Hacker News Reader

Comment by tga_d | Hacker News Reader

>Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down.

Or the federal government can just use it as a means to arrest pot-smoking undesirables at will? I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to. When it's a federal law granting someone a right (e.g. Roe v. Wade, the 14th amendment) then the federal government gets to go in and change state laws, but I've never heard of a case of federal laws changing because something it criminalizes was explicitly legalized in state laws. The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply. Unless you're saying that states would pass a constitutional amendment, which seems a little far fetched to me, though not impossible.

View on HN

Look at what is happening with gay marriage. It started changing at the state level, and once the public sentiment changed enough some of the previous federal restrictions are starting to fall as well. The same could (in theory) happen with marijuana if a critical mass of states begin to legalize.

Excellent point. Consensus seems to come at the state level. Another example that seems to be happening lately is reforming of mandatory sentencing/3 strikes laws.

Some would argue that this is the point of federalism. Many small experiments carried out in parallel. The good ideas get adopted; the poor ones get dropped.

It's a little like the MVP of government.

On a similar note but different law, some feel abortion was federally legalized before the states had a chance to fully settle it. Some say the previous abortion battle was never fully litigated and that's why there's a resurgence in anti-abortion laws.

There's an advantage to allowing the states to hash out laws. It's frustrating because it's slow but it also gives people a chance to catch up with the progression.

It turns out it's really really expensive to enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement. One example (i think) is New York's repeal of prohibition.

Washington state actually (partially) legalized alcohol ahead of the Federal repeal of prohibition. So there's a kind of historical example.

Except prohibition was a constitutional amendment, and the Supremecy Clause of said Constitution says that an amendment take precedence over any state (or federal) law.

Drug prohibition laws are federal, but not part of the constitution. Very different, legally speaking.

The difference you pointed out seems to make the precedent stronger, favoring the theory that states may just contradict the feds on the drug issue.

> The most analogous historical precedent we have is prohibition, and iirc state laws didn't change until after the ratification of the 21st amendment, so that doesn't really apply

By 1928, long before the repeal, 28 states had stopped funding prohibition enforcement: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/view-ten.... This effectively killed the law in those states that refused to enforce, because the federal government simply couldn't.

>I don't really see how state laws come to a head with federal ones in this case - state police and lower will not enforce the federal laws, but FBI/DEA etc. can and probably will continue to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com