Comments on: On Jeff Sessions, Congress, and marijuana law

By: Frederick

Frederick — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 20:17:20 +0000

@Caedmon:I cannot see much difference between “prosecutorial discretion” and “arbitary arrest” except that the former phrase sounds generous. Huge difference. The first one acknowledges the reality that law enforcement is constrained by time and resources that that priorities are set by the executive. One cannot punish every violation of every law regardless of the nature of the crime or its circumstances, so someone will have to pick and choose. The second one is "law schmaw". A concrete example: "discretion" is pulling over only those speeders going more than 15 mph over, or only those in school zones, or setting up speed traps. "Arbitrary" is pulling over and ticketing people regardless of whether they are speeding, or indeed driving. The absence of discretion would be pulling over and ticketing all speeders everywhere, which could never actually be done.

By: Matt_SE

Matt_SE — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:47:07 +0000

If these were “normal” times, I could get behind this effort. But they aren’t normal times: there is massive corruption in the government at the highest levels, and Sessions won’t lift a finger to stop it.

This is all about priorities, and Sessions’ are screwed up.

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 03:02:39 +0000

Liz Says:
January 5th, 2018 at 7:33 pm
…
One point I remember seeing was that activities were to be checked back to an originating legislation. If the link did not exist, they were supposed to fix the problem by proposing to get rid of the regulations as well as kick the issue back to Congress.
* * *
For this one directive, we should be eternally grateful to President Trump even if there weren’t all those other things to thank him for.

This ought to be an on-going responsibility of every Cabinet Department and government agency.

Think of much time and money would we save in court cases alone if every regulation had to cite chapter and verse of the appropriate legislation and explain how that authorizes what they want to do (which is what a judge eventually does anyway).

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 02:58:38 +0000

Griffin Says:
January 5th, 2018 at 5:27 pm
Her in the state of Washington we have a state attorney general who is spending what seems like all his time suing the Trump administration over a number of issues. And now he is not happy about the marijuana issue with the DOJ.

Interestingly enough he had a different opinion on the same issue two short years ago.

http://www.mynorthwest.com/860694/hypocrisy-of-wa-ag-ferguson

Perfect illustration of the left and their selective outrage.
* *
I was catching up with a comment on another thread just before reading this, and it is a perfect example of what I was looking at over there.

http://neoneocon.com/2018/01/05/never-trumpers-never-trumping/#comment-2348057

Griffin Says:
January 5th, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Aesopfan,
Just remembered where I saw it. It was a commenter at Ann Althouse called Fen.
It’s Fen’s Law.
***
…states that “The left believes none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.”

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 02:55:37 +0000

Caedmon Says:
January 6th, 2018 at 3:26 am
I cannot see much difference between “prosecutorial discretion” and “arbitrary arrest” except that the former phrase sounds generous.
* * *
Indeed.
The difference, though, is in who makes the decision to penalize criminal activity or not: a DA or a LEO.
Part of the problem is that Obama decided to take on the role properly belonging to local prosecutors, and then push it all the way down to the level of the cop on the street.
It wasn’t within his authority to do either.

By: Caedmon

Caedmon — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:26:59 +0000

I cannot see much difference between “prosecutorial discretion” and “arbitary arrest” except that the former phrase sounds generous.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 04:57:55 +0000

The solution to the drug enforcement imbroglio is for Congress to rescind the laws directing and executing the war on drugs. Perhaps Sessions is simply saying he will enforce the laws as written (and as required by his job title), as a prod for Congress to get off its collective ass and do its job.

Obumble thought he could change law simply by declaring it changed. That’s not how any of this works. All he could do was change enforcement and that itself crossed the line in ” a Nation of laws”.

By: Liz

Liz — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:33:30 +0000

If you read some of the early Executive Orders & Memos, Trump was giving the new Secretaries orders to review their departments and evaluate staffing levels, budgets, regulations. One point I remember seeing was that activities were to be checked back to an originating legislation. If the link did not exist, they were supposed to fix the problem by proposing to get rid of the regulations as well as kick the issue back to Congress.

I suspect that while Sessions may want to continue the fight against drugs by using the asset seizure process, the fact that he reversed policies enacted by the Obama Administration, he will force Congress to correct some things. At least I can hope that Congress takes action. I took action by calling my senator to start changing laws.

I hope that on the state level, there are laws dealing with both driving under the influence of alcohol AND drugs. Maybe MADD can change their name to MADDD (Mothers against Drunk and Drugged Driving).

By: Zendo Deb

Zendo Deb — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:21:53 +0000

Markets work. There has never been an item – from alcohol during prohibition, to marijuana and other drugs now – that has been stopped by an embargo. There is gun crime in the UK – which is an island, that outlawed guns.

Markets work. You want to destroy a market you have to convince people to not purchase the good.

Embargoes only serve to fund organized crime. And just like in the 1920s, that organization has spread into police forces and other parts of the government.

And then there is the idea of individual liberty. You don’t like alcohol. Fine. Don’t drink any. (I’m sitting here with a nice single-malt Scotch)

By: Frederick

Frederick — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 23:48:28 +0000

Lately I have had the idea (though I imagined it’s been thought of before) that it would be really nice if we could have an official code of I don’t know ethics or morals or something that would have no legal force, but would satisfy the public urge to moralize through legislation (“there ought to be a law”). Maybe make a supermajority required to criminalize anything, but a bare majority to put it in the official moral code.