Ariz. passes wetback bill while Calif legalizes dope.

[SHOOTALL]

MCM , Its a shame to admit but in some places its still 50 years ago !

[Victor3]

I just do not understand why people that say they want less government would support any law that prohibits personal choice.  Why do you feel compelled to make government pass laws to force people live by your standards.  This will never work and this is why we live in a Republic.  Until people stop trying to use government to force their view of morality we will continue this road to more government control. 

 I see what you're saying, but aren't all laws made in order to force one group's views on everyone within a particular jurisdiction?

 We always hear "you can't legislate morality." In reality, a legislator's job is to do just that.

[Swampman]

It is the government's job to do for the people only what they can't do for themselves.

[williamlayton]

How many times do I have to get on this soapbox and proclaim that laws do not stop/prevent or cause change in attitudes.
I give spped limits as a good illutration--I don't read the language of speed signs very well.
Laws only give proper paperwork to report.
Laws DO NOT PREVENT---hold my beer and watch this.
Laws---this is a family affair, keep your nose out of it.
The list goes on forever.
Coffee houses were outlawed in Great Brittain at one time---they got around that one with tea.
Boys and Girls---you do not keep the law because it is a law, you keep it because you agree with the thought before it was a law---well, what about those that disagree---and---everyone of you falls on the other side of the line of some laws you don't agree with.
And the beat goes on--and on.
Blessings

[wareagleguy]

Victor3,
We live in a Republic.  There was a reason for this.  The rules were laid down in the Constitution and the government is to govern only from that.  Nowhere did it say that government was to set morality.  As long as no government (state, local, etc), other groups, or other individuals infringed on the rules laid down by the constitution it should be left to the individual to find his/her morality.

Just look at the facts.  Dope is always been here and regardless what “government” wants to do it will stay here.  People are always going to do things you and I may not approve.  As long as Joe Citizen does nothing to infringe on my rights so be it.

[MGMorden]

People are always going to do things you and I may not approve.

Bingo.  I can't remember the source of it, but a wonderful quote I once heard was:

"In order for any of us to truly be free you are going to have to accept that people all over the place are going to do things that you really don't like.".

If "freedom" only entails the narrow band of approval of a single individual then the population is only free so long as EVERYONE agrees.  As if that will ever happen.   Look at how much disagreement there is on this one message board where in general most of the members share pretty similar viewpoints.  Extend that to the entire country and find out just how much agreement there is. 

If you don't get in trouble because your moral compass just happens to line up with what the dictatorship believes then you don't truly have freedom - you just have a lucky coincidence.

The world would be better if everyone just minded their own business.  That goes for BOTH sides.  The left doesn't want you to have guns, go without a seatbelt or to drive an SUV.  The right doesn't want you to be able to buy a beer on Sunday, buy a dirty magazine or light up a joint in your own home.  You get to choose your own little brand of tyranny.   Nobody supports freedom anymore.

[williamlayton]

Your freedom ends where my nose begins---with that warning, do as you desire.
Blessings

[mcwoodduck]

Interesting juxtaposition of stories. Interesting reactions. As I type some idiot is on the tube making some awfully contorted spin about why Az is wrong.

I find it odd that one state is upholding Federal law while the other is ignoring it.
the one upholding federal law is demonized while the state that tells the federal government to kiss their Butt is touted as progressive and future thinking.  The dolts on the left really need to check what they are saying as they are usually for Federal laws and against individual freedom and state independance.  If Ca is praised for not following Federal law at what point can a state not follow other federal laws like income tax and other payroll taxes?

[Clodhopper]

I have heard or seen in print , can't remember which , Dupont had a hand in getting pot baned . Seems they made poly rope and nylon rope and wanted to crush the hemp rope business ?

In my Navy days, we had hemp rope on board ships for special purposes (high line transfer of personnel between ships for one) but I sure wouldn't want to smoke some of it!  Of course, I have never smoked anything.

[dukkillr]

Interesting juxtaposition of stories. Interesting reactions. As I type some idiot is on the tube making some awfully contorted spin about why Az is wrong.

I find it odd that one state is upholding Federal law while the other is ignoring it.
the one upholding federal law is demonized while the state that tells the federal government to kiss their Butt is touted as progressive and future thinking.  The dolts on the left really need to check what they are saying as they are usually for Federal laws and against individual freedom and state independance.  If Ca is praised for not following Federal law at what point can a state not follow other federal laws like income tax and other payroll taxes?

Are large numbers of Federal tax cases prosecuted in state court?  I've never really noticed that happening, but then I've never studied it.

[mcwoodduck]

Interesting juxtaposition of stories. Interesting reactions. As I type some idiot is on the tube making some awfully contorted spin about why Az is wrong.

I find it odd that one state is upholding Federal law while the other is ignoring it.
the one upholding federal law is demonized while the state that tells the federal government to kiss their Butt is touted as progressive and future thinking.  The dolts on the left really need to check what they are saying as they are usually for Federal laws and against individual freedom and state independance.  If Ca is praised for not following Federal law at what point can a state not follow other federal laws like income tax and other payroll taxes?

No You missed my point.
What if a broke state like CA then says that all of it's citizens will no longer send Federal pay roll taxes to washington but to Sacramento?
if they are allowed to pick and choose what federal laws they can or will follow then none of the federal laws mean anything.
If the federal government will not uphold it's own laws than none of the laws they pass are worth anything.  If the administration does not like the current federal laws then he is in position to modify or repeal those laws.  But as the cheif law enforcement officer he is required to uphold federal law and by allowing some laws to apply and other to not he is 1) violating his oath of office, 2) Violating the 14th amendment of the constition (all laws apply equally) 3) if laws are allowed to be ingnored that were passed by other administrations then no law passed by his is going to be required to be followed by future administrations.
If you like him or not this is about the rule of law and the application of those laws.  With out even application of any of the laws all are meaningless, and so are the bill of rights.
Are large numbers of Federal tax cases prosecuted in state court?  I've never really noticed that happening, but then I've never studied it.

[dukkillr]

Interesting juxtaposition of stories. Interesting reactions. As I type some idiot is on the tube making some awfully contorted spin about why Az is wrong.

I find it odd that one state is upholding Federal law while the other is ignoring it.
the one upholding federal law is demonized while the state that tells the federal government to kiss their Butt is touted as progressive and future thinking.  The dolts on the left really need to check what they are saying as they are usually for Federal laws and against individual freedom and state independance.  If Ca is praised for not following Federal law at what point can a state not follow other federal laws like income tax and other payroll taxes?

No You missed my point.
What if a broke state like CA then says that all of it's citizens will no longer send Federal pay roll taxes to washington but to Sacramento?
if they are allowed to pick and choose what federal laws they can or will follow then none of the federal laws mean anything.
If the federal government will not uphold it's own laws than none of the laws they pass are worth anything.  If the administration does not like the current federal laws then he is in position to modify or repeal those laws.  But as the cheif law enforcement officer he is required to uphold federal law and by allowing some laws to apply and other to not he is 1) violating his oath of office, 2) Violating the 14th amendment of the constition (all laws apply equally) 3) if laws are allowed to be ingnored that were passed by other administrations then no law passed by his is going to be required to be followed by future administrations.
If you like him or not this is about the rule of law and the application of those laws.  With out even application of any of the laws all are meaningless, and so are the bill of rights.
Are large numbers of Federal tax cases prosecuted in state court?  I've never really noticed that happening, but then I've never studied it.

I think you missed my point.  One state is not "ignoring federal law" so much as eliminating a similar state law.  It is not California's job to enforce Federal drug laws, just like it's not California's job to bring Federal tax prosecutions.  It is the feds job to enforce federal laws.  If you think all laws are enforced equally you have absolutely no idea how any Federal prosecutor's office works.  There is not enough time or money, (and never has been) for them to pursue every case they can find.  Drug possession cases as well as Felon in possession cases immediately jump to mind, but there are others. 

This isn't new, and while it may be different in terms of the charge, it isn't even especially political.  Bush guys placed their resources where they felt they best belonged.  Obama guys will do (And have done) the same. 

[mcwoodduck]

Well now there is where you are wrong.  Right now if you have Pot for sale and are not a medical outlet and sell to people with out a perscription (another problem 1- how can doctors prescribe an illegal drug?  and 2- don't all prescriptions have to be dosages approved by the FDA?) you are arrested, tried, and sent to State Prison.  The feds get involved when there are cross state trafficing, they can get involved when in the state. 
And while you may see this as only POT, and I am not going to get into the whole pro and con arguement, it is illegal!
Now I have no problem with a state making something that is legal in the country illegal in the state that is a state right, but they can not make something that is illegal in the nation legal in the state.
And as I said ealrlier if the Federal Government is going to ignore it's own laws then why sould anyone else follow them?
Either all laws mean something or none of the laws mean anything.  Why should some citizens be allowed to reak laws they do not like?
If the pot heads are allowed to break 4 or five state adn federal laws, and the illegals are allowed to break 4-5 state adn federal laws. why then can I not pick 4-5 state and federal laws I do not like and be allowed to ignore them?

[dukkillr]

Well now there is where you are wrong.  Right now if you have Pot for sale and are not a medical outlet and sell to people with out a perscription (another problem 1- how can doctors prescribe an illegal drug?  and 2- don't all prescriptions have to be dosages approved by the FDA?) you are arrested, tried, and sent to State Prison.  The feds get involved when there are cross state trafficing, they can get involved when in the state. 
And while you may see this as only POT, and I am not going to get into the whole pro and con arguement, it is illegal!
Now I have no problem with a state making something that is legal in the country illegal in the state that is a state right, but they can not make something that is illegal in the nation legal in the state.
And as I said ealrlier if the Federal Government is going to ignore it's own laws then why sould anyone else follow them?
Either all laws mean something or none of the laws mean anything.  Why should some citizens be allowed to reak laws they do not like?
If the pot heads are allowed to break 4 or five state adn federal laws, and the illegals are allowed to break 4-5 state adn federal laws. why then can I not pick 4-5 state and federal laws I do not like and be allowed to ignore them?

Your explanation of law is simply wrong.

[billy_56081]

Dukk if as you contend it is not Californias job to enforce federal drug laws. Is it Minnesotas job to enforce federal firearms laws pertaining to felons owning firearms? Minnesota law states nonviolent felons can own firearms after being released from probation and violent felons have firearms rights restored after 10 years after being released from probation. So enforcement of federal laws is only for federal law enforcement?

[dukkillr]

No, neither of you are getting this.  There are two different sets of laws for some crimes, a federal and a state set.  For instance, most (or all) states have a felon in possession of a firearm statute and the feds have one.  You can be charged in either jurisdiction.  BUT, if you are charged with the federal crime you will be prosecuted in federal court and sent to federal prison under federal laws and sentencing guidelines.  Generally the federal rules are more harsh.  If, as is the case here in Kansas, the Feds have too many high level crimes to deal with they can allow the states to prosecute all but the most serious FIP cases.  In that situation you would be charged under KANSAS law, with Kansas sentencing guidelines and the potential of going to Kansas prison.  They are completely different systems of law, enforced by their respective agencies, punished by their respective agencies, and with their own severity. 

There are situations in criminal law where you might think double jeopardy should attach but it is a far more complex issue than could be explained in this forum. 

Obviously some laws are uniquely federal and some are uniquely state.  That's what makes the federal tax thing a bad example.  There is no state equivalent there.  Hopefully this clears up the issue.  There is not ever a situation to my knowledge where the state is charged with enforcing federal criminal law or vice versa.  That would violate the basic concept to jurisdiction. 

The idea that the feds can only prosecute interstate drug cases is unequivocally wrong.

[billy_56081]

Dukk what you are failing to comprehend is, that like the "legal marijuana" in California is equivelent to felons owning "legal firearms" under Minnesota laws. Just as marijuana is "legal" under California stae law, felons can "legally" own firearms in Minnesota. So is it or is it not up to state law enforcement to enforce federal law?

[dukkillr]

Dukk what you are failing to comprehend is, that like the "legal marijuana" in California is equivelent to felons owning "legal firearms" under Minnesota laws. Just as marijuana is "legal" under California stae law, felons can "legally" own firearms in Minnesota. So is it or is it not up to state law enforcement to enforce federal law?

Correct.  States DO NOT have jurisdiction over federal laws.  California could not prosecute under federal drug laws even if they wanted to. 

But this difference is this:  California has made a behavior legal and the Feds have released a policy memo indicating that they will not pursue simple possession cases.  That's why it's different that FIP cases. 

mcwood seemed to believe the feds consistently apply their laws.  They do not.  They never have.  Frankly, they don't have the resources and it isn't close.  The Bush administration picked it's priorities, and now Obama is doing the same.  You can disagree with those priorities but this idea that the Obama feds selectively apply the law but all other (Conservative?) administrations were far more noble is simply wrong. 

[Casull]

The rules were laid down in the Constitution and the government is to govern only from that.  Nowhere did it say that government was to set morality.  As long as no government (state, local, etc), other groups, or other individuals infringed on the rules laid down by the constitution it should be left to the individual to find his/her morality.

Wareagleguy, are you really trying to say that if it's not specifically set forth in the Constitution then it is off limits?  If so, then you are wrong.  The Constitution sets forth limits on the FEDERAL government (which are, and have been, routinely ignored), BUT clearly states that ALL other powers are reserved to the STATES.  Neither you nor I have the right under the Constitution to fire up a fatty.  In fact, although clearly an unwise decision, the prohibition of alcohol was legal and constitutional, and the process for instituting it followed the procedures laid out in the Constitution.

[Victor3]

Victor3,
We live in a Republic.  There was a reason for this.  The rules were laid down in the Constitution and the government is to govern only from that.  Nowhere did it say that government was to set morality.  As long as no government (state, local, etc), other groups, or other individuals infringed on the rules laid down by the constitution it should be left to the individual to find his/her morality.

Just look at the facts.  Dope is always been here and regardless what “government” wants to do it will stay here.  People are always going to do things you and I may not approve.  As long as Joe Citizen does nothing to infringe on my rights so be it.

 It doesn't matter where the guidelines (US Constiution, Hammurabi's Code or anything else) originate from.

 Every law is opposed to someone's personal code of conduct (morality). All laws are made to force everyone who's subject to them to conform to one group's view of 'what's right' according to that group's views on morality.

 Many fixate on laws restricting conduct having to do with pornography, abortion, drug use, etc. believing they are the only types of issues dealing with 'morality.' They're not.

 I may firmly believe that it's moral (again, my personal code of conduct) to shoot bald eagles and sell them to fry up like chickens. However, a group of others has decided that excercizing my personal choice isn't good, so they've passed a law preventing me from doing so.

 Were they correct to pass that law in my opinion, being an eagle hunter? No, but it doesn't matter. Some have decided (right or wrong) that my right to shoot eagles is less important than others' right to see lots of them flying around. They have infringed on my rights and "set morality."

 Can you point me to a law that doesn't?

[billy_56081]

Dukk what you are failing to comprehend is, that like the "legal marijuana" in California is equivelent to felons owning "legal firearms" under Minnesota laws. Just as marijuana is "legal" under California stae law, felons can "legally" own firearms in Minnesota. So is it or is it not up to state law enforcement to enforce federal law?

Correct.  States DO NOT have jurisdiction over federal laws.  California could not prosecute under federal drug laws even if they wanted to. 

But this difference is this:  California has made a behavior legal and the Feds have released a policy memo indicating that they will not pursue simple possession cases.  That's why it's different that FIP cases. 

mcwood seemed to believe the feds consistently apply their laws.  They do not.  They never have.  Frankly, they don't have the resources and it isn't close.  The Bush administration picked it's priorities, and now Obama is doing the same.  You can disagree with those priorities but this idea that the Obama feds selectively apply the law but all other (Conservative?) administrations were far more noble is simply wrong. 

I can see the point of "simple possession", but what about the pharmacies who are selling it? Are the pharmacies that engage in selling this drug under the "simple possesion" banner?

[MGMorden]

I can see the point of "simple possession", but what about the pharmacies who are selling it? Are the pharmacies that engage in selling this drug under the "simple possesion" banner?

Not likely, but reality of this situation: the Feds have basically said they're not meddling with this.  You're trying to point out loopholes for a group that isn't interested in them.

There are tons of things on the books that aren't enforced.  Did you know that over here there's a law somewhere on the books that still exists that stipulates that women can't purchase pantyhose on Sundays?  Think that's enforced?  Heck in some states interracial marriage was still illegal until 2001.  That law was also completely ignored.

What you're seeing is a law slip into that category.  Complete repeal often comes much later, if ever.

If California legalizes sale and use, then for all practical purposes, it's legal there.  The whole movement has been gaining traction for a while.   Like it or not, if it doesn't pass this year it's likely to within a few more years, and more states will follow.  I'd imagine that within 30 years it'll be legal in most of the country.

[billy_56081]

The point I'm getting to is that where does this end. Can a city decide that it does not its police officers to not enforce state or federal laws?

[dukkillr]

The point I'm getting to is that where does this end. Can a city decide that it does not its police officers to not enforce state or federal laws?

The point I keep answering is that a state (you said city which would open a new ball of wax) cannot enforce laws that do not exist.  The police in California are tasked with enforcing California law.  I simply don't understand the confusion with that.  When you get charged with Federal tax evasion it is not some state beat cop that comes to investigate, it's the IRS.  When you get charged with stealing a candy bar it's some state cop (and you will ultimately be charged under state theft laws) not a federal agent.  Different laws, different enforcements, different deal. 

I liked to the policy statement above, and I remember it mentions distributorships but I can't remember the details.  Check it for yourself.

[billy_56081]

Dukk it all comes back to this then. Being it is legal in the state of Minnesota for a felon to own a firearm. Would a city, county, or state law enforcment officer be bound to arrest a known felon for a federal firearms violatio and report it to the feds?  Now I understand that the Feds can choose to prosecute or not on this. But is it these officers duty to enforce? And if so on this why not on the marijuana laws?

[mcwoodduck]

The point I'm getting to is that where does this end. Can a city decide that it does not its police officers to not enforce state or federal laws?

The point I keep answering is that a state (you said city which would open a new ball of wax) cannot enforce laws that do not exist.  The police in California are tasked with enforcing California law.  I simply don't understand the confusion with that.  When you get charged with Federal tax evasion it is not some state beat cop that comes to investigate, it's the IRS.  When you get charged with stealing a candy bar it's some state cop (and you will ultimately be charged under state theft laws) not a federal agent.  Different laws, different enforcements, different deal. 

I liked to the policy statement above, and I remember it mentions distributorships but I can't remember the details.  Check it for yourself.

By your train of thought.
Bank robery is a Federal offense and if two local police officers see a guy running from a bank wearing a ski mask spilling $ on the ground.  No gun showing, nothing else do you think the officers are going to look at each other and say If he robed the bank it is up to the FBI to catch him or are they going to yell " Freeze POLICE!"  While it is illegal to rob a bank in the country the law of sets follows.  Everthing that is illegal in hte country is also illegal in the state, county, and City / Town / Burrough.  Police are sworn to up hold the law not the laws of the state, city or county.

[billy_56081]

McWoodduck you said it exactly!

[dukkillr]

Dukk it all comes back to this then. Being it is legal in the state of Minnesota for a felon to own a firearm. Would a city, county, or state law enforcment officer be bound to arrest a known felon for a federal firearms violatio and report it to the feds?  Now I understand that the Feds can choose to prosecute or not on this. But is it these officers duty to enforce? And if so on this why not on the marijuana laws?

No, I don't believe it would.  In the robbery below it is ALSO a state crime to rob a bank.  It's a state crime to rob anything.  It just happens to ALSO be a federal crime to rob a bank.

[billy_56081]

Ok Dukk now that we are establishing that state police officers have no requirment to enforce a federal law. Now let's say a city decides that meth production is legal within its jurisdiction. Now are the city officers not required to enforce the state and federal laws making this illegal?

Now myself I would love to see more states rights and self governance. I am just wondering how the trickle down of this can come out. I myself would love to see basically all federal laws banished and states allowed to self rule. But here in our great republic we must adhere to the rule of law.

[dukkillr]

This has become a confusing discussion because of all the hypotheticals.  Municipal vs State is a different legal relationship that State vs Federal. 

I'm not going to spend all day researching the case law on this topic.  Read the most on point case I could find, that of Felix Kha.

http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf