Skip to comments.Feds won't sue to stop pot use in Wash., Colo.
Posted on 08/29/2013 12:05:17 PM PDT by djf
US DOJ announces pot enforcement not a priority...
WASHINGTON -- The federal government says it will not sue to stop the states of Colorado and Washington from allowing recreational marijuana use.
In a sweeping national policy announcement, the Justice Department outlined eight top priority areas for its enforcement of marijuana laws....
(Excerpt) Read more at king5.com ...
Unusually sensible for a DOJ policy release.
Just decriminalize it.
Funny when the 10th amendment is recognized...
As The Great Choomer himself once observed:
(or thought, or dreamed, or meant to say)
“Let ‘Em Be - A Stoned Electorate Is A Compliant Electorate”
So HOLDER respects state laws regarding pot, but DISREGARDS state laws regarding voting and sodomite “marriage”. Got it.
Don't see this standing for long, though ... when the fed jackboots realize how much power they're relinquishing, they'll probably change course and start kicking in doors again.
So much for the constitutional requirement of uniform enforcement of federal laws. One can argue that the federal governments drug laws themselves are not constitutional, but clearly granting certain states an exemption from the enforcement of criminal laws violates the rights of people who live in states where they are enforced.
You can’t pass a Federal law that makes violation a crime in Texas but not in Colorado.
But since the constitution means nothing to these people anymore, who is going to complain?
They can decriminalize all recreational drugs, as far as I'm concerned.
I’ll bet they are holding their breaths waiting to see what the tax revenue adds up to!
We’re talkin one big time cash cow here.
As I noted in post #8: 'Stopped clock -- blind squirrel'.
Every g**d*mned thing these jerks do is political. As soon as it becomes politically expedient to do so, they'll be sending the jackboots after the potheads again.
My thoughts exactly. Selective enforcement/compliance.
They just did. It’s called equal application of the law. At least at the federal level. The states are still on their own over the matter.
You might want to read a bit more.
Historically, and traditionally, and tenth-amendment-wise, the “police power” belongs to the states.
The “police power” refers to the essence of criminal jurisdiction, and has to do with matters that effect the health and welfare and general well being of the citizens.
Federal government has criminal jurisdiction where Congress controls things according to their “exclusive legislative authority”.
There are DOJ documents and Supreme Court rullings out there that explain it more, you can research them if you like.
Maybe, but I'm not sure they even care about that. Their primary currency is POWER, and they'll use whatever means they have at their disposal to gain/retain it.
Remember from the 2008 debates: when Charlie Gibson noted to 0bama that keeping capital gains tax rates low results in greater income to the treasury, 0bama's response was that 'fairness' (ie. screwing the 'fat cats') was more important. Pure, unabashed political power (which, according to one of 0bama's heros comes from the mouth of a gun) is really what they traffic in.
The Injustice Department has a different stance when it comes to states that enforce border security and immigration laws.
I don’t care what is historical or traditional, federal criminal statutes apply to all citizens regardless of which states they commit the crime. The Federal Government can’t make a criminal law that only applies to the residents of one state. Federal laws are Federal laws.
The only laws this Nazi government is interested in enforcing are gun and tax laws. Everything else, meh!
They will once they figure out how much tax money they will get.
Some federal laws will still be enforced such as smuggling, interstate transportation etc. Simple possession or cultivation should never have been federalized in the first place.
If a DEA agent arrests a suspect in Spokane WA with 10 pounds of pot they can still prosecute him federally but they can't just dump the case on the state and locals for prosecution as they did in the past.
Given the crowded federal docket and prosecutable guidelines, DEA is not going to wast their time on any case they know the AUSA will decline because all the work will be for not.
This should be alarming to anyone regardless of what side of the pot issue they are on, since it says that the Feds can just “turn laws on and off” like a light switch at their whim. That is a very dangerous situation when you ponder its implications. You feel safe from criminal prosecution... today.
Well, you may not care, but in one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in modern times they DID care.
United States V Lopez, 514 US 549
Why would they sue? The president is a dope-head himself...
No - they are too busy suing states for enforcing laws the Feds should be enforcing, and in investigating law-abiding citizens who use firearms to defned their lives...
That case has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.
Congress cannot enact a criminal statute that only applies to the citizens of some of the states. Exempting the residents of Colorado while prosecuting the residents of Texas for the same crime is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Lopez had nothing whatsoever to do with that issue.
The Lopez case helps show the limitations and extent of federal criminal jurisdiction.
What you think we have now is what Hamilton wanted but DIDN’T GET!
The federal government has no general police power, and no “law” that Congress passes can expand it’s power from a limited jurisdiction to a general jurisdiction.
“In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action.”-A Great Historian 1888
This is interesting, especially since they been busting medical pot dealers left and right in WA state.
Great day in the morning! This could very well be the beginning of the end of the federal WoSD.
It's dead, Jim.
Honestly, I can’t believe this day has come.
Doubling down on the drug war is not a winning political strategy anymore.
For example Alaska senator challengers are Mead Teadwell, Joe Miller, and maybe possibly Sarah Palin. Pothead Palin has the doper vote if she does run.
And up yours, libertarians, who could care about any state laws/prerogatives -- abortion included.
So you think the Fed should be able to jail you for an act in one state but no jail you for the same act in another state???
You should be saying get rid of the federal law altogether. That’s the only thing that makes sense.
This is just another example of Obama’s justice department picking and choosing which laws Obama will execute. What is especially egregious about this one is that it shows that Obama is willing to enforce laws in States that he doesn’t like and let them slide in states he does like.
Don’t be surprised when Obama enforces the Heath care mandate in Red States and gives blanket waivers to Blue States.
What about a state that passes a gun law that is in conflict with a federal gun ban - will you urge Obama to enforce federal law against that state?
Your answers would have to be "yes" to both of these questions to be consistent with your position on medical mj.
That should read “recreational mj” rather than “medical mj”.
Since both Obamacare and most gun restrictions are unconstitutional I would say that the president has a duty to not enforcer those laws in any state Clearly, however the president cannot pick and choose which states will enforce a criminal statute and which states he will not.
If a president believes a federal law is in keeping with the powers granted to Congress, then his sole Constitutional duty is to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. If he fails in that duty, as he has for instance on immigration laws, then that is an impeachable offense.
My arguments on this thread are addressed to the limited idea that Obama thinks he can grant a waiver of federal prosecution for criminal laws to one or more states, while continuing enforcement in all the other states.
Actually that would also be an impeachable offense. But the cowards in congress will never do that, so we have to try and survive until Ted Cruz is elected president.
I have to agree to the selective enforcement angle not going to pass muster. He could end not enforcing them in any state then to be even handed. There are many arcane and forgotten laws that go unenforced to.
The Latin American reaction will be interesting.