 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
> de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
> seemingly-overarching Federal law.
Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
and WA....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>
> > BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
> > de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
> > seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>
> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
> and WA....
>
Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that CA plans
to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like cigarettes, etc. In
other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in place for its regulated
sale. It will be interesting to find out if these various state laws actually
push the Federal government to change or modify it's current (and, IMO,
draconian) laws regarding marijuana. (Or, conversely, to come down on these new
laws with two big feet!) Right now in the US, there are just too many
'zero-tolerance' State and Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And,
alas, supported by many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:49:59 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>> > de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>> > seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>>
>> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in
>> CO and WA....
>>
>>
> Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
> California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that
> CA plans to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like
> cigarettes, etc. In other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in
> place for its regulated sale. It will be interesting to find out if
> these various state laws actually push the Federal government to change
> or modify it's current (and, IMO, draconian) laws regarding marijuana.
> (Or, conversely, to come down on these new laws with two big feet!)
> Right now in the US, there are just too many 'zero-tolerance' State and
> Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And, alas, supported by
> many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
> and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
> gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
>
Nope, but I'll take a look. We *need* some humor in the US these days!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 3:49 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>>> de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>>> seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>>
>> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
>> and WA....
>>
>
> Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
> California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that CA plans
> to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like cigarettes, etc. In
> other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in place for its regulated
> sale. It will be interesting to find out if these various state laws actually
> push the Federal government to change or modify it's current (and, IMO,
> draconian) laws regarding marijuana. (Or, conversely, to come down on these new
> laws with two big feet!) Right now in the US, there are just too many
> 'zero-tolerance' State and Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And,
> alas, supported by many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
>
>
Actually, every state could pass such a law, and technically, the fed
could still ignore it, because of how it is "classified" in the drug
list. The only way to change that would be to, in effect, pass a federal
referendum, or something like that (I am not quite sure how it works),
which would "reclassify" it as a less dangerous drug.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 10:19 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:45:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the
>>> criteria to challenge it in court.
>>
>> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that
>> anticonstitutional laws can *not* be passed.
>
> No - at least not in the US - laws are passed and then are challenged as
> to whether or not they are constitutional. Lawmakers don't judge the
> constitutionality of laws they write (though ideally they should create
> laws with an awareness of the constitution) - the judicial branch is
> responsible for making that evaluation, and they only do so on laws that
> have been passed.
>
> Jim
>
This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
constitution, which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming
things are in it that are not, other things are not, which are, and
confusing it with other documents (declaration of independence, being
one, though.. I think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna
Carta was a founding document, if not actually part of the constitution
a while back too.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>
> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
> harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have standing
> to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're not harmed
> by Judge Walker's ruling.
>
> Jim
>
Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
more or less.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >
> This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
> constitution, which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming
> things are in it that are not, other things are not, which are, and
> confusing it with other documents (declaration of independence, being
> one, though.. I think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna
> Carta was a founding document, if not actually part of the constitution
> a while back too.)
Funny!
To our great chagrin, there is no 'intelligence test' for US politicians. ANY
idiot can be one. The Congress has more than it's fair share of 'em. It's the
only institution I can think of where a 'worker' doesn't actually have to know
anything to work there. He just has to get elected. Find enough like-minded (or
similarly brain-dead) folks to vote for you, and your in.
Ah, democracy--what a concept.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:43:41 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
>> and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
>> gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
>>
>>
> Nope, but I'll take a look. We *need* some humor in the US these days!
I've been a paid subscriber for years after a friend gifted a
subscription to me. There's a free edition as well.
One of the best things about it is the "honorary unsubscribe" - stories
about people who have generally made a very significant impact that
everyone mostly forgot about or never knew about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:01:02 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
> constitution,
> which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming things are in it
> that are not, other things are not, which are, and confusing it with
> other documents (declaration of independence, being one, though.. I
> think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna Carta was a founding
> document, if not actually part of the constitution a while back too.)
Yep.
Interpreting the constitution is easy, but applying it isn't easy in all
cases. I disagree with SCOTUS about the meaning of the second amendment,
for example - IMHO it starts with the reason why the right to bear arms
shall not be infringed (because a well armed militia is necessary), and
the current interpretations take the second part but throw out (again,
IMHO) the first.
On the flip side, the courts tend to agree about the establishment
clause, but many religious individuals (generally those who want prayer
in schools, public government meetings, etc) seem to feel very strongly
that it doesn't apply to Christianity. And they're wrong (and the courts
agree on that in general).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
