Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoofusOfDeath | Hacker News Reader

Honest question: Why do newspapers, NPR, etc. often refer to pot possession / sales as being legal in California and some other states, when they're clearly illegal under federal law?

There are numerous other behaviors that IIUC are illegal under U.S. federal law but are not proscribed by California law, including: aircraft hijacking, carjacking, credit card fraud, and possession of destructive devices such as missiles and poison-gas weapons.

And yet I don't hear those same news sources referring to carjacking, etc. as being legal in California.

The cynic in my suspects that those news organizations are intentionally choosing language to push their own agendas, but maybe I'm totally missing something here.

View on HN

One of your examples is reversed.

It's not illegal to possess destructive devices on the federal level. There's a $200 NFA transfer tax to pay, but that aside, you can own a perfectly legal grenade launcher, or even a tank with an operational main gun. Some people do.

In CA, on the other hand, these things are explicitly prohibited (18710 PC).

It is explicitly legal in WA, CO, CA and others. Those states have successfully passed laws to this effect. Because the feds don’t/can’t enforce the federal laws prohibiting cannabis on residents of those states, it is for all intents and purposes legal, no scare-quotes required.

Because California passed bills clearly delineating how, where, and in what quantities pot growing and selling can be done. The state issues licenses.

In America, this is federalism at work. States can choose to do things that the federal government explicitly does not allow, and states can choose to not do things that the federal government explicitly tells it to do. When there is enough of a conflict, it gets resolved by the courts. In this case, the federal government has just chosen not to dedicate resources to cracking down on California's pot industry. California still welcomes the DEA's efforts in CA to crack down on other things, such as pot coming in from Mexico and harder drugs being trafficked.

  States can choose to do things that the federal government explicitly does not allow

Not true at all. Take slavery, for one obvious example.

Parent post is correct. GP is incorrect. Constitutional Federal law trumps State law. See the Supremacy Clause.

It's why actions at the Federal level normatively should be thought through and constructed extremely well. It obliges everyone to play by those rules once passed. In reality however, realpolitik tends to limit Federal reach.

Yeah, I meant Constitutional law trumps state law but states can also decide to keep doing it, betting that the federal government won't bother to enforce.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com