Posted on 12/06/2012 9:26:57 PM PST by Red Steel
The Obama administration is strategizing how to fight legal pot in Colorado and Washington, reports Charlie Savage of The New York Times. While "no decision" is "imminent," Savage reports that senior level White House and Justice Department officials are considering "legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives."
A taskforce made up of Main Justice, the DEA, the State Department, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy is currently considering two courses of action, reports Savage:
One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.
A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be “severed” from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.
Option one could possibly mean that Obama would break a campaign promise he's already split hairs over: That his administration will not go after people who smoke marijuana for medicinal reasons. Savage makes it seem as if there are people in Washington who are more than happy to take that route: Apparently some law enforcement officials are so "alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly," that they "are said to be pushing for a stern response."
On Nov 12, Jacob Sullum answered the question, Can the Feds stop Colorado and Washington from legalizing pot?
According to the Supreme Court, a "positive conflict" exists "when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law." But neither Colorado's Amendment 64 nor Washington's Initiative 502 requires anyone to grow or sell marijuana. One can readily comply with both state and federal law simply by choosing not to go into the cannabis business. Both laws are written so that they merely explain the criteria people must satisfy to avoid prosecution for marijuana offenses under state law. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," begins the section of Amendment 64 dealing with marijuana growers and sellers, "the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law." I-502 likewise says "the production, possession, delivery, distribution, and sale of marijuana in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules adopted to implement and enforce it, by a validly licensed marijuana producer, shall not be a criminal or civil offense under Washington state law."
In other words, both laws define what counts as a crime under state law, a power that states indisputably have. "You're not actually creating a positive conflict with the federal [law]," says Alison Holcomb, director of the Yes on I-502 campaign, "because the federal government remains free to enforce federal law within the state, and you're not requiring anybody to perform an act that would require a violation of federal law. You're simply setting out what the rules are for avoiding arrest and prosecution under state law."
Nor does either law compel state employees to violate the Controlled Substances Act by "possessing" marijuana for regulatory purposes. Under I-502, testing of marijuana will be handled by private laboratories. Amendment 64 likewise envisions "marijuana testing facilities" that will be "licensed to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana."
What about collecting tax revenue from marijuana sales? Legally, those provisions could be the most vulnerable aspects of these laws (although it looks like Colorado's pot tax may never take effect). Jonathan Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, tells Politico, "The argument has been made— and I’ve never heard anybody successfully rebut it—that the federal government can seize the proceeds of any illegal activity. By that logic, it could seize the tax revenues—even from the states." But in Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Caulkins and his three co-authors observe that although "it has been argued that the federal government could confiscate such revenues as proceeds of illegal transactions...as far as we know the federal government has not touched a penny of the fees and tax revenues generated from medical marijuana."
And here's Ethan Nadelmann, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, hoping against hope that Obama will get on board.
Guess what, 0beezlebama! The fact that you were re-elected means the Constitution and thus your authority under it are no longer legitimate. The people voted for your lawlessness which is a lack of consent to the rule of law. I don’t care what you arrest me for I’m not going to fight it in a FedMob court of law. To quote Algore; You have no controlling legal authority.
Why would someone give any more of a damn about whether someone smokes a dried out plant or drinks a beer? Whether for “medical reasons” or not, who cares?
Simply put, if you dislike drugs, DON’T USE THEM.
This prohibition has FAILED(if you support it, you have failed along with it), while doing FAR more harm in the process of trying to make it work. Did we learn ANYTHING from the 1920s? It’s just history repeating, and it’s relatively recent history.
I have never done the pot thing and do not look favorably on it’s widespread use. However I believe that laws and punishment for crimes against any human or business should be the same whether done under the influence of any drug or liquor or whatever.
I don’t give a damn if someone wants to smoke the stuff behind their own closed doors. As long as I know about it before I send my child over to play with theirs. I am not in one of these 2 states, thankfully, because the smell of it makes me ill. I remember as a kid smoking some to go along with having a good time with my friends but never really enjoyed the odor and remember a few “contact” 2nd hand smoke buzzes. I would HATE to have to live amongst a society that is able to smoke that stuff out in public and get others sick to their stomach.
At the very least, it's a great way to get pro-pot lefties out of their "states' rights = racism" conditioning.
I only tried it a couple of times years ago back when I was a teen, and both times it made me horribly paranoid to the point of fright, and sick as a dog. Never used the stuff since, nor cared to. However, if others wish to, have at it. Just keep it in your home and to yourself as much as possible. The existing laws regarding smoking and sobriety should and likely would apply.
If druggies isolated themselves, didn’t pro-create and didn’t leach off the taxpayer then I would be fine with legalizing all drugs. Unfortunately druggies inflict themselves on non-druggies. That is the issue.
Nonetheless that's never going to happen, hence the "War on Drugs(TM)", instituted under Richard Nixon. This is the single biggest issue I have with Republicans and there is little if anything to choose between demmy and pubby pols on the issue. The "war on drugs" leads to
It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/
The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.
Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.
"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."
The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.
A rational set of drug laws would:
Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
Don’t forget that the WOD also pried the door open on the doctor/patient relationship. Once there was a crack, government poured into every other area.
Nor can the sheriff order them out. This is just inter net garbage. If in the blogs you link to say otherwise please show me.
What you say goes doubly for me - with regards to tobacco!
Regards,
I despise moochers, looters, and leeches as much as the next Conservative, but the truth is that it's not their fault that our welfare state is so willing to subvention them.
ALL parasites should be struck from the welfare roles (not just the alcoholics and druggies).
Regards,
Puzzling. Most of the people in the Obama admin probably use illegal substances on a regular basis. Obama is most likely smoking a joint at this moment. He must be on some kind of drug to to the things he does.
is all this really that complicated?
.....................
Fed LEOs can enforce their own law.
State licensed pot shops will not be ‘federal’ legal.
states will stop enforcing pot lows.
> Corruption, the rise of drug cartels, and outright civil wars in other nations which supply drugs to the illegal drug enterprises here.
Legalize marijuana, street price will plummet, and it will cut a lot of the cartels action out. They won’t be happy and their partnerships with the US government will dry up (our government denies it but there are way too many sources that have stated otherwise over the years; what do you think Fast & Furious was really about...lol)
> Bunk. Medicinal marijuana was the camel’s nose stuck under the tent. It was a ruse, and a cynical one at that.
The highest proportion of glaucoma patients seem to be on the West coast for some reason.
My stepson has an aunt in California that is so addicted to pot she does it all day; she has a permit for medicinal marijuana. My stepson said that when he visits her she does it while he’s there which irritates me (he’s not a drug user and is in his twenties). She’s even admitted to him she doesnt have a health condition (or glaucoma) but has the permit so she can do it. This woman is in her late 60’s for heavens sake. She was a flower child in the sixties. Go figure.
A government center- once again taxpayer involvement.
I have no problem with the war on drugs because I’ve had family members mess up their lives, their health, their finances for drugs and then the taxpayer is stuck paying the price for theses family members drug abuse.
Dude, hemp = love man. The founding fathers all smoked it. Hemp was the top cash crop. pffftttt, eeer.. dude, we would be better if we all just relaxed the laws and allowed states to tax it man, they would make boku money dude. Seriously dude, I have headaches and the only way it can be helped is with ganja. I don’t like putting any of that man-made poison in my body so I’ll just smoke this unfiltered, unregulated black tarry product laced with unknown chemicals because it’s safer because it comes straight from mother nature man.
I’ve been hearing this nonsense my whole life. I’ve never seen seemingly healthy people have so many ailments that can only be alleviated by pot. Medical was just an excuse for potheads and now it’s decriminalized, what’s next? I’m looking forward to the “tax boom” we will all enjoy from legalizing it.
Maybe it’ll have to be spent on research for studies about how bad this stuff is and how much it needs to be regulated and filtered to prevent obesity and lung disease. Maybe we can have images of nachos and black lungs on the front of the boxes and the THC will has to be monitored and capped at a certain level.
In ten years, people will agree that it should have just been left alone.
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.