Edit: OP, if you're going to completely change the last sentence of your post after people respond, which then changes your point, at least highlight that you've made a significant change.
0: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/305201382913275685...
I think that implying that it's "legal" in certain places, which has happened repeatedly over the last decade, is part of the problem. If everyone thinks cannabis is already legal, then who is going to push for federal legalization?
And since when were national laws made by consumers? Federal legalization will happen when a big industry partner wants it it be legalized and not before.
And it is completely false that this only affects the "industry itself". There are other federal laws that concern the rights and privileges of people who use illegal drugs. For instance, if you use federally illegal drugs, you may not legally purchase (or possess) a firearm. There are other examples in terms of employment, etc.
Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know.
Also, employers can drug test for nicotine, which is legal, and deny employmet.
> Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know.
All gun dealers must record form ATF form 4473 for each gun purchase, which specifically asks questions about drug use. If you say yes, you will be denied the gun. If you lie, you may face up to 5 years in prison plus $10K fines. If your state has a medical marijuana registry, this may be cross referenced. If you are later found to be in possession of a gun and marijuana (or evidence of use like a marijuana card), you are a "prohibited person" in illegal possession of a firearm. These still happen, they just get reported as "weapons charges" because that's what they are.
> Also, employers can drug test for nicotine, which is legal, and deny employmet.
Federal jobs (or federally regulated jobs, i.e. being a pilot[0]) don't ban it.
0: https://www.kgns.tv/content/news/Colorado-pilot-fired-after-...
I said how I'd write the headline above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34118464
If you can wave cannabis around in front of a policeman and have no fear of repercussions than it is legal in practice.
> Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.
> If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.
I would also note that the Cole memo was rescinded in 2018 by Sessions and decisions about enforcement were pushed back onto federal DAs. I do not believe that Garland has reversed Sessions memo so the blind eye policy is informal.
I would like to get the pulse of hn on this:
What do we think if e.g. the Coca-Cola Company got in the pot business? Is the fact that these Federal constraints are keeping big business out of the pot business good or bad?
The President of the United States, head of Executive branch, directed with enforcement of Federal law has pardoned ALL federal marijuana convictions and doesn't plan to pursue more.
It is effectively legal federally, no matter how much that makes you clutch your pearls.
The current federal government has determined it to be an issue left to the states. Reducing the influence the federal government has in everyday American's lives, it's left the Republican party in quite an ironic situation.
It is not "effectively legal". You cannot do any of these while possessing and/or using marijuana:
* Pass federal employment drug tests
* ̶F̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶e̶
* Buy a gun
etc.
Don't let perfection get in the way of progress, you claim to be pro-legalization but any conversation regarding the progress of it you only bring up the negatives and letter-of-the-law exclusions.
News flash buddy, there's lots of shit you can't fly with. Lot's of other reasons to not be allowed to purchase a gun. As well as other legal substances that will prevent you from passing federal employment drug tests (Hemp-derived CBD, Kratom). That doesn't make those things any more illegal, just a side-effect of the federal governments involvement in your life.
I've even had a TSA agent rummage through my carry-on in Oakland airport, pull out prerolls and buds, dig further to find the half-full water bottle I forgot I'd had, tell me they have to throw it away, and return my cannabis to me. I've flown with it entirely too many times to count, never attempting to conceal it, and have never had a problem.
The only time you're likely to run into trouble flying out of a legal state is if it looks like you're traveling with the intent to distribute.
It is still illegal, and all it will take is someone plopping into the Exec seat and getting a hair, then it is back to square 1.
Legal exposure is kind of like HIV, herpes, or COVID. There is a big difference between "I don't have it", and "It's not an issue right now", wherein the exact state of affairs drastically effects how one moves forward.
Until it is off the books /repealed, nothing has changed in the grand scheme of things.
Because we've reached this point, you're not going to see someone come into the exec seat and target weed. It's just not going to happen. The cat's out of the bag and it's not going back in.
So yes, things have changed in the grand scheme of things. This is progress, even if it's a fucked up legal grey area.
It would be fascinating and good for consumers because they could be held accountable for regulating an industry that is badly in need of it.
That doesn’t change my opinion of Philip Morris (or parent company Altria). Evil sons of bitches through and through.
Cresco Labs, Verano Holdings, Curaleaf.
Going to a Cresco run "Sunnyside" dispensary is like the Apple store of pot. It's kind of ridiculous.
You were not kidding: https://www.crescolabs.com/ & hey, there is one near me.
Publicly traded corporation. Pays taxes.
That's one of the biggest fears of cannabis producers in states where it's currently legal, and it's actually a reason for some of the small business not supporting federal legalization. They don't want Amazon to invest billions of dollars, completely destroying current dispensaries.
I think the problem is that in the world of billion to trillion dollar corporations, like Amazon or Wallmart, the business can't be mediocre to survive. In the past, simply being "all right" got you by, but big corporations can do "all right" products. To survive nowadays, businesses must differentiate from the corporations to survive.
For the consumers, I think corporations taking over "all right" businesses is a good thing. For the society at large..? This probably shrinks the middle class throughout the world, and increases inequality in multiple ways, e.g. the inequality between the one CEO (and upper management) and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees. So I'd personally count that as a "probably pretty horrible" reality.
They are defacto legalized, because practically those agencies won’t. But that is not the same thing.
The Supreme Court ruled back in the Great Depression days that the feds can regulate local businesses, if the goods sold are similar to goods sold that could be sold in interstate commerce.
So the DEA is still a thing.
The federal government just doesn’t enforce it in most cases. The DEA can start enforcing tomorrow if they wanted
I’m sure it would go down really really well if the DEA started arresting people for simple possession in states where it’s perfectly legal.
To say its legal is simply wrong
To say that is "simply wrong" is to ignore nuance and, in point of fact, is "simply wrong". It is legal at the state level, meaning no state official will punish you for it. It is illegal at the federal level, meaning a federal official could punish you for it.
Isn't nuance fun!? :)
It's also why so much is pushed for to be done at the Federal level, because it completely sidesteps the chance for States to make their own local laws on the matter. The danger there, is that as it turns out, different places/populations have different views on things, which often do not exactly line up with D.C.'s.
Hence why Federal overreach side of things has been a hot button topic in politics for decades.
So no, the line is definitely not as clear as “federal law supersedes state law, period.” It’s a lot more nuanced than that, and in practice, in most situations it’s the state law that reigns supreme.
The Constitution is a subset of federal law
> which are much more on par than you're suggesting.
The Constitution disagrees; Art VI ¶ 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I said "laws" specifically so the ambiguity you are using would not exist.
I kid you not. Link below, read it.
The same logic that is applied to making production of fully automatic weapons for personal use a no-no in a State that explicitly allows it is the exact same legal logic that makes THC prosecutable at will by the Feds.
You can't take out one without taking out the other, because they both stem from the most abusable pieces of jurisprudence ever admitted to the U.S. code.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Enjoy. If you are a U.S. citizen, this is the case that basically gave the Feds carte blanche to drop in on anything because of whatever tenuous excuse the judges/DA's in question decided to apply to link it to Interstate Commerce.
I have come across few cases that make me scream more than Wickard v. Filburn.
> Possession of a handgun near a school is not an economic activity and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is unconstitutional.
And even more riduculous is the fact that certain justices dissented on this opinion.
Of course it’s all heavily politicized, but the federal government really loves milking the commerce clause ad absurdum.