Conflicting Legitimate Authority

[marywarfield]

This is a question concerning sin/not sin in obeying
legitimate authority. Yes it’s pot but my question is
not about the pros and cons of pot use so…

My town, in which pot growing has always been illegal,
has recently begun work on a proposal to allow
the growing of two plants outside or six plants inside.
This is in a county that allows maximum of six. In a state
that also allows a small number. However, federally
it is still a crime not to mention our county spends
a fortune on search and destroy eradication teams in our
three National Forests.
So who would be the legitimate authority to be obeyed/
not obeyed?
When I contacted the USDA last year on an unrelated
ag issue, their take was local law always takes precedence
over federal IF the local law is more stringent. In this
pot case though the local laws are more lax. So?

 

[SMGS127]

This is a question concerning sin/not sin in obeying
legitimate authority. Yes it’s pot but my question is
not about the pros and cons of pot use so…

My town, in which pot growing has always been illegal,
has recently begun work on a proposal to allow
the growing of two plants outside or six plants inside.
This is in a county that allows maximum of six. In a state
that also allows a small number. However, federally
it is still a crime not to mention our county spends
a fortune on search and destroy eradication teams in our
three National Forests.
So who would be the legitimate authority to be obeyed/
not obeyed?
When I contacted the USDA last year on an unrelated
ag issue, their take was local law always takes precedence
over federal IF the local law is more stringent. In this
pot case though the local laws are more lax. So?

The more stringent law always applies. So federal law comes first, and details everything allowed. For those things allowed, states and local jurisdictions are allowed to put further bans, but they cannot legalize something the federal government has barred. Growing pot plants, possession of marijuana, and smoking marijuana are all illegal via federal law. It would be disobedience of legitimate authority on a just law if you were to do any of those 3 things, regardless of what the state books say.

 

[po18guy]

You don’t want to do federal time. Anyway, “O” is pushing for legalization of everything for everybody, so just be patient.

 

[cmodrmac]

Federal law trumps local law- remember we fought a war about states rights-

I am perplexed how is growing cannabis a sin?

 

[marywarfield]

The more stringent law always applies. So federal law comes first, and details everything allowed. For those things allowed, states and local jurisdictions are allowed to put further bans, but they cannot legalize something the federal government has barred. Growing pot plants, possession of marijuana, and smoking marijuana are all illegal via federal law. It would be disobedience of legitimate authority on a just law if you were to do any of those 3 things, regardless of what the state books say.

well that’s what. I thought as well. The more
stringent. However in our prayer group on Holy Innocents
it was pointed out that more stringent local law
did not prevent Roe vs Wade or the gay marriage
permissions in which gay marriage was allowed.

 

[marywarfield]

The more stringent law always applies. So federal law comes first, and details everything allowed. For those things allowed, states and local jurisdictions are allowed to put further bans, but they cannot legalize something the federal government has barred. Growing pot plants, possession of marijuana, and smoking marijuana are all illegal via federal law. It would be disobedience of legitimate authority on a just law if you were to do any of those 3 things, regardless of what the state books say.

You don’t want to do federal time. Anyway, “O” is pushing for legalization of everything for everybody, so just be patient.

Assume much? Bless you.

 

[marywarfield]

In Roe vs Wade the states many of them at least had
the stringent law and the Feds who basically had no
law which would be the least stringent overturned them.
Same thing with the great gay
marriage debacle.
So what exactly the point of legalizing something
like pot growing locally if the locals cannot legalize
that the Fed holds illegal? It makes no sense.

 

[SMGS127]

In Roe vs Wade the states many of them at least had
the stringent law and the Feds who basically had no
law which would be the least stringent overturned them.
Same thing with the great gay
marriage debacle.
So what exactly the point of legalizing something
like pot growing locally if the locals cannot legalize
that the Fed holds illegal? It makes no sense.

If a legitimate authority passes an unjust law, we can (and should) decline to follow it. This is the case in abortion and gay “marriage” laws, since they are against our religion. If they pass a just law (which just means any law that does not violate a tenet of Catholicism), we must follow it. So if the federal government tried to force us to get sterilized at age 40 or something, we’d have to violate that law as well, since it was unjust. But a law on consumption of X, Y, or Z is just because it does not violate Catholicism (unless of course the law banned the consumption of bread or red wine or something of the sort that would make Mass illegal). So it’s a sin to drink at age 20 in the US because it’s a just law here, but it’s not a sin to drink at age 20 in Canada because drinking isn’t banned at that age there. Does this make sense?

 

[mikekle]

If a legitimate authority passes an unjust law, we can (and should) decline to follow it. This is the case in abortion and gay “marriage” laws, since they are against our religion. If they pass a just law (which just means any law that does not violate a tenet of Catholicism), we must follow it. So if the federal government tried to force us to get sterilized at age 40 or something, we’d have to violate that law as well, since it was unjust. But a law on consumption of X, Y, or Z is just because it does not violate Catholicism (unless of course the law banned the consumption of bread or red wine or something of the sort that would make Mass illegal). So it’s a sin to drink at age 20 in the US because it’s a just law here, but it’s not a sin to drink at age 20 in Canada because drinking isn’t banned at that age there. Does this make sense?

The thing I wonder about is the time that gay rights will be reach the point of them wanting to be able to be married in a catholic church!!! If things keep going in the the same direction, this WILL happen at some point, even if they fight for this out of pure spite for catholics.