Hacker News Reader

Comment by kube-system | Hacker News Reader

Cannabis is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act everywhere within the US. The feds are voluntarily[0] turning a blind eye to states that have changed their own state laws... but federal law has not changed.

0: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/305201382913275685...

View on HN

Fully aware. This discrepancy is exactly what this article is about.

Which is why I'm specifically criticizing the framing of the headline. It's celebrating a victory that hasn't happened. A better headline would be "Most of America wants cannabis to be legal, but federal law still bans it."

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?

It’s not misleading. It reflects the lived experience of most Americans. That it’s “technically illegal” under federal law means nothing to anyone except — as the article points out — for the industry itself.

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.

The law is inherently technical. "Technically illegal" is simply "illegal".

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.

The law outside its application is meaningless. That’s why there’s so many “Did you know it’s illegal to wash your aardvark on Wednesday” laws still on the books.

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.

I picked those examples specifically because they are enforced.

> 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-...

Circling back to your original point, then: the headline’s framing is misleading because it leaves out potential gun buyers and people applying to federal jobs? Seems like an awfully small minority to be concerned with in… a headline for a national newspaper. How would you write the headline?

Gun owners alone are 1/3 of US adults. The US government is the largest employer in the US (and in the world).

I said how I'd write the headline above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34118464

An "unenforced" law is more dangerous than a repealed law because it provides the opportunity for selective enforcement. A perfect avenue for discrimination of protected classes, parallel construction to bypass due process, and other such abuses of people's civil liberties with impunity - all stemming from pushing people into the precarious status of "you technically violated the law but we'll ignore it as long as..."

What is written on some bit of paper somewhere is irrelevant. What matters is what is being enforced.

If you can wave cannabis around in front of a policeman and have no fear of repercussions than it is legal in practice.

Those examples are being enforced.

I suspect there is also a desire to avoid creating cases that might reach the Supreme Court and challenge enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act based on several potential constitutional issues. This is a not just a fringe legal theory, but one endorsed by several supreme court justices in their dissents to Gonzales v. Raich. I think there is a good chance that if the right case made it to this supreme court, the federal government would lose.

> 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.

That is also fairly bad, the justices view here seems extremely reasonable. I don't necessarily like it but legally it is pretty clear from how the US is set up that we have a strong federal overreach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com