Obama's Medical Marijuana Policy Issued

  • Thread starter Thread starter B. Elliott
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Medical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a new medical marijuana policy issued by the Obama administration, which instructs federal prosecutors not to target individuals using or supplying medical marijuana in compliance with state laws. Participants explore the legal, ethical, and practical ramifications of this policy, including its alignment with federal and state law conflicts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the policy is a mistake and advocate for the repeal or proper enforcement of existing laws rather than non-enforcement.
  • Others view the policy as a positive step towards respecting state laws and potentially paving the way for future legalization of marijuana.
  • A participant questions the legal implications of conflicting state and federal laws, asking whether federal law takes precedence and how such conflicts are reconciled.
  • Some express concern that not enforcing laws undermines respect for the legal system and the opportunity for proper regulation of substances like marijuana.
  • There are differing opinions on whether laws that are in the process of being repealed should still be enforced during that period.
  • One participant suggests that the policy may be a strategic move to establish a precedent for future legalization efforts.
  • Another participant emphasizes that laws should be enforced as they are written, regardless of potential changes in legality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the appropriateness and implications of the new policy. While some support the idea of respecting state laws, others argue for strict enforcement of existing federal laws. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the legal framework surrounding the enforcement of conflicting state and federal laws, as well as the implications of non-enforcement on the legal system and regulation of substances.

  • #91
Al68 said:
Can you give an example of this? I was under the impression that "states rights" normally referred to claims that a federal law was invalid ("not correct", "wrong") due to the tenth amendment.

The Supreme Court has overturned many laws based on that argument in recent years.

Does "states rights" refer to something else?
Sorry, I'm not interested in arguing with someone who rejects substantiation out of hand and never substantiates their own arguments. It's pointless.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #92
russ_watters said:
Sorry, I'm not interested in arguing with someone who rejects substantiation out of hand and never substantiates their own arguments. It's pointless.
OK. Maybe someone else will answer. BTW, forum rules can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 . :!)

Also BTW, I wouldn't call it "out of hand" to reject "substantiation" that consists solely of the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" by using evidence that someone else agrees as "substantiation", unless the claim itself is only that others agree.

And forum rules require substantiation only for factual claims in support of an argument, not for "arguments" themselves, and certainly not for the purpose of showing that others agree with the argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News New FTC Homeopathy Marketing Claims Policy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Bolivian Leader's Ouster Seen as Warning on U.S. Drug Policy
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K