That is fucking ridiculous

Is Washington's tax revenue funded on weed

Privately funded prisons are a weird issue, to be fair. Obviously if a company is willing to house inmates then of course the state will do it, it's less of a burden to the state. The argument, however, should be whether any form of non governmental entity should be able to run a correctional institution.

correctional institution never work anyway

As for weed, I think that if state's rights were more respected and important then it wouldn't be an issue. Instead of having a federal law dictating why not let each individual state decide? What works in California may not work in Alabama and vice versa

that's exactly what's happening

^^

The U.S. Federal Government isn't even touching it

so if you somehow see the fbi

ah fuck your weed is now illegal

Yea.

It's like the death penalty

In New York it's illegal, but if the New York Police decides to up your crime to a federal charge where on the federal level it is legal

bye bye

The idea that the federal government can somehow overrule a state's decision and by extension rights involving an issue that is not within the perimeters set by the constitution blatantly proves that the feds have a huge overreach of power

uh

```
is not within the perimeters set by the constitution
```

```
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
```

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2018/05/04/how-much-money-states-make-cannabis-sales/#659b5b5f1811

here you go

note the

0$

and the other numbers

not bad

I won't argue against weed on tax recreation then.

https://tenor.com/view/elmo-shrug-gif-5094560

Yes, however that largely refers to non internal issues. Treaties, for example, are considered the "supreme law of the land." My view is that it's not the place of the Federal government as Article 6 specifically refers to "any federal laws that are made according to the Constitution"

It's not like the Supremacy Clause is actually used nowadays

The Federal Government has a thing called block grants

Technically alcohol isn't illegal in the U.S. Government level

Any state can set their alcohol age restriction to any age they want

But if you want 1/2 of your transportation spending to be paid for, you'll have to set it to 21 or higher.

And I would consider that a large issue, state dependency on the federal government. It's genius really, make the states dependent on you for money in order to control state laws

For example, when the Obama administration introduced the healthy lunch program. Any school district that refused to participate risked losing federal funding, with the only schools able to ignore this being privately funded ones. It's really a scummy thing to do.

"Agree with us on every issue or we will cut you off of the money source we made you dependent on"

However, I think if the federal tax rate decreased and local government became increasingly more reliant on local taxes, then people would care more about local politics and overall being more involved. People take notice as to how much they are paying in taxes, money speaks volumes in that sense.

It's like weening a baby off of it's bottle. It's hard at first, since the baby is dependent on it, but once you've done it the baby now has more choices in what it can eat (not perfect but just an analogy)

LOL

The real problem is that

the state has to depend on the federal government

that's how the federal government know it won't secede