Post 1985 SF "sanctuary cities" where the city says they won't spend money enforcing federal law?
That's fine, and actually legal.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[42] The legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[43] Nothing in the law forces states or local governments to help the federal government with immigration enforcement.[44]
But if that's the balance you're looking for, if trump is elected he could raid "legal" stores in states he doesn't like and seize all the money. Just like CBP and ICE can still operate in a sanctuary city.
Do you think trump won't do that?
So if you’re ok with state and local agencies not enforcing federal immigration law, why are federal drug laws different?
I’m also not sure where you got this idea I’d rather have Trump. Overall I’m satisfied with Biden’s performance.
So if you’re ok with state and local agencies not enforcing federal immigration law, why are federal drug laws different?
Sanctuary cities can't stop ICE or CBP from arresting anyone...
And there is nothing stopping the federal government from raiding "legal" stores, arresting everyone, and seizing all the money.
That's why your "solution" isn't an actual solution.
I'm not saying you support trump, I'm saying any president who wanted to could do that and use the money for something they want.
And trump not doing it his first term is already surprising, you think he would have hesitated to do it to Cali if he thought of it?
The next Republican president probably won't be as stupid as trump. But he's gonna want all the same policies.
I never said it was a solution. It should be decriminalized entirely. But in the meantime, decriminalizing it at the state level helps everyone in that state. Any harm reduction is worth doing.
But do you understand that your solution isn't even a bandaid?
It's just ignoring the wound.
In this case infection would be a conservative president siccing the DEA on "legal states".
And if Biden won't/can't get the DEA to deschedule, how is he able to stop the DEA if they decide they want the billions in seized revenue from blue states to use at the border?
You're arguing Biden has no power over them (which me and the Congressional Research Services disagee with) but if that's true, wouldn't he also be unable to stop the DEA from enforcing federal law in those states?
Look up one tier. Take it or anything else off the controlled substances schedules this very moment and it will not be illegal. Great, but until there is a federal law, which has to go through Congress to happen, it's not a 'right' and states can declare it legal or not as they wish. It's the basic premise of the 10th amendment, if the feds don't declare something as in or out then it's fair game for the states.
He has the power to do something federally to make it 'not illigal'. However this is not the same as making it a declared legal right. Technically states could outlaw alcohol today too, and you do find 'dry' counties out there, but most don't want to be left out of that sweet tax revenue.
That all says, even if Biden could wave a wand and make it fully not illigal federally, if your state says no then you're stuck anyhow.
If Biden made the claim he has the power to do it, he should be the one to deliver.
I don’t really think it’s up to the President to explain the difference between federal law enforcement and state law enforcement 🤷♂️
You're literally arguing that Biden should tell states that state law supersecedes federal law...
We literally fought a whole war over this.
No, I’m telling you to tell your state to decriminalize it.
So your opinion is the Confederacy was right in the Civil War?
And even if the federal government made slavery illegal, all the South had to do was ignore it?
Because you just don't seem to understand what you're promoting...
Are you arguing that sanctuary cities are wrong?
....
Historically?
They were started by religious fundamentalists, and it was kind of a shitshow
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
Post 1985 SF "sanctuary cities" where the city says they won't spend money enforcing federal law?
That's fine, and actually legal.
But if that's the balance you're looking for, if trump is elected he could raid "legal" stores in states he doesn't like and seize all the money. Just like CBP and ICE can still operate in a sanctuary city.
Do you think trump won't do that?
So if you’re ok with state and local agencies not enforcing federal immigration law, why are federal drug laws different?
I’m also not sure where you got this idea I’d rather have Trump. Overall I’m satisfied with Biden’s performance.
Sanctuary cities can't stop ICE or CBP from arresting anyone...
And there is nothing stopping the federal government from raiding "legal" stores, arresting everyone, and seizing all the money.
That's why your "solution" isn't an actual solution.
I'm not saying you support trump, I'm saying any president who wanted to could do that and use the money for something they want.
And trump not doing it his first term is already surprising, you think he would have hesitated to do it to Cali if he thought of it?
The next Republican president probably won't be as stupid as trump. But he's gonna want all the same policies.
I never said it was a solution. It should be decriminalized entirely. But in the meantime, decriminalizing it at the state level helps everyone in that state. Any harm reduction is worth doing.
But do you understand that your solution isn't even a bandaid?
It's just ignoring the wound.
In this case infection would be a conservative president siccing the DEA on "legal states".
And if Biden won't/can't get the DEA to deschedule, how is he able to stop the DEA if they decide they want the billions in seized revenue from blue states to use at the border?
You're arguing Biden has no power over them (which me and the Congressional Research Services disagee with) but if that's true, wouldn't he also be unable to stop the DEA from enforcing federal law in those states?
Look up one tier. Take it or anything else off the controlled substances schedules this very moment and it will not be illegal. Great, but until there is a federal law, which has to go through Congress to happen, it's not a 'right' and states can declare it legal or not as they wish. It's the basic premise of the 10th amendment, if the feds don't declare something as in or out then it's fair game for the states.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
He has the power to do something federally to make it 'not illigal'. However this is not the same as making it a declared legal right. Technically states could outlaw alcohol today too, and you do find 'dry' counties out there, but most don't want to be left out of that sweet tax revenue.
That all says, even if Biden could wave a wand and make it fully not illigal federally, if your state says no then you're stuck anyhow.