Posted on 01/05/2018 5:32:19 AM PST by Kaslin
We are supposedly a nation of laws, not men, but our lawmakers have ensured over the years that we are increasingly at the whim of men, elected or appointed, instead of the law. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has declared that he will reverse an Obama Administration position allowing states to decide on marijuana legalization. Now, local United States Attorneys will be empowered to decide.
But neither the Obama Administration nor Jeff Sessions should do anything other than enforce the law, and federal law criminalizes marijuana. The solution here is not to ignore the federal law, but to repeal it. To do otherwise empowers individuals beyond the rule of law and puts the whims of officials ahead of the will of the people.
Near where I live, a local police officer pulled over a man for the audacious offense of driving while eating. There was no complaint and there was no evidence that the man was distracted in his driving. But the young police officer decided to use the distracted driving charge to ticket the man, whose local officials eventually threw out the citation. We live in an age where there are more and more complaints of overzealous police officers and overzealous cities nickel and diming the citizenry on old laws.
The correct remedy is to repeal stupid laws. Again, as long as the law is on the books, it allows a bureaucrat or politician to have extraordinary and capricious control over your life. It allows politicians to change their minds and reverse other policies. It puts men ahead of the law. And our Congress is notoriously good at passing laws then abdicating their constitutional responsibilities to bureaucrats who they can blame at election time.
You may think there is nothing wrong with legalized marijuana. All but three states now have some form of legalized medical marijuana and several states now have legalized recreational marijuana. California is the latest and also a case study in the legalization of marijuana as a new form of revenue and regulation.
Regardless, as long as a federal law is on the books making marijuana possession a criminal act, a bureaucrat in Washington can wipe out the market and a thriving industry. You can scream all you want that they should not do it, but they can and the only thing in life more certain than even death and taxes is that a bureaucrat will act arbitrarily and capriciously when the mood strikes.
This, though, is the logical outcome of the federal government stepping in to the criminal law field, something our founders would be appalled by. Tough on crime politicians run for federal office insisting they will make federal criminal laws and the result is placing people in situations where they can be prosecuted under a state law, then have a federal prosecutor prosecute them for the same thing when a U.S. Attorney seeks to build his name for his own run for office. No, it is not double jeopardy because the federal government and state governments are separate entities. Ironically, many of the tough on crime politicians getting elected to expand the federal criminal law are also Republican politicians who claim to want to return power to the states.
When John F. Kennedy was assassinated there was no federal law criminalizing the assassination of a President. Only in 1965 did Congress act. Now we have a federal crime for virtually anything you can think of and federal bureaucrats with their own SWAT teams to enforce not just criminal laws, but bureaucratic regulations.
Congress should scuttle most of the federal criminal law in an effort to restore the balance of power to the states. I am indifferent on marijuana legalization, but many states are not and Congress should let the system and rule of law work instead of undermining the rule of law by empowering the arbitrariness and capriciousness of men.
Yup Carl Sagan, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates lazy dummies the whole lot.
But now I see why we have such a problem with the border the idiots closest to it are more more worried someone is smoking a joint.
You really are a pathetic dope (dope, get it more pot humor) aren’t you.
Trump. Pot free. Soon to be greatest president.
Your brother in pot obama. Full of pot. Worst. President. Ever.
You trigglypuffers love obama. Long time!
Aw po wittle wussie had their hashtag censored lol hash tag more pot humor
So what that’s their personla decision, Washington Jefferson Monroe and Madison as well as many of the founding fathers smoked pot. But then again I am not a judgemental nanny state douche like you that thinks I should decide what is best for every one else.
Cite one, just one, reliable source for this assertion.
Good :)
I was afraid I was flashing back to my old college daze :)
Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. “Early letters from our founding fathers refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking,” said Burke. Pierce, Taylor and Jackson, all military men, smoked it with their troops. Cannabis was twice as popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce wrote to his family that it was “about the only good thing” about that war.
The point of the Sessions action is to clarify the constitutuionality of the federal law.
The Congress passed a law forbidding marijuana. The States have passed laws regulating the sale of marijuana . There is conflict.
Thus, some states attorney will bring a law suit that will be decided by SCOTUS. That is why we have three branches of government.
It's been several decades since SCOTUS and constitutuionality had much to do with each other. Justice Thomas seems to be the only consistent federalist on the Court.
Enjoy your weekend, Freedumb2003!
The only two references to "Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society" that I can find are from Marijuanalibary.org and DU?
Not exactly a strong case. Good try, but no cigar, or joint as you may prefer. Don't bother with another response, weak discussions are not my interest.
For the record, I have smoked, and see no problem with the legalization of weed, but to make up history in that pursuit is demeaning.
Then f*ck off
An even better example! Perhaps the two are related without knowing it.
Was Ben Franklin hanged for opium or laudanum use?
I must admit your debating skills are unassailable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.