Marijuana legal? Not so fast says Sessions.

[Statalyzer]

I am all in favor of keeping it illegal. I've been through the medical lectures at rehab on parents weekend, and to say the marijuana isn't addictive and/or is not a gateway drug is a flat out lie.

Addictive, yes, gateway drug, no not inherently. Inevitably, for anyone who tries more than one drug, the first tries will happen in some sequential order. Examples where marijuana is first in the order aren't in themselves any evidence for or against the "gateway" concept.

Also in this small tourist town, it's getting harder to get good, consistent service people. You always had the ski bums that wouldn't show up on a fresh powder day. But now, people just aren't showing up to work, or are showing up stoned. They're having to hire x% more people just to cover. It's driving some of the restaurants out of business just because service costs are getting out of hand.

The people are responsible for this themselves.

I do not agree that marijuana, by itself, is an addictive substance. There are undoubtedly people who have addictive personalities and who are going to abuse ANY item placed in front of them. However, having smoked marijuana at different times through the years, I can say that it never created urges to engage in any other substances.

But that's an anti-gateway argument, not an anti-addiction argument.

I'm certainly not going to rule out that some get a medical card just so they can smoke pot

I'm sure people do this. People using this as an argument for making all medical use illegal are being inconsistent unless they also push for the same thing for all prescription drugs.

No, because the Attorney General's job is to enforce the laws of the United States. Whether or not that law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciary to decide.

But isn't the Constitution among said laws? And in terms of priority in a reality of finite resources, wouldn't it be proper for him to assign lower priority to laws of dubious Constitutionality?

 

[bystander]

No, because the Attorney General's job is to enforce the laws of the United States. Whether or not that law is unconstitutional is a matter for the judiciary to decide.

Yes, I was leap-frogging Sessions and thinking about whether or not the law is actually Constitutional or not. In other words, if there is no language prohibiting drug usage then shouldn't it be up to the states?

 

[Mr. Deez]

But isn't the Constitution among said laws? And in terms of priority in a reality of finite resources, wouldn't it be proper for him to assign lower priority to laws of dubious Constitutionality?

Yes, the Constitution is one of those laws. However, even if I think at least some federal drug laws are of dubious constitutionality, under the current constitutional framework, they aren't. The AG is supposed to live in that framework.

The problem with having AGs deciding what laws to enforce based on their subjective views of what the Constitution means (even in conflict with federal court rulings) is that you essentially lose the idea of consistent enforcement of the written law and instead have selective enforcement of that law based on the political preferences of who the AG is at any given time. Why? Because in reality, the AG's view of the Constitution is almost always driven by his political preferences. Eric Holder and Jeff Sessions don't actually have wildly different definitions of the words in the Constitution. They have wildly different political agendas.

Not to brag, but guys like me-meaning lawyers (and therefore potential AGs and prosecutors) who actually separate their constitutional philosophy and interpretation from their politics or even try to-are exceptionally rare. Most just think, "well hot damn, the Constitution just happens to always agree with me and my politics! How special and right must I be?" And that's how most AGs would handle law enforcement if they were allowed to essentially make themselves the supreme arbiter of what the Constitution means and how it's applied. That isn't how things are supposed to work.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yes, I was leap-frogging Sessions and thinking about whether or not the law is actually Constitutional or not. In other words, if there is no language prohibiting drug usage then shouldn't it be up to the states?

It depends on the specifics. For example, does the federal government have the right to prohibit you from smoking pot in your home or even walking down the street? I don't think so. Does it have the right to prohibit you from buying or selling pot across state lines? Yes, because that's interstate commerce, and they have the right to regulate that.

 

[bystander]

It depends on the specifics. For example, does the federal government have the right to prohibit you from smoking pot in your home or even walking down the street? I don't think so. Does it have the right to prohibit you from buying or selling pot across state lines? Yes, because that's interstate commerce, and they have the right to regulate that.

So it's a states rights issue because the Constitution is silent on it and only becomes federal if you want to transport across state lines.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So it's a states rights issue because the Constitution is silent on it and only becomes federal if you want to transport across state lines.

There are other scenarios that could legitimately trigger federal jurisdiction, but you've got the right idea. (See Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.)

 

[bystander]

There are other scenarios that could legitimately trigger federal jurisdiction, but you've got the right idea. (See Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.)

I try to simplify it as much as I can. I feel I am a true Conservative when it comes to the Constitution but a Democrat with how I might AMEND it. That's the thing; I'm about the law but attacking vigorously unjust laws (I'm not sure if there are any glaring one's now similar to those applied against blacks in America back in the day) and following the process for change. Conservatives aren't against change; they are against arbitrary and political opinions.