Hacker News Reader

Bro, relax. The law is mostly a social fiction. We live a short life that can end without notice for any reason, and I wouldn't waste these few tens of years on following silly rules invented by some mediocre people.

Now this is a good perspective.

Until you get busted for drug possession in, say, Texas, and have to go to jail and are at the whims of a conservative court. Just remember that there's risks to everything.

> Reminder: Possession of psilocybin or psilocybin-containing substances such as magic mushrooms remain a felony in all 50 US states, just like possession of marijuana.

> They may not be enforcing it, but it's still a federal felony, and they are free to (as well as within their legal rights to) enforce it at any time, for any arbitrary reason.

I can't speak to enforcement of laws around psilocybin, but I can speak to federal enforcement of cannabis laws. I worked in the legal cannabis industry for several years. The claim that they are free to enforce it at any time is true, in the sense that any arcane law could be enforced because it's still law.

But it's not consistent with the federal government's posture since the first states legalized, even after Jeff Sessions led at least a vocal campaign to roll it back.

The reality is that the guiding legal principle that determines federal intervention in states' legal cannabis markets is the Cole Memo[1], and that all legal states operate comprehensive seed-to-sale tracking sufficiently satisfying that the federal government has either felt disinclined or disadvantaged to challenge it under the Interstate Commerce clause (which is how they can even ban drugs in the first place).

IANAL, but I'm very familiar with the specifics on the topic, and the comment above is full of misleading and downright bad legal advice.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum

First off, my comment wasn't legal advice. Second, the federal government is not bound by the linked document, and indeed there are several cases (such as banking, firearms, et cetera) where it does not apply at all.

The basic core of my statement stands: the fact that they are not actually legally restrained by anything from prosecuting you under these federal laws is a risk that you should be aware of when you undertake breaking them. The fact that they have voluntarily subjected themselves, in some limited circumstances, to restraint is a) not binding upon them, and b) not relevant to that risk, as anyone who has filled out a Form 4473 (or tried to get a credit card terminal for a dispensary) can attest.

They can write all of the memos they want; malicious prosecution for pissing off the wrong people is still a thing, and has recent federal examples (weev, Roger Ver, et c).

Would that not be a front and over exertion of states rights? The state said the federal government is overreaching. If they ignore them, would that not lead to the state to fight against the federal government in court?

States don't have the right, under the current US legal system, to nullify federal laws.

> current US legal system

To clarify, this is part of the US Constitution (Supremacy Clause).

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI_C2_1_1_...

> First off, my comment wasn't legal advice.

?! I'm not sure what you mean by that, but that's exactly what it looked like, every word of it. I guess you know that.

What did I advise anyone to do?

Sorry but I find it impossible to believe you are speaking in good faith.

I've read my comment four times and I can't find anywhere in it where I advised anyone to do anything.

You seem to think it was advice; what was the advice? What thing did I tell someone to do or not do?

Your entire comment seems to be advising people about the law and their rights or lack of them. Then you ask repeatedly "What did I advise anyone to do?" as if nothing counts as "legal advice" but "advising someone to do something". IANAL but to me, and it seems others, when you get legal advice it often takes the form of information about the law, your rights or lack of them. Not just advising someone to do something. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. Maybe you are using a very narrow technical definition of "legal advice"..uh, like a lawyer might, I suppose.

p.s. [checks who you are] ohh it's You! hehe. I read your article about non-rube email! (And some of your other writing) I thought it was impressive, but seemed super-complex, too much for...non-experts like me. Have you thought about setting that system up for people, as a business? I guess so.

https://sneak.berlin/20201029/stop-emailing-like-a-rube/

> First off, my comment wasn't legal advice.

Fair. Just a bad legal take. Which other people might interpret as advice.

> Second, the federal government is not bound by the linked document

Like this. This is not true. You might believe it, you might be acting in good faith, but it’s false. I know there are exceptions, but the DOJ and the federal law enforcement apparatus in general is bound by its own policy, and most (not all) prosecutors take that seriously. They take it so seriously that the linked memo remained in effect even through highly politicized ousting of career officials to install loyal lackeys.

Are there exceptions? Absolutely. Are they abusive? Often, when they occur. Are they neutral “might happen to rando people who just got permission to have a little trip and aren’t upsetting anyone who might want to prosecute them maliciously”? Very probably not.

It does a disservice to people who are targeted by prosecutorial abuse to frame it this way. And it does a disservice to the people who are far more likely to be targeted by states than the federal government to muddy those waters.

Don't assume that Cole Memorandum covers all relevant interactions, though. Aside from the more obvious federal laws that directly criminalize use of drugs, there are others that make other activities illegal when drugs are involved. It's not just the DEA that's on the bandwagon.

For example, when purchasing a firearm, one of the questions on the form that has to be filled is this:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

WARNING: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

(That disclaimer was added long after the memorandum you mention, by the way.)

The ATF has since decided that a mere possession of a medical marijuana card constitutes prima facie evidence of being "unlawful user of".

That’s not quite true about medical cannabis (totally true about psilocybin and recreational though) - the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment (which has been upheld by courts) prevents the US from prosecuting medical cannabis users.

I also don’t really get what you mean by saying that you waive your 1a and 4a rights (2a of course is pretty clear cut, although I’d say you’re being denied your rights more than that you’ve waived them)

If you openly commit a federal felony that is widely unenforced, the state can choose to enforce it against you on the basis of the content of your protected expression, journalism, or religion, meaning that you don't actually have freedom of expression/press/religion in practice.

This happened to Rover Ver; he did time in federal prison for criticizing excessively violent federal agents during a talk he gave at a conference. Other agents from that agency present at his conference talk were pissed off and found some unrelated legitimate violations of federal law to have him charged under. If you are openly committing federal felonies this won't even take them the 24h it took them in Roger's case.

Same with 4A: if they want to toss your house or rob you of all your computers and all of your backups, and you've openly admitted to possession of schedule 1 things, a search warrant on that basis alone is a foregone conclusion, as it is obvious you are breaking the law.

You don't need to smoke weed to commit a federal crime - you commit three federal crimes just walking down the street. It's impossible to not be constantly committing them. So, really, I wouldn't worry about it.

They're going to legalize it anyway: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1356340421652312066

I'm not sure why this is appearing light gray to me. Laws and mores change via active opposition, as they should; but those opposing should know and accept the risk they are taking.

Also it makes security clearances harder to get (although IME they freak out more over piracy than light drug use.)

This is probably a good thing. The more people that are disqualified from working for the US military-industrial complex, the smaller their talent pool becomes and the less effective they become over time.

Sounds very scary. fnord