Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday January 04 2018, @09:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the up-in-smoke dept.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will reportedly rescind the Cole Memo (DoJ), effectively ending the moratorium on enforcing cannabis prohibition in states where it has been legalized:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will roll back an Obama-era policy that gave states leeway to allow marijuana for recreational purposes.

Two sources with knowledge of the decision confirmed to The Hill that Sessions will rescind the so-called Cole memo, which ordered U.S. attorneys in states where marijuana has been legalized to deprioritize prosecution of marijuana-related cases.

The Associated Press first reported the decision.

Sessions, a vocal critic of marijuana legalization, has hinted for months that he would move to crack down on the growing cannabis market.

Republican Senator Cory Gardner says he will hold up the confirmation process for DoJ nominees:

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) threatened on Thursday to start holding up the confirmation process for White House Justice Department nominees unless Attorney General Jeff Sessions reverses a decision to roll back a policy allowing legalized recreational use of marijuana in some states.

Gardner said in a series of tweets that Sessions had told him before he was confirmed by the Senate that he would not change an Obama-era policy that discouraged federal prosecutors from pursuing marijuana-related offenses in states where the substance had been legalized. Colorado is one of those states.

[...] The Justice Department's reversal of the Cole memo on Thursday came three days after California's new law allowing recreational marijuana use went into effect.

Other politicians have reacted strongly to the news.

Previously: New Attorney General Claims Legal Weed Drives Violent Crime; Statistics be Damned
4/20: The Third Time's Not the Charm
Jeff Sessions Reboots the Drug War
According to Gallup, American Support for Cannabis Legalization is at an All-Time High
Opioid Commission Drops the Ball, Demonizes Cannabis
Recreational Cannabis Goes on Sale in California

Related: Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions Backs Crypto Backdoors


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 04 2018, @09:59PM (61 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @09:59PM (#617990) Journal

    What is he smoking if he thinks this is not going to generate a huge revolt, lawsuit and eventually results in exactly the opposite of what he wants to achieve?

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:03PM (1 child)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:03PM (#617994)

      Probably an exclusive strain from a well-connected supplier that stands to benefit from a restricted cannabis market.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:11PM (#618007)

        You should have used Gamemaker. Why didn't you? Because you're a mere Gamemakerlessness extremacy, that's why! Wow! Your true ferocity has been revealed to all, and it's simply the comicalness of ultimatum What will you do now that your public image has been utterly destroyed? Will you wallow in despair? Or will you... return?

        Yes, return.
        Return.
        Return.
        Return.
        You can return.
        You may return.
        You must return.
        You shall return!
        Return... to Gamemakerdom!
        Return, return, return, return, return to Gamemakerdoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:03PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:03PM (#617995)

      Jeff's not here, man!

      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:16PM (2 children)

        by Gaaark (41) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:16PM (#618010) Journal

        He's spending time with muh-muh-muh-muh-muh-my scrotum!

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:44PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:44PM (#618034) Journal

          From the look of his face, he already did.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:25PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:25PM (#618066)

          This reminds of of something said by Anderson Cooper.
          (Jimmy Dore uses a recording of it in the intro to his weekly Pacifica radio show|webcast.)
          "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging." [google.com]

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:24PM (33 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:24PM (#618017)

      It's so stupid how Congress has utterly given up its responsibilities by deferring everything to the executive branch, leaving the President and his minions to dictate our lives with the stroke of an individual's pen.

      Well, I'm glad Sessions and Trump have been dismantling those executive "laws", because it's finally putting fire to the feet of the politicians who have been mandated to make those decisions through the slow, difficult-to-reverse process of legislation.

      Get the executive branch OUT of lawmaking. Make America Great Again!

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:35PM (15 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:35PM (#618025) Journal

        Make America Great Again!

        Sorry, I don't think we're allowed to make Obama president again.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:44PM (14 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:44PM (#618033)

          Obama had to deal with too much shit. Can we get the Clinton years back?
          "Blockchain" is already the new ".com", after all.

          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by DannyB on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:45PM (3 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:45PM (#618036) Journal

            I never dreamed, in my worst nightmares that I would say this, but . . .

            I would be GLAD to have George W Bush back at this point.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:53PM (2 children)

              by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:53PM (#618041)

              I wouldn't.
              Trump is an idiot, but he hasn't started 2 wars yet. He's working on the deficit and trouncing US international standing, like W.
              But Trump wasn't handed a US at peak power and turned it into a declining empire. A self-centered ignorant fool, not a crazy destructive maniac ...

              Looks good for the R side, doesn't it? Comparing the last two presidents from each side...

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:40PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:40PM (#618073)

                By work on the deficit - you mean making a massive increase in the deficit right?

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:45PM

                  by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:45PM (#618078)

                  Obviously, as a parallel to W turning budget surpluses and shrinking debt (bipartisan-voted, Clinton-signed) into deficits, even before he started his two unbudgeted wars...

                  The same people who were hollering at Obama's Keynesian stimulus in the midst of the Great Recession just voted a $1,500,000,000,000.00 extra-deficit tax plan.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:42PM (9 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:42PM (#618075)

            Really? That's what you want?
            More of Slick Willie's Neoliberalism?
            Bill Clinton's Five Major Achievements Were Longstanding GOP Objectives [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [truth-out.org]

            To find someone that wasn't Neoliberal, you'd have to go back to LBJ--or to Ike (see graphic link, below), just to be sure.
            Now, it would have been interesting to see where Jack Kennedy would have taken US if he hadn't gotten his head blown off by the CIA.
            OTOH, that trust-fund baby had already signed a giant tax cut for the super-rich. [aquilafunds.com]

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:51PM (#618082) Journal

              Hell, I'd probably be a Republican by now if they hadn't been hijacked by the nutjobs.

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @01:08AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @01:08AM (#618140)

                There are only 2 kinds of people who vote for Repugs:
                The rich and the stupid who will vote against their own best interests.
                For over a century, the mantra of the GOP has been
                  "Make the rich richer and screw everyone else in order to do that."[1]

                N.B. Ike was a temporary stay from that.
                (His brother Edgar was a full-on Reactionary.)

                [1] The GOP has learned to include enough red herrings in their platform to hornswoggle the gullible (abortion, immigration, guns).

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday January 05 2018, @12:01AM (3 children)

              by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:01AM (#618092)

              Let's be reasonable, shall we? The world has changed a bit since LBJ, 50 years ago. Would you like to #MAGA, too?

              While some of Clinton' policies have the consequences we know (hindsight blah blah), I wouldn't mind to get back to a world where everybody respects (didn't say "likes") the almighty-imperfect-but-mostly-benevolent-when-benefitting US, and the biggest distraction to watching people's income AND assets go up is whether the smooth guy in charge banged an ugly girl.
              The late 90s weren't perfect, but they sure beat the 21st century...

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @01:19AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @01:19AM (#618145)

                Yeah, like I said: It's become more Neoliberal.
                Apparently, you like good manufacturing jobs being exported.

                Clinton'[s] policies

                The big giant one was NAFTA.
                Did I mention jobs being exported?
                {checks} Yeah, I just did.
                (The place where I was working sent all product lines that weren't DoD-related to Tijuana.)

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @05:00AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @05:00AM (#618208)

                Great, more DMCA bullshit, drug wars, and interventions overseas. Why do you want that neoliberal back? The interventions were obviously unjust even back then, so it isn't just hindsight.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @06:31AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @06:31AM (#618236)

                  The alternatives then (as now) were right-wing and ultra right-wing. Yeah, given those possibilities he went right-wing. There is no liberal party in the USA even though the population overwhelmingly prefers liberal policies... gays, drugs, healthcare, etc.

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday January 05 2018, @07:10PM (1 child)

              by Thexalon (636) on Friday January 05 2018, @07:10PM (#618443)

              To find someone that wasn't Neoliberal, you'd have to go back to LBJ--or to Ike (see graphic link, below), just to be sure.

              Jimmy Carter came before neoliberalism really took over the Democratic Party - that was Bill Clinton's doing more than anyone else (with his homie Al Gore's help).

              The Republicans aren't neo-liberal, though, they're neo-conservative. The difference is what they do on hot-button social issues (e.g. abortion) while they're being bagmen for the super-rich.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @08:13PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @08:13PM (#618492)

                Carter deregulated interstate trucking and telecommunications.
                Carter was a serious inflection point.

                Nixon's trip to China opened a major door for offshoring.

                I associate Neoconservatism with Imperialism and Militarism.
                "World Policeman" is a major subheading.
                "Regime change" is another.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:38PM (2 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:38PM (#618030) Journal

        leaving the President and his minions to dictate our lives with the stroke of an individual's pen.

        You must mean stroke of an individual's crayon.

        Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, then executive orders are a good thing. Just sayin'. And I'm no fan of Trump.

        Congress cannot take up their responsibilities because they are too busy with fundraising from wealthy donors.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 05 2018, @02:41AM (1 child)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday January 05 2018, @02:41AM (#618177) Journal

          Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, then executive orders are a good thing. Just sayin'.

          Absolutely not. There actually are some of us out here who believe in things like separation of powers and in Constitutional limitations, regardless of who is in office. For example, I actually think we need more gun regulation, but I also believe the Second Amendment was likely intended to prohibit some of the kinds of regulation I think should happen. So, I believe we need a Constitutional amendment to do what I think would be good. (And no, please let's not get into an off-topic debate on guns -- I'm just trying to make a point as an example.)

          Executive orders, from my perspective, should only ever be made as clarifications of regulation under existing law (i.e., the idea of Executive as implementing law given to it by the Legislature), generally under implementation decisions explicitly left to the Executive by Congress, not as effectively creating new law.

          History taught the Founders of the problems that arose when too much power is concentrated in the Executive... or in the government in general. Those who have studied things like the gradual decline of the Roman Republic and its ultimate transformation into a dictatorial empire can easily see parallels to what has happened, particularly in the past 75 years or so. We're on a bad path: one that the Founders tried desperately to try to prevent in the way they set up the system.

          It doesn't matter which party you belong to... people should be concerned about this.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 05 2018, @02:07PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @02:07PM (#618317) Journal

            Yes.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:54PM (6 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:54PM (#618042) Journal

        Congress did very little on this issue before the Cole memo. They passed the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment [wikipedia.org] after the Cole Memo.

        Maybe there will be enough pressure for Congress to take this seriously. But the rescindment doesn't help. It just hurts businesses in the states that have legalized cannabis by murking things up. It would have been fine to let the states lead the way. In fact, Trump said during the campaign that he believed [wikipedia.org] states should have the right to decide their own cannabis policies. But after being elected he signaled [bloomberg.com] that he could ignore the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment passed by Congress (every year). In no way has Trump done a "great" thing for America with this move.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:14PM (1 child)

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:14PM (#618060) Homepage Journal

          It's not me, it's Jeff. I really don't care if you kids smoke your pot. I think it's a bad habit. We all have bad habits. Are we babies? We're not babies. Trust me, I have some bad habits of my own. Which, believe me, you don't want to know about. But Jeff has a thing about pot. Which I knew about when I hired him.

          Let me tell you, Jeff was very loyal to me at one time. At a very important time. When a lot, a lot of people were saying I would lose. Saying I would never be elected. But little Jeff believed in me. He had a big job in the Senate, but he took time to go to my rallies. To stump for me. Very loyal! So I hired the little guy, even though we don't always see eye to eye. Imagine my surprise when he RECUSED himself! I wanted to fire him for that. But my lawyers, some of my lawyers, told me not to. So we're all stuck with him.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:55PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:55PM (#618087) Journal

            That McDonald's addiction is more of a moral failing than any substance abuse problem!

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:39PM (3 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:39PM (#618072) Homepage Journal

          Funny, this is one of the few things I think he actually did right. The executive branch has no business deciding which laws it will and won't enforce. Selective enforcement of the law is tyranny, plain and simple.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Friday January 05 2018, @05:48AM (2 children)

            by dry (223) on Friday January 05 2018, @05:48AM (#618224) Journal

            It's also tyranny to enforce an immoral, unconstitutional law that neither the courts nor the legislature will take the correct step to strike it from the books.
            There is also the question of where resources should be spent. Here, many moons ago, the cops literally said they aren't going to enforce non-profit copyright infringement as they had better things to do with their time. Now they have the same attitude to drugs, at least where I live.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 05 2018, @12:25PM (1 child)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 05 2018, @12:25PM (#618292) Homepage Journal

              Yes, it is. Fortunately there are multiple, entirely legal methods of removing said law.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 05 2018, @05:58PM

                by dry (223) on Friday January 05 2018, @05:58PM (#618418) Journal

                Unluckily there is a flaw in democracies, namely that 51% can vote to remove rights from the 49%. This is why some countries have a bill of rights in their Constitutions. Unluckily, you can't list all the rights and some were never dreamed of being needed. I'd say that the idea that the government would ban hemp was never imagined and if it was, it may have been added to the bill of rights.

      • (Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:27PM (6 children)

        by insanumingenium (4824) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:27PM (#618068) Journal

        Wait a second, law enforcement is the very definition of what is correctly in the hands of the executive branch. Congress can't nor should they take that from them. Are you a troll, or did you skip the checks and balances portion of highschool civics?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:09AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:09AM (#618099)

          We,, unfortunately this is why prohibition must be enforced, because it is still the law. Double unfortunate is that the courts didn't find all the federal anti narcotics laws unconstitutional, because they are! The prohibition against liquor required a constitutional amendment, the drugs laws should also if they want to ban them. So we have situation with unconstitutional law, and a majority of voters who don't give a damn. IOW we are fucked! Majority rule has reached its logical conclusion. Now we need something completely different. Something where individual liberties can not be taken away by popular whimsy.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:20AM (#618106)

            Now we need something completely different. Something where individual liberties can not be taken away by popular whimsy.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:48AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:48AM (#618179)

              Or we could have a constitutional republic to make arbitrarily taking away people's rights more difficult at least, but good luck getting the government to follow the Constitution.

          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 05 2018, @02:52AM (2 children)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday January 05 2018, @02:52AM (#618180) Journal

            Double unfortunate is that the courts didn't find all the federal anti narcotics laws unconstitutional, because they are!

            Yeah, SCOTUS used to find such things unconstitutional -- for decades such laws were repeatedly overturned, until the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine." (For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I've traced the history of this fundamental legal shift -- why alcohol required an amendment but drugs don't -- here [stackexchange.com].)

            Majority rule has reached its logical conclusion. Now we need something completely different.

            It's important to note that the Founders also were largely afraid of democracies. They knew the ancient and early modern precedents for democracy, and they tried to design a system that gave individual voters only a very limited voice in the federal government. (The original Constitution basically only asked for input from voters for the House of Representatives -- and even then, in many states it was mostly only landed "heads of household," sort of similar to the heads of the "demos" that represented the voice of the people in Athenian democracy. Supreme Court judges were appointed. Senators were elected by state legislators. Presidents were elected by the Electoral College, whose representatives were appointed in a manner set by the states -- and most states in early elections didn't even bother holding popular votes for the presidency. Electors were often appointed by state legislatures, governors, or some combination thereof.)

            So "majority rule" (or "mob rule" as some of the Founders would have termed it) was not the way the system was originally designed. But over the years we've modified things to increasingly emphasize popular voice, something that came about largely through the influence of political parties that sought to exploit the will of the masses.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @07:37AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @07:37AM (#618254)

              Just wondering... that Constitution thing you're talking about, was that passed down in stone tablets or OMG! voted on by the mob?

              • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 05 2018, @01:13PM

                by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday January 05 2018, @01:13PM (#618304) Journal

                Just wondering... that Constitution thing you're talking about, was that passed down in stone tablets or OMG! voted on by the mob?

                The Constitution was never voted on by popular vote, if that's what you're asking in your flippant reply.

                It was drafted by representatives from states and then approved by state conventions of representatives, never voted on by everyone (or even by all white male landowner head of households). The Founders didn't even want to subject that to direct democratic vote: they believed, as in the examples I mentioned previously, that the uninformed masses can be too easily swayed by misleading rhetoric. So they left the matter to representatives of the people to vote on: representatives who could take time to become truly informed on a matter of such importance and who could take time to have lengthy public debates (which went on for months in some States) before making an informed decision.

                And there were vigorous ratification debates in many states, mostly about the sweeping powers perceived to be given to the new federal government. In many states, the Consitutition was only approved for ratification after being assured that the Bill of Rights amendments would soon follow to constrain federal power significantly.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:59PM (6 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:59PM (#618046)

      Nothing different from the rest of the DEA: The Official Truth with regards to US drug policy is that marijuana is more dangerous and in more need of substance control efforts than PCP, cocaine, and carfentanil. Which is insane, because whatever the health effects and addictive potential of pot, there's no sign that THC is remotely as dangerous as some of the others I mentioned.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:05PM (3 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:05PM (#618052) Journal

        The Official Truth with regards to US drug policy is that marijuana is more dangerous and in more need of substance control efforts than PCP, cocaine, and carfentanil.

        Don't forget that LSD is as dangerous as heroin! [soylentnews.org]

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 05 2018, @06:11AM (2 children)

          by dry (223) on Friday January 05 2018, @06:11AM (#618233) Journal

          Actually, it can be more dangerous then heroin, they even did studies. Seems that when you take a mentally ill person, put them in a straight jacket, give them a massive dose of LSD and leave them alone, they can get more mentally ill.
          Sadly this is what they did when reports about treating alcohol addiction and various other mental illnesses started coming out.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @03:24PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @03:24PM (#618346)

            I think giving guns to children is also a problem, but it's the people that gave the guns to the children that should be punished, as opposed to the guns--and whatever is left of the children.

            • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 05 2018, @08:31PM

              by dry (223) on Friday January 05 2018, @08:31PM (#618497) Journal

              True, and I don't mind some light regulations to enforce education on things like why you should keep your guns away from children and how to safely take LSD.
              Actually in my country, it is illegal to sell a gun to someone unless they've taken a short course on firearms safety.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday January 05 2018, @12:17AM (1 child)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:17AM (#618103) Journal

        I would hope that you would understand that prohibition isn't based on science of any kind. Like so many things this is business. The law is titled The controlled substance act for a reason. It's to control the market. That is the primary purpose of any prohibition. Let's drop all the silly pretense of 'morality'. They are not playing that game, and neither should we.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 05 2018, @04:56PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 05 2018, @04:56PM (#618386) Journal
          Well, that and all the swag you can get with civil asset seizure. Once your property breaks the law, it is no longer your property!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:04PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:04PM (#618049)

      On what basis? Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The whole notion that it's legal anywhere in the US is fiction. It's just like it's been for years, in some areas the laws are being enforced and in other ones it's not.

      Either marijuana is going to be legal or it's not. This current situation where the legality is wholly dependent upon which agency does the arrest and which court you wind up in is something that is sorely in need of resolution.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:16PM (7 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:16PM (#618061) Journal

        The Cole Memo let the states bypass the do-nothing Congress.

        If Congress still elects to do the wrong thing, there's another avenue: the Supreme Court. The Supremacy Clause could be neatly sidestepped if a fresh set of justices found some aspect of federal enforcement, such as the Controlled Substances Act, to be unconstitutional.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:44PM (6 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:44PM (#618077) Homepage Journal

          I don't have any issue with pot being legalized but it needs to be done legally. Any executive officer not enforcing the law is violating their oath of office and needs to be removed.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Friday January 05 2018, @12:18AM (4 children)

            by NewNic (6420) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:18AM (#618104) Journal

            Uh, what?

            The oath of office talks about supporting and defending the constitution and since the body that is tasked with interpreting the constitution (the Supreme Court) has affirmed the principle of prosecutorial discretion, they are not required to enforce these laws in order to be in compliance with their oath of office.

            --
            lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 05 2018, @12:42AM (3 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 05 2018, @12:42AM (#618123) Homepage Journal

              Yes, that would in fact be the bullshit loophole in question. SCOTUS making bad rulings is nothing new.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 05 2018, @12:58AM (2 children)

                by NewNic (6420) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:58AM (#618133) Journal

                SCOTUS making bad rulings is nothing new.

                I can certainly agree with you on that (but perhaps we might not agree on which rulings were bad: I would start with Wickard v. Filburn and the rulings which rely upon it).

                But, that is the law of the land and the present office holders all made their oaths with the knowledge that prosecutorial discretion was the law of the land.

                Question: why does it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but only a law passed by Congress to ban drugs?

                --
                lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 05 2018, @01:56AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 05 2018, @01:56AM (#618157) Homepage Journal

                  It didn't. There are many, many ways to make something illegal under current (bad) case law. The commerce clause alone could have been exploited to illegalize anything they wanted.

                  Before you go supporting Obama and deriding Trump on this, I'd like you to put five minutes in thinking of the worst possible abuses of selective law enforcement by those in power. If we allow this kind of shit to go on, I guarantee they will come to pass.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 05 2018, @02:58AM

                  by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday January 05 2018, @02:58AM (#618182) Journal

                  Question: why does it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but only a law passed by Congress to ban drugs?

                  I just posted this elsewhere above, but since you asked, here's the answer [stackexchange.com]. As to why marijuana was specifically targeted under this new legal regime, I've reviewed some of the here [soylentnews.org]. (I assume you likely know part of the answer and were asking this somewhat rhetorically, but many likely don't know the whole history.)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:54AM (#618181)

            No, members of the executive branch always must bear some responsibility for enforcing unjust laws they didn't create.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday January 05 2018, @12:05AM (2 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:05AM (#618095) Journal

        I want to State Governors order the State Police to defend pot shops against the DEA and FBI. It's time to break up the Feds.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 05 2018, @12:22AM (1 child)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:22AM (#618111) Journal

          Yes, that's right. Standing up to the feds has worked so well before. Let me count the ways. I don't know how the republic is still standing.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @03:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @03:05AM (#618183)

        The federal war on drugs is unconstitutional, even if the courts fail to recognize that.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @01:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @01:57AM (#618158)

      lulz. as if fucking potheads would do anything about it. dope is for dopes. duh.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:03PM (7 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:03PM (#617996)

    Succeed or fail, this will put uncertainty into the market, reduce investment and expansion.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:09PM (5 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:09PM (#618004) Journal

      That might be true, because no specific enforcement actions have been announced.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:18PM (4 children)

        by tftp (806) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:18PM (#618012) Homepage
        It looks like the laws are already in place (the war on drugs - probably plenty of laws). The Cole memo just told the chief federal prosecutors to not prosecute. If now this memo is undone, they are free to do so.
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:22PM (3 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:22PM (#618014) Journal

          There are lot more assets to think of than prosecutors. For example, will the DEA be sent into these states to bust things up?

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:37PM (2 children)

            by tftp (806) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:37PM (#618029) Homepage
            It will be interesting times when we see the Sheriff's people on the left of the pot store door and the DEA JBTs on the right side. I believe small-time conflicts of this nature had happened before and, perhaps, resulted in the memo.
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 05 2018, @12:25AM (1 child)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:25AM (#618113) Journal

              So, just another turf war over the spoils?

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 05 2018, @01:38AM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 05 2018, @01:38AM (#618151)

                No, the connies really still can't handle peace, love and mellowness - they think it's gonna turn their wage slaves into defiant layabouts, that's why it was banned in the first place. They may be beyond winning the war, but they still have enough political control to shake things up and make life hard for the other side.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 05 2018, @06:18AM

      by dry (223) on Friday January 05 2018, @06:18AM (#618235) Journal

      It already caused the Canadian stock market to drop. Lots of companies hoping to sell pot and they don't like uncertainty like this statement causes.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Eristone on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:30PM (10 children)

    by Eristone (4775) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:30PM (#618022)

    Ken White over at Popehat has a qualified opinion [popehat.com] on the subject including the potential impact short term and what to look for over the next bit to see how serious this could become.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:02PM (9 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:02PM (#618048) Journal

      The feds can do plenty of damage by busting up a couple of banks, going after big legal grow-ops (which can be found in the phone book, unlike street dealers), or perhaps going after state govt. employees. And even doing nothing other than rescinding the memo is damaging. Say goodbye to the 40-acre weed resort [curbed.com] and cannabis blockchains [bloomberg.com].

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:06PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:06PM (#618053)

        Which banks are taking money from marijuana businesses? One of the chief complaints from marijuana businesses is that they have to be cash only as most banks won't accept their money because it's illegally obtained as defined by federal law. Holding money that they know to be drug money would cause all sorts of regulatory problems, the end result being that marijuana businesses tend to be cash businesses.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:20PM (7 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:20PM (#618064) Journal

          https://www.thestranger.com/green-guide-spring-2017/2017/04/19/25083313/the-credit-unions-and-small-banks-that-solved-the-cannabis-cash-crisis [thestranger.com]

          Carmella Houston, a spokesperson for Salal Credit Union, said their Seattle offices were inundated with more than 2,000 calls when people first learned that they were accepting cannabis businesses. Houston said they have opened 300 cannabis business accounts since June of 2014 and cannabis checking accounts could form up to 80 percent of the credit union's net worth.

          [...] In February of 2014, just as Colorado and Washington were setting up their regulated weed markets, the US Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released a written guidance saying that they would not charge a bank with federal crimes for accepting weed money if the financial institution made sure that the business was following all state laws and the directives of a previous memo from the Department of Justice. That memo, frequently referred to as the Cole Memo, said the federal government would take a hands-off approach to states with legal weed if those states kept the drugs out of the hands of kids, kept weed within their states, and kept profits from drugs sales away from organized crime.

          Oops!

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:44PM

            by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:44PM (#618076) Journal

            so now they delegate law enforcement to the Credit Unions?

            "...if the financial institution made sure that the business was following all state laws and the directives of a previous memo from the Department of Justice."

            Outsourcing at its finest!

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
          • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:50PM (5 children)

            by Sulla (5173) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:50PM (#618081) Journal

            if those states kept the drugs out of the hands of kids, kept weed within their states, and kept profits from drugs sales away from organized crime.

            I guess this explains the dozen billboards in my county in Oregon that claim that "no additional kids have started smoking pot in Colorado since legalization" but doesn't give a citation.

            --
            Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 05 2018, @12:35AM (4 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:35AM (#618118) Journal

              Well, did you find it to be false? And besides, you don't seem to understand the nature of the billboard. Or maybe you expect everybody to suddenly stop and read the wall of tiny text of disclaimers and links and such. And really, don't you think it's about time we abolish prohibition? It never was based on any kind of science to begin with. Maybe you should demand citations on why prohibition should remain in effect instead of the other way around.

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 05 2018, @01:17AM (3 children)

                by Sulla (5173) on Friday January 05 2018, @01:17AM (#618143) Journal

                As I have said elsewhere, I voted for legalization. Prior comment was more of understanding why they are pushing the narritive in a state where pot is already legal.

                --
                Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 05 2018, @03:13PM (2 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 05 2018, @03:13PM (#618338) Journal

                  Maybe they have to cover for all the propaganda (fake news, which Sessions is still telling us) still being pushed against weed over the last couple of centuries. And I was commenting on your call for "citations" on a billboard that you are driving past at 60 mph, when we should be demanding citations from Sessions's (already scientifically debunked) propaganda instead.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                  • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 05 2018, @04:13PM (1 child)

                    by Sulla (5173) on Friday January 05 2018, @04:13PM (#618361) Journal

                    Your point would make sense if we were talking about Salem (Oregon's capital, conservative) or Corvallis (conservative) but I am seeing these billboards in Eugene (nothing but hippies). There is no need to counter propaganda in a city that has followed the hippy propaganda as the bible since the 60s.

                    I guess at this point it is pointless to talk about statistics or studies because they are so politicized that any results for either side are bunk. Thus why I voted to let people smoke their pot, it only makes them dumber and less competitive against me when it comes to finding a job.

                    Road in question has a speed limit of 35, heavy traffic, and two of such billboards. Reading them is not difficult. The anti-alcohol billboards often have citations

                    --
                    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 05 2018, @10:00PM

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 05 2018, @10:00PM (#618534) Journal

                      it only makes them dumber and less competitive against me when it comes to finding a job

                      :-) Heh, that comment merely reflects your malformed idealism, which was pretty clear from the start. And you obviously have no idea how many people smoke pot.

                      --
                      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:37PM (8 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:37PM (#618028) Journal

    Gotta love those States Rights loving Republicans!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:54PM (7 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:54PM (#618086) Homepage Journal

      Oversimplified to the point of being nonsensical yet again. Me, I'm a big states' rights guy but the law is the law. You change laws through congress or or you get them thrown out by the courts; the executive selectively deciding which laws it wants to enforce is a violation of the oath of office at best and outright illegal at worst. If private individuals want to break the law that's their prerogative if they're willing to deal with the consequences but it should never be tolerated from public officials.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:19AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:19AM (#618105)

        Yeah right. It's never that black and white, now is it? The executive has always had discretion about which laws (and which offenders) to prioritize. Want a safer neighborhood? Get more patrol cars on the street. Want more efficient investigations? Pull those cars back in, focus on case investigations instead. Want to appear tough on crime? Harass grandma's for downloading music.

        There's plenty of laws to enforce. Directing effort where it has the greatest effect is exactly the Executive's prerogative.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday January 05 2018, @04:34AM (2 children)

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday January 05 2018, @04:34AM (#618200)

        The law is the law? The federal drug war is completely unconstitutional, even if the courts use an absurd interpretation of the Constitution. And in general, unjust laws must be opposed at every level possible. I don't see an issue, either legally (if we use the actual Constitution and not the one invented by the courts) or ethically, with ignoring and/or not enforcing these drug laws. The ideal solution would be to get rid of these laws completely, but we can push for that while we ignore the laws.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 05 2018, @12:32PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 05 2018, @12:32PM (#618295) Homepage Journal

          The federal drug war is completely unconstitutional...

          I agree but then I am not on SCOTUS.

          ...unjust laws must be opposed at every level possible.

          Wrong. Unjust laws should be opposed by the people, by the judiciary, and by the legislators. Executive officers should always enforce the law as it stands. Allow them to selectively not enforce drug laws and you've allowed them to selectively not enforce insider trading and environmental laws as well.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:42PM (#618329)

          The Constitution includes the procedure for deciding what is constitutional.

          Unfortunately, there is no procedure for deciding what makes sense.

          We are supposed to send reasonable folks to Washington to do that.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:41PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:41PM (#618032)

    Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) threatened on Thursday to start holding up the confirmation process for White House Justice Department...

    Read that again. A Republican is challenging the Republican administration.

    Big credit to Senator Gardner for having the courage of his convictions and representing the interests of his constituency. It's also so much more effective than if an arbitrary Democrat had done so, as they could be dismissed as partisan politics and ineffective grandstanding.

    We deride and mock the pay-to-vote politicians all the time. We should celebrate the times when a politician puts himself at risk to represent his voters as well.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:48PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:48PM (#618038)

      Additionally, getting one more R senator pissed is all that's needed to prevent any other legislation.
      At 51-49, each R senator has immense leverage to get what they want.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:57PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 04 2018, @10:57PM (#618044) Journal

      Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also opposes this [twitter.com].

      Both Senators represent states that have legalized. Let's see a Republican from a state that has not legalized it for recreational purposes get in on the action.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @03:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @03:26PM (#618348)

        it's almost like that lisa murkowski has to go from an administrative perspective. she seems to know she has power and isnt afraid to use it.

  • (Score: 1) by curril on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:02PM (1 child)

    by curril (5717) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:02PM (#618047)

    Colorado senate dems sent out this tweet:

    We'll give Jeff Sessions our legal pot when he pries it from our warm, extremely interesting to look at hands.

    Even Republican Senator Cory Gardner is threatening to block judicial nominees over Session's breaking of his promise to leave marijuana alone.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:10PM (#618055)

      You don't see many Evil Turtles in the wild, don't forget to tell your grandkids!

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:47PM (9 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:47PM (#618080) Journal

    Republicans have always cared about state rights when it comes to republican issues, democrats have only cared about state rights when it means they can insult a republican. If the dems had cared more about state rights for their own personal issues instead of using it to point out racists they might have powerful enough states to resist when the feds come for their pot.

    A federal government so far displaced from the common man can not be a representative system, the founders knew this and wrote the constitution in a way that would keep the fed from getting too strong. Obviously they failed and the fallout from it is states being unable to do what they want when it goes against federal policy.

    State rights was never just slavery. It was restricting/shooting guns, smoking/banning dope, drinking/banning beer, labeling/not organic, and burning coal vs using windmills. The best gift that Trump has given us as president is that the left might finally realize that small government at the federal level and a stronger local government is the key to protecting your various freedoms.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:00AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:00AM (#618090)

      Except when local governments violate your freedoms, as they often do. Not everyone can move away when their local government turns tyrannical, so I would still like courts (even federal ones if it comes to that) to be able to slap down blatant rights violations at the local or state level.

      • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 05 2018, @01:43AM

        by Sulla (5173) on Friday January 05 2018, @01:43AM (#618152) Journal

        That is totally reasonable and not inconsistant with what I said

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 05 2018, @12:00AM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:00AM (#618091) Journal

      Neither the Dems nor the Reps care about States Rights. It's just that the Dems don't pretend otherwise.

    • (Score: 2) by dltaylor on Friday January 05 2018, @12:03AM (3 children)

      by dltaylor (4693) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:03AM (#618093)

      After the US Civil War, "State's rights" was not about anything even vaguely high-minded. It was entirely about enforcing Jim Crow laws aimed at marginalizing non-white citizens in, mostly, but not entirely, in ex-CSA states. This has persisted, although muted, until lately with the rise of anti-"brown/black" sentiment in states such as Texas and Arizona (not statewide in California, although present).

      I grew up spending many years in states south of the Mason-Dixon line back in the late 50s and early 60s. Racism was ALWAYS behind every call for "States rights".

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:17AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:17AM (#618102)

        No doubt true 60 years ago. But today, with just about every progressive issue: marijuana, minimum wage, gay rights, environmental protection, gun control, it's turning out that local control is better.

        States' rights, as the founders envisioned them, not how they were twisted during the Jim Crow and segregation eras, are a really good idea. Probably an essential idea. Giving states' rights a bad name is just one more way that institutionalized racism has damaged the country.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @07:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @07:55AM (#618260)

          I guess the flaw in liberal thinking is that rights should be won "for all" rather than saying I've got mine, I'm alright Jack and walking away. There's going to be a time coming where liberals say fuck'em to the backward States and let them go full Kansas and walk away. They want no healthcare and save $8/week? Fuck'em.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @12:38AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @12:38AM (#618944)

          Anything in the constitution/amendments.
          Anything involving interstate commerce or that interferes with the free trade (like confiscating trade goods bound for another state on arbitrary or previously undocumented grounds.)
          Anything involving money (since that is the entire reason for the constitutional convention trumping the Aritcles of Confederation. States rights including independent currencies lead to defrauding individuals providing trade between state boundaries as well as impacting the trust necessary for international trade relations.

          I am sure there are a few other examples, but states rights by and large need to be respected by federal law, except where they interfere with the constitution, or involve jurisdictional issues because a crime crossed state borders. Having said that: The United states has become bloated, with how many federal agencies essentially having overlapping jobs and jurisdictions and claiming domininion over the whole country regardless of if it should qualify as a local, county, state, or federal matter.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:08AM (#618097)

      If the dems had cared more about state rights for their own personal issues instead of using it to point out racists they might have powerful enough states to resist when the feds come for their pot.

      Found the racist!

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 05 2018, @12:47AM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 05 2018, @12:47AM (#618126) Journal

      burning coal vs using windmills

      Oh please! I'm sure if you could keep all the smoke from your coal plants in your own state, you could burn all you want. But since smog respects no borders, there are laws that should show the same respect. Of course that would mean war with China [sgvtribune.com]... And Nebraska usually is downwind from Colorado... So there you go. You just might have case.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(1) 2