# Obama's stance on marijuana and its role in the political spectrum **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152 "2009-03-20T13:23:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/21 "2009-03-23T12:45:51Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Personally I think a whole host of issues should be decided at the state level. > > Drugs > Abortion > Gambling > Marriage > Speed Limits > Drinking Statutes > Prostitution Drugs- agree. Abortion- disagree. You’d have women going across state lines to get abortions. Gambling- agree. Marriage- disagree, unless marriages in one state are still valid when the couple moves to, or visits, a state which doesn’t allow their type of marriage. If marriages are maintained across state borders, why force couples to travel to get married? Just to tell them, “Your kind ain’t wanted 'round these parts”? Speed Limits- agree. Their roads, their taxes, their rules. Drinking Statures- disagree. If you allow states to set their own drinking ages, then you’ll have kids traveling across the borders to get wasted. I can imagine border towns setting up lucrative checkpoints, targeted at teenagers. I can see more accidents as teenagers plan road trips to get hammered. Also, why is a kid old enough to drink in one area… but a hundred yards down the road, he’s suddenly too young? Prostitution- agree. I’d certainly rather the government make money off of the oldest profession than to see the criminal element continue to profit. > [@mswas](#): > > If those things were left as states rights issues people could more easily find a cheerful conformity with their own tastes and move to the state that most pleases them. I’m changing jobs in about two months. It’s a good choice for my career- exactly the project I want, better pay, and a better work environment. Unfortunately, it’s literally all the way across the country from where I am now. There aren’t a lot of areas where I can do the job that I do… I can think of, offhand, about five or six states where my job even exists. People don’t always get to choose their location- jobs are too important. What if my new state refused to recognize my marriage because my wife and I are atheists? I’d have to choose between my rights and my career. No thank you. Basically, I think it boils down to this- I think that states’ laws should trump those of the federal government… until those laws threaten my rights. States should not be able to take away my rights. Fighting for rights is hard enough when there’s just one entity to deal with- make it fifty entities, and the fight will become nearly impossible. We’d be back to the Jim Crow era. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/22 "2009-03-23T13:03:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Take the DEA and retool them for anti-piracy. I’d rather all their funds be channeled towards fighting something more worthwhile. Or perhaps not ‘fighting’ anything, and actually doing something constructive, as opposed to restrictive. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/23 "2009-03-23T14:24:53Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Approving or disapproving of certain state laws has nothing to do with state’s rights. Sure it does. Whining about how a state exercises its own discretionary powers is whining about states’ rights. > [@](#): > > Most likely the power to decide whether or not the people of that state should be allowed to own assault weapons, though there may be others as well. No such power exists. > [@](#): > > A (hypothetical) federal carry permit law would make carrying legal in every state, whether that state liked it or not. > > The Interstate Transportation of Firearms law makes it legal (under certain circumstances) to transport guns through any state, whether that state like it or not. > > Both the National Firearms Act and a federal assault weapons ban make or will make it illegal for people in any state to buy certain firearms, whether the state would choose to allow them to or not. Again, these do not abridge states’ rights because you’re talking about state powers which do not exist. > [@](#): > > The right to make their own laws (which might allow such weapons) rather than be bound by the federal law. Nope. That’s not what it means. > [@](#): > > If the federal government passes laws that make something (such as marijuana, or gay marriage, or certain guns) illegal, a state can’t just decide that they don’t like that law and that what ever it is is legal in that state. And the opposite, if the federal government says that abortion is legal, a state can’t make it illegal in that state. > > You are the one that doesn’t seem to understand what states’ rights means. > > It’s about whether the federal government should pass laws that apply in all states, or should not pass such laws and allow the individual states to have their own laws (which may be either more or less restrictive than the possible federal law). Being in favor of state’s rights means that one believes the states should have the power to make their own laws, (which can be different from one state to another) rather than have things decided at the federal level. The Constitution says that some types of laws should be made at the federal level , and some left to the states. It is debatable exactly which types of laws fall into which category. Some of what you’re talking about is kind of close. What powers which are not given to the federal government are given to the states, but what you’re missing is that the Supreme Court has ruled that guns and drugs can be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause, and are therefore NOT powers left to the states. They are not states’ rights issues because they don’t affect any powers left to the states. States’ rights does not just amount to whining about federal laws you don’t like and opining about what states “should” be allowed to do. Just because you don’t like a law doesn’t mean it’s stepping on any “rights.” ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/24 "2009-03-23T16:45:16Z")
Diogenes brought up an interesting, yet (IMO) irrelevant distinction in this argument. In this case, Obama isn’t saying that states rights trump Federal but rather says “Federal still is the law, yet I choose not to enforce it.” Whether there’s a federal law that’s ignored in favor of state law or a federal law that’s never created in the first place, the end result is the same: state law prevails. So we have here a situation where Obama can use Federal law and federal power to enforce against a state level issue. He chooses not to. Call it state “rights” or state “power” or an absence of Federal “rights” or “powers,” you come to the same conclusion: Obama has specifically said in this instance he will adhere to whatever the state legislature has decided in the matter, which is a marked difference from his predecessor. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/25 "2009-03-23T18:59:05Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’d argue that it’s the same as it always was–generally speaking the national parties are for states’ rights when the states are “right” but against states’ rights when the states are “wrong”. > > See this behavior with Marijuana, with Gay Marriage, with whatever issue you can think of that varies state-to-state. Yeah, it goes way back. South Carolina, I believe, invented the idea of state nullification, but they were certainly utterly opposed to state’s rights when it came to fugitive slaves. Although off topic, I might mention that the most extreme advocate of original construction (say Clarence Thomas) becomes activist when faced with an original doctrine they disagree with. Example: I see nothing in the constitution that authorizes the Federal govenment to make drugs illegal anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/26 "2009-03-23T20:31:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Going back that far, the parties have essentially switched places, so such comparisons don’t work. I’m sorry - history doesn’t go away because you just shrug your shoulders. You said you weren’t aware of the Democrat’s ever being pro-states rights. This argument was a wrenching and divisive one for the Democratic Party, especially over the issues of slavery and race. Your ignorance of this history doesn’t make it any less relevant, even today. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/27 "2009-03-23T20:44:26Z")
That was, for all intents and purposes, a completely different political Democratic Party than the modern one. It represented a much different ideology. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/28 "2009-03-23T21:26:58Z")
Diogenes, Please tell me where in the Constitution it mentions: marijuana abortion gay marriage gambling speed limits drinking age prostitution seat belt laws motorcycle helmet laws And tell me what issues DO you think states’ right apply to? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/29 "2009-03-23T22:18:23Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Diogenes, > > Please tell me where in the Constitution it mentions: > marijuana According the the Supreme Court, the federal government has the right to regulate drugs under the Commerce Act. > [@](#): > > abortion Falls under the federal civil right to privacy. > [@](#): > > gay marriage There is no federal prohibition on gay marriage. States are allowed to recognize them if the want to. DOMA says that other states don’t have to recognize them, and the federal government _can’t_ recognize them, but it doesn’t abrogate any specific state power (it’s Constitutionlity is questionable for other reasons, but not 10th Amendment reasons). > [@](#): > > gambling Commerce Clause. > [@](#): > > speed limits There are no federal speed limits. > [@](#): > > drinking age There is no federal drinking age. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act threatened to withhold federal highway funding from states to raise the age for purchase and public possession of alcohol to 21. It did not technically force them to raise the actual _drinking_ age. The federal government derived this power, again, under the Commerce Clause. This did not represent an attempt to write a criminal law, it imposed a condition to receive federal funding. > [@](#): > > prostitution There is no federal ban on prostitution. States can legalize it if they want to. There are two states which have done it. > [@](#): > > seat belt laws > motorcycle helmet laws There are no federal seat belt or helmet laws. Those are all decided by the states. > [@](#): > > And tell me what issues DO you think states’ right apply to? To whatever powers are not given to the federal government. Prostitution is a good example, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/30 "2009-03-23T22:51:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There are no federal speed limits. How did the feds get the states to comply with the 55 mph speed limit many years back? If states didn’t comply, didn’t they threaten to withhold federal funds from them? Then, I suppose laws were passed that let them set the limit as to what they wanted again on the highways. razncain ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/31 "2009-03-23T22:56:07Z")
With prostitution, how did a certain county or counties in Nevada legalize it, while still being illegal on the fed and state level? Why don’t the feds or state enforcement agencies decide to trump these local laws? Could some do the same for marijuana on the local level if a city or county voted it in, or for that matter, gambling too, when the states or feds say something differently? razncain ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/32 "2009-03-23T23:00:32Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > How did the feds get the states to comply with the 55 mph speed limit many years back? If states didn’t comply, didn’t they threaten to withhold federal funds from them? > razncain Yep, and the same with helmet and set belt laws. And some states said, “No way, you can keep your damn money”. Seat belts and helmets are not required here in NH for instance. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/33 "2009-03-23T23:03:36Z")
How convenient it is for certain people that the only things they count as “states rights” are the things they approve of. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/34 "2009-03-23T23:07:20Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > How did the feds get the states to comply with the 55 mph speed limit many years back? If states didn’t comply, didn’t they threaten to withhold federal funds from them? Then, I suppose laws were passed that let them set the limit as to what they wanted again on the highways. > > razncain Yeah, it was originally passed under Nixon as a response to a major oil shortage in the early 70’s (OPEC imposed an embargo on the US for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War). The theory was that it would save fuel. It derived the power – once again – under the Commerce Clause. It was repealed in the 90’s. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/35 "2009-03-23T23:15:15Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > How convenient it is for certain people that the only things they count as “states rights” are the things they approve of. Of course this only applies to those who claim to be in favor of more state’s rights. Naturally those who openly favor more federal control would pick and choose. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/36 "2009-03-23T23:15:44Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > With prostitution, how did a certain county or counties in Nevada legalize it, while still being illegal on the fed and state level? Why don’t the feds or state enforcement agencies decide to trump these local laws? Prostitution is not illegal on the federal level. In Nevada, it is _state_ law that determines what counties are allowed to license brothels (basically it goes by population – if the counties goes over a certain population level, it can’t legalize prostitution). > [@](#): > > Could some do the same for marijuana on the local level if a city or county voted it in, or for that matter, gambling too, when the states or feds say something differently? Again, the prostition laws in Nevada _are_ state laws. The answer is no, municpal laws cannot override state laws, just like state laws cannot override federal laws? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/37 "2009-03-23T23:25:01Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > How convenient it is for certain people that the only things they count as “states rights” are the things they approve of. I have no idea who you’re talking about, but as a matter of hard legal fact, states can’t override federal powers and that’s the end of it. It’s not a question of personally “approving” of anything. I think marijuana should be totally legalized, for instance, but that doesn’t mean the federal government doesn’t have the legal power to regulate it. I personally don’t support regulation of just about anything on your list (except maybe a drinking age), but not liking a federal law doesn’t mean it’s an imposition ons states’ rights. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/38 "2009-03-23T23:38:00Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I’m sorry - history doesn’t go away because you just shrug your shoulders. You said you weren’t aware of the Democrat’s ever being pro-states rights. This argument was a wrenching and divisive one for the Democratic Party, especially over the issues of slavery and race. > > Your ignorance of this history doesn’t make it any less relevant, even today. I’m hardly ignorant, I simply considered it irrelevant. I perhaps should have said “at least after the two parties switched places” or “the modern Democratic party”, but that’s the sort of thing normally understood. It simply wasn’t the same institution back then. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152/39 "2009-03-23T23:53:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Prostitution is not illegal on the federal level. In Nevada, it is _state_ law that determines what counties are allowed to license brothels (basically it goes by population – if the counties goes over a certain population level, it can’t legalize prostitution). > > Again, the prostition laws in Nevada _are_ state laws. The answer is no, municpal laws cannot override state laws, just like state laws cannot override federal laws? I appreciate the answers, I’ve never understood any of this for a long time. Still don’t really, but thanks for taking the time to help explain it. razncain [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-stance-on-marijuana-and-its-role-in-the-political-spectrum/490152.md?page=1)