If you use recreational cannabis will you still be able to buy guns?

[Flynn]

What should also be noted, is it's simply POLICY for the Feds to not raid all these so called legalized states and users in these states, that policy could literally change with a Presidential signature or proclamation sending ATF and other Federal Officers to raid dispensaries and growers in these states and obtain customer records, heck they could likey even raid state government offices and obtain registered medical users as well since it's still a prohibited and thus criminal activity.

 

Will it happen, unlikey today, but you just never know, until the Feds either decriminalize it or all out prosecute it, those that chose to use are walking a solid gray line on prosecution or not.

 

And I blame it on a large part because people keep calling it 'legalized' it's not legalized, it's still 100% illegal, the states have just chosen to not enforce Federal law and have removed state laws against it, a big difference.

[spanishjames]

I believe they say "decriminalize", rather than legalize.

[Flynn]

I believe they say "decriminalize", rather than legalize.

 

I don't know who the 'they' is you are refering to, the actual IL law says "the General Assembly finds and declares that the use of cannabis should be legal....." and "In the interest of establishing a legal cannabis industry" quite misleading as Illinois doesn't have the authority to superceed Federal law and thus can't make it legal, instead Illinois simply chooses to not enforce Federal law and chooses to participate in Federally illegal activities.

 

And regardless, calling it decriminalized is just as bad and we are back at square one misleading as it's not decriminalized, it's still illegal and a criminal act to use, posses, buy and sell at the Federal level.

 

As I said the Feds need to clean up the mess, either remove it from Federal prohibition or shut down the states that are flaunting the law.

[spanishjames]

I guess that's just how I've heard it mentioned in the news:

In 2016, the state decriminalized possession of up to 10 grams of marijuana, making it punishable instead by a civil fine, similar to a traffic ticket.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-illinois-marijuana-law-enforcement-20190603-story.html%3foutputType=amp

[defaultdotxbe]

I guess that's just how I've heard it mentioned in the news:

In 2016, the state decriminalized possession of up to 10 grams of marijuana, making it punishable instead by a civil fine, similar to a traffic ticket.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-illinois-marijuana-law-enforcement-20190603-story.html%3foutputType=amp

 

That's a different law. Decriminalization means you don't get arrested, you just get a citation. Legalized means you don't even get a citation

 

(this is of course referring only to state-level legislation, not federal, where it remains neither legalized nor decriminalized)

[spanishjames]

Ok, makes sense now.

[Gamma]

 

I guess that's just how I've heard it mentioned in the news:

In 2016, the state decriminalized possession of up to 10 grams of marijuana, making it punishable instead by a civil fine, similar to a traffic ticket.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-illinois-marijuana-law-enforcement-20190603-story.html%3foutputType=amp

 

That's a different law. Decriminalization means you don't get arrested, you just get a citation. Legalized means you don't even get a citation

 

(this is of course referring only to state-level legislation, not federal, where it remains neither legalized nor decriminalized)

 

Decriminalization/legalization is just semantics, neither has the particular meanings in the way that you ascribe.

[Jeffrey]

 

I'm currently of the opinion that using recreational cannabis does not make you an unlawful user of narcotics if it is legal in your state

 

 

Hypothetical questions for you.

 

If you have a C&R license in Illinois, can you build (or buy) an SBR, without going through that whole ATF NFA process? If not, why? The state legalized SBR's, doesn't that mean you get to ignore the federal laws?

 

If you live in Indiana, can you buy a silencer without going through the federal process? Silencers are legal in Indiana.

 

The feds are choosing to not pursue drug prosecutions against private citizens in the cannibis sanctuary states. That doesn't make it lawful.

Its all about the benjamins

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Str8Shooter]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-marijuana-idUSKBN1ET1MU

 

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday rescinded an Obama administration policy that had eased enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that legalized the drug, instead giving federal prosecutors wide latitude to pursue criminal charges.

 

"The action by Attorney General Jeff Sessions could have damaging consequences for the burgeoning marijuana industry in the six states including California and Colorado that have legalized the drug for recreational use, plus dozens of others that permit medicinal use.

Justice Department officials declined to say whether they might take legal action against those states, saying further steps were “still under consideration.”

 

This is an example of "rule by men", not "rule of law".

 

Making alcohol illegal and the legalization of alcohol both required Constitutional Amendments.

 

Amendments should be proposed both legalizing and making illegal the use of marijuana and see which passes muster with the People.

 

The people should have a say in the laws they live under if the US is to call itself a democracy.

 

Rule by men is one reason why the Antifederalists rejected monarchy, the "rule by a man", as proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and pushed for the Bill of Rights.

 

Madison knew that "men were not angels".

 

The Antifederalists were wise in their anticipation of coming power grabs by the Federalists.

 

The Federalists never wanted to share power with the People, neither then nor not now.

[defaultdotxbe]

Decriminalization/legalization is just semantics, neither has the particular meanings in the way that you ascribe.

The difference is whether the act (possession of cannabis in this case) is considered a criminal offense or an administrative offense. If it is not a criminal offense then is is decriminalized, but administrative offenses are still illegal, they just are not misdemeanors or felonies (its why you don't go to jail for a simple speeding ticket)

[Talonap]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-marijuana-idUSKBN1ET1MU

 

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday rescinded an Obama administration policy that had eased enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that legalized the drug, instead giving federal prosecutors wide latitude to pursue criminal charges.

 

"The action by Attorney General Jeff Sessions could have damaging consequences for the burgeoning marijuana industry in the six states including California and Colorado that have legalized the drug for recreational use, plus dozens of others that permit medicinal use.

Justice Department officials declined to say whether they might take legal action against those states, saying further steps were “still under consideration.”

 

This is an example of "rule by men", not "rule of law".

 

Making alcohol illegal and the legalization of alcohol both required Constitutional Amendments.

 

Amendments should be proposed both legalizing and making illegal the use of marijuana and see which passes muster with the People.

 

The people should have a say in the laws they live under if the US is to call itself a democracy.

 

Rule by men is one reason why the Antifederalists rejected monarchy, the "rule by a man", as proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and pushed for the Bill of Rights.

 

Madison knew that "men were not angels".

 

The Antifederalists were wise in their anticipation of coming power grabs by the Federalists.

 

The Federalists never wanted to share power with the People, neither then nor not now.

The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.

[borgranta]

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-marijuana-idUSKBN1ET1MU

 

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday rescinded an Obama administration policy that had eased enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that legalized the drug, instead giving federal prosecutors wide latitude to pursue criminal charges.

 

"The action by Attorney General Jeff Sessions could have damaging consequences for the burgeoning marijuana industry in the six states including California and Colorado that have legalized the drug for recreational use, plus dozens of others that permit medicinal use.

Justice Department officials declined to say whether they might take legal action against those states, saying further steps were “still under consideration.”

 

This is an example of "rule by men", not "rule of law".

 

Making alcohol illegal and the legalization of alcohol both required Constitutional Amendments.

 

Amendments should be proposed both legalizing and making illegal the use of marijuana and see which passes muster with the People.

 

The people should have a say in the laws they live under if the US is to call itself a democracy.

 

Rule by men is one reason why the Antifederalists rejected monarchy, the "rule by a man", as proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and pushed for the Bill of Rights.

 

Madison knew that "men were not angels".

 

The Antifederalists were wise in their anticipation of coming power grabs by the Federalists.

 

The Federalists never wanted to share power with the People, neither then nor not now.

 

The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Career politicians are lucky that this is a republic since in a democracy voters could theoretically vote on whether or not to execute career politicians with no legal safeguards to protect individual rights of said politicians. That is an extreme example of why No one should let America be converted into a democracy.

[Bird76Mojo]

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-marijuana-idUSKBN1ET1MU

 

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday rescinded an Obama administration policy that had eased enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that legalized the drug, instead giving federal prosecutors wide latitude to pursue criminal charges.

 

"The action by Attorney General Jeff Sessions could have damaging consequences for the burgeoning marijuana industry in the six states including California and Colorado that have legalized the drug for recreational use, plus dozens of others that permit medicinal use.

Justice Department officials declined to say whether they might take legal action against those states, saying further steps were “still under consideration.”

 

This is an example of "rule by men", not "rule of law".

 

Making alcohol illegal and the legalization of alcohol both required Constitutional Amendments.

 

Amendments should be proposed both legalizing and making illegal the use of marijuana and see which passes muster with the People.

 

The people should have a say in the laws they live under if the US is to call itself a democracy.

 

Rule by men is one reason why the Antifederalists rejected monarchy, the "rule by a man", as proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and pushed for the Bill of Rights.

 

Madison knew that "men were not angels".

 

The Antifederalists were wise in their anticipation of coming power grabs by the Federalists.

 

The Federalists never wanted to share power with the People, neither then nor not now.

The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Career politicians are lucky that this is a republic since in a democracy voters could theoretically vote on whether or not to execute career politicians with no legal safeguards to protect individual rights of said politicians. That is an extreme example of why No one should let America be converted into a democracy.

 

When you put it that way, a democracy doesn't sound so bad.. lol