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.
Looks like we need a lot more "wars on [insert favorite bugbear here]," wouldn't you say?
Regards,
In the year 1915 how many federal laws were there?
I am going to look it up. I think the answer is something like 100.
If anyone knows, please post. (The fedgov is broke - why do they worry about such things.)
Looks like we need a lot more "wars on [insert favorite bugbear here]," wouldn't you say?
Regards, Those are your words not mine. Have a good day now.
in general, yes. you’d have to check each state’s constitutions for particulars, but yes. state are divided into counties or parishes, and the sheriff is the top leo of the county. anything law-wise going on in the county can only occur wth the permission of the sheriff.
i would guess a lot of sheriff’s however do not operate this way or know that this technically is what powers they have over the feds. lots of times they don’t b/c they let the feds do what they want under ‘professional courtesy’.
> My stepson has an aunt in California that is so addicted to pot she does it all day [...]
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?
No. My point is that her addiction is so strong she can’t even control it around my stepson and I beg to differ about it being less addictive than the above ^. His aunt cannot function without it and I have known other addicts that are the same. this doesn’t mean they are criminals but I wouldn’t want to be in the same car when they are driving and wouldnt trust them to operate heavy equipment safely (I do know of a heavy crane operator that dropped a port’o’potty on a co-workers head at a construction site because he made errors in judgment on distance while operating a crane; killed the guy instantly; I know...what a way to go). In addition it makes people lethargic and apathetic; something I’ve seen with my own eyes a lot when I was younger. Again I’m not saying that people who smoke marijuana are criminals; it’s just something I choose not to do because of the above.
Sorry, I hadn't understood that you were merely relating personal anecdotes and stating personal preferences - and not trying to justify the "war on (some) drugs."
Regards,
Bravo Sierra.
A lot of chemo patients would disagree with you, including my deceased brother-in-law. May he RIP.
Obama’s a typical lib hypocrite. He doesn’t want legalized choom gangs.
Turbo-charged, Islamo-Marxist, War-on-Drugs Nanny State PING!
Obama’s a typical lib hypocrite. He doesn’t want legalized choom gangs.
Turbo-charged, Islamo-Marxist, War-on-Drugs Nanny State PING!
Yes, I had Hodgkin’s Disease when I was in college in the 1980s. Looking back on the chemo regimen, I don’t think I would have minded a toke or two, rather than hanging my head over the toilet.
War on Drugs nazis can rot.
For those of us that support the tenth amendment, I think this is a good thing. It will align many more people against the federal government when they see what kind of power grab Washington is trying this time.
The County Sheriff in most western states trumps everybody. POTUS, governors, legislators, judges - everybody.
It's just been so long since most of them exercised the power, they don't know they have it. Arpaio knows. Bernalillo County, NM former Sheriff Darren White knew. A few others will wake up to the fact, hopefully before it is too late.
“He doesn’t want legalized choom gangs.”
—
I had to look up the word “choom”. Maybe I’m getting too old for this. LOL
.
Not one one word that allows a county sheriff to demand his permission for federal leos to conduct investigations within county borders.
Sheriff Mattis may think so, you may think so but neither can point to any ruling that says otherwise.
Oh, not so at all! The feds have erected a legal house of cards overstepping their proper place relative to the states and the citizens of those states ever since FDR (spit). Can't have those uppity states start thinking they have some autonomy, now can we? That would open up a WHOLE can of worms.
Let's be frank, drug warriors got hosed by CO and WA. Big time.
Thanks for the ping!
Obama needs to respect state’s right but he wont because hes a marxist bastard
I agree with you there. The last two times I smoked it, 1978 and 1988, it made me sick and I threw up for hours. Haven’t touched it since.
I don’t live in either of those states, but inhaling second hand could have devastating results for me since I’m subject to random pee tests at work. What happens to the person who doesn’t smoke it but inhales it second-hand, then gets called in for a pee test, now that it’s legal?
It's not my job to do your homework for you, but you need look no further than the State in question's Constitution.
That's where it is in the majority of Western states.
Knock yourself out.
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.