Posted on 10/18/2009 10:25:06 PM PDT by Steelfish
Obama Won't Seek to Arrest Medical Pot Users
Federal prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws, officials say
October 19, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries -- businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
it’s not his job, is it? shouldn’t we be grateful that there’s something he’s not trying to do.
[Oath of Office: To Faithfully...?]
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Regulating and prohibiting the usage and intrastate commerce in a textile plant is not an enumerated power.
Maybe now the farm belt states can return to hemp production before Canada completely corners the world market.
But where in the Constitution does it authorize the banishment of a product/drug on the federal level? The banishment of alcohol had to be accomplished with a Constitutional amendment, so what makes pot different enough to NOT require such an amendment?
In our Constitution in Articled II “all executive power is vested in the President.” The Executive is in charge of faithfully executing the laws of the country (federal laws). It is the oath of office each President solemnly swears to do. Willful failure or refusal to do so is an impeachable offense like what occurred in the articles of impeachment with Nixon.
Potheads are usually too stoned to be any real trouble to socialist dictators.
pshaw. details, schmetails!
I’m with you on this, I agree with laws baning Pot at the state level but if the folks in CA want medical marijuana who am I, as a Minnesotan to tell them not to?
If Bush snubbed federal authority over the states like this we would be cheering..
The President, and all other Federal officials, have exactly the same Constitutional authority to arrest as criminals those who use Marijuana (or any other drug) as existed for the arrest of those who used/possessed alcohol prior to the enactment of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition): Absolutely none whatsoever. Absent an Amendment similar to the 18th granting the Federal government the power to criminalize the possession or use of subtances, any such action by the Federal government is Unconsitutional, and any President who permits Federal agents to arrest or prosecute such cases is violating his oath of office.
looks like he is smoking a joint in this picture.
Interesting argument, never heard that one before.
When it comes to marijuana, Obama suddenly becomes a proponent of States Rights. Wonder if this could be argued to have set a legal precedent for other issues.
Until they are sitting in the WH
The Assassins were allegedly potheads. Heaven help us if modern Islamic extremists link up with potheads in an unholy stoner-shaheed axis.
Don’t get too excited, he just wants to tax it.
gad I can’t stand it. Just thought the comment fit.
“unholy stoner-shaheed axis”?! LOL!!!!
Yes, of course. The president has a statutory duty to enforce federal law. Whether or not to enforce the law is not up to whims of “policy”.
The Obama administration = Stoners united like his actions don’t prove that.
We had the war thingie going on, so people kinda weren’t paying attention. Funny how young Americans were dying to protect the regimes that were throwing away the Republic, eh?
And now we got Lindsey Lohan or whatever the hell her name, not to mention the thousands if not millions of hours of airtime about Letterman, people just ain’t interested if the Feds have that power, especially since they just got a $1700 check from them to help pay for their new water heater.
But ... It’s all good, right??
>>The banishment of alcohol had to be accomplished with a Constitutional amendment, so what makes pot different enough to NOT require such an amendment?
>
>Interesting argument, never heard that one before.
Why not? It certainly fits: both are mind-altering substances, and both are condemned categorically by some segments of the general population.
So, the question is: why did the federal restriction of alcohol need to be authorized via a Constitutional amendment while the restriction of pot, [full-auto] guns, or [IIRC] sudaphed.
>We had the war thingie going on, so people kinda weren’t paying attention.
If you’re talking about the war in Iraq [or Afghanistan] then I seem to recall the “war on drugs” predating it.
And if you’re citing the “war on drugs” then was there a ban, explicitly or de facto, prior to that ‘war’?
>Funny how young Americans were dying to protect the regimes that were throwing away the Republic, eh?
Yeah, so funny maybe those same young Americans may be legally justified by the Constitution in violently overthrowing the blatantly contra-Constitutional government we have: just because Congress is routinely passing ex post facto laws DOESN’T make it Constitutional, just because the USSC says that it’s legal for the Government to seize your private property and hand it over to another private entity under eminent domain DOES NOT make it Just OR CONSTITUTIONAL.
Dopers unite! And here the “I can do with my body what I want to” libertarian crowd thought they’d have to elect Ron Paul to get marijuana legalized. The difference between Ron Paul and B. Hussein Obama on this issue is: Paul mistakenly thinks America can stay free by legalizing street drugs; Obama knows it’ll be easier to put the shackles of serfdom on America if they’re hiiiiiiiigh.
Good information regarding the “War on Drugs”.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/director.htm
2008 statistics: (more current than the above website:) http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/success_in_fight_against_drugs.pdf
Remember: “Drugs are not dangerous because they’re illegal, they’re illegal because they’re dangerous”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.