Posted on 12/17/2014 11:22:21 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
Dispensaries in the 23 states that have legalized medical marijuana can all breathe a sigh of relief. The massive “Cromnibus” spending bill passed Saturday night includes an amendment that essentially shuts down the DEA’s pricey prosecution of state-sanctioned medical marijuana.
The amendment bans the Justice Department from using funds to “prevent [medical marijuana states] from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”
The bill now awaits approval from President Obama.
The Obama administration has regularly raided and prosecuted medical marijuana dispensaries regardless of state laws. According to a study by Americans for Safe Access, the administration has spent $80 million each year prosecuting medical marijuana, amounting to $200,000 every day and $300 million since Obama took office.
The amendment won’t eliminate all the legal problems medical marijuana producers face due to federal marijuana prohibition. It does not address banking issues that prohibit them from depositing their profits, for example. But advocacy groups are hailing it as a significant step in the right direction.
“The federal government will finally respect the decisions made by the majority of states that passed medical marijuana laws,” Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the amendment along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), told The Huffington Post. “This is great day for common sense because now our federal dollars will be spent more wisely on prosecuting criminals and not sick patients.”
The amendment will also shield industrial hemp production from the DEA. Industrial hemp production is legal in eighteen states and has been approved by the Obama administration, but just this year the DEA seized hemp seeds intended for a legal research program.
A majority of Americans support leaving marijuana laws up to the states, according to a recent study from Third Way. 78 percent support legalizing medical marijuana, and 67 percent support granting states who pass legalization a safe haven from federal laws. 60 percent prefer state control over marijuana legalization, rather than federal.
Meanwhile, the fate of weed in Washington D.C. post-Cromnibus remains in question. A group of congressmen banded together to quietly include a measure intended to freeze D.C.’s legalization by pulling funds to enact it. But now some lawmakers think there’s a loophole in the language that could end up making weed even more freely available in the District.
“Based on a plain reading of the bill and principles of statutory interpretation, it is arguable that the rider does not block D.C. from carrying out its marijuana legalization initiative,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), speaking on the House floor last week.
Instead of blocking legalization, some now argue it would allow legalization to move forward but prevent enacting regulation to go along with it—leaving marijuana legal but unregulated.
Uhh no, it's a valid implementation of the DEFENSE CLAUSE because it is the existence of the nation which is being threatened by legalized drugs.
Those Roosevelt era judges (all but one Roosevelt appointed) wanted to use the commerce clause because it suited their ideology for tampering with commerce in all it's forms, but the proper authority for interdicting dangerous chemicals, drugs, bacteria, viruses, nuclear material, explosives, etc is the Defense clause.
Expect the libs to say the same thing when they nationalize the economy in the name of fighting "climate change."
“Of course the Feds regulate herbs in many ways.”
The federal government, yes, but the FDA is prohibited by law from treating herbs like drugs, as the law classes herbs as “food”. So, there is no approval process, as there is none for “food”.
I believe the FDA can still mandate labelling requirements, as they do for food, or even ban an herb if they can prove it is toxic, but they have to go through the processes they would use for food, not for drugs.
“It’s not a “moral” cause, unless you regard survival as a “moral” issue.”
Hmm, so if some people smoke pot, the country can’t survive?
I’ve got news for you buddy, people have been smoking pot here since before the country existed.
Not the usage, i've been inoculated by common sense, but the consequences of it i've already caught. I am fed up having to put up with the stupidity i've had to deal with regarding all the pot-heads that I know.
I can tell you a dozen stories about people I personally know who have f***ed up their lives, and the lives of people around them, including me, for the chase of that green high.
For every "functional" user, I'm willing to bet there are six that are utter parasites and trouble makers.
Oxycodone is evil in that they combine it with acetaminophen to prevent abuse because it will destroy the liver if taken in to large a dose or for too long a duration of time. The government is purposefully destroying the livers of addicts. See Tylenol and the War on Drugs
And Original Intent so 1789.
Non-sequitur. It is your grasp of the concept that is twisted.
The consequence of someone owning a gun will not automatically come back and bite you in the A$$. From personal experience I can quite assure you the consequence of other people smoking their weed will definitely come back and bite other people in the A$$.
Really, dude? Go back and read that. A few times if necessary. Let it sink in. See what you did there?
Not the usage, i've been inoculated by common sense
Then perhaps you should focus your efforts on inoculating others, rather than perverting the Constitution in order to try to impose "common sense" at the point of a federal gun.
” it was used in the 19th century for medical purposes.”
It is also used in traditional Chinese medicine, but only in small doses, and always mixed with other herbs. Never smoked!
I'll read that just as soon as I finish reading "Research proves Homosexuality doesn't spread AIDS."
On second thought, both claims are advocacy nonsense, so i'm not going to bother reading either one.
Your argument is simply yet another case of "Conservative" double standard. Anyone and everyone being able to have guns DOES lend itself to coming back and biting me in the a$$, especially if just any individual out there decides to use that gun against me or someone I know. It's NO DIFFERENT than the pot issue. I just prefer freedom, and the freedom to defend myself from nutjobs with guns, where you and plenty of your kind apparently need the nanny state. You'll not get my complicity in that. Franklin said it best and you sir, certainly, do not deserve freedom OR security.
The FDA absolutely mandates labeling requirements for herbs and herbal supplements. And, herbs are not only classified as foods. They’re also classified as supplements. The FDA has the power to ban ANY herb or supplement on the market. That’s regulating herbs.
Of course the Feds must intervene in States that violate one of the 10 First Amendments, but should otherwise stay home.
Sure, but they have no power to approve or disapprove them a priori.
They can only ban an herb if they can demonstrate after it has been marketed that it is harmful. They can’t force anyone to submit herbs to them for approval in advance, like with drugs.
And your point?
“Providing for the common defense *IS* preventing the spread of the dangerous infectious disease known as drugs.”
It’s okay if you want to make up your own definitions for words. It’s kind of quirky and some might find it endearing. Just don’t expect anyone to accept an argument that you have framed on such a personal redefinition. Certainly not around here.
Because all these things only happen to potheads. Never happen to alcoholics. Right??
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.