The people of the state of California voted to legalize medicinal pot. In my thinking, if "the people have spoken", the law should be enforced.
The federal government however, steps in and disregards the will of the people of the state of California and arrests the individuals who legally are operating dispensaries.
I'm confused, are we free to have our voices heard only when it "pleases" the federal government?
2007-08-22 17:26:14 · 6 answers · asked by King of Turdblossom 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Check out the news of federal raids on legal medicinal pot stores in Kern County.
2007-08-23 05:54:30 · update #1
Yes but some laws clash against federal laws so they lose.
It does not make sense.
The following would legalize pot
2007-08-22 17:32:11 · answer #1 · answered by American Dissenter 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You seem to use the phrase "the people have spoken" as if it had some legal significance -- it doesn't.
Both the US federal govt and California are sovereign -- both are capable of passing and enforcing laws within their jurisdiction.
California legalized medical marijuana. Anyone who complies with those laws cannot be arrested or prosecuted for violation of California STATE drug laws.
The federal govt has not legalized marijuana for any purpose. So, anyone using it can be arrested and prosecuted for violation of FEDERAL drug laws.
Two different sets of laws, to different court systems, two different sovereigns. However, while the federal govt can overrule California, the reverse is not true -- because of Article VI of the US Constitution, which California accepted when it joined the US.
But back to your "the people have spoken" argument -- speaking doesn't make a difference -- voting does. Vote for different Senators and Congressfolk, and have Congress change the drug laws. And the "people" have not done that.
2007-08-22 22:15:06 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Despite thee fact that CA and TX are known as republics, no state can secede from the union at any time. TX and a few other states tried it shortly before the civil war. Upon re-entry to the union following the civil war, each state had to forever forgo the possibility of withdrawing from the union when drafting their amended state constitutions.
The issue of legalized pot reflects this. Even though each state is allowed to formulate their own rules and regulations concerning drugs, they can not circumvent what the federal government has declared illegal through the supreme court. This is the reason you see gay marriages in some states and not in others. There is no ruling from the federal government, and is therefore, left to the states to decide. It seems the feds will continue this war on joints until the old conservative zealots finally die out and people in office begin to realize that weed does not pose 1/10th the danger to society that alcohol does. I'm blowed right now. Think I could type like this if I were drunk....
2007-08-22 17:48:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Federal law supersedes State law (although it shouldn't). So no, California is not a sovereign state and the DEA will continue to impose the dictators wishes, against the will of the people.
2007-08-22 17:33:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure about this but from what was discussed at traffic school of all places, it used to be legal, but they took it back and now it is only legal for medicinal purposes.
2007-08-22 17:30:29 · answer #5 · answered by Supy 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
California and Texas can leave the Union and be independent nations if they desire to do so.
That is why they are known as
Republic of Texas
and
California Republic
It is in their state constitutions and they joined the union with this understanding.
2007-08-22 17:30:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋