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.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    OK, but here’s what I don’t get. I understand the whole prison-industrial complex thing, but Texas is run by straight up fascists. They’d always be able to come up with something else to put people in prison for. Why weed particularly?

    • undercrust@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      The cynical-but-statistically-true answer is that this law targets the people that they want to put in jail / don’t want to vote. It’s a historical, systemically racist piece of law that benefits the incumbents and status quo.

      Otherwise they’d have to consider putting people like themselves in prison, or prosecute white collar crime, and that just won’t stand for the GOP.

      • Morgoon@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Also the historically accurate answer according to the men in the room!

        “You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?

        We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

        Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

        ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I see where you’re coming from, and maybe that even is how they’re thinking, but I’m reminded of a joke by John Mulaney. After marijuana was legalized in his state, he declared as much to the audience, and then he asked white people to stop clapping: “It was ALWAYS legal for us.” So yes, they do indeed prosecute black people and other PoC more frequently for weed use, but only because they chose to. So, to me, this just emphasizes that they could make any law they wanted work that way. It doesn’t matter if it’s disproportionately committed by PoC or not, they’ll just prosecute that way anyway.

    • Ageroth@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      If it ain’t broke no need to fix it? Weed was never harmful except to authoritarian bottom lines

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because they’re lazy and risk-adverse, and they want to stick with what’s been working for them, probably.