How was that your point? You appeared to be saying that the justice system enforced all laws equally so shouldn’t be held responsible for which laws are enforced. I pointed out that the justice system does have discretion on which laws are enforced so they are responsible for the decisions they make.
It’s not fast food places like Jack-in-the-Box or White Castle that are keeping marijuana illegal. Their business is based on selling food. Legalized marijuana would lead to more users, who would get more munchies and buy more burgers.
The people who are really opposed to marijuana legalization are those whose business is based on marijuana being illegal. Most people don’t know this but seventy percent of the DEA’s funding is from voluntary contributions made by High Times magazine.
No, what keeps maryjane illegal is that the Republicans get creds from their voter base for being ‘tough on crime’ when they vote against legalizing it, or any attempt to make the legal system saner with respect to it, PLUS there’s a general feeling among Republicans that pot smokers tend to vote heavily Democratic, and so keeping as many of them in jail (and hence unable to vote) works doubly to their political advantage.
I mean, think about it, in Florida they successfully stole the Democratic election by using the voter role purge device to disengranchise not only felons, but anyone with a name that sounded like a felon as well. Why? Because they knew that the black people who make up the bulk of prison inmates tend to vote Dem. It stands to reason that keeping black people in jail works to Republicans’ electoral advantage as well. And white people who take drugs as well, as the undoubtedly skew Democratic, too.
So long as the Pubbies have a significant presence in Congress, and so long as this kind of demographic reasoning holds, pot will remain illegal. They don’t need a majority, just enough to block legislation in conjunction with southern Dems, many of whom are no better than Republicans themselves.
It’s interesting that nobody in this thread so far, of any political bent, is arguing that pot should be kept illegal.
Then again, Dopers ain’t exactly a representative sample of the general public.
Of course not; that’s the roach end of the market. But kidding aside I highly doubt either could survive on a strict dependence of faithful stoners.
I meant (implied?) the sort of things that you explicitly exposed in your second paragraph. Guess I’m a bit paranoid with saying things more directly. Can you blame me when I have to travel US-side consistently?
Amazing factoid. Surely your collective imaginations can conjure-up just how much power/immunity that kind of unregulated cash can buy.
Actually, I think that was a whoosh.
That’s a big “if”. The glaring inconsistency between United States v. Lopez and Gonzales v. Raich invites the conclusion that only a shameful abdication of integrity can explain the latter.
Last night, after I was done watching some Good Eats and Battlestar Galactica on the DVR, the television switched to some channel named G4. In the top left hand corner of the screen, visible right over all the programming, was a graphic that said “Happy 420” (with the 0 a peace sign). In between commercial breaks, they put up pro-marijuana factoids and blurbs. One of them quoted some government study, said something like “Annual deaths from alcohol: 1.4 gajillion*. Deaths from marijuana: 0”). Another said something to the effect of “We at G4 don’t endorse illegal drug use. But what you do with your body is your own business.”
♪♫ The times…they are a-changin’…♫♪
*with the actual number there, I just don’t remember it.
There are a few other cracks in the armor, too, besides these. For example, a few years ago, Seattle voters passed a citizen initiative which formally instructed city police to make enforcement of marijuana-prohibition laws their “lowest priority.” There’s been some policy wrangling on what exactly this looks like, practically speaking (if a pothead falls into a cop’s lap and spills his baggie, does the cop need to investigate the individual to see if any other infractions have been committed before a drug citation can be written?), but the principle contained in the law was supported by the city’s residents by a significant margin.
I heard a bit on this on All Things Considered. One cop was forced to arrest a group of dudes who were smoking quite openly in their car and who, in fact, had come to Seattle under the misapprehension that pot was now legal there.
No.
The standard is that Congress may regulate three areas under the Commerce Clause: (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce. That was laid out well before either Lopez or Raich.
Right?
Permitting marijuana in a state will have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Forbidding guns in a school? Not so much.
If there’s anything shameful, it’s way back in the Shreveport Rate Cases.
However, I admit I would have decided Raich differently.
And speaking of selective enforcement, when I was in college a Cambridge cop came to our dorm to talk about drugs. Basically he said that they weren’t going to hassle us as long as no one sold to urchins (high school kids) and we weren’t stupid. He told a story about a guy who grew a marijuana plant in a window overlooking the police station, which was just insulting. I’m sure that the fact that MIT and Harvard voluntarily paid a good chunk of their budget helped.
Anyone who thinks that the DoJ absolutely must devote resources to go against the will of the people of California must think that there are enough FBI and DEA agents for all more pressing needs. I’d love to see some evidence of that. I’m sure there are at least a few drug smugglers out there more of a threat to America than a bunch of cancer patients.