The Legal Gray Zone of Marijuana at Airports
wsj.com
wsj.com
As someone who binge drank a lot from ~16yo to 22yo, I can't imagine what kind of lunacy causes someone to think alcohol is safer or more acceptable than marijuana use. Maybe the people behind propaganda didn't like how marijuana can make people less social and more eccentric, but since drinking alcohol is seen as a way of socializing and camaraderie, it's acceptable?
The older I get the less I like alcohol. Hangovers suck. I was (un)lucky enough to have a bad lifetime case of acid reflux/GERD which is exacerbated by alcohol, so between that and not liking the hangovers, I generally can't imagine being an alcoholic. But alcohol ruins a lot of lives. I don't know how many lives marijuana ruins, except maybe out of laziness or lack of motivation.
> The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
If so, I feel worth pointing out the quote was allegedly acquired some 20 years prior to publishing, 17 years past the quoted's death.
As far as I can tell, all roads lead back to that one Harper's article. I haven't bothered to try and find the book the author said he was working on. The quote is poorly-sourced enough for me to just not use it, and golly-gee-willickers is it a convenient one now that the quoted is long dead and buried. (EDIT: I will point out that I want to believe the quote is real, or close to it. It certainly doesn't strain credulity to imagine Erlichman saying that. Which is all the more reason to be skeptical. <g>)
>...Baum claims Ehrlichman said that to him in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999).
This is an amazing and explosive quote - if Baum had included it in his book in 1996 I am sure it would have garnered a great deal of attention for the book. Instead Baum did not include it in his book, but instead would wait for decades later when Ehrlichman was no longer around to dispute it.
At any rate, if the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it doesn't actually describe the drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was:
>...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him).
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...
>..."Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse."
>The numbers back this up. According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the "demand" side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the "supply" side (law enforcement and interdiction).
>Historically, this is a commitment for treating drugs as a public health issue that the federal government has not replicated since the 1970s. (Although President Barack Obama's budget proposal would, for the first time in decades, put a majority of anti-drug spending on the demand side once again.) ...
Excellent listening for anyone who doubts that the war on drugs was anything but racism in action: https://www.wbez.org/shows/on-the-media/this-american-war-on...
People on the Internet are extremely pro-drug. People like to believe things that confirm their priors, and since nearly no one on the Internet is against marijuana legalization, the quote does normally go unchallenged.
I think that's a reductive reading - the war on drugs and in particular as it relates to marijuana has been under a lot of scrutiny. And public acceptance of marijuana is steadily growing.
This more suggests to me that a critical analysis of the criminalization of marijuana has tended toward a verdict of "folly" (in the best case scenario) or "targeted mode of oppression" (in the worst).
Reading that as implicitly pro-drug is simplistic in my view.
All that aside, now that I'm not really "on social media", I feel quite disconnected with the world sometimes. Unless I speak to them directly, it's hard to keep track of what any of my friends or acquaintances are doing in life: who's having kids? who's in a new relationship? who got married? who moved to the city? who had a major career change?
Granted, not everyone posts these kinds of details, in fact most of my feed in a network of ~850 persons was dominated by a handful of heavy posters/social media addicts. Even so, occasionally seeing something from someone I otherwise would not talk to was a small window into their lives and kept me slightly aware of things. Sometimes it's people commenting on news I wouldn't otherwise see, sometimes it's pictures of kids..
All that said, the compulsive scrolling action and concern over my own internet identity became a bit much for me, so I'm still inactive on FB.
I've never actually seen that written down, i have _suspected_ people have been saying it, rather than: "for all intents and purposes"
but was never sure, so i googled and its fairly common: https://grammarist.com/eggcorns/for-all-intensive-purposes/
EDIT: It's about 18 minutes into the documentary, but I'm finding out their source is Harpers.
In addition, the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 put many restrictions around them.
The Nixon Controlled Substances Act just put a federal guide posts around what was already a mish-mash of laws.
Most likely we will move beyond its insanity but it’ll take time.
On the other side of the equation, there's also the (much more charitable) point that we tried banning alcohol and it didn't work. It has a substantially larger cultural purchase, so banning it is naturally more expensive -- both in terms of the cost of enforcement and the number of upset people whose habits you've made illegal.
Marijuana might become impossible to ban if its use keeps climbing, but it certainly wasn't in the 20th century.
Depending on your definition of 'ruin'- a lot.
As a counterpoint - alcohol consumption is in most cases self-limiting, for the reasons you describe. Your body tells you in fairly clear terms that you're imbibing poison. Most people learn not to over-indulge, particularly as their tolerance drops off towards the end of their 20s.
Marijuana, however, is more subtle. You won't have a raging headache the next day - but you will be slower, less motivated, and less socially skilled. These negative effects are not painful, and depending on how demanding your daily activities are, possibly imperceptible. If you're an intelligent person stuck in a boring situation, it might even make your experience more tolerable. And, because weed makes you lazy and weed is a lazy solution to boredom, it traps people in a vicious cycle. They're not lying in the gutter, blacking out or vomiting, so they think they're doing fine; but their life devolves into doing a boring job to pay the bills, and smoking weed to make themselves stupid to relieve the boredom. They never hit "rock bottom" in the alcoholic sense, so they circle the drain for the rest of their lives.
It's not "cool" these days to say the marijuana is a dangerous drug that ruins lives - ridiculous over-the-top propaganda saw to that. But it is, and our "cultural antibodies" need to catch up to the new reality of legal weed. I've definitely known a few people for whom alcohol became a visible, functional problem - but I've known at least dozens of people who could have achieved so much more if only they'd managed to tear themselves away from weed's anesthesia.
None of this is to say that banning is the answer to anything. But the right of legal weed comes with the responsibility of owning up to its problems.
Maybe I should try marijuana. I’m lazy, unmotivated, and fatigued - but otherwise generally happy - without any of the fun parts.
Why?
"Vulnerable to blackmail."
Why vulnerable?
"Because they can be fired if the word gets out."
So what are you doing about it?
"Firing anyone we think is vulnerable."
We should be asking ourselves, are people better off after these laws are passed? Clearly not with marijuana.
My parents developed later-life GERD and I believe I was starting to. Started IF for other reasons and the GERD-like symptoms more or less vanished for me. I think part of that is the necessary gap between last-food-intake and becoming horizontal for sleep... which is now a few hours minimum...
That would be racism.
https://www.nyclu.org/en/press-releases/analysis-finds-racia...
This study was an analysis of data from 2012.
Later on, those connotations influenced lawmakers and policy was effected by it. This created racist policy.
Many of these racist lawmakers died. Others became less public about their racism.
Today, those policies still affect blacks and Mexicans more than whites, even though drug usage is similar. Therefore, the policies are still racist.
Thus if one supports the policies, one supports a racist act. Semantic arguments over whether that makes the person who supports them "racist" are moot. They're still supporting something that's racist.
> Today, those policies still affect blacks and Mexicans more than whites, even though drug usage is similar. Therefore, the policies are still racist.
Just because a policy does affect a certain group more doesn't mean that the supporters of the policy are against the group. For example, Blacks are more affected by laws against murder, but that doesn't mean that those who support laws against murder are racist.
This simply is untrue unless you operate in temporal vacuums. The intention has affected and currently affects public perception and legislation even today. What you suggest is similar to people who argue that there was a clean slate after abolition or even the civil Rights acts.
> Me: Whether or not they are racist is moot
You're completely missing the point I was making. So much so that I would ask you re-read what I said. I don't care if today's folks aren't "technically" racist. It's clear the laws' impact and original intention were, and that should be enough to question their efficacy. Furthermore your analogy is completely ludicrous. No one thinks someone should go unpunished for murder.
Your phrasing makes it seem like you're more concerned with something being called racist, than you are addressing historical acts of racism. And that is pretty odd to me.
Maybe, but one could certainly infer it from all of your posts in this topic, including the effort you undertook in another post to defend the success of alcohol prohibition.
Why don't you use your normal account for that kind of argumentation?
> Last year, the NYPD stopped and interrogated people 532,911 times, a 448-percent increase in street stops since 2002 – when police recorded 97,296 stops during Mayor Bloomberg’s first year in office. Nine out of 10 of people stopped were innocent, meaning they were neither arrested nor ticketed. About 87 percent were black or Latino. White people accounted for only about 10 percent of stops.
https://www.nyclu.org/en/press-releases/analysis-finds-racia...
But alcohol is a huge industry. There just isn't any money in other poisons.
Here's a link to a discussion about a paper you might be very interested in - basically a supplement with 100% OTC ingredients had 100% efficacy in eliminating GERD
https://www.reddit.com/r/GERD/comments/adt6vh/regression_of_...
"I enjoy beer and it's never done me any harm" "I don't have a problem with beer, I only use it socially" "I'm not like those... druggies"
I agree. Hangovers suck terribly. give me a nice slow, sleepy morning of last night's weed fading out any time.
Have you seen your physician about this and/or do you have it under control?
If not - try this. I am not a doctor, so this is just friendly advice, but it worked for me. Where it came from is my wife had a friend who had basically the same issue, and she was a hypochodriac to boot - her doctor basically recommended the same thing, though. So - when my GERD became bad, my wife had me try this - and so far, it has worked great. No more waking up in the middle of the night choking and thinking you're having a heart attack, or at worst unable to breath because you aspirated acid into your throat and/or lungs...
When you wake up - before you eat, take one each of:
20mg Esomeprazole (1 tablet) - acid controller 20mg Famotidine (1 tablet) - acid controller 150mg Ranitidine (1 tablet) - ulcer preventative
Do the same in the evening, before you eat dinner. Also, eat dinner earlier (5-6pm - I was in the habit of eating closer to bedtime, which made things worse).
You're also supposed to avoid drinking alcohol with these - I've never had a problem having an occasional beer or alcoholic beverage long after I took them, but ymmv (and I know you said you don't drink anymore - but I'm relating this in case others want to try it out). If in doubt, don't drink anything alcoholic.
These amounts may seem large, but they are (supposedly) no where near the limits of what a doctor can prescribe (it's like ibuprofen - OTC is 200mg tablets, but prescription levels are upwards of 2400mg max per day, depending on your weight - and you also have to have blood work done at that level, too). I currently take two of each pill, mainly because I prefer my diet as-is (I'm a stubborn fella).
If that still seems like too much - then just do the same regimen of the first two pills, twice a day. That's what I did for a few years, then my symptoms started to return. My wife suggested adding the third, I did - and things got better.
But you might find yourself needing a higher dose after a few years, which is why I take two of each. As I note below, I started with the first two, then doubled up, then added the third. That's been working for me.
Note that this won't make things perfect. You can change your diet to help, of course, the frequency you eat, your portions, etc - all of that helps too. Also, drink a lot of water vs other liquids - that's a big help overall. But I can tell you that it should help you to sleep better at night, and make you feel better overall.
Finally - if you notice anything weird while on this regimen, then see your doctor. Really, all you need to do is check the whites of your eyes - if things start tinging yellow, then your liver and kidneys are being stressed hard, and you'll want to back off and drink a ton of water of course (and maybe see your doctor too). If you're in decent health otherwise with no major issues, your body can take a lot before you keel over (I mean, seriously - look at how much drug abusers put their bodies thru - the body is actually insanely resilient).
Now - I'm probably going to be chastised for being facile about this advice and such - so again, this is only offered knowing what it's like having extreme GERD and not wanting others to be in the same pain. So again - if you are at all unsure about this advice, talk to your doctor about it if you aren't already under the care of a physician.
But the truth is, they're going to tell you the same thing:
1. Eat less, exercise more
2. Stay away from spicy and fatty foods
3. Stop smoking
4. No caffeine
5. Lose weight
6. Take one or more pills I've already mentioned
That's the absolute truth - other than #6, it's like their mantra or something. I'm not saying it's bad advice - I'm just saying it should be "common sense" advice. It's also, imho, advice that takes some of the fun out of livin' - so take it all in moderation, too. None of us are getting out of this alive. Might as well have some fun before the end.
The Famotidine and Ranitidine are in the same class of drugs (H2 blockers) and you are probably not getting much benefits over just taking a single one.
You should definitely discuss this with your doctor.
Thanks for the tips, I definitely need to start double-dosing PPIs (again). I only recently started taking famotidine. I’m not sure if Ranitidine is effective for me. Tagamet right? I have not noticed any changes from Tagamet or famotidine, actually, but I guess everything together has synergistic effects.
I’m asking out of curiosity and as a near-chronic sufferer of reflux. It seems that anything other than room temperature water gives me indigestion.
There is evidence of negative effects but I guess it’s a choice between heartburn symptoms or risk of those..
Or maybe it has been tried before, and people saw what an utter disaster it was (the prohibition era). To which you might say that the war on drugs has been a similar disaster, and I will fully agree with you on this.
> Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
> Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.
> Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.
> Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prohibition-era_gangs...
Additionally, for opioid, I think it should be possible to create tamper-proof cartridges that only release when get correct key signature from master device that tracks your usage (and identity via smartphone). Many opioid users claim drug is safe minus overdoses and purity issues that care caused by it's illegal status.
The problem of all of this - it's trivial to grow marijuana or produce alcohol (or order fentanyl from China via darknet). It's already cheaper to get stoned in NZ than drink (or smoke cigarettes). Not sure we should be put up a fight here after all. If we can't decrease use via economics, then at least there should be accountability for your abuse (not an issue for countries like US with no socialised health care).
[1]: https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fassets3.thr...
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paul-mccartney-i...
He went to jail for four years because they found 0.003g on the bottom of his shoe in Dubai.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/43648/did-dubai...
He said personal use...
There was a section on a British news program this morning (Today on Radio 4) that said that UK subjects that invest in US Cannabis companies (even ones that are legal in their states) could be prosecuted in the UK under the Proceeds of Crime act. This applies even if the companies were held in a fund.
I think there are lots of grey areas when it comes to legal Marijuana.
Even if the flight is between two cities where pot is 100% legal, it can always be diverted, and you might end up landing in Kansas City.
The law enforcement you might run into on a flight would be an Air Marshal, and they are Federal agents, not local PD or State, so they would be enforcing Federal laws.
There was a full-fledged constitutional crisis over it in 1832 when South Carolina issued an ordinance declaring the Jackson administration's tarrifs unconstitutional [2].
The similiarities between the Jackson and Trump administration continue to astound. And Jackson ended up on the 20.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitu...
> Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
> In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
I wouldn't say they absolutely can since every attempt to do this so far has failed in the courts. It seems like a pretty flimsy theory since the Constitution explicitly says otherwise.
I suppose this rules out cannabis drone deliveries too :)
However, here in the United States the TSA and cops have shown that they have no problem enforcing the laws against passengers who became criminals due circumstances outside their control.
There was an interesting case where a guy was on a flight from Utah to Pennsylvania with a gun. He was transporting it exactly the way you're supposed to when flying (declared at check-in, unloaded in a locked container, non-TSA approved locks) when his flight got diverted to New Jersey. Due to an airline mixup, he had to get his luggage and re-check it before getting on a later flight to his final destination. However by taking possession of his suitcase without applying for a New Jersey gun license he was committing a felony. After he went to check his bag and declared that it contained a firearm, the TSA called the port authority and he got arrested. Normally when people in NY/NJ get arrested for trying to check a firearm at the airport they take a plea deal but this guy ended up spending some time in jail (although the prosecutor let the case go after four months).
This doesn't change the insanity of this story much, except that if you're going to fly with a firearm, you should probably check the gun laws in the states where you're planning to have layovers.
Lastly, the guy spent only a few days in jail before making bail (still crazy to spend any time whatsoever), and it took years for him to get his gun/ammo back.
He left the airport and stayed in a hotel overnight.
>They argued, among other things, that probable cause existed for the arrest because § 926A was inapplicable, given Revell's overnight stay in New Jersey
Instead they could look for dangerous things in your carry ons, but that's boring.
If the flight goes as planned, the person (and their weed) never left California.
i.e. 99.999% percent of the time, they're not breaking the law.
NOT THAT I'M SCARRED BY ANY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE...
That said, sure, LA <-> SF is a quite safe route. California <-> Colorado is a far riskier bet.
What do casinos have against edibles?
Do they also ban e-cig vaping?
This seems like an odd rule for places where people regularly do cocaine.
> regularly do cocaine.
Illegally doing drugs is different and has been done in Vegas for just about forever, but they don't want federally illegal substances out in the open. I'm sure they would confiscate your coke if they found it too.
I wonder if that is true for Native American casinos
Obviously their main profit centre is gambling.
A more cynical person than I would think they are doing that in order to make money from people's impaired judgement.
kermit drinking tea But that's none of my business.
My thought process with it being in my carry-on is that I don't have to worry about the "what ifs" in my bag getting pulled for inspection when I'm not around, and I do my research to see what local PD has said about it at each airport before I fly out of them. If they're largely "cool" with it, I'd rather be there when someone finds it so that I can say, "Look, my bad, let's toss it out, yeah?". I also make sure that if I'm traveling to where it's not legal (ie Atlanta), I only bring enough for me to use up during the duration of my trip. I'm sure it'd be "fine" for me to travel with it through TSA in ATL since they're not actively looking for it, but the risk of local PD getting involved is just not worth the reward when it's just a five hour flight until I can toke up in the comfort of my own home.
John Waters described how Divine would smuggle marijuana in her artificial vagina, which she would check in her luggage at the top. Once they found that, they'd decide they didn't need to search any more, without looking inside.
https://theeveningclass.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-waters-on....
On Divine Getting Through Airport Security As A Drag Queen
Finding Divine's false tits in his luggage, Airport Security] would slam it back shut. He'd have his cheater on the top — his fake vagina — and [Divine] said he could come through customs with pot, they'd see the cheater and go, "Oh! Oh!" He would put the cheater right on top [in] his suitcase. Divine's cheater is at Wesleyan University at the Film Archives. Clint Eastwood's is too. No, Clint Eastwood is in the same place with me and I said to Clint Eastwood, "Y'know, just think, Divine's cheater and Dirty Harry's police badge will rest together forever!"
Advice in comments: Carry a bottle of water when your carry-on has S1 drugs - TSA will ignore it, but confiscate the water.
Perfect.
0. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/fulton-county-...
But inhaling vaporized oil/wax always seemed a bit sketchy to me. I've never done it, but I know that pulmonary lipidosis is a thing, and that there's a warning on Vicks Vaporub for that very reason (people have inhaled it after putting it in their nose - leading to lipidosis).
It seemed reasonable to suppose that after inhaling a vapor of wax or oil, that it would/could condense back into the lungs. Over time, it would build up and become a serious issue. So now that this is confirmed - or seems to be confirmed - I think I'll pass, if I'm ever given the choice to try it out.
Many states have decriminalized it, meaning that they have effectively nullified the federal regulations-- though not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists.
Like immigration, the federal government chooses to enforce (under Trump) or ignore (under Obama) sections of federal legislation and regulation as they see fit.
I'd personally feel much more comfortable if everyone was subject to the same laws, as selective enforcement can quickly lead to corruption where one group is punished, while the other is ignored.
The phrase for this situation where it's technically illegal but effectively okay is "gray zone".
It was passed in 2014, and in 2016 case law was set including a complete prohibition on prosecution.
A step, but it's not legalized.
The Federal Government was the first to pass laws allowing individuals to get marijuana for medical reasons, and they even supplied (still do to this day) it to those patients.
Very few people are even aware of this legal history at the federal level, look up the patient Irvin Rosenfeld, the Federal Government has been shipping him 300 pre-rolled joints per month since 1984.
It is very gray area indeed when the FDA says there is no valid medical use for marijuana, whereas the Federal legislature has licensed and supplied certain patients with cannabis for their medical issues for 35+ years.
[1] http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Legal/Regulation/Marijua...
In practice they can and do until they get smacked down by a court, which typically takes many years.
That it isn’t happening regularly is just because the FBI/DEA and other federal agencies aren’t currently focused on it. That could change any time at the whim of an executive order from Trump.
> The truth is that there is no gray zone. Marijuana, until otherwise classified by the FDA, is illegal.
Marijuana is expressly listed in the CSA, so it needs to be reclassified by Congress, not by the FDA. In fact the FDA does not have the power to control something under the the CSA (ie, to criminalize it); that power was bizarrely given to the DEA, ostensibly to be used on an emergency basis. This is how MDMA was made illegal (and many other substances in the phenethylamine and tryptamine families).
Now, are there legal gray areas? Heck yeah there are. Some exist in the form of ongoing legal controversies. While it seems to be settled case law at this point that, even though a constitutional amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, the same isn't true for cannabis, it's not totally unthinkable that the courts might start to accept carve-outs to this rule. Raich vs. Ashcroft wasn't a foregone conclusion when it was decided, for example. A similar case today might even go the other way, especially if the plaintiff were a state rather than an individual.
Then, there are large swaths of untested legal gray areas. For example, if the DEA tried to revoke a doctor's license again with different details (for recommending or perhaps prescribing cannabis or cannabis extracts), it's very hard to say what will happen (we have a tiny porthole of insight via Conant v. Walters, but many unanswered questions remain).
> Many states have decriminalized it, meaning that they have effectively nullified the federal regulations-- though not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists.
Hard to unpack this, but basically no part of this is true.
"Decriminalization" typically means that possession is not a crime, but instead is handled as a civil infraction. Several states decriminalized cannabis in the 1970s.
Legalization typically means that both possession (within certain limits) and retail sale (within certain limits) are wholly absent as a statutory offense to law. Often (but not always) this includes cultivation (within certain limits). This framework - again, called legalization, is the state of local laws in states covering about 25% of the US population.
I don't even know what you are trying to express by "not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists" - each state which has legalized cannabis has either passed legislation (which of course you can read online) or done so through a ballot initiative (the terms of which you can also read online). Plenty of legislation exists.
> Like immigration, the federal government chooses to enforce (under Trump) or ignore (under Obama) sections of federal legislation and regulation as they see fit.
First of all, let's not whitewash the Obama years: immigrants were brutalized, detained, and deported in huge numbers. Deportations are happening at about the same rate today; there has not been a sudden spike. Some particular populations, especially refugees seeking asylum, are treated even worse now than they were then. But the government taken a very uncivilized approach to the border since the 90s.
I'm not sure how this relates to your points about cannabis, though. Perhaps you are referring to the Obama-era directive in the justice department that no federal resources will be used to prosecute people who are complying with state medical marijuana laws?
> I'd personally feel much more comfortable if everyone was subject to the same laws, as selective enforcement can quickly lead to corruption where one group is punished, while the other is ignored.
Well, yeah. :-)
It's not just a matter of comfort; equal protection under the law is part of the bedrock of the Western legal tradition. The 14th amendment didn't invent or establish it; in fact, some of staunchest of the radical republicans insisted that congress had the authority to enforce equal protection even before its ratification.
Drug prohibition is a clear affront to equal protection; each stage of it was enacted specifically as a pretext to criminalize particular populations, and never as a public health measure.
The grandparent was referring to their claim of "effective nullification". States have passed legislation to remove state penalties for purchase/possession etc, and the federal government is being a good sport and looking the other way, but the GP says no state has passed a law that explicitly says "...and it's ok with the feds too."
No doubt because it could draw a quick legal challenge, and possibly end the effective legalisation that holds while the federal government chooses not to enforce the law.
I'm pretty sure more immigrants were deported under Obama than Trump; the media just prefers to roast Trump more than Obama.
For a while, Obama's opponents were calling him the "deporter in chief", but how quickly we forget...