C
CopticChristian
Guest
This is all well and good. Until Federal Law changes, Federal Law supersedes State Law and to act “as if” Federal Law will change does not equate to obeying the law.
- Status
L
LaSainte
Guest
I had 2 questions. The first was that if marijuana were legal under Federal law, is there anything else theologically speaking that would make it morally problematic as opposed to alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
Second, where does it say that we are required to abide by a FEDERAL law that the government itself had admitted it has no interest in supporting if the local laws permit and facilitate it? It seems as if either side could be argued here, especially since the government has said it won’t attempt to enforce the law at all. It seems as if it is a law in name only. It actually seems even less serious than running a red light or jaywalking. It is a misdemeanor according to federal law and perfectly legal according to state law. Seems like a matter of personal conscience.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
not always. here they co-exist. “supersede” has a technical meaning here. congress could decide that federal drug laws preempt state drug laws (federal law would occupy the entire field, as it has done in some instances), but it hasn’t yet.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
this simply isn’t true. this issue is too complex for a thumbnail description, the fed and states have yet to work out how the federal laws will be enforced in states like Colorado and Washington, and there are many options.
brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/05/21-legal-marijuana-colorado-washington
a conservative congress and president could enact legislation where federal drug laws preempt state drug laws and the CO and WA statutes would be history.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
necessarily, Federal Law always trumps State law until Federal law changes, other than this issue of Marijuana, cite some examples where Federal Law bows to State law…
F
Fairwinds
Guest
we’re not going to discuss the supremacy clause and federal preemption vs. presumed congressional deference to state law are we? because that would be boring beyond belief and of little use to this discussion, except to say that the fed drug law hasn’t yet preempted state law.
L
LaSainte
Guest
So it seems that what we are down to is that there is nothing fundamentally or intrinsically evil or gravely wrong with marijuana use in general?
The only disagreement here seems to be whether or not one is morally obligated to follow Federal laws or whether one in good conscience can operate under their local laws until the Federal government has decided what to do about states who have legalized marijuana.
What I am getting out of this discussion is that the laws conflict but coexist, and that until the Federal government decides how they want to proceed re:states legalizing marijuana, that one would be within their rights to use it medicinally or recreationally where it is legal at the local level?
The only disagreement here seems to be whether or not one is morally obligated to follow Federal laws or whether one in good conscience can operate under their local laws until the Federal government has decided what to do about states who have legalized marijuana.
What I am getting out of this discussion is that the laws conflict but coexist, and that until the Federal government decides how they want to proceed re:states legalizing marijuana, that one would be within their rights to use it medicinally or recreationally where it is legal at the local level?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
From what the feds say, it appears that they are submitting to state law in the case of marijuana.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
no I’m not, because that’s well outside the scope of this thread. the feds could preempt state narcotics enforcement, but they haven’t, absent express congressional intent, they won’t.
R
R1ch4rd
Guest
Not to derail but state laws in both gun control and abortion can be more stringent then Federal law so does Federal law really trump state law?
L
LaSainte
Guest
Interesting point. I think the morality probably has to do with the seriousness of the law and the intrinsic morality/immorality of the issue (abortion is ALWAYS wrong, regardless of what the law says), as well as the chances that one will be seriously punished with jail time or something like that, as well as the general attitude of the governing authorities and whether they themselves are even interested in prosecuting offenders.
There is a law in Texas right now stating that anyone walking around with wire-cutters in their back pocket can be arrested and go to jail (a holdover from the days when people used to rustle cattle). Now, it’s an old, old law that they haven’t gotten around to to taking off the books. So, is it immoral for me to carry wire cutters in my pocket? Well, first off, it’s not intrinsically evil to carry wire cutters. Secondly, the government has no interest or intention on prosecuting people who do it and the punishment is not all that severe even if they did. So I would say, all things considered, that it is perfectly moral for me to go around with wire cutters in my pocket
Local gun laws that are more severe than Federal ones? I would be inclined to yield to the local laws first, since those are the people I will be dealing with if I get pulled over with a gun in my car! So in this case, I would think the local laws would prevail if only because I don’t want to go to jail.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Then we shall ignore anything you say relevant to this statement and say…
Federal Law trumps State law.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
What you are saying is that State Law is coordinate with Federal Law, but State law can be more stringent not more lax.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
In this case complying with local law also complies with Federal law.Interesting point. I think the morality probably has to do with the seriousness of the law and the intrinsic morality/immorality of the issue (abortion is ALWAYS wrong, regardless of what the law says), as well as the chances that one will be seriously punished with jail time or something like that, as well as the general attitude of the governing authorities and whether they themselves are even interested in prosecuting offenders.
There is a law in Texas right now stating that anyone walking around with wire-cutters in their back pocket can be arrested and go to jail (a holdover from the days when people used to rustle cattle). Now, it’s an old, old law that they haven’t gotten around to to taking off the books. So, is it immoral for me to carry wire cutters in my pocket? Well, first off, it’s not intrinsically evil to carry wire cutters. Secondly, the government has no interest or intention on prosecuting people who do it and the punishment is not all that severe even if they did. So I would say, all things considered, that it is perfectly moral for me to go around with wire cutters in my pocket
Local gun laws that are more severe than Federal ones? I would be inclined to yield to the local laws first, since those are the people I will be dealing with if I get pulled over with a gun in my car! So in this case, I would think the local laws would prevail if only because I don’t want to go to jail.
J
Jessie5000
Guest
I say follow the law ax it is in your state. Although I am against prohibition because it does not work, follow the law and avoid the consequences of being caught.
As far as a moral question - all federally funded studies have failed to find health, psychological or criminal behavior resulting from usage. In fact, today they know it has benefits for many types of cancer including breast and colon cancer. For hundreds of years this substance was used by medical doctors, even in the USA.
But… be safe and follow the law.
As far as a moral question - all federally funded studies have failed to find health, psychological or criminal behavior resulting from usage. In fact, today they know it has benefits for many types of cancer including breast and colon cancer. For hundreds of years this substance was used by medical doctors, even in the USA.
But… be safe and follow the law.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Yes, but is it IMMORAL to walk around with wire cutters in my pocket?
R
R1ch4rd
Guest
In which case State Law trumps Federal Law. So who has the higher trump card? as far as coordination between States and the Fed, there’s less then you’d expect unless driven by the media. In the case of gun control, there have been State Law Enforcement Agencies that have publicly stated they would not enforce laws they deemed unconstitutional. In the case of abortion, many States have circumvented the Roe v. Wade decision by banning clinics that perform abortions. As Catholics, one we seem to support and one we don’t. I believe the basis of this question should be debated from a moral standpoint and not a legal one.
L
LaSainte
Guest
The thing is, the Feds have said they aren’t interested in prosecuting marijuana users in states where it is legal. Every once in a great while, they go after a dispensary, but not individuals as far as I know. Even Obama has said that there needs to be a dialogue between the states and the Congress about the issue and that regarding prosecuting anyone, “we have bigger fish to fry”. So clearly, there is no danger to the casual or medicinal user and probably even the dispensaries in not observing the Federal law in favor of state law. Our own president has said he doesn’t really see it as a big deal.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
So, what you are saying is that there is a state law that is outdated and therefore you don’t need to follow it. Is there a Federal Law concerning wire cutters? If not then it is up to you to decide what to do about wire cutters because if you get picked up and charged State law prevails as there is no Federal law.
- Status