U.S. Federal Gov't Say They Will Enforce Marijuana Laws if California Legalizes

[FreakyLocz14]

I found this on my Facebook wall today, and I thought PC would like to have a discussion, and perhaps a civilized debate, about this.

https://www.boondocksbootleg.com/profiles/blogs/politics-feds-say-they-will

 

[SIN1488]

I heard about this too, and it's not surprising, but still..... It's not like California is declaring civil war on the rest of the country or something, so why does the Federal government think they need to step in when a state makes a legitimate legal decision through votes? >_<

I can see one point about how it doesn't help their war against drugs though, as some drug dealer working for a cartel might easily be arrested on suspicion of possessing marijuana, and all the other drugs they have might get confiscated. And so if marijuana is legalized, they can't arrest someone like that so easily. But even still, even if you take out those people and put them in jail or prison, those cartels are just as quick to find new people to do that stuff for them, and the amount of drugs they seize in an arrest like that is just a drop in the bucket of that whole industry. :/

So really, I don't see why they think it's necessary, it must have nothing to do with money since the state could be making more money with it being legalized and unenforced by the Federal government.

IDK though, I'm working with limited economic and legal knowledge, so I'm sure the OP has a better idea of the possible reasons behind it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I heard about this too, and it's not surprising, but still..... It's not like California is declaring civil war on the rest of the country or something, so why does the Federal government think they need to step in when a state makes a legitimate legal decision through votes? >_<

I can see one point about how it doesn't help their war against drugs though, as some drug dealer working for a cartel might easily be arrested on suspicion of possessing marijuana, and all the other drugs they have might get confiscated. And so if marijuana is legalized, they can't arrest someone like that so easily. But even still, even if you take out those people and put them in jail or prison, those cartels are just as quick to find new people to do that stuff for them, and the amount of drugs they seize in an arrest like that is just a drop in the bucket of that whole industry. :/

So really, I don't see why they think it's necessary, it must have nothing to do with money since the state could be making more money with it being legalized and unenforced by the Federal government.

IDK though, I'm working with limited economic and legal knowledge, so I'm sure the OP has a better idea of the possible reasons behind it.

The federal government doesn't have the authority to arrest everyday recreational marijuana users. The states hold the power to enforce criminal laws within their jurisdictions. The federal government gets its authority to enforce criminal laws under the Constitutional clause that gives it the authority to regulate interstate commerce and international commerce. Since drug cartels get their drugs from places outside of California, crossing the border into California automatically makes it interstate/international commerce.

If a person were to grown and cultivate marijuana in California, and sell it exclusively within within the borders of the State of California, the federal government has no jurisdiction.

 

[SIN1488]

The federal government doesn't have the authority to arrest everyday recreational marijuana users. The states hold the power to enforce criminal laws within their jurisdictions. The federal government gets its authority to enforce criminal laws under the Constitutional clause that gives it the authority to regulate interstate commerce and international commerce. Since drug cartels get their drugs from places outside of California, crossing the border into California automatically makes it interstate/international commerce.

If a person were to grown and cultivate marijuana in California, and sell it exclusively within within the borders of the State of California, the federal government has no jurisdiction.

Oh, then I either read something wrong, or the news people themselves had some wrong information. :S

 

[Livewire]

If a person were to grown and cultivate marijuana in California, and sell it exclusively within within the borders of the State of California, the federal government has no jurisdiction.

But through the Supremacy Clause they do have jurisdiction, because in the end, no state law can trump a federal one.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But through the Supremacy Clause they do have jurisdiction, because in the end, no state law can trump a federal one.

I know about the Supremacy Clause. But under the 10th Amendment, enforcement of marijuana laws in strictly a state issue, unless it becomes an issue of interstate commerce.

 

[Zemu]

Now the Federal government have jurisdiction to enforce its own laws? Won't it save money if marijuana were to be legalized? It's up to the said state to enforce its appropriate laws; other government "parties" (Federal, for example) have no say or authority whatsoever in such matters.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

This is similar to what happened in Arizona...I wonder who the fed will step on next...
I think they should legalize it even if I hate the smell of smoke and people who smoke, just tax them, thus more revenue and no money wasted on tackling the drug cartels who make most of their money of of the sell of this drug.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Now the Federal government have jurisdiction to enforce its own laws? Won't it save money if marijuana were to be legalized? It's up to the said state to enforce its appropriate laws; other government "parties" (Federal, for example) have no say or authority whatsoever in such matters.

True. The federal government does not have an authority, until it becomes an issue of interstate commerce.

This is similar to what happened in Arizona...I wonder who the fed will step on next...
I think they should legalize it even if I hate the smell of smoke and people who smoke, just tax them, thus more revenue and no money wasted on tackling the drug cartels who make most of their money of of the sell of this drug.

"Just tax them."

I disagree with that part. We find vices such an easy scapegoat for taxes. Personally, I don't think we should be expanding taxes.

 

[Ramzi]

I wouldn't be surprised if California considers legalizing marijuana as an attempt at a political bargain and after that, imposing taxes on its users - the government needs the money. But like FreakyLocz said, they do not need more taxes than they already have. And it would be 'horrible' for a regime to legalize anything for the sake of profit, if their intention is as such.

Oh, and what does the Federal government want with them? It's not within their jurisdiction to enforce any laws or proposals in the CA state.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I wouldn't be surprised if California considers legalizing marijuana as an attempt at a political bargain and after that, imposing taxes on its users - the government needs the money. But like FreakyLocz said, they do not need more taxes than they already have. And it would be 'horrible' for a regime to legalize anything for the sake of profit, if their intention is as such.

Oh, and what does the Federal government want with them? It's not within their jurisdiction to enforce any laws or proposals in the CA state.

Maybe for now, the prospect of more revenue is needed to sway those who are skeptical of marijuana to support its legalization, but I hope high marijuana taxes would be temporary.

 

[BrandonE]

I don't get why people dislike the proposition of taxing so much; whether or not the government needs all the money they get in taxes (They don't), they are spending an unsustainable amount. If they'd be reasonable enough to tax cannabis and lower taxes elsewhere (They won't be), then I'd be all for it.

Also, I don't think Arizona is a fair comparison to this, as state governments should have nothing to do with border control / immigration possibly. Some rights are simply that of the federal government, such as declaring war.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I don't get why people dislike the proposition of taxing so much; whether or not the government needs all the money they get in taxes (They don't), they are spending an unsustainable amount. If they'd be reasonable enough to tax cannabis and lower taxes elsewhere (They won't be), then I'd be all for it.

Also, I don't think Arizona is a fair comparison to this, as state governments should have nothing to do with border control / immigration possibly. Some rights are simply that of the federal government, such as declaring war.

The state of Arizona is on the border. They are directly effected by the issue of illegal immigration. Either they should be able to enforce federal immigration law, or they should be able to sue the federal government into forcing them to do their job.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well it is within the Federal Governments ability to enforce current anti-drug laws and under the Supremacy clause this initiative would probably be null and void. Still I'd rather see how this issue will go through the courts or public opinion.