Sessions, Pot, The UNITED S Of A, & State Laws That Are Illegal

[bendog]

The US government collects taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If those states are going to deal in it, there needs to be taxes paid on it.

I can't wait until states like Colorado and California gets their pot tax bill from the IRS.

Have you let mold grow on your cheese head? they have been paying taxes.

Millions in marijuana cash roll headed to IRS on Tax Day

His original post #15 was states had to ante up to the fed. I assumed he was rambling on about exise taxes of some kind.

Excise Tax | Internal Revenue Service

He appears to have waffled to something else.

Whatever. The term JohnGalt is supposed to mean something. LOL

 

[Syriusly]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

I would be fine with using the tobacco model- legalize pot like legalizing tobacco- and use some of the tax revenue to convince people not to smoke pot.

Of course the retarded stupid shit conservative approach is to have Big Government tell Americans what they can or cannot do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm sorry, but there is no good reason for the feds to have any say in something like Pot regulations at a State level. Alcohol is done at the State level and has worked just fine. Lumping pot together with all other drugs is just the lazy way out.

And spare me the "think of the children" crap that has been used to curtail the rights of adults for no reason other than as a crutch for crappy parenting.

You realize that the protocol for changing federal laws is at the federal level? Otherwise individual states could vote to ban federal tax collection, mail delivery, FCC regulations and a whole gamut of things they could justify are "good for their state no matter what the fed says". You understand how precedent and law works, right?

You aren't understanding how this stuff works.

A state can't pass a law that tells the federal government what to do, any more than the federal government can pass laws to tell the state government what to do.

The state of California doesn't control the IRS, or the Post Office, or the FCC. Those are parts of the federal government, and the state has no power over them. On the other hand, the LAPD, or the CHP are parts of the state (or subsidiary local) governments, and the federal government can't order them to do anything either.

 

[Syriusly]

The US government collects taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If those states are going to deal in it, there needs to be taxes paid on it.

I can't wait until states like Colorado and California gets their pot tax bill from the IRS.

The feds can't tax activity that is against fed law. All the states have done is repealed STATE laws making pot illegal. Federalism allows that. Now the feds could in theory prosecute people in pot-legal states for federal law violations.
For a libertarian, you aren't very libertarian.

Legal pot business's have an obligation to pay Federal taxes and are doing so- remember- the Feds got Al Capone for not paying income taxes on his illegal alcohol business.
Millions in marijuana cash roll headed to IRS on Tax Day

 

[Silhouette]

You aren't understanding how this stuff works.

A state can't pass a law that tells the federal government what to do, any more than the federal government can pass laws to tell the state government what to do.

Well then I guess any state can adopt a law that legalizes illegal aliens, bans the distribution of mail, guts the enforcement of the FCC, bans collection of federal taxes, evicts military bases and makes heroin legal...?

No, they can't, can they?

 

[Syriusly]

Fed law trumps state law. I do think sessions is biased cause he is about lazy as **** when it comes to his job. THIS is what is important?
Fed gov shouldnt have a say in pot anyways. You know, the Constitution and all. Pretty sure the COTUS trumps fed law

The easy way out is for Congress to modify the Controlled Substances act of 1971 to remove pot from the list of banned substances.

But Congress won't- because they are all too chickenshit to do the responsible thing.

None of them want to be labeled as 'soft on drugs'.

Which is why it was left to the states to do the right thing.

 

[Syriusly]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

Even though the states violating federal law need to have their dicks slapped by the DOJ, Sessions shouldn't be wasting his time on this shit. He really needs to be working on locking up the previous administration for their crimes instead.

Well then if they neglect this rogue fascism by rogue states, then the precedent will be set. I think attention to the Union's legal framework dissolving under a cloak of "fun" laws garners more attention that browbeating the dem has-beens from the last administration.

States have been passing laws against abortion ever since Roe v. Wade- repeatedly passing unconstitutional laws that the courts have slapped down.

Odd isn't it that you don't call that 'rogue fascism'?

 

[Syriusly]

Cannabis has nothing to do with "narcotics".

Then petition Congress to remove it from Schedule 1. Otherwise your state is practicing sedition of the Union. CA & CO did not seek permission from the other states to produce a substance their people object to. They didn't even have a chance for their reps to debate it. It was just dubbed upon their existence like a royal decree from a throne. That's not how we do things in the country.

You have no clue how 'we do things in this country'.

Really- this is just another example of your idiotic interpretation of the law. There is a real issue here- but you don't have a clue what it is.

 

[martybegan]

Fed law trumps state law. I do think sessions is biased cause he is about lazy as **** when it comes to his job. THIS is what is important?
Fed gov shouldnt have a say in pot anyways. You know, the Constitution and all. Pretty sure the COTUS trumps fed law

The easy way out is for Congress to modify the Controlled Substances act of 1971 to remove pot from the list of banned substances.

But Congress won't- because they are all too chickenshit to do the responsible thing.

None of them want to be labeled as 'soft on drugs'.

Which is why it was left to the states to do the right thing.

The problem is it creates a situation where people in the trade still run the risk of federal prosecution. And all Obama's directive did was de-emphasize federal interest in pot cases where pot is legal, it never told them to stop.

Democrats could gain a wedge issue if they tried to get this in the floor, and I bet they could get enough republicans onboard.

All this does is force the issue, and that's a good thing, even if Sessions intentions are different.

I think Trump would sign a modification to the 1971 controlled substances act if congress acted.

 

[Silhouette]

The GOP could counter with a wedge-issue of their own..

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You aren't understanding how this stuff works.

A state can't pass a law that tells the federal government what to do, any more than the federal government can pass laws to tell the state government what to do.

Well then I guess any state can adopt a law that legalizes illegal aliens, bans the distribution of mail, guts the enforcement of the FCC, bans collection of federal taxes, evicts military bases and makes heroin legal...?

No, they can't, can they?

How many times do I have to explain this before it will get through your head?

Immigration, the post office, the FCC, the IRS and the military are not under the purview of any state governments. The state government has no power over them, and therefore can't pass laws to control them in any way.

On the other hand, local law enforcement is entirely under the purview of the state it's in - and therefore the state has control over them.

When a state "legalizes" marijuana, they are essentially just ordering the state's law enforcement that possession or sale of marijuana is no longer a crime, and they should no longer arrest people for it. That's all the "legalization" does. If the DEA wants to go to Colorado and arrest some hippies, they can do that - and the state can't do anything about it.

 

[Silhouette]

States have been passing laws against abortion ever since Roe v. Wade- repeatedly passing unconstitutional laws that the courts have slapped down.

Odd isn't it that you don't call that 'rogue fascism'?

I do call that fascism. But that's a court decision, not a federal regulation. Fed regulations are debated by Congress: the full representation of the Union of all 50 states.

Face it. The states that attempted to remove pot from Schedule 1 outside due process, fucked up legally. If the FDA has no authority within states, then why do they exist at all? You want your prozac or heart medicine to be federally deregulated and produced in back-alley labs like the good old days?

 

[bendog]

The US government collects taxes from alcohol and tobacco. If those states are going to deal in it, there needs to be taxes paid on it.

I can't wait until states like Colorado and California gets their pot tax bill from the IRS.

The feds can't tax activity that is against fed law. All the states have done is repealed STATE laws making pot illegal. Federalism allows that. Now the feds could in theory prosecute people in pot-legal states for federal law violations.
For a libertarian, you aren't very libertarian.

Legal pot business's have an obligation to pay Federal taxes and are doing so- remember- the Feds got Al Capone for not paying income taxes on his illegal alcohol business.
Millions in marijuana cash roll headed to IRS on Tax Day

Yes. But the fed govt may not attempt to collect some tax for licensing the activity of growing or selling pot so long as it's illegal under federal law. The feds levy specific taxes on the manufacture of alcohol and tobacco products.

Federal Excise Taxes Imposed on Alcohol Products

The recent tax bill provided "goodies" for "craft" brewers, but just who is a craft brewer was of dispute.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm sorry, but there is no good reason for the feds to have any say in something like Pot regulations at a State level. Alcohol is done at the State level and has worked just fine. Lumping pot together with all other drugs is just the lazy way out.

And spare me the "think of the children" crap that has been used to curtail the rights of adults for no reason other than as a crutch for crappy parenting.

You realize that the protocol for changing federal laws is at the federal level? Otherwise individual states could vote to ban federal tax collection, mail delivery, FCC regulations and a whole gamut of things they could justify are "good for their state no matter what the fed says". You understand how precedent and law works, right?

Which is why congress should remove pot from the Controlled Substances act and let the States handle it.

The difference there is in those cases there are federal agencies enforcing federal law. They don't go and tell the State to do it for them.

The issue is if the feds truly wanted to enforce federal pot law they would have to do it themselves in States where it is legal, which is to me a huge waste of time.

It would be- what will likely happen is that some zealous local Federal prosecutor will target some medium level legal distributor in California that doesn't have big money behind it, to use as an example to try to scare off other distributors.

They will have to do the entire thing with federal forces- no local police or sheriffs as usually happens with a federal bust- they will have to use FBI or BATF or even Customs officers for the bust. Just to make an example and waste our money.

 

[BluesLegend]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

One causes cancer and the other causes happiness. Any other stupid questions?

Idiot, the American Lung Association has found smoking pot has most all the same cancer causing substances that smoking Tobacco does, there now you are less stupid.

Link?

Or would actually putting meat on the bones of an ass-ertion be "stupid"?

 

[Silhouette]

It would be- what will likely happen is that some zealous local Federal prosecutor will target some medium level legal distributor in California that doesn't have big money behind it, to use as an example to try to scare off other distributors.

They will have to do the entire thing with federal forces- no local police or sheriffs as usually happens with a federal bust- they will have to use FBI or BATF or even Customs officers for the bust. Just to make an example and waste our money.

But according to you, the fed doesn't have the authority to do that if CA has voted a federal regulation into nonexistence without the permission of the other states (Congress)..

Maybe CA should introduce an initiative to the ballot that says Californians don't have to pay federal taxes anymore? I mean, unilateral override is unilateral override, right?

 

[Syriusly]

States have been passing laws against abortion ever since Roe v. Wade- repeatedly passing unconstitutional laws that the courts have slapped down.

Odd isn't it that you don't call that 'rogue fascism'?

I do call that fascism. But that's a court decision, not a federal regulation. Fed regulations are debated by Congress: the full representation of the Union of all 50 states.

No- that is not a court decision- again- you are an idiot when it comes to the law. Hell I am no lawyer but even I know you are clueless.

Abortion is not legal in the United States because of a court decision- it is legal in the United States because the court found that laws forbidding abortion violated the Constitution.

So when states pass laws in an attempt to outlaw abortion- they are passing laws that violate the Constitution. And yes- the Federal government absolutely has the right to enforce the Constitution in any state.

The Federal government does not have the right to enforce any Federal law in any state- because Federal laws themselves can violate the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sorry, but there is no good reason for the feds to have any say in something like Pot regulations at a State level. Alcohol is done at the State level and has worked just fine. Lumping pot together with all other drugs is just the lazy way out.

And spare me the "think of the children" crap that has been used to curtail the rights of adults for no reason other than as a crutch for crappy parenting.

You realize that the protocol for changing federal laws is at the federal level? Otherwise individual states could vote to ban federal tax collection, mail delivery, FCC regulations and a whole gamut of things they could justify are "good for their state no matter what the fed says". You understand how precedent and law works, right?

Which is why congress should remove pot from the Controlled Substances act and let the States handle it.

The difference there is in those cases there are federal agencies enforcing federal law. They don't go and tell the State to do it for them.

The issue is if the feds truly wanted to enforce federal pot law they would have to do it themselves in States where it is legal, which is to me a huge waste of time.

It would be- what will likely happen is that some zealous local Federal prosecutor will target some medium level legal distributor in California that doesn't have big money behind it, to use as an example to try to scare off other distributors.

They will have to do the entire thing with federal forces- no local police or sheriffs as usually happens with a federal bust- they will have to use FBI or BATF or even Customs officers for the bust. Just to make an example and waste our money.

Until congress figures it out this could have happened even with the EO from Obama in place.

 

[Pogo]

The US spends untold millions of dollars trying to get people to STOP smoking tobacco so why in the hell are some so hell bent on legalizing pot? Legalize pot then spend millions of dollars trying to convince people not to smoke it, talk about retarded did some stupid shit liberal think that up?

One causes cancer and the other causes happiness. Any other stupid questions?

Idiot, the American Lung Association has found smoking pot has most all the same cancer causing substances that smoking Tobacco does, there now you are less stupid.

Link?

Or would actually putting meat on the bones of an ass-ertion be "stupid"?

So -------------------------------------- no link. Because you can't link your ass.

Exactly.

 

[TheTechnologist]

Cannabis has nothing to do with "narcotics".

Then petition Congress to remove it from Schedule 1. Otherwise your state is practicing sedition of the Union.

No it's not.

A state can have its own laws on how to regulate a substance, it doesn't have to match Federal Law, the Federal government has responsibility to enforce its own laws.

We aren't merely talking about substances here. We are talking about LAWS OF THE UNION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION. Like it or not, the fed has decided that FOR THE UNION'S SAKE we regulate hard mind-altering drugs available to the citizens. The logic is most probably that unregulated flow of mind-altering substances would have a tendency to degrade the citizenry to a stupor that foreign or internal enemies could take advantage of...not to mention rendering our country less productive on the global markets: also a threat to the Union. Just your favorite "pot" is not the only drug regulated on Schedule 1 remember. So a state arbitrarily deciding, without the permission or participation of the rest of the Union (Congress) in debate, that its favorite Schedule 1`drug is no longer illegal, means that any drug on Schedule 1 is subject to the same rogue "legalization" without participation from the rest of the Union.

So there's the sedition of the Union. It's about following federal laws and changing them only with the permission of the Union. Otherwise, a state can just decide it doesn't want to pay federal taxes anymore, or host military bases, or deliver the mail. Maybe a state wants full on porn being shown on prime time children's channels (FCC) and makes a law saying that's "OK" now? You see where the problem is.

Kamala Harris was remiss in her duty to nix the proposition until her state and other states debated the matter at the federal level, where the law still sits as potent as the day it was written.

It's the same as a highway bill, the Federal Government cannot make the States do things, but it can withhold highway funding.

The Feds enforce its own laws, that's my point, as long as a state doesn't bar "justice" when FBI or DEA break into a grow-operation sanctioned by the state and confiscate all the stuff and prosecute the growers...then the State isn't violating the Union's institutions.