Posted on 01/10/2018 10:07:28 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
When Winston Churchill's party lost an election in 1945, evicting him from the job of prime minister of Britain, his wife ventured that the defeat might be "a blessing in disguise." He replied, "Well, at the moment, it's certainly very well-disguised."
For those who favor legalizing recreational and medical use of marijuana, there is plenty of bad news in Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to reverse the Justice Department's previous hands-off policy toward state experimentation. He ordered federal prosecutors "to enforce the laws enacted by Congress." That directive poses a threat to cannabis growers, dispensaries, investors and users who had been operating under a permissive regime.
"This is going to create chaos in the dozens of states whose voters have chosen to regulate medical and adult use (of) marijuana rather than leaving it in the hands of criminals," said Neill Franklin, executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, which favors legalization. The Drug Enforcement Administration could raid dispensaries that states have allowed, as it did under President George W. Bush and even under Barack Obama.
But the crackdown could amount to the last gasp of marijuana prohibition. The best way to get rid of laws that are generally unpopular and destructive is to enforce them stringently. By threatening an assault on a sector that has established itself across the country, Sessions has picked a fight he is bound to lose.
His policy puts him at odds with the 29 states (and the District of Columbia) that allow medical use of the drug. Together, they comprise nearly 60 percent of the U.S. population. His order is especially hostile to the eight states that have legalized recreational pot. They include Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada, Maine, Massachusetts and California, which account for 20 percent of Americans.
It also creates conflict with many people in his own party. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado said the shift contradicted the assurance Sessions had given him, and he threatened to block all Justice Department nominations in response.
Fellow GOP Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky objected. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California accused Sessions of a "profound misreading of the Constitution, which allows states, not the heavy-handed federal government, to determine such issues."
Sessions is a prisoner of his immutable belief that "using drugs will destroy your life." But the more than 100 million Americans who have consumed cannabis, and particularly the 35 million who enjoy it on a regular basis, know better. The attorney general seems intent on proving that you don't have to be stoned to be detached from reality.
He is also inviting a backlash. Just hours after his announcement, the Vermont House of Representatives approved a bill to allow recreational use of cannabis, which the Senate had passed last year, and Republican Gov. Phil Scott supports the idea. This week, the New Hampshire House voted to legalize possession of small amounts of pot, though Republican Gov. Chris Sununu is opposed.
Illinois, which allows medical marijuana, could benefit. State Sen. Heather Steans, who had already introduced a bill to legalize recreational use, says, "What the attorney general did may be pushing states further."
Rohrabacher thinks Sessions' move will encourage Congress to foil him. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she will introduce a bill to let states make their own choices on cannabis. She may find little opposition. Politico reported that it "could not find a single member of Congress who had issued a statement in support of Sessions' actions."
His mistake was to disturb a status quo that allowed members of Congress to accommodate public support for legalization without having to vote for it. Deference to state liberalization could be couched in terms of keeping the federal government from interfering with matters beyond its responsibilities -- an approach that largely satisfied both Democrats and Republicans.
Sessions is forcing many members to choose between supporting prohibition of cannabis and siding with their own states and constituents. Given that two-thirds of Americans want to allow recreational weed, it's not a shrewd strategy.
His position is more likely to boost support for legalization than to diminish it. That's partly because he works for a president who is notably unpopular and partly because he himself has an approval rating of 24 percent. Legalization supporters could not ask for a more useful adversary.
They may lament Sessions' ill-informed and punitive decision now. Someday, they may remember it as a blessing in disguise.
This action by Sessions would appear to be contrary to the 10th amendment.
It’s going to be a devil of a time trying to make sure that all the loose pot out there was duly taxed. The wave of regulated pot would give way to a wave of free pot, a second rebellion.
This said, we might as well make it official, and it has been said the best way to get rid of a stupid law is to enforce it strictly.
“Politicians see there’s money to be had and their lust for money to spend far outweighs any concern for the welfare of the country.”
Except for the fact that until today, no legislature has legalized. The other 8 states and DC were by ballot measures. Politicians are out of sync with the people on this issue.
If the climate became right for rolling back Wickard, this could be one of the causes.
I think that well-meaning lefties have legislated the USA into a rubber room. This results in people who can’t do the right thing because it’s right, rather than because the wrong thing was banned.
Meanwhile little things like Treason, Sedition, Obstruction of Justice and an endless list of other crimes are being ignored.
FIRE JEFF SESSIONS NOW!
Jeff Sessions needs to be investigated. He appears to be up to his eyeballs involved in the cover up of crimes of the obama administration. Our country is in great danger and this man is helping to facilitate it.
“Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado said the shift contradicted the assurance Sessions had given him, and he threatened to block all Justice Department nominations in response.”
Why doesn’t he introduce legislation to legalize it?
What are your thoughts on this matter?
>>>This action by Sessions would appear to be contrary to the 10th amendment<<<
The Federal Law regarding the treatment of Marijuana as a Controlled Stage One Drug might be a 10th Amendment issue.
The Attorney General of the United States does not make Federal Law, he enforces Federal Law.
The Congress is tasked with making Law. The issue lies with them. Since when does a Governmental “Gentleman’s Agreement” trump the Laws that are on the Books?
You know, like Obama coming up with DACA which is in direct violation of Federal Immigration Law?
If the Law is idiotic, the Congress must act or the SCOTUS should declare it Unconstitutional. It isn’t the AG’s job to make Law, period.
“The Attorney General of the United States does not make Federal Law, he enforces Federal Law.”
So when is Sessions going to start prosecuting seniors for buying prescription drugs from Canada - never, you say?
When he stops ignoring that law, then we can talk about how principled he is for upholding the Law of the Land.
The law is the law. If you don’t like the law, you need to get Congress to change the law. Sessions and marijuana, Trump and DACA, the appropriate venue for legislation is the legislature. Congress needs to stop hiding behind Obama’s illegal EOs and do its frigging job.
We all railed against Obama’s AG’s when they just ignored the Law.
Now we are upset that there is an AG that enforces the Law?
My personal opinion, Sessions should have stayed in the Senate. He hasn’t shown himself to have the Gonads to do what needs to be done regarding the Rat Party’s obvious Crimes.
I just hope there is a lot is stuff that is going on behind the scenes that will prove me wrong regarding Mr. Sessions.
As far as Old People getting Canadian Drugs, why would they be doing that since Medicare has paid for them since Bush signed the Medicare Part D Legislation?
Is there a limit on Viagra Refills or something?
Man Katie the body Pavlichs site townhall.com cling to nevertrump digs
Check out the end of this pipe dream piece
“The law is the law. If you don’t like the law, you need to get Congress to change the law.”
In the meantime, you could use your voice as a citizen to encourage disobedience to unconstitutional laws.
I doubt you’d defend fedgov enforcing a law which tramples the Second Amendment. Why defend enforcing a law that tramples the Tenth?
“We all railed against Obama’s AG’s when they just ignored the Law.”
___________________
Except for a few whiny big government nannies, no one here criticized Obama for not going after legal mj in the states.
What he was criticized for was not enforcing laws that fedgov is supposed to be doing, like defense, borders, immigration etc.
____________
“As far as Old People getting Canadian Drugs, why would they be doing that since Medicare has paid for them since Bush signed the Medicare Part D Legislation?”
________________
That is irrelevant to the point that violations of federal law are being ignored by fedgov. Therefore, it is garbage to claim Sessions is taking principled action here.
>>>What he was criticized for was not enforcing laws that fedgov is supposed to be doing, like defense, borders, immigration etc.<<<
Until the Law is changed, it is the Law. I am not arguing what is and isn’t Constitutional here. I am a vehement States Rights supporter just like you.
Outlining what things Obama was criticized for on this Forum has nothing to do with the current Attorney General, it has to do with a Legislative Branch of Government that hasn’t a clue about what is Constitutional or not and a People who have allowed such idiocy to gain a foothold in our Society.
The problem is decades in the making and the simple fact that most Americans don’t have a clue about what being a Free People encompasses and the responsibilities that come with it.
I am only worried that the AG is distracted by this when there are much bigger fish to fry. All that has to happen is a change in the Law regarding the Drug Classification of Marijuana. Why wasn’t that done when Obama had the House and Senate? After all, he was the original Choom King.
“Until the Law is changed, it is the Law.”
Agree. Therefore, until the Tenth Amendment is nullified by a constitutional amendment, it should be defended from transgressions by the federal government. The same as you would against a law that infringed the RKBA.
The existence of the federal law against MJ has a lot of associated matters to unravel beyond just eliminating that law and letting it all fall to the states. Multiple regulations and policies stem from the existence of that law. Included would be items like the question on the 4473 about drugs, drug testing in critical occupations (transportation and law enforcement, to name a couple), required drug testing policies for employers seeking to contract with the fedgov, and it goes on from there. It’s going to take significant work just to understand all of the unintended consequences such a repeal could include. And that’s even before the discussion begins about the potential for fedtax on MJ, a la alcohol and tobacco. Talk about your penumbras and emanations...
“All that has to happen is a change in the Law regarding the Drug Classification of Marijuana. Why wasn’t that done when Obama had the House and Senate?”
Because Obama is a creature of the Swamp. MJ prohibition gives fedgov an opening for all kinds of mischief, such as asset seizures, power over local police at the expense of local govt control, $$$ from the budget etc.
That’s real Swamp stuff.
Wasn't it Scalia that authored the decision allowing all commerce in marijuana to be considered "interstate commerce"?
Given that overreach I can't imagine anything that would constitute solely "intrastate commerce". Despite Scalia's opinion, I don't think our Founders intended this.
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.