________________________________________________________________________________
Decriminalization is a sham. It's still a crime, and I don't just mean federally.
Either it's okay to use cocaine or it isn't. If it's actually victimless then no harm was done and it should be legal.
> Decriminalization is a sham
I always felt like it was a stepping stone. So not a perfect solution by at least a step in a better direction.
Penalties or lack thereof for an action can cause a feedback loop which changes the context of that action.
Advocates say Measure 110 replaces a criminal justice-centered approach to drugs with a public health one
hat will happen when people are given the choice between a fine and rehab? If rehab is more expensive than a fine due to a lack of affordable healthcare, wouldn't this just be the equivalent of giving the choice between a fine and treatment + massive debt?
Can the federal government still enforce drug laws there?
Yes, federal laws override state laws, but that would require federal agents on the streets to enforce them.
Recently there’s been a bit of a contentious issue involving federal cops on the street in Oregon cities, disobeying Oregon law, and violating human rights.
The various federal police forces have a way of using selective enforcement as a weapon. It’s really terrible.
It’s why I’m not as happy as I’d like to be about these sorts of developments.
When the FBI can arrest you and throw you in jail for decades at will simply for doing something “totally legal, maaan” it’s a really worrying state of affairs.
It's not supposed to be that the federal level can _enforce_ laws without permission/cooperation from the states, even and especially if/when federal laws overrule state laws. But a lot of that of that control states used to have over such enforcement went out the window with the creation of the FBI, and before that with the surprisingly early invention of US Marshals and subsequent marshal law precedents (especially the amount of over-reach and expansion that happened in the "Old West" and "frontier justice", even if most of that was with state's permissions).
It's a real head scratcher, though, how the party supposedly for "state's rights" and "constitutional originalism" seems to be the party of frontier justice federal enforcement over state's rights.
This is something a US President can change unilaterally, nationally - I.e. regardless of who ever’s in the Senate. Not sure of the nuance, of course.
Illicit drug possession is already federally illegal. And this law doesn't change that.
Point is, I think, that since federal law enforcement is part of executive branch a president could issue an executive order prohibiting federal agents to make arrests or take actions for certain drug crimes in certain jurisdictions.
An executive order can reschedule drugs too.
I'm not sure that is true in general.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/02/2020-19...