Yet another federal court has told the DOJ to stop harassing medical marijuana providers

The Washington Post ^ | August 16th, 2016 | By Christopher Ingraham

[Mariner]

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Justice Department cannot prosecute medical marijuana businesses if those businesses are in compliance with applicable state laws.

The court had been asked to rule on whether the Justice Department had proper authority to press forward with federal drug charges in 10 cases involving medical marijuana dispensaries and growers in California and Washington state.

In 2014, Congress passed a bipartisan measure, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, prohibiting the Justice Department from using federal funds to prevent states from "implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." The agency interpreted the measure to mean only that it couldn't stop state governments from carrying out their medical marijuana laws — not that it couldn't prosecute cases against individuals or businesses in those states.

The Justice Department's interpretation infuriated the bill's sponsors. Last fall, a federal judge issued a scathing rebuke of the DOJ, saying that its reading of the bill "defies language and logic," "tortures the plain meaning of the statute" and is "at odds with fundamental notions of the rule of law."

[Mariner]

Many Drug Warriors are as lawless as any Democrat.

I wish this had been a 10th Amendment case rather than a ruling on Federal statute.

[Petrosius]

If it does not cross state lines then it is none of the Fed’s business.

[TheStickman]

Feds should decriminalize cannabis & the states should chose how they wish to legalize/regulate it.

Vote Trump 2016

[USNBandit]

For the most part the whole medical marijuana thing is a scam for people who want get dope legally. In states like California it is also a way for growers and dealers to work in a quasi legal status. I liked the law in Washington State because the legal supply was grown by either the patient or a designated grower. No pot farms or "dispensaries" making money off medical MJ users.

All that being said, I don't feel there should ever be a conflict between local, state, and federal laws that leave citizens in the middle. While people of our political nature tend to agree with state laws on this issue, we may find ourselves on the other side of that argument on other types of laws. I would think that the old Jim Crow laws and California's gun laws would be two issues where federal laws should be followed. If you were in Montana then you might feel the opposite for gun laws, and definitely highway speed limits. Driving 85 mph on the interstates makes me want to scream "Freedom!" out the window.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

For the most part the whole medical marijuana thing is a scam for people who want get dope legally.

Yeah? So what?

If you'll recall, during Prohibition, doctors could write prescriptions for people to get medicinal alcohol.

Was it a scam for people to get booze legally? You betcha.

But then the federal government has no business passing laws that tells people what they can or cannot consume.

[Petrosius]

While I agree with you on the merits of medical marijuana I think that this should be argued in the various states. The federal government has the authority to ban the interstate transportation of marijuana. It does not have the authority to dictate what happens within the bounds of the individual states. This goes for both marijuana and bathroom access. In areas not granted to the Congress by the the Constitution the states have the constitutional authority to make stupid laws.

[Loud Mime]

Good point, but keep in mind how the politicians have abused the interstate commerce clause.