Skip to comments.Obama Administration Pondering How to Overturn Pot Legalization in States
Posted on 12/09/2012 1:36:06 PM PST by John Semmens
On November 6 voters in Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana. Use of marijuana still remains illegal under federal law. A federal task force composed of representatives from the Justice Department, the DEA, the State Department, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy is considering how to respond.
Attorney General Eric Holder brushed aside all substantive debate over the merits of legalization saying that its not up to us to prove that marijuana is harmful in order for us to enforce the federal ban on its use. The simple fact that federal law trumps state law is sufficient grounds for us to suppress this drug.
Whether federal law trumps state law on this issue may not be a simple fact. Legalization of marijuana would appear to be within the purview of states under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. This Amendment reserves powers not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution to the states.
Holder, however, rejected this argument. Essentially, the 10th Amendment is a dead letter, Holder said. As the Civil War demonstrated no power asserted by any state can stand against the might of the federal government. The idea that we would stand aside while states seek to profit from legalizing pot is mistaken. We will arrest anyone caught producing, selling, or using this substance. Any funds earned or taxes collected from the production, distribution, or use of marijuana will be seized. This drug is not legal until we say it is.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
Barry and Eric the Holder might want to tread carefully. The “Cannabis Spring” has begun in America. The next thing you know, the unions will be sending pizza to the potheads. LOL!
It’s been a while, but you finally got me.
Thanks, John :)
Any funds earned or taxes collected from the production, distribution, or use of marijuana will be seized.
The tax man always wins.
Ha ha, jokes on libs, they have to choose between their love of the feds and their precious pot.
Overturn the “will of the people”? How can this happen?
Obama is all for states rights for the states that legalized homosexual marriage, but for pot - not so much.
And a big mirror is going to be held up to the big government loving "conservatives" on whether or not they believe in the clear wording of the 10th Amendment and any remaining fealty to the Constitution. As much as I hate holder, he at least came out and said that the Constitution is a dead letter. Waiting to see what team red does.
They're all for people smoking pot, but they don't want it legalized. If everyone is breaking the law, it makes it easier for them to lock up whoever they want, whenever they feel like it.
Rush was pointing out how amusing it is that you can’t show anybody lighting a cigarette on TV, but people are now going to be toking up at the office. (BTW, cannabis smoke and tar are actually much more harmful to the lungs because the tar is even “stickier,” and one of my friends actually developed emphysema in her late teens from smoking dope.)
That said, where in the world is the “legal” pot supply coming from? Are we buying it from Mexican drug gangs or from Oregon biker gangs?
It does give one a good chuckle, doesn’t it? :)
I thought the bike gangs dealt mostly in meth. You don’t get very far riding down the road with a bale of marijuana strapped to the sissy bar of your chopper.
They just had some biker gang killings up in Oregon or maybe lower Washington State over the pot “plantations.”
The biker gangs are very big into pot. I lived in Northern California for some years and everybody knew not to go out into the woods because they had their plantations not only guarded by human beings and dogs, but staked out with mantraps. Even the police and sheriffs avoided these areas (after a number of them had been killed).
The gangs are into meth or whatever drug is popular at a given moment, but their basic income is marijuana.
However that still doesn’t answer my question of whether the US government is including the biker gangs in its stimulus program by making marijuana the equivalent of, say, wheat or corn.
The 'substantial effects doctrine' of the Commerce Clause started with Roscoe Filburn and his 11 acres of wheat. They already make the same claim of constitutional authority to regulate both.
Yes, the Feds do have the authority, and the legalization of marijuana is all about collecting more taxes and getting more kickbacks for the Feds. The reason it’s being legalized is not because of vast popular demand or need, sinc most people don’t smoke dope, but because the Federal Government is looking for another revenue stream and this could be a pretty lucrative one.
However, there will still be problems. Marijuana is not a long-term (thousands of years) established intoxicating substance the way alcohol was at the time of Prohibition.
It’s used mostly by well-off urban whites and blacks, poor urban blacks and Hispanics and rural poor whites and is a relatively recent introduction. So there may be less overall support, but at the same time, the group producing it may be even more aggressive, and I can’t believe they’re going to want to pay taxes on it or that their users will want to pay taxes either. So while the pot-heads are clapping their hands, I think we’re about to see the Revenooers redux.
That’s why the Obama regime backed off on the Mexican drug gangs to the point that their outgoing president complained. (The new one, a Socialist, is much more drug favorable and the druggies probably bought him the election.) This current administration finds the taxation possibilities to be too succulent to pass up.
Also, this will make it easier for the Muslims to take over. Everybody in the ME is perma-stoned. Apparently Mad Mo forbade alcohol but not other substances, ranging from qat to hashish, and I’m sure Obama wants them to be perfectly at home when they take over here under him to form the New US Caliphate.
Yeah, actually it is. Not that facts ever get in the way.
It is a simple fact. Running a “drug war” is not an Art 1 Sec 8 power of the Fed Gov.
Nobody cares what the Constitution says. We want the Government to do what we want the Government to do. We pick and choose like we’re ordering off of a menu, and then get pissed when others choose something else. Frankly, I don’t think we’re smart enough, or principled enough, to make the Constitution matter anymore.
Here in WA State commercial growing permits will be issued, although the mechanism to do this and the specifics of the permit are still in the formulative stage. Heck, the whole concept of state-merchandized pot is still in the formulative/formative stage. There are legitimate fears that the cartels will somehow work their way into this at the agricultural, distribution, or retailing stages and the state is trying to head that off. There will be stamps and taxes at every stage and the state has estimated $12/gram as a retail price this time next year. The new law will not permit personal growing although you know many are going to do that, just as now.
Another masterful blurring, John.
I think the usual subjects, the old chestnuts - “national security” or “common welfare” or “ the commerce clause”, or simply the “for the children” rallying cry - would suffice for Feds to send in the troops and seize the revenue states are bringing in. “Fairness” or “giving their fair share” could be held in reserve in case those fail.
The argument behind the scenes is no longer in the realm of the public good, but que bono writ large. It was probably always thus. Not a single Federal “War On . . . “ has ever had victory as its goal. We don’t win any “wars” anymore, we just use wars to justify surrendering freedom and sovereignty and the fruits of the citizens’ labors to the ruling elite.
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.