WHY GAY MARRIAGE, VISITING CUBA, AND POT MAY SOON BE LEGAL

... and Fidel boasted his image:

Him sure did. Who is the lady in the pic?

Which reminds me. Has California the legal right to legalize pot when other states lock people up for dealing in it?

What other significant variations are there in the legal right of states to make their own laws?

From NORML

The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.

California:Possession
More than 28.5 g misdemeanor 6 months $500

28.5 g or less on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 10 days $500

More than 28.5 g on school grounds while school open (over 18 yers old) misdemeanor 6 months $500


Sale

Gift of less than 28.5 g misdemeanor

Any amount felony 2 - 4 years

28.5 g or less by a minor misdemeanor

Any amount to a minor over 14 years old felony

Any amount to a minor under 14 years old (includes offering, inducing, distributing, or employing) felony
3 - 7 years

This state has medical marijuana laws enacted.

I don't follow JTT's posts so I'm not sure if this is what he was referring to but during the Cuban missile crisis the US used a blockade against Cuba that constituted an act of war that was of dubious legality IMO.

Kennedy said:
"To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation and port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948."

I believe a quarantine was not an act of war according to the OAS and the Rio Treaty.

Here's the way it works (or doesn't) under our system: California -- or any other state -- has every constitutional right to pass a law decriminalizing or even legalizing pot. All that means is that you will never be arrested by a local police officer or tried in a state court. However, the Federal government, if it so chooses, can have the FBI or DEA or ATF agents arrest you and you can be tried in Federal court on Federal drug law violation charges. As a practical matter, this doesn't happen because the folks in Washington don't really want to antagonize the voters of any particular state.



As long as a law does not violate the precepts in the US Constitution, the states not only can but, in fact, do enact virtually all their own laws. Federal statutes are supposed to address only relations between the states. However, I think that you can appreciate that where the Feds feel they have a vested interest, they manage to steer the states into thinking their way. They have a very powerful weapon. It's called money. Case in point: all the states now have a legal drinking age of 21. There is no state where a person under 21 can legally purchase any alcoholic beverages. Wasn't always so. Some states used to have a drinking age of 18. The Feds thought that raising the drinking age would help diminish the number of people killed in car crashes due to drunk driving. Now, there is no mechanism in the Constitution which would allow the Congress to pass such a law and make it manadatory for all 50 states. Each state has its own laws regarding such matters. However, all the states rely heavily on Federal highway funds to keep their roads in good repair. Without this annual money from Washington, some states would have difficulty keeping any roads open. Solution is simple. States are told, in effect: "You don't raise your drinking age to 21, you get no monay next year for road repair."

Problem solved.

This sort of thing gives the powers in Washington a teriffic edge. It applies to school curricula as well. You teach evolution, we cut off your funds for education. (No, no, that hasn't happened yet, just an example of what's possible.)

Hmmm....I'd like to see the US response if Cuba had stopped and inspected all ships heading to the US.

I think there's be no doubt the US would have considered it an act of war then.

Does Cuba have the capability?

You know that's not how the world works bunny.

The world works according to who the top gangster is at any given time. It just happens that the USA fills that role now.

I understood this to be a legal/ethical question.

Everyone knows that Macht machts Recht in the foul rag and bone shop of reasl politik.

we're on the same page JTT

Well, Krushchev packed up his toys and went home, yeah? Good thing. Kennedy was not bluffing. Those South Boston Irish boys never back down from a fight.

Yeah, and by a truely remarkable coincidence, after he backed down, we conveniently removed our radar stations from Turkey.

ROGER you mean it was a sweetheart deal?

Somehow, that's the impression I came away with. Kennedy got to look tough and Krushchev got what he wanted.

Sglass, you mean Kennedy was a Southie?

That's where the family started. You can take the family out of Southie, but you can't take Southie out of the family.

Kruschev underestimated Jack, he made a bad assumption based on JFK's youthfulness and what he construed as political immaturity. Wrong.

Considering that there were already missile launches installed with over a 1,000 mile range that could penetrate the heartland. Kruschev was bringing in 40,000 Soviet troops. Hello WWIII. Kruschev, under pressure from
the Russian hierarchy sent a proposal to Kennedy that he would remove the above mentioned if we would remove our missiles from Turkey. Kennedy complied allowing Kruschev "Save Face". It took a while, but Russia got its stuff out of Cuba, closing the back door to the US.

Well, thankfully, the unsuccessful invasion of Cuba by the US gave Kennedy a less than rosy view of military and CIA advice, so he was prepared to negotiate and not just bomb.

Thank you Jack.

Of course, without the US invasion, there might not have BEEN nuclear bombs in Cuba, so **** you Jack, the CIA and the US military/industrial complex.

Guess it kinda evens out.

Thanks Andy.

Couldn't a state repair its own roads with funds derived from stopping remitting taxes to Washington?

Why would a state as rich as California send money to Washington which empowered Washington to force it to have laws it doesn't want? I read that Cal. was the sixth biggest economy in the world.

The US doesn't seem to be a proper nation. Our laws apply everywhere.