Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@freemo @thegonzoism These two law firm sources say that interstate commerce is just one reason of many why a drug crime can be enforced federally:

https://fresnocriminallawyer.com/when-are-drug-crimes-considered-federal-offenses/

https://www.bernelawme.com/differences-between-state-and-federal-drug-crimes/

And this is the FBI's website saying federal agents have full jurisdiction to make arrests for any felony violation of US law.

https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-authority-do-fbi-special-agents-have-to-make-arrests-in-the-united-states-its-territories-or-on-foreign-soil

@freemo @thegonzoism Yeah, gonna need a citation on that. If it were true, there'd be a precedent saying so.

@freemo @thegonzoism Well, yeah, because that makes you more likely to be targeted by the feds, for any type of crime. But I'm still pretty sure it's not a prerequisite to being targeted.

@freemo @thegonzoism That sounds like they've established a pre-existing agreement with the banks on the list... Maybe most big banks will flag transactions with weed shops, causing the vendor's merchant account to get locked out, but maybe they've made a deal with these banks to not flag their transactions?

That is very strange, though.

@freemo @thegonzoism Also... I don't think a vendor can limit which banks work for debit cards on merchant accounts. So, they'd have no way to limit it to "local state banks", and they'd have to be very careful to keep updated on which "local state banks" are actually local and which are owned elsewhere.

That whole claim just doesn't pass the smell test...

@freemo @thegonzoism I'm calling bullshit on that. Most debit cards are run by the same companies as the credit cards. My local bank debit cards are Visas. That sounds like they're just trying to avoid credit card fees rather than the law.

@freemo @thegonzoism That doesn't prevent them from enforcing any law that doesn't involve interstate commerce.

@freemo @thegonzoism No, it's because credit card companies and banks refuse to work with them because they don't want to risk violating federal law.

@freemo @thegonzoism That's just demonstrably untrue. Fed raids are a thing that happen regularly. They're in the news!

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Can you please cite a source for that claim?

@freemo @thegonzoism That's just not true. If it were, then most federal laws would be unenforceable.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Literally all of that is wrong. The DEA can't make laws; they write regulations. And they can absolutely send agents in to prosecute federal crimes that don't involve interstate commerce. They have a well-documented history of taking down grow-houses in states where they're legal.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec No, you didn't. The link you sent earlier described the limits on their sovereignty.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Uh, no, the DEA absolutely enforces federal drug laws in states where it has been made legal locally.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Every dictionary I can find disagrees with you.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Right... limiting their sovereignty in order to join the *actually sovereign* union.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec Wait, do we need to address the definition of "sovereignty"? Because "do anything that doesn't violate the laws of a higher body" is not sovereignty, by definition.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec That term, "state sovereignty", describes what sovereignty is left to the states after the rest has been taken by the feds, as defined in our constitution. It describes the *limits* of their sovereignty. It is not a declaration of their sovereignty, which would require them to be wholly independent, by definition.

@freemo @thegonzoism @trinsec I disagree. Can you give me some examples of forms of independence you think US states have that Canadian provinces do not?