Law enforcement in America has an uncanny ability to either blatantly ignore or conveniently misunderstand laws. I’m happy to know they are tracking this and acting on it. I know in health care you get fired on the spot for looking at stuff you shouldn’t, same should apply here at a minimum.
Oh, I see. That's a memorandum explicitly stating that marijuana is an exception to this rule - the federal government basically ceded authority on this issue during the Obama era.
An interesting note about the history here. We can all spend some time talking about the reasons why the federal government has no reason regulating that plant and other things, but from a legal perspective I think this precedent was terrible.
My understanding is that cannabis regulation in the United States is mostly predicated on a case where a farmer grew his own non-cannabis, I believe it was wheat, and then the government compelled everyone to sell their wheat at a specific price, which he did not want to do. He protested and I believe turned the wheat into other products, which caused this court case.
The result of the case was that the government was able to justify use of the Interstate Commerce clause because the actions of NOT selling the wheat could cause economic disruption.
The case is Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
This was essentially re-upped in 2005 with Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Wickard v. Filburn established "activities local in nature can still be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they could substantially affect interstate commerce."
The effects of this ruling are broad. Like all things there are plenty of things that as it stands right now are built on top of that legal "system" like bills that enforce clean drinking water, but those can be done a different and correct way and we don't need the government using this method to accomplish that.
I'm not sure we disagree on anything, but yes, the government has interpreted the interstate commerce clause rather broadly. Too broadly, IMO, but the same overreach gets us good things like the FDA/USDA and the FCC.
It's possible they are avoiding the marijuana fight in order to keep this broad interpretation, though. I have a pet theory that the equal rights amendment isn't in the constitution to avoid a legal fight that would also strike down the income tax, but these are all sort of just theories.
Alcoa actually owns 26% of the output of a hydro electric dam on the Columbia River(Rock Island Dam) directly adjacent to it’s mothballed factory. It’s not that they can’t get power in the US cheaper, it’s that they can resell that power at higher profit than running a smelter with that power.
Thousands of jobs left the town and now a several billion dollar plant sits idle. The idea recently floated they sell the land, power and water rights to MSFT for their new water cooled data center’s nearby, but MSFT didn’t want to own all that infra.
No it’s not fair at all, if you break something you don’t actually have to buy it. It’s the merchants liability for allowing things to be within reach of customers. Just walk out and don’t negotiate at all.
Is that just your own personal moral judgement or a legal assessment? Because I don't think this will actually work in practice when the police are called for property damage.
Are we talking about the US now? Because I’m pretty sure that where I live (Germany), if the stuff you break is valuable enough, police will definitely arrest you if you try to leave without paying after breaking something.
Depends on where you are. Many cities have under resourced police departments that have reputations for ignoring and refusing to investigate non violent crime.
That’s a fact, not a personal opinion. Unless the damage was done in malice it’s not a crime. It’s the owners negligence for not protecting their property
No need to downvote just because y’all don’t know the law, lol!
> Unless the damage was done in malice it’s not a crime. It’s the owners negligence for not protecting their property
Well that’s just wrong, the damage itself is not a crime but the leaving without paying part is. If I accidentally fall onto your parked car and leave a dent, do you think I can just leave because it wasn’t intentional?
Stores and public places are different things, when you let customers touch your merchandise that’s your liability. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but that’s the law.
As a non-lawyer, when I had researched it, it is considerably more complicated than that, the answer seemed to be in which party was neglectful or negligent.
I imagine this being the case every time I am forced to walk through the retail area in an airport to get to my gate. They should expect some travellers to be in a hurry and they deliberately put things in their way. I understand their reasons but it should definitely be at their sole risk for any accidental damage.
The crime isn’t the damage but the „leaving without paying for the damage“. If you damage something accidentally and replace the cost of the damage, it’s not a crime. If you just leave and refuse to pay, it is a crime.
I got a thank you email the other day after a meeting that was clearly written by AI, it was a real turn off. English was the authors second language, but she does public speaking in English, so I know she has decent command. Regardless, id still rather get an authentic heart felt thank you in broken English then a fake one. It comes off as inauthentic.
