resources on this, you're welcome to, but we aren't". Several other states followed and next thing you know the feds just simply were unable to enforce the law.


Local LEOs are not bound to enforce federal law either, they often do so as a courtesy, but it isn't required.

[RonPaulMall]

Rand needs to get on top of this and introduce a bill that would prohibit the DEA from conducting operations within a state concerning any activity said state has deemed legal.

[jcannon98188]

The referendums only repeal state law, they don't repeal or nullify federal law. The feds are still free to "police" their laws in the state, unless of course the state government passes a law interposing their citizens. Fortunately the Feds tend not to have the resources to police these laws for the most part.

If you look at how alcohol prohibition was ended, the state of NY simply told the Feds "we are repealing our state law against alcohol, and our law enforcement agencies will not be spending our resources on this, you're welcome to, but we aren't". Several other states followed and next thing you know the feds just simply were unable to enforce the law.


Local LEOs are not bound to enforce federal law either, they often do so as a courtesy, but it isn't required.

So it doesn't mean nothing. It means that you can smoke now, and only fed's can bust you. How many feds do you see walking around on the daily? Most pot busts were happening by local LEO's. Keep your head down, and I highly doubt ANYONE will get caught.

[FrancisMarion]

The referendums only repeal state law, they don't repeal or nullify federal law. The feds are still free to "police" their laws in the state, unless of course the state government passes a law interposing their citizens. Fortunately the Feds tend not to have the resources to police these laws for the most part.

If you look at how alcohol prohibition was ended, the state of NY simply told the Feds "we are repealing our state law against alcohol, and our law enforcement agencies will not be spending our resources on this, you're welcome to, but we aren't". Several other states followed and next thing you know the feds just simply were unable to enforce the law.


Local LEOs are not bound to enforce federal law either, they often do so as a courtesy, but it isn't required.

Your conclusion negates your thesis "thread title".

EDIT. Nevermind I'm assuming that "....." means everything.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Can't the federal government file a lawsuit? You usually see these small localities pass things, and then the state government comes in and says "you can't do that, local law can't trump state law."

Remember that pesky Supremacy Clause.

[GunnyFreedom]

Um. Are you in Colorado right now Matt? I'm only asking because your second paragraph says the dead opposite of your thread title, so I figure you may be enjoying some of the product.

[green73]

Um. Are you in Colorado right now Matt? I'm only asking because your second paragraph says the dead opposite of your thread title, so I figure you may be enjoying some of the product.

http://www.pointsincase.com/files/u2/guy-smoke-pot-sofa.jpg

[BamaAla]

Can't the federal government file a lawsuit? You usually see these small localities pass things, and then the state government comes in and says "you can't do that, local law can't trump state law."

Remember that pesky Supremacy Clause.

Probably be a commerce clause case rather than a supremacy clause case. See Gonzales v. Raich

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/#sort=ideology

I suppose they could argue from a supremacy clause point, but I don't think it fits the bill. SC is usually invoked when a state steps on the Constitutionally mandated duties of the federal government. Treaties are the big one.

[Peace Piper]

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2325/censorladyguysmoke.jpg

[Victor Grey]

The referendums only repeal state law, they don't repeal or nullify federal law. The feds are still free to "police" their laws in the state, unless of course the state government passes a law interposing their citizens. Fortunately the Feds tend not to have the resources to police these laws for the most part.

If you look at how alcohol prohibition was ended, the state of NY simply told the Feds "we are repealing our state law against alcohol, and our law enforcement agencies will not be spending our resources on this, you're welcome to, but we aren't". Several other states followed and next thing you know the feds just simply were unable to enforce the law.


Local LEOs are not bound to enforce federal law either, they often do so as a courtesy, but it isn't required.

Your argument contradicts the claim, intentionally I suppose.

No it doesn't mean nothing and what you said is correct. I agree with your thread in that way.


The federal government can bark all it wants to, and run to and fro through the streets.
If the states hold firm good luck to the feds policing anything to any effectiveness.

They might be able to jail some people setting growing a half acre somewhere. Those people however are stupid.
Too greedy.

I've already taken it as a given the feds will try to meddle.
Hopefully more states will also pass decriminalization legislation soon.

Time for the smokers to Overgrow the federal government.

[aclove]

I know Mike Rothfeld and the brain trust at C4L insist that any "nullification" laws that don't include interposition language to arrest Federal LEOs trying to enforce the nullified law within the nullifying state, but it seems that Washington and Colorado's approach may be the canniest of all. By simply saying, "We aren't doing your dirty work for you anymore" they put the Feds in the position of being the aggressors, while heading off the accusation that they're trying to actively seek confrontation with the federal government.

[presence]

"We aren't doing your dirty work for you any more"

^^^^

Why the pot referendums mean something!

[brandon]

Collins this is one of your worst posts yet.

[itshappening]

Ever seen Broadwalk Empire? The treasurer of Atlantic City was shipping the alcohol in and making deals with organized crime. He also looked after the black citizens of the city and was widely admired.

It's based on a true story.

[MozoVote]

Agree with others that the OP is contradicting himself on the title. Not only are these important, but 2 out of 3 states holding these referendums passed them.

I was in California in 1996 when the Comapssionate Care Act was passed - there was all kinds of scare talk then about how it did not mean anything. After a few years it became clear that the Feds did not have the resources to snuff out every small storefront. Then the dialogue shifted to county zoning and licensing laws and medicinal marijuana began to establish local level "legitimacy".

[pcosmar]

Perhaps the thread title should have been "The voice of the people means nothing, The Fed will do as it damn well pleases"

It would be more accurate.
Oh yeah,, Federal LE has grown exponentially since prohibition.(and also controls most local LE)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvsADU2OOWM

[Matt Collins]

Ok, sorry, I had just arrived in my hotel room at 1am when I wrote this, after a 12 hour drive in the rain with a cold... so yea, my apologies.


The point still stands, and what I should've written was that these referendums won't challange federalism or a show down between the Feds and the State governments. In other words they are not actually as big of a deal as we all would like them to be. They are not actually nullification of federal laws, but simply repeal of state laws.

So they are a big deal in the regard that practically speaking, the Feds probably will not be able to enforce these laws and this is how prohibition of alcohol ended. But they are not so big a deal as to tear at the fabric of the Constitution and throw federalism into question.


That's what I meant but was unable to articulate it due to fatigue. Again, my apologies.

[Acala]

Can't the federal government file a lawsuit? You usually see these small localities pass things, and then the state government comes in and says "you can't do that, local law can't trump state law."

Remember that pesky Supremacy Clause.

No. The Federal government can't FORCE the States to enforce Federal law or to pass their own laws making MJ illegal. Now if you had a state law that said the Feds can't enforce Federal law, THEN you would have a lawsuit.

[trey4sports]

So to summarize..... You directly contradicted yourself and told us nothing absolutely nothing new.

[Chester Copperpot]

Ok, sorry, I had just arrived in my hotel room at 1am when I wrote this, after a 12 hour drive in the rain with a cold... so yea, my apologies.


The point still stands, and what I should've written was that these referendums won't challange federalism or a show down between the Feds and the State governments. In other words they are not actually as big of a deal as we all would like them to be. They are not actually nullification of federal laws, but simply repeal of state laws.

So they are a big deal in the regard that practically speaking, the Feds probably will not be able to enforce these laws and this is how prohibition of alcohol ended. But they are not so big a deal as to tear at the fabric of the Constitution and throw federalism into question.


That's what I meant but was unable to articulate it due to fatigue. Again, my apologies.

Ill take it.. Its baby steps...

When the States finally add language to their bills threatening arrest of federal LEOs then we know their balls have finally dropped.

we'll get there.

[cindy25]

the feds don't have enough people to enforce it

prohibition was repealed in a similar manner, with NY the first state to repeal, 3 years before national repeal

[acptulsa]

So to summarize..... You directly contradicted yourself and told us nothing absolutely nothing new.

Not his worst post ever. Generally when he comes up with some 'always/never' nonsense, he has to be nailed to the wall before he admits there are few black and white issues in the world.

This time he got that out of the way immediately. Looks like an improvement to me. He wasn't making a point anyway--he just wanted to start a thread that got a lot of views. Which is why he nullified his title in the OP, instead of in the title itself.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Ever seen Broadwalk Empire? The treasurer of Atlantic City was shipping the alcohol in and making deals with organized crime. He also looked after the black citizens of the city and was widely admired.

It's based on a true story.

More like "inspired" by a true story since most of what goes on in the show never happened in real life.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Collins this is one of your worst posts yet.

That says a lot considering he has over 33,200 posts.

[amy31416]

Collins this is one of your worst posts yet.

Seriously. And I have pretty low expectations when I see his name attached to anything.

[nobody's_hero]

Remember those miners in South America who were trapped when the mine they were working in collapsed? I wonder how they must have felt when a drill poked through to their location and yet it would be days later until they could be brought out.

"Awe man, it's just a stupid drill! I can't fit through that hole. This means nothing."

[Agorism]

I still think the law is a step in the right direction.

This issue doesn't really matter though.

[raystone]

Um. Are you in Colorado right now Matt? I'm only asking because your second paragraph says the dead opposite of your thread title, so I figure you may be enjoying some of the product.

ROFL