Good morning, Daily Weekly readers! Another day dawns and another Comment of the Day winner reigns.
Today's winner dutifully explains a few of the common misconceptions about why some pot-legalization activists support Initiative 502, and why some think it's a terrible idea.
The post has to do with what the effect of passing the cannabis-legalizing I-502 will be, in light of the sweeping federal raids carried out on medical-marijuana dispensaries this week. Pot activist and attorney Doug Hiatt has argued that 502's method of creating regulation framework around the production, distribution and posssesion of marijuana will only lead to a swift federal injunction that makes the law all for naught.
Instead, Hiatt says that the state should legalize marijuana by stripping all mention of it from state laws, giving the feds no leg to stand on when they try to file an injunction.
summitlaker asked WTF?
I don't understand Hiatt's argument. How is repealing "all state laws relating to marijuana" any different than what the proponents of I-502 hope to do? I guess he believes that the feds would not be able to get an injunction if the laws were repealed as opposed to "legalizing" marijuana. Even if that were true, it wouldn't stop the feds from prosecuting people in federal court.
To which Sean replies:
Hi Summitlaker, Hiatt actually did his homework on this subject. He looked at history, mainly Alcohol Prohibition, to determine how best to enact a State law that the Feds can't simply stop. His law would remove all state regulation not regulate what the Fed says we cannot. I-502 seeks to trump Fed law by seeking to regulate cannabis. We already know Fed trumps State not the other way around. The Fed cannot stop a state from disbanding its own laws. That is why it worked well just before the repeal of prohibition and would work well now also.