(June 4, 2013 at 1:53 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Federal law is concerned (ostensibly) in matters of interstate law, not intrastate law. The vast majority of criminal cases are tried by state courts, under state laws.Thanks for that. It reminds me of when I was watching clips of the Republican primary debates online a year ago, most of the answers Ron Paul gave were something like "get the federal govt out of it!", and I just thought to myself if this guy wants the govt out of everything, then what is point of having a govt? But then I realized, he was referring only to the federal government, not the State governments who craft their own laws and have their own policies.
Washington state (where I live) also legalized pot - the law was crafted in such a way to avoid interstate issues as much as possible. That won't necessarily stop the federal government from stepping in, but they have so far shown no interest in doing so - and it's questionable whether they have the authority to do so.
I think the less well off (read: red) states should use places like Washington, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts etc. as an example of what laws to implement or what bills to introduce. There is a reason why Massachusetts is far more well off than places like Oklahoma, I don't understand why they just don't copy the same model. It's not as if there's a language barrier, or a massive culture barrier (although I guess it is debatable).
