Posted on 02/05/2009 10:43:26 AM PST by bimboeruption
Drug Enforcement Administration agents this week raided four medical marijuana shops in California, contrary to President Obama's campaign promises to stop the raids.
DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart
The White House said it expects those kinds of raids to end once Mr. Obama nominates someone to take charge of DEA, which is still run by Bush administration holdovers.
“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said.
Medical use of marijuana is legal under the law in California and a dozen other states, but the federal government under President Bush, bolstered by a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, argued that federal interests trumped state law.
Dogged by marijuana advocates throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly said he was opposed to using the federal government to raid medical marijuana shops, particularly because it was an infringement on states' decisions.
“I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," Mr. Obama told the Mail Tribune newspaper in Oregon in March, during the Democratic primary campaign.
He told the newspaper the "basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate."
Mr. Obama is still filling key law enforcement posts. For now, DEA is run by acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, a Bush appointee.
Special Agent Sarah Pullen of the DEA's Los Angeles office said agents raided four marijuana dispensaries about noon Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
You forgot Taxes, or rather an inability to tax the product
I guess it will be done in steps, an we don’t control the steps, I’m just glad state’s rights are even being addressed.
OK
Look at the coffeeshops in the Netherlands and the medical marijuana dispensaries in California. These places all sell super expensive pot yet they do gangbusters business. In the Netherlands people can grow up to five plants for personal use without fear of arrest, but hardly anyone does that. In California and other states with medical marijuana laws medical marijuana card holders are allowed to grow their own, yet these dispensaries in California are selling pot for $20 and $30 a gram all day long. They're collecting sales taxes too in California and in the Netherlands. We could tax marijuana, and we could generate a lot of revenue from it. With a regulated system allowing for farmers with permits to grow it on a large scale using modern agricultural methods like they use for other crops, and licensed retail facilities to sell it, wholesale prices for marijuana would drop to a fraction of what they are today and the only way to keep the cost to consumers anywhere close to present levels would be to tax the crap out of it.
While I am in favor of the decriminalization of pot, Obama's purported belief that the Feds should not be used to circumvent state laws is beyond insulting. The key weasel word is "resources" which is supposed to mean that state government needs to enact a federal law banning the sale of pot in these "markets" when of course the state has decided to claim that their state law trumps the federal law banning. Again, irrelevent where one stands on the issue, if O & Co. want to change the federal law, fine. If they don't then they need to enforce the law that is being blatantly violated.
As to circumventing state laws: needless to say there are dozens and will be thousands of examples where Obama not only believes, but will act, to use Federal bills to circumvent state laws. He's a freekin' socialist! Freedom Of Choice Act. Gun control. Card check. Yada, yada. Never has a Dem President been so insulting.
Let me ask you this: do cities have the right to circumvent federal immigration laws because they don't agree with statutes? The Feds have laws against the open sale of pot for medicinal purposes. I don't personally agree with the law but at the same time what value is a Federal law if a state law can trump it. I am all for states rights but there has to be consistency in a federalist system.
White House says medical marijuana dispensary raids will stop as soon as new DEA chief appointed: http://reason.com/blog/show/131513.html
The federal laws are in violation of the originally intended scope and purpose of the Commerce Clause. The only way to get them challenged on those grounds is for the states or cities to pass laws that contradict them. Unforutunatley a majority of the USSC still uses the "substantial effects" doctrine established in Wickard v Filburn, instead of looking at the original intent.
Except for abortion, I guess...
We just had a high visibility death/drug case here. These kinds of things shouldn’t happen over a plant.
I think they are two separate issues altogether. The Feds should be protecting our borders, keeping the illegals out at the point of entry, but they're not, so cities have to deal with it based on the whims of the local populace.
The medical marijuana issue, as the Feds are currently fighting it, runs right up against the whole notion of individual liberty. You can grow it your backyard, you can smoke it, you get high. It doesn't cause crime, unless you consider lethargy to be a crime (and I know some here do). Keeping it illegal causes more problems that it cures. But, it generates revenue to have it illegal, and in the end that is all that matters, liberty be damned.
The Commerce Clause is a poison pill that allows a distant Fed to control every aspect of our lives, whether or not that control is relevant, or even beneficial, to our local populations.
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.