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.
So you say but so far that’s been as good a reason as any not to waste my time.
I'm thinking that in 1972 or so I must have had fake pot because it was difficult to feel any effect at all, besides the hype of everyone around me.
Big Washington employers such as Boeing and, to a lesser extent, the Microsoft-Amazon-Starbucks types are hard at work formulating new time-not-at-work and second hand smoke policies. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the latter end up permitting smoking on the job during breaks. Seen stranger things happen on the liberal side of the state.
Okay, I understand.
You don't want to waste your time informing yourself of the facts.
Got it.
I was reading Richard Nixons autobiography last week. He was the same liberal POTUS who gave us OSHA, EPA.
His point was that a functioning gubmint of the people and for the people is impossible if the citizens are all drunk or stoned.
I’m not drunk or stoned, but Statist politicians make it tempting.
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
My point is: do those terms also apply to your supporting the legality of the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol?
Actually one can drink alcohol and not have ones mind altered. Three sips of alcohol doesn’t make one impaired but three puffs of pot can make one impaired.
Alcoholics are druggies and what I posted about druggies should apply to alcoholics.
Depends on the pot - and for any pot, there is some amount that will leave you unimpaired. No difference there between pot and alcohol.
Alcoholics are druggies
Apples and oranges - not all those who use pot to the point of impairment are addicts. The apples-to-apples comparison is people who get alcohol-impaired and "druggies."
and what I posted about druggies should apply to alcoholics.
So you'll support the legality of alcohol only after people who get alcohol-impaired are denied taxpayer money, sterilized, and had their children taken away?
What’s your point? Stop with the word games and just say it.
And stemming from that simple observation, a simple question: Do you place the same conditions on the legalness of each drug?
So which part(s) of my previous statement do you think are in error: "Both alcohol and pot are drugs, both are often used to the point of impairment, and both sometimes lead to dependency (more often for alcohol, by the way)."
I'm rather done with this conversation since I don't agree with your point.
I'm rather done with this conversation since I don't agree with your point.
And yet you won't give any reason why anyone should disagree with my point. I leave it to readers to decide why you won't do so.
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.