"Why would they work any less vigorously against federally illegal interstate drug transactions than they do now against federally illegal intrastate drug transactions?"

If they only have authority over interstate transactions, they'd have to be there the moment the drug crossed the border. Either side of the state border is out-of-bounds.

"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"

We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.

So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.

If they only have authority over interstate transactions, they'd have to be there the moment the drug crossed the border. Either side of the state border is out-of-bounds.

Not so - a car with Colorado plates parked in Oklahoma, with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters - and has established probable cause to retrace the driver's steps and determine whether a Colorado seller sold him the pot

"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"

We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.

So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.

Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties.

"Congress published findings" - BFD.

"with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters"

We were discussing federal enforcement of interstate commerce. At least, I thought we were. Are you saying the DEA has the power to enforce Oklahoma law? Doesn't that go against your argument that this should be a state issue?

Marijuana is fungible. You can't look at it and say. "That's Colorado pot!" The driver would say to the DEA that it's Oklahoma pot being transported intrastate -- which is beyond their jurisdiction.

Can Oklahoma law enforcement arrest this guy for possession? Yes. But again, that's not what we're discussing.

"Congress published findings" - BFD.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Supreme Court made a ruling - BFD.

And the legislature passed a law -- BFD.

And the people passed a referendum - BFD.

Your anarchist slip is showing.

According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless." It wasn't tried and found wanting - it wasn't seriously tried.

That 1913 effort is very unlike what is in effect today, and what would almost certainly be used to regulate marijuana if it ever becomes legal.

Manufacturers do not sell alcohol to retailers. Manufacturers sell to licensed distributors. The distributor license is worth a small fortune and the distributor will not risk losing it to make distributions to a dry county.

The dry county typically does not prohibit simple possession. They do not license public places to sell alcoholic beverages, but may license private clubs. They do not license any retail stores to sell alcohol. Drinking publicly may be prohibited.

Basically, they put all the bars and liquor stores out of business. You go to the nearest wet county to buy your booze, beer and wine and drink it at home.

It is a fairly simple matter to frequently and irregularly inspect the distributors. As it is legally available in the nearest wet county, there is not much market for shine.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/california-weed/article57821673.html

Here’s how marijuana legalization would work in California

By Christopher Cadelago
ccadelago@sacbee.com

California was the first state to allow medical marijuana. Now, two decades later, voters are expected to be asked whether to legalize recreational use of the drug.

The legalization measure most likely to qualify for the statewide November ballot is the product of months of negotiations between groups with varying interests, from drug-law reformers, to growers and distributors, to famous financiers and politicians. Here’s a primer.

Q: So, is California going to legalize pot?

A: The state’s marijuana industry is often described as a wild west of sorts: There are no regulations, taxes or environmental protections for recreational cannabis. The measure would legalize possession of 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivation of six plants by adults over the age of 21, and create laws for distribution and sale. It would impose a 15 percent tax on retail sales, and cultivation taxes of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Localities could ban recreational marijuana businesses in their jurisdictions with local voter approval. An updated version of the measure also allows localities to enact bans without holding a vote of the people.

Q: Is this the next Gold Rush?

A: An initial financial analysis shows it could bring in additional state and local tax revenues ranging from the high hundreds of millions to more than $1 billion a year. Most of the proceeds must be spent for specified purposes such as substance-use disorder education, prevention, treatment and law enforcement.

Q: Who is behind this effort?

A: The official proponents are Donald Lyman, a retired physician, and Michael Sutton, a conservationist. Sutton served on the California Fish and Game Commission while Lyman drafted the California Medical Association’s paper in which the group called for regulating recreational cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. Among its financiers is billionaire venture capitalist Sean Parker. Its highest-profile political supporter is Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Q: What’s going on in other states?

A: Four states – Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, and the District of Columbia – have legalized recreational pot. The last legalization push in California, Proposition 19 in 2010, failed at the ballot box, 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent.

Q: Who would be in charge here?

A: Licensing and regulation of marijuana would be handled by a Bureau of Marijuana Control within the Department of Consumer Affairs. The Department of Food and Agriculture would be charged with licensing and overseeing marijuana cultivation while the Department of Public Health would license and oversee manufacturing and testing. The state Board of Equalization would collect marijuana taxes and the state Controller’s Office would distribute the revenue.

Q: Would legal marijuana cost more?

A: Some proponents say they actually expect the prices – even accounting for the taxes – will drop some once the licenses are issued and after the first harvest. Part of their reasoning is the so-called “prohibition tax” marijuana purchasers currently pay. They also point to more competition – and falling prices – in states such as Washington and Colorado.

Q: Could I grow my own?

A: Personal cultivation is allowed, but no more than six plants could be cultivated, harvested, dried or processed in each home or apartment, or on its grounds. The initiative would allow industrial hemp to be grown as an agricultural product as well as for agricultural or academic research.

Q: Would this allow “Big Marijuana” corporations to take over?

A: The measure bans large-scale licenses in the first five years, through Jan. 1, 2023. It states that the licensing powers are to avoid “unreasonable restraints on competition by creation or maintenance of unlawful monopoly power.”

Q: Where are the organized opponents?

A: Proponents’ first hurdle was trying to satisfy advocates for legalized marijuana. They have been able to get many, but not all, on board with their plans. Now they likely will have to contend with an organized campaign against the measure, presumably from law enforcement and even organized labor. In 2010, opponents helped sink the measure by pointing to a provision they argued would limit employers’ ability to penalize workers who used marijuana – unless it impaired their job performance. The critics ran ads showing teens, drivers and nurses under the influence of marijuana.

Q: What about children?

A: Marijuana businesses would be banned from locating within 600 feet of schools, and cannabis products could not be advertised or marketed to children. Specifically, the law says pot products can’t be designed in a way that appeals to kids, or could easily be confused with candy or other enticements. Advertising could only be displayed where roughly 72 percent of the audience is expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by audience-composition data. Minors convicted of marijuana-related offenses would have to complete drug-prevention education or counseling and community service.

Q: Could you drive after you’ve smoked?

A: The measure would retain existing laws that make it illegal to drive while impaired by marijuana. Here’s how it would work: The California Highway Patrol would get $3 million a year for four years to come up with protocols to determine whether a driver is too high to drive. Motorists also would be barred from having an open container of marijuana or pot products while driving, operating or riding in the passenger seat of a car, boat or aircraft.

Q: Could you go to work high?

A: The law would maintain the rights of employers to require drug-free workplaces or enact policies prohibiting marijuana use by employees during work hours.

No state currentlly can, or has, made marijuana legal. Under state4 law, it has been decriminalized.

The majority of the cost of booze and cigarettes is tax. If marijuana is made legal, it will be regulated and taxed.

Expect something like Monsanto marijuana to dominate the market through licensing and regulation.

Expect regulation and licensing/permits and recordkeeping and taxing to strictly control distribution via licensed distributors. Expect them to tax, tax, tax.

There is no need to control state lines when they "own" the distributors via their monopoly on the issuance of licenses. It's not 1913 anymore Toto.

https://www.ttb.gov/business-central/alcohol-wholesaler.shtml

Federal Requirements for Alcohol Wholesalers

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ca5efde690bd7ec411bf4ac77d7e2867&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:1.0.1.1.1&idno=27

Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms

PART 1—BASIC PERMIT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, NONINDUSTRIAL USE OF DISTILLED SPIRITS AND WINE, BULK SALES AND BOTTLING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ca5efde690bd7ec411bf4ac77d7e2867&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:1.0.1.1.1&idno=27#se27.1.1_122

§1.22 Wholesalers.

No person, except pursuant to a basic permit issued under the Act, shall:

(a) Engage in the business of purchasing for resale at wholesale, distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages; or,

(b) While so engaged, receive, sell, offer or deliver for sale, contract to sell, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate, distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages so purchased.

"with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters [DECEPTIVELY OMITTED BY MISTERWHITE:] - and has established probable cause to retrace the driver's steps and determine whether a Colorado seller sold him the pot"

Are you saying the DEA has the power to enforce Oklahoma law?

The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities and thereby facilitate the initiation of a federal investigation.

look at it and say. "That's Colorado pot!"

Beat that straw man.

"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"

We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.

So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.

"Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties."

[crickets]

So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery?

"Congress published findings" - BFD.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Supreme Court made a ruling - BFD.

And the legislature passed a law -- BFD.

And the people passed a referendum - BFD.

Your anarchist slip is showing.

Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate. And as a matter of fact, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is a much B-er D than laws, referenda, or even rulings. 'The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.' - Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Graves vs. New York

If marijuana is made legal, it will be regulated and taxed.

Expect something like Monsanto marijuana to dominate the market through licensing and regulation.

Expect regulation and licensing/permits and recordkeeping and taxing to strictly control distribution via licensed distributors.

Beats the Hell out of the futile and criminal-enriching status quo.

"The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities and thereby facilitate the initiation of a federal investigation."

Nope. Your entire scenario is fantasy. If the DEA is limited to only enforcing interstate commerce, what are they doing in this guy's trunk to begin with? He's parked in Oklahoma. He's not crossing any interstate border.

How can they prove he crossed the border with the pot? They can't. How do they know it's Colorado pot? They don't.

Any search they did is inadmissable in court. They ain't turning him over to anybody. They're out of their jurisdiction. They can't prove he broke federal law ... unless they see him cross the state border with the pot.

"So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery?"

If you insist on taking it literally rather than for the expression it is, yeah.

No matter how you slice it, Decktard, marijuana use is not healthy. Stfu.

You waste your stoner loving time.

"Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate."

What? The findings justify the law! Plenty to debate there.

"ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself"

Ah. Now noble! How profound! And who, pray tell, will interpret the Constitution? Who is the final arbiter of the meaning of "to regulate"?

You?

If the DEA is limited to only enforcing interstate commerce, what are they doing in this guy's trunk to begin with? He's parked in Oklahoma. He's not crossing any interstate border.

He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border.

How can they prove he crossed the border with the pot? They can't. How do they know it's Colorado pot? They don't.

Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt.

"So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery?"

If you insist on taking it literally rather than for the expression it is

It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading.

"Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate."

What? The findings justify the law!

Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving - it doesn't provide a basis for treating them as if they were otherwise.

"ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself"

Ah. Now noble! How profound! And who, pray tell, will interpret the Constitution? Who is the final arbiter of the meaning of "to regulate"?

You?

That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, "What is to be done?"

"Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"

Because you say so.

"a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional"

Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You?

"It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading."

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a common expression and does not mean everyone dies. Get a f**king grip.

"He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border."

That's not against the law.

"Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt."

What proof? Where's your proof he crossed the border with the pot? Where's your proof that the pot is even from Colorado? If you're prosecuting an interstate commerce case, aren't those facts important?

It's no surprise the federal government didn't even try to enforce the law against the interstate commerce of alcohol. It's unenforceable. As it would be against pot. And you know it.

If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?
Why, primarily the states that don't want it

There's a big unfunded mandate. You expect the states to enforce federal commerce clause law? Do you expect Congress to be satisfied with that arrangement?

"Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"

Because you say so.

No basis was offered, hence baseless; that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self-evident.

"That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?'"

Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You?

Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives.

"It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading."

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a common expression and does not mean everyone dies. Get a f**king grip.

I said "outcomes of gravity comparable". Get some f**king honesty.

'"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact, emphasis added) Get some f**king facts.

"He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border."

That's not against the law.

Nobody said it was, strawbeater.

"Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt."

What proof? Where's your proof he crossed the border with the pot? Where's your proof that the pot is even from Colorado?

The Colorado seller testifies.

If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?

"Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions."

There's a big unfunded mandate. You expect the states to enforce federal commerce clause law?

No mandate - a state is free to take no action against pot entering it.

"No mandate - a state is free to take no action against pot entering it."

Fine. Let the courts decide.

"I said "outcomes of gravity comparable".

That was your definition -- which I don't accept.

From the same link:

In the 1949 case Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The Court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.

Associate Justice Robert Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the Court's four page decision, which concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

That was simply a free speech issue.

Associate Justice Robert Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the Court's four page decision, which concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

That was simply a free speech issue.

It was a free speech (allegedly) leading to anarchy issue.

From the same link:

In the 1949 case Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The Court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.

At the link is a lame article from Wikipedia that is clearly wrong on Terminiello.

The Court did not find the ordinance violated the First Amendment. It did not even reach that question. It was decided on a faulty charge to the jury by the trial court.

The Court:

The argument here has been focused on the issue of whether the content of petitioner's speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310. We do not reach that question, for there is a preliminary question that is dispositive of the case.

The Court found that "The statute, as construed in the charge to the jury, was passed on by the Illinois courts and sustained by them over the objection that, as so read, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment."

It was the instructions to the jury that wandered astray. There was a general verdict which did not identify the precise reasoning for the guilty verdict. As the Court explained, "For all anyone knows, he was convicted under the parts of the ordinance (as construed) which, for example, make it an offense merely to invite dispute or to bring about a condition of unrest."

- - - - - - - - - -

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (16 May 1949) free speech

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner after jury trial was found guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of a city ordinance of Chicago, * and fined. The case grew out of an address he delivered in an auditorium in Chicago under the auspices of the

337 U. S. 3

Christian Veterans of America. The meeting commanded considerable public attention. The auditorium was filled to capacity, with over eight hundred persons present. Others were turned away. Outside of the auditorium, a crowd of about one thousand persons gathered to protest against the meeting. A cordon of policemen was assigned to the meeting to maintain order, but they were not able to prevent several disturbances. The crowd outside was angry and turbulent.

Petitioner, in his speech, condemned the conduct of the crowd outside and vigorously, if not viciously, criticized various political and racial groups whose activities he denounced as inimical to the nation's welfare.

The trial court charged that "breach of the peace" consists of any "misbehavior which violates the public peace and decorum", and that the

"misbehavior may constitute a breach of the peace if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance, or if it molests the inhabitants in the enjoyment of peace and quiet by arousing alarm."

Petitioner did not take exception to that instruction. But he maintained at all times that the ordinance, as applied to his conduct, violated his right of free speech under the Federal Constitution. The Judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court (332 Ill.App. 17, 74 N.E.2d 45) and by the Illinois Supreme Court. 396 Ill. 41, 71 N.E.2d 2; 400 Ill. 23, 79 N.E.2d 39. The case is here on a petition for certiorari, which we granted because of the importance of the question presented.

The argument here has been focused on the issue of whether the content of petitioner's speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310. We do not reach that question, for there is a preliminary question that is dispositive of the case.

337 U. S. 4

As we have noted, the statutory words "breach of the peace" were defined in instructions to the jury to include speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance. . . ." That construction of the ordinance is a ruling on a question of state law that is as binding on us as though the precise words had been written into the ordinance. See Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 272 U. S. 317; Winters v. New York, U. S. 507, 333 U. S. 514.

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in Jonge v. Oregon, U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 365, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Accordingly, a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 315 U. S. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 314 U. S. 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 331 U. S. 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas

337 U. S. 5

either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.

The fact that petitioner took no exception to the instruction is immaterial. No exception to the instructions was taken in Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359. But a judgment of conviction based on a general verdict under a state statute was set aside in that case because one part of the statute was unconstitutional. The statute had been challenged as unconstitutional, and the instruction was framed in its language. The Court held that the attack on the statute as a whole was equally an attack on each of its individual parts. Since the verdict was a general one, and did not specify the ground upon which it rested, it could not be sustained. For one part of the statute was unconstitutional, and it could not be determined that the defendant was not convicted under that part.

The principle of that case controls this one. As we have said, the gloss which Illinois placed on the ordinance gives it a meaning and application which are conclusive on us. We need not consider whether as construed it is defective in its entirety. As construed and applied, it at least contains parts that are unconstitutional. The verdict was a general one, and we do not know on this record but what it may rest on the invalid clauses.

The statute, as construed in the charge to the jury, was passed on by the Illinois courts and sustained by them over the objection that, as so read, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that the parties did not dispute its construction makes the adjudication no less

337 U. S. 6

ripe for our review, as the Stromberg decision indicates. We can only take the statute as the state courts read it. From our point of view, it is immaterial whether the state law question as to its meaning was controverted or accepted. The pinch of the statute is in its application. It is that question which the petitioner has brought here. To say, therefore, that the question on this phase of the case is whether the trial judge gave a wrong charge is wholly to misconceive the issue.

But it is said that, throughout the appellate proceedings, the Illinois courts assumed that the only conduct punishable and punished under the ordinance was conduct constituting "fighting words." That emphasizes, however, the importance of the rule of the Stromberg case. Petitioner was not convicted under a statute so narrowly construed. For all anyone knows, he was convicted under the parts of the ordinance (as construed) which, for example, make it an offense merely to invite dispute or to bring about a condition of unrest. We cannot avoid that issue by saying that all Illinois did was to measure petitioner's conduct, not the ordinance, against the Constitution. Petitioner raised both points -- that his speech was protected by the Constitution; that the inclusion of his speech within the ordinance was a violation of the Constitution. We would, therefore, strain at technicalities to conclude that the constitutionality of the ordinance, as construed and applied to petitioner, was not before the Illinois courts. The record makes clear that petitioner at all times challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance as construed and applied to him.

Reversed.

*

"All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace, or diversion tending to a breach of the peace, within the limits of the city . . . shall be deemed guilty of disorderly conduct, and upon conviction thereof, shall be severally fined not less than one dollar nor more than two hundred dollars for each offense."

Municipal Code of Chicago, 1939, § 193-1.

"It was a free speech (allegedly) leading to anarchy issue."

Leading to the death of everyone in the US. Got it.

the death of everyone in the US

Still beating your straw men. Pathetic - but not surprising.

"the death of everyone in the US"
"Still beating your straw men."

Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties.
-- ConservingFreedom

Strawbeater.

Then why bring up anarchy? Why not simply say the judge made a misleading statement since the free speech in this case would not lead to outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide?

Because anarchy, unlike pot legalization, WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US") - so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.

As always, glad I could clear that up for you.

"WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US")

Thank you for the clarification. Here I thought that when you said "Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties" you meant ... all parties.

Strawbeater.

"Applying the phrase to pot legalization is neither literally nor metaphorically accurate ..."

I agree. It's an accurate idiomatic expression.

It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance

Only if you take it literally.

No, also if you take it metaphorically or idiomatically.

By definition, an idiom is an expression not interpreted literally.

Poor you.

Only if you take it literally.

"No, also if you take it metaphorically or idiomatically."

By definition, an idiom is an expression not interpreted literally.

Hence my "also".

Dimwit.

Don't give me this we weaselly weaselly "also" crap.

Pfffft! You don't know what you think.

You assume a fact not in evidence. It thinks?

"You assume a fact not in evidence. It thinks?"

Very rarely the two neurons floating around in his head accidentally bump into each other and exchange a small amount of information. This is what passes for thought.

If you "also" took suicide pact idiomatically, you wouldn't be comparing it to suicide. Because an idiom is not taken literally.

Your first sentence doesn't follow from your second; that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning. If Joe and Jim each agree to eat a forkful of rutabaga if the other does, only in a purely humorous sense ought one call that a "suicide pact."

"that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning."

So if I said "Killing two birds with one stone" I must be referring to a murder, a bird or a stone?