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.
I think the worst and most corrupt thing that came out of the Reagan administration were the Asset Forfeiture laws. Reminds me of an Aesop fable, the Eagle and it’s feather. Asset Forfeiture was a great idea in theory, but in the hands of Bureaucrats it becomes a tool of oppression used to leverage ourselves from our Liberties, and there will always be Bureaucrats.
I don’t like or support drug cartels. There are many recreational drugs I don’t like or care to use or care to have others use, but in the end, it’s not my business.
In the end I think it’s appropriate for the Government to limit the sale, possession and use of these types of drugs, but not prohibit in toto. Under the common welfare clause they have the right to regulate and limit the providers, the sellers and the users, but prohibit.
Not very, but then most folks are now educated in schools with "standards" dictated by the feds, so there aren't too many bright people left.
And clearly our current drug laws saved them.
The problem in your story is the fact that we have laws that force contributing members of society to give to those who CHOSE to do dope, i.e. theft. If someone CHOOSES to fail, and doing dope is clearly making that choice, then I shouldn’t have to pay for their stupidity. Freedom comes with responsibility.
That means I shouldn’t have to pay with my money for their housing and food, with my money for overactive and overreaching “law enforcement”, but especially not with my God given rights or with my freedoms.
Well said.
I'm guessing that you WILL have a problem with the WOD the day after your first no-knock raid....
Yep, when the feds come to arrest the low level pot users, the county sheriff should be there to arrest and expel the feds.
We need a precedent set where any law that a state makes that isn’t an enumerated power of the Congress (Art I Sec 8) takes precedent over federal regulation.
Since that section of the Constitution doesn’t cover “substances”, state law is supreme via the 10th amendment.
(I’m not in favor of pot use. But I AM in favor of standing up to the feds and putting them in their cage.)
My friend just died of pancreatic cancer. He found great relief smoking pot.
It’s a free country if people want to smoke it (even if they are not sick) I say have at it.
The state of Washington says that the amount that will go into the coffers is 550 million which is enough to pay the entire year of the Police department which means that they should be able to lower everyone’s property taxes right??? lol.
I was thinking hypocritical, but it is very puzzling.
5.56mm
OK, here are the first five paragraphs from the first link...
Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.
Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision
(Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ……
“If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”
Your word is better. I meant hypocritical, strange, and puzzling. Why would a bunch of substance abusers, as many many members of the Obama admin surely are, be against legal dope?
The medicinal value of pot is not the issue.
The tax value of the pot is not the issue.
Freedom is the issue, but that’s not reason enough these days.
Sheriff Mattis can make any statement and interpretation he wants to but no federal leo needs his permission to operate within any county. And NO court has said they do.
These garbage blogs keep repeating Sheriff Mattis’ words as though it was law or the opinion of some federal court and another blog repeats what the first said as a source.
Sheriff Mattis sounds like he doing a little chest beating with his interpretations.
Is this true for all states?
Unfortunately, when the potheads were pushing for the legalization of marijuana, “freedom” never crossed there minds. Not much does. It was all about “sick people suffering because they couldn’t smoke pot” and how we should “legalize it and then tax the hell out of it.” Freedom isn’t the issue either. Getting stoned is the issue.
You’re ignoring the druggie impact on the non-druggie.
I don’t want one taxpayer dollar used to support the druggie. If you can give some ways for that not to happen then I would take your response seriously.
The problem with my story is the taxpayer supporting my druggie family members.
The drug laws have been helpful. When a druggie is thrown in jail they can’t abuse other non-druggies especially children.
Frankly I would like to deny all druggies taxpayer money, sterilize them and take away their children. Also punish them severly if they commit crimes while high on drugs and if they steal to get money for drugs.
If that happens I’ll be ok legalizing drugs.
The drug laws have been helpful. When a druggie is thrown in jail they can’t abuse other non-druggies especially children.
Frankly I would like to deny all druggies taxpayer money, sterilize them and take away their children. Also punish them severly if they commit crimes while high on drugs and if they steal to get money for drugs.
Does all that include the addictive mind-altering legal drug alcohol?
If that happens I’ll be ok legalizing drugs.
Are you OK with the legality of the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol?
what's your point?
you read the terms under which I would legalize all drugs
Studies have shown that the addictive potential of marijuana is less than that of caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.
[...] This woman is in her late 60’s for heavens sake. She was a flower child in the sixties. Go figure.
Go figure what? Are you saying that she is infringing upon anyone else's rights or is a menace to society? That she belongs behind bars?
Regards,
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.