Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

The government has always selectively enforced laws, it’s simply beneficial in this case. 22 states have legalized recreational marijuana and the world hasn’t ended. Maybe it’s okay federal statute isn’t enforced in this particular circumstance, from a rationalist perspective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S....

View on HN

On the flip side, the federal government is still prosecuting people for distributing cannabis, albeit at a decreasing rate: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-marijuana-arrests-co...

If the federal government isn't arresting folks in legal states, how can they justify arresting others? We're close to half the US legalizing cannabis, when will the federal ban end?

When Congress becomes functional again.

So never ¯\(◉‿◉)/¯

Again?

> If the federal government isn’t arresting folks in legal states,

They are, though, and enough that there are circuit court cases as recently as last year addressing the limitation of the funding prohibition Congress has established since 2015 on federal interference with state-legal medical marijuana programs.

The problem for the US is that the country went around the world arm-twisting for decades to get other nations to ban drugs. To legalize is obviously the just and correct decision, I think people are just embarrassed to do it at the federal level now purely because of the history.

"Worried about looking silly in front of people in other countries" is extremely far from the top of the list for half of Congress, and it's that half that would have more resistance to legalization.

I don’t think there’s many who would feel any shame at all. Who do you envision would be embarrassed?

I never said it’s a bad thing that the feds aren’t enforcing this. All I said is:

1. It’s inaccurate to claim that marijuana is legal anywhere in the US, and 2. The situation is fascinating.

Cool story, I disagree, it's legalized here in CA.

You can disagree all you want. It’s still illegal at the federal level. A fed could still cite you even though you are in CA, regardless of the CA legalization.

Caveat is Congress enjoined the DOJ from enforcing against medical marijuana use. Get a medical card (suuuuuuuper easy) and you’ve derisked. Sucks to have to hack around stupidity wrt federal policy on marijuana, but This Is America. It also reduces the tax you pay (typically, ymmv based on state) vs recreational purchases.

https://www.mpp.org/policy/federal/are-consumers-or-cannabis...

> There are some exceptions. In each fiscal year since 2015, Congress has included provisions in appropriations acts that prohibit the U.S. Department of Justice from using funds to prevent states from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” In effect, Congress prevents the DOJ from enforcing federal law in medical marijuana states. Courts have held up the provisions, and federal prosecutions of state-licensed businesses effectively stopped when it went into effect. However, those same protections haven’t been extended to adult-use (recreational) program participants, who remain at risk.

(not legal advice, not an attorney, not your attorney)

There are some federal forms that ask about drug use and will disqualify you for use of marijuana. For example, employment forms and firearm background checks. And if you lie, they are still enforcing those laws. So while you may not go to prison for smoking weed, you might go to prison for smoking weed while doing something else that is regulated.

Good, I appreciate their help with legalizing marijuana.

We have to figure out how to regulate it rather than making it illegal.

For instance, minors should be protected from it*, but medical marijuana must be available to minors with certain medical conditions.

And DUIs must be prevented. That includes employment forms for operating heavy equipment.

Those legalizing and those still fighting the racist drug war share some problems.

* and also protected from harmful law enforcement practices

> Caveat is Congress enjoined the DOJ from enforcing against medical marijuana use. Get a medical card (suuuuuuuper easy) and you’ve derisked

Caveat to the caveat is that DOJ keeps pushing the limit on the medical marijuana prosecution prohibition, and that in California (and the rest of the Ninth Circuit), the controlling case law is that the prohibition only applies to strict compliance with state medical use rules, and that even minor technical violations (even in states that also allow non-medical use) allows federal prosecution (the First Circuit last year established a slightly different rule).

OK I'll keep disagreeing. It's legal here.

Perhaps an explanation of why you can only buy it with cash would be helpful here.

It’s illegal in every state. California cannot override the federal government. They can choose not to enforce it, but federal law enforcement will still be able to arrest you.

...and the federal government can't override California*, unless they want to break a whole lot of eggshells to make their omelette

* completely, of course they can here and there and not vice versa. But this asymmetry doesn't render it illegal IMO.

Legality has nothing to do with enforcement. We can say that X Y or Z is illegal according to the laws of the Roman Empire, despite the fact that it hasn’t been able to enforce anything for more than 1000 years. Similarly, weed is illegal in the US — whether it’s unenforced because the feds choose not to do so, or because they can’t, is perhaps an interesting question but has nothing to do with whether it’s legal.

When I disagreed with "California cannot override the federal government." I didn't mean to override their law on a theoretical level but their authority on a practical level.

Sanctuary cities have shown that the state/local governments partially override the federal government on an overall basis, though not so much directly in individual cases (though they are able to request, not demand, and get their way in a lot of individual cases).

> Sanctuary cities have shown that the state/local governments partially override the federal government on an overall basis

No, they don’t.

Sanctuary cities are not sanctuaries from the federal law the “sanctuary” status references, merely ones where the city has prohibited public resources from being used to provide extra, nonmandatory, help to the feds.

“Not actively helping” isn’t “overriding”.

It's de facto legal for someone to smoke a joint at Venice Beach, but you can still get arrested for possession in a national park, lose your job for smoking over the weekend, and even get your cash civil forfeiture'd by local police for running a dispensary in a way that is compliant with CA but not federal laws.

> It's de facto legal for someone to smoke a joint at Venice Beach

Well it's completely* legal to smoke it at home.

https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/health-and-human-services/health....

* More or less

This is debatable depending on your precise usage of “legal.” Marijuana use, particular when compatible with the Attorney General’s 2013 memo regarding federal enforcement of the CSA, is widely considered to be de facto legal. There’s a reason the terms de facto and de jure exist when discussing jurisprudence.

Indeed. My post is about how de facto and de jure legality have diverged in this particular instance.

“legal” and “de jure” are synonyms.

Something that is true de facto is true in effect despite not being true legally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com