legalized marijuana ... what will CAP do ?

[bosshawk]

Rob: having worked with the DEA for many years, I suspect that they will forge ahead and bust people in WA for growing and using, just like they do in CA.  Federal courts are routinely used in CA to prosecute MJ growers, sellers and users and the sentences are not trivial.  And you don't get time off for good behavior.

[coudano]

A lot of companies and organizations have rules, regs, and policies, that are more strict than what is allowed by state and federal law.

Even if it were completely legal, CAP might still forbid it if you want to continue CAP membership.

[Eclipse]

Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

[tsrup]

Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

Tobacco is all thats forbidden for SM use in proximity to cadets.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

Tobacco is all thats forbidden for SM use in proximity to cadets.

True, should have specified. Not that the effects of alcohol are that much better than tobacco.

[Eclipse]

Tobacco and alcohol, for example, are explicitly prohibited for cadets, regardless of age.

And SM use around them.

Use is discouraged for seniors, but neither is explicitly prohibited, except for tobacco use in CAP vehicles..

52-16 2.2

c. Adult Conduct. Senior members should exercise discretion when drinking alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products at CAP activities when cadets are present. Seniors should avoid drinking alcohol or using tobacco when they are directly working with cadets or when they are in a confined space with cadets. Additionally, seniors who are not working with cadets should avoid excessive alcohol consumption when they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets thereafter. Commanders may establish designated smoking and non-smoking areas and designate areas as "off-limits" to cadets.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Wow two pages and still in a decent debate, Thanks. That's what I was hoping for.

I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government's ability to trump state law. While I do support the idea that marijuana isa dangerous drug, and I don't think anyone should be able to use it just because they want to, it shows there is no reason to have individual states other than to have a sort of management system, one guy over fifty, fifty over thirtyish, and those thirtyish people each have however many are in their city or county, but it really leaves nothing to the checks and balance system that the states were set up to perform.

Isn't the state structure supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn't have too much power? Or am I missing something completely?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Wow two pages and still in a decent debate, Thanks. That's what I was hoping for.

I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government's ability to trump state law. While I do support the idea that marijuana isa dangerous drug, and I don't think anyone should be able to use it just because they want to, it shows there is no reason to have individual states other than to have a sort of management system, one guy over fifty, fifty over thirtyish, and those thirtyish people each have however many are in their city or county, but it really leaves nothing to the checks and balance system that the states were set up to perform.

Isn't the state structure supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn't have too much power? Or am I missing something completely?

States can be stricter than the federal government.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Wow two pages and still in a decent debate, Thanks. That's what I was hoping for.

I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government's ability to trump state law. While I do support the idea that marijuana isa dangerous drug, and I don't think anyone should be able to use it just because they want to, it shows there is no reason to have individual states other than to have a sort of management system, one guy over fifty, fifty over thirtyish, and those thirtyish people each have however many are in their city or county, but it really leaves nothing to the checks and balance system that tIIIhe states were set up to perform.

Isn't the state structure supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn't have too much power? Or am I missing something completely?

States can be stricter than the federal government.

Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Not on something the Feds consider illegal.

Well, they CAN, but we have .08 Alcohol limit because everyone wants those highway funds.

Of course with the SCOTUS decision on the Medicare part of the Affordable Healthcare Act, who knows.

[Eclipse]

Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

Differ, sometimes, but just like any top-down bureaucracy, they generally can't loosen a law from a higher authority, only
strengthen or more clearly define (as long as that definition doesn't change the higher's definition).

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

Differ, sometimes, but just like any top-down bureaucracy, they generally can't loosen a law from a higher authority, only
strengthen or more clearly define (as long as that definition doesn't change the higher's definition).

That still lends much power to federal government and deteriorates the checks and balance system.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Right, but they can't have a few laws that differ?

Differ, sometimes, but just like any top-down bureaucracy, they generally can't loosen a law from a higher authority, only
strengthen or more clearly define (as long as that definition doesn't change the higher's definition).

That still lends much power to federal government and deteriorates the checks and balance system.

States don't check or balance the Federal government outside of making up the federal government.

[Eclipse]

That still lends much power to federal government and deteriorates the checks and balance system.

Can't really argue that point, though I don't know that the original intention of fed vs. state was intended for checks and balances
in the same way as the 3-bladed government.

It was more about reservation of powers at the local level, with concern about building a new monarchy.

The realities of society and scale have evolved that over the last 236 some years. A lot of states would agree with you,
but then still want the support an resources, not the least of which is military protection of the Federal government.

[coudano]

Well the states can amend the constitution by constitutional convention...
so in that regard, yes they do check the federal government,
but it's not quite the same as you think of checks and balances between the three branches.

[A.Member]

A lot of companies and organizations have rules, regs, and policies, that are more strict than what is allowed by state and federal law.

Even if it were completely legal, CAP might still forbid it if you want to continue CAP membership.

This is exactly it.  Even if legal, as an organization, CAP can prohibit it use/influence by members.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Manfred-

The checks and balances apply only to the Federal system.

It only means that the Judicial system checks whether the laws made by the Legislature are fair and constitutional. That the Executive cannot overpower the Legislative except by the veto system. That the Executive cannot pull more than the Judicial, except maybe by naming judges favorable to him. And the Judicial can also check and deter the Executive from again unfair and unconstitutional exercise of powers.

Now I will hear from other "Bar room lawyers" criticizing this "bar room lawyer" on the interpretation of this aspect of the Constitution. But please bear in mind, the last time I read the Constitution was about eight years ago, when I was considering a copy for purchase for my library.

I am even willing to bet that other "bar room lawyers" will attempt to correct my explanation without even reading it...



Flyer

[Майор Хаткевич]

Seems pretty spot on. The SCOTUS has expanded over some 220 years in what they do, but overall its Legislative, Executive, back to Legislative of a veto,  Judicial if its not constitutional, Legislative to start Constitutional amendment to make it constitutional. Fun stuff.

[JeffDG]

States can be stricter than the federal government.

Not necessarily.  See Arizona v. United States.