Weeeeeeeeeeeak argument right there. “It’s still illegal ferederally” while pointing to a law that is only just barely limping on with its federal justification.
I get that the distinction is legally valid, and that you’re highlighting the slowness of Federal law, but you’re not really contributing significantly to the conversation here.
Particularly given that the topic of this thread is war, not recreational drug usage.
As if they haven’t been encouraging this as normal practice.
Marijuana use in the US isn’t just against policy, it’s against the law. But without enforcement, does a policy or law mean anything?
I’m not anti-marijuana, I’m saying enforcement is what determines a law or policy’s effectiveness.
Weeeeeeeeeeeak argument right there. “It’s still illegal ferederally” while pointing to a law that is only just barely limping on with its federal justification.
I get that the distinction is legally valid, and that you’re highlighting the slowness of Federal law, but you’re not really contributing significantly to the conversation here.
Particularly given that the topic of this thread is war, not recreational drug usage.
My point was simple: a law or policy, unenforced, is neither law nor policy.
We all know it to be true but then some pause and give a pass to platitude of “against policy.” Same applies to US police.
I’m not changing the topic. I’m saying people need to challenge these statements more vocally.
Edit to add: You’re saying I said things I didn’t, missing the point, and have derailed an important point of agreement.
That’s true, but policy or law, even when unenforced, still leaves absolute scope for those rules to be clamped down on.
proof?
/Gestures at the Gaza strip