> Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...)
It seems to me that saying "pot is legal in MA" is precisely as incorrect as saying "pot is illegal in MA". They're both half-truths.
I believe there's rhetorical and political power, however, in repeating an untruth without anybody challenging it.
HN is intended to be a site for serious discussion and honest debate, and I choose to not let use this rhetorical device go unchallenged.
It costs me karma every time, and I consider it a cost worth paying.
Does your distinction matter? If the state of Delaware declares driving a red cars illegal everywhere on the planet, would you jump to correct people saying driving red cars is legal in Germany and let them know it isn't?
Most people would not do so because there is no feasible way of Delaware enforcing their opinions in Germany. If you're not willing to take your viewpoint to the extreme then you're making an implicit declaration that you think the federal government does have the power to override the states here and will do so.
That's why people are downvoting when you say you're just exposing an "untruth". It's similar to hen people say they don't care about politics which really implies that the current status quo suits them well enough to not be involved
The US federal government has many ways of enforcing their opinions on US states and does so regularly. Almost all banks will not open accounts for pot related businesses due to federal banking laws. In the past the federal government convinced the states that did not have a drinking age of 21 to up the age by withholding federal highway funds from those states until they did.
Being "precisely correct" is tedious and pointless. I was like that in the past and it was a hard habit to kick, but I strongly encourage you to do the same.
Its a silly thing to get worked up over although important in a few instances. The pot industry has limited access to banking and you have states like Kansas going after Colorado for enabling drug traffiking
It seems to me that saying "pot is legal in MA" is precisely as incorrect as saying "pot is illegal in MA". They're both half-truths.
I believe there's rhetorical and political power, however, in repeating an untruth without anybody challenging it.
HN is intended to be a site for serious discussion and honest debate, and I choose to not let use this rhetorical device go unchallenged.
It costs me karma every time, and I consider it a cost worth paying.