Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed lawsuits against five cities – Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Denton and Elgin – ordinances that aim to eliminate enforcement of low-level marijuana possession offenses.
Paxton alleges the cities’ actions violate state law and the Texas constitution. The lawsuits ask the courts to declare the ordinances void and order the cities to fully enforce state drug laws.
The ordinances were passed after being approved by voters in local ballot propositions. They prohibit police from making arrests or issuing citations for misdemeanor marijuana possession in most cases.
However, Paxton argues the Texas Local Government Code forbids cities from adopting policies not to fully enforce drug laws. He also says the ordinances violate a section of the Texas Constitution stating that city ordinances cannot conflict with state law.
Texas gets to ignore the federal government, so why should the cities listen to the state government?
I mean if a atf agent walked into any legal state they can make all the arrests they want to my knowledge at least if I’m wrong please correct me
You may not have seen the recent drama with Texas refusing to allow the feds to patrol the border.
Yes, but they are correct. Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug at the federal level, same as heroin.
There is nothing legally preventing the federal government from arresting everyone in every state who possesses or sells cannabis. It isn’t relevant that cannabis is legal recreationally or medically at the state level in most of the country
We’re just hoping that the federal government continues its discretionary policy of looking the other way. But, much like Roe, uncodified rights have a recent habit of disappearing overnight
The feds gave nothing to do with this. This is about local police
Despite Abbott’s treasonous mewling, they aren’t preventing the Feds from cutting down razor wire & that was all the SCotUS judgement declared.
Yes they are
I haven’t seen that reporting, and that is counter to Beau of the 5th Column’s reporting. Please provide a link.
Ah yes, the very credible random YouTube video: Excellent choice of source!
Just gonna point out that at least he provided sum sort of substantiation for his claims, which is more than most do. Even if you don’t agree with the viability of the reporting of the source, and I admit you might have a point as I did not watch the video, but he did provide something. You want to counter him, counter him. Tearing down someone’s source is an invalid argument, it doesn’t illustrate that you are correct, only that, in your opinion, they are wrong. Those two things are not the same.
Citing a shitty source isn’t really much better than providing no source.
“I know for a fact that Bat Boy is carrying Hillary Clinton’s lovechild! Source: The National Inquirer”
See?
Opinions I guess. For me, it shows some sort of effort. Enough care to actually attempt to support themselves and make an actual argument. It doesn’t mean they are right, never said it did. It is about the art of crafting a well-formed argument. If the only thing you can do is attack their source, you have forfeited the argument because it is a bad-faith retort. He says that it hasn’t happened, then provides what he considers to be a credible enough source. You want to retort him, find a source that is at least equally credible, and provide it. It is discourse and proper form. Everyone needs to learn a bit about it and become better citizens to each other. Maybe if we did we could avoid so many messes.
Exactly, someone should make shirts with a bud that says come and take it.
Rules for thee.
“Rule for thee but not for me”
It really is that simple