That might be part of it but it is not the real reason. They do not enforce it because doing so discourages their residents from working with the state or seeking state help. If you can't get residents to report crimes that they are victims of or may have witnessed then that is a big problem. Another one is that making it a priority will discourage those residents from medical services intended to protect public health. Also, many of them have citizen children who might then be kept away from those things that are intended to help them be functioning and productive members of society. It really makes no sense for them to enforce it. Yes the lack of federal action probably exacerbates that as the only real value the state/local governments gain from enforcement is removal of REAL criminals (as opposed to simple civil violators).
Spicer: States will likely see 'greater enforcement' of federal law against rec mj
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
That might be part of it but it is not the real reason. They do not enforce it because doing so discourages their residents from working with the state or seeking state help. If you can't get residents to report crimes that they are victims of or may have witnessed then that is a big problem. Another one is that making it a priority will discourage those residents from medical services intended to protect public health. Also, many of them have citizen children who might then be kept away from those things that are intended to help them be functioning and productive members of society. It really makes no sense for them to enforce it. Yes the lack of federal action probably exacerbates that as the only real value the state/local governments gain from enforcement is removal of REAL criminals (as opposed to simple civil violators).
DI #161,
a) Thanks much for adding that. Surely I don't disagree. It's only that I was addressing a separate issue, whether locals can enforce federal law.
b) In New York State sheriff is a county-wide office, whereas chief of police may be local to one municipality.
But both sheriffs and chiefs of police have said much of what you have so concisely recounted here. And they've been saying it recently.
But now you have me wondering:
Rather than federal deputization of State / county / local law enforcers, how about instead paying those sub-federal agencies a modest bounty? Not so high a bounty as to get them to drop their murder investigations, but enough to help pay the electric bill, and perhaps lighten up a bit on the local tax burden?
Without a per capita bounty, the locals are providing a free service to the feds; the poor donating to the rich.
Why not at least provide reasonable compensation that reflects the ACTUAL cost of local assistance to federal ICE?
a) Thanks much for adding that. Surely I don't disagree. It's only that I was addressing a separate issue, whether locals can enforce federal law.
b) In New York State sheriff is a county-wide office, whereas chief of police may be local to one municipality.
But both sheriffs and chiefs of police have said much of what you have so concisely recounted here. And they've been saying it recently.
But now you have me wondering:
Rather than federal deputization of State / county / local law enforcers, how about instead paying those sub-federal agencies a modest bounty? Not so high a bounty as to get them to drop their murder investigations, but enough to help pay the electric bill, and perhaps lighten up a bit on the local tax burden?
Without a per capita bounty, the locals are providing a free service to the feds; the poor donating to the rich.
Why not at least provide reasonable compensation that reflects the ACTUAL cost of local assistance to federal ICE?
it's called prioritization or prosecutorial discretion. It's the same thing Obama used -albeit different metrics,
You are making it political about red and blue states/The states decide what they want- if a red state went for legalization by Spicer's definition they would be gone after too
sear's posts are never clear...they are interesting unlike your drivel,but not clear
Again, I don't need your help on language, comrade.
It's not simply prosecutorial discretion. That is only part of the larger executive power to set enforcement priorities.
Obama did not use his enforcement priorities to punish states that voted against him.
If you insist on enforcing the law then there is no room for a distinction unless it is made by congress. The President has no power to make that distinction and he creates a problem with the entire concept when he abuses his power in this way.
that's ridiculous. The Cole memo complete contradicts you, and your attempt to make this political holds no water.
Alaska has legal weed. there may be more to follow.
Not that I support Trump on this - he's got a puritanical view on all drugs. His brother died of alcoholism i believe
But this isn't about politics as much as you want it to be.
Dirty liar
Still covering for Obama, NL?
Althea
Althea told me...
As I've stated earlier, when Obama wanted to cut back on the abuse of the MM industry, he simply refused to allow banks to do business with the shops. Further, the IRS still doesn't allow any marijuana shops to take standard business deductions.
Continuing along those lines, and reinstating the bank ban that Obama eventually dropped is all that trump needs to do to throw a wrench in the works.
Of course, his attention span is so short, maybe he'll just forget he even mentioned it?
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
If Trump goes after the holy plant, it will be just another lie, flip flop, or whatever, by him.
I say we petition the WH and gather millions of signatures to make MJ legal, just like alcohol. Alcohol kills more people daily than MJ does in a decade. If booze are legal, there is absolutely no reason why MJ should be illegal.
None. Nada. Zip.
I say we petition the WH and gather millions of signatures to make MJ legal, just like alcohol. Alcohol kills more people daily than MJ does in a decade. If booze are legal, there is absolutely no reason why MJ should be illegal.
None. Nada. Zip.
#164 & #165
a #164:
1) It is complicated, and thus requiring a mind capable of multi-tracking complexity.
2) The simple view is:
- local COPs enforce local law
- State police enforce State law, &
- feds enforce federal law.
That's fine.
BUT !!
Let's not lose sight of our roots here. Shall we lose sight of our principles, due to distraction on focus on process?
3) Thomas Jefferson penned our DOI, from which I will now quote:
men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." TJ / DOI
And so you see sir:
to reject THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE of Colorado as expressed by plebiscite, and simply over-rule it with superior federal force,
is to undermine the very principle upon which our nation was Founded.
If Colorado doesn't have that right, the what is the legitimacy of the United States in the first place?
Shall we abandon our status as citizens, and declare ourselves royal subjects of Queen Elizabeth?
You can't have it both ways.
The Founders spoke, and we gained our sovereignty.
And now Colorado has spoken. And Trump intends to impose a foolish, destructive, punitive War of martial oppression on Colorado instead?
FOR WHAT ?!
What noble principle would be enforced by so doing? Federal rights trumping States rights?! I thought Republicans were the STATES RIGHTS party. But is that only with guns, and school toilets?
I don't care which side you pick in that dispute. But please pick only one. I don't want to have to educate you as you continue to take BOTH sides; as your whim pleases.
a #164:
1) It is complicated, and thus requiring a mind capable of multi-tracking complexity.
2) The simple view is:
- local COPs enforce local law
- State police enforce State law, &
- feds enforce federal law.
That's fine.
BUT !!
Let's not lose sight of our roots here. Shall we lose sight of our principles, due to distraction on focus on process?
3) Thomas Jefferson penned our DOI, from which I will now quote:
men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." TJ / DOI
And so you see sir:
to reject THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE of Colorado as expressed by plebiscite, and simply over-rule it with superior federal force,
is to undermine the very principle upon which our nation was Founded.
If Colorado doesn't have that right, the what is the legitimacy of the United States in the first place?
Shall we abandon our status as citizens, and declare ourselves royal subjects of Queen Elizabeth?
You can't have it both ways.
The Founders spoke, and we gained our sovereignty.
And now Colorado has spoken. And Trump intends to impose a foolish, destructive, punitive War of martial oppression on Colorado instead?
FOR WHAT ?!
What noble principle would be enforced by so doing? Federal rights trumping States rights?! I thought Republicans were the STATES RIGHTS party. But is that only with guns, and school toilets?
I don't care which side you pick in that dispute. But please pick only one. I don't want to have to educate you as you continue to take BOTH sides; as your whim pleases.
Althea
Althea told me...
At which point trump will claim that he's had millions of people contact him about enforcing existing marijuana laws.
It isn't clear to you because you are stupid.
When the black President's numbers are counted differently than any previous administration, it's easy to make an apples to oranges claim that appears as something it really isn't. Maybe that was just another form of affirmative action where the black person has to have something done differently because he's unable to live up to a certain standard.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/12/deportations-come-mostly-from-border-dhs-chief-say/
You claim to be so smart. You tell us, boy.