Obama Admin Says It Won't Fight Looser Marijuana Laws, With Conditions

schwit1 writes with news that the Obama administration has released a memo stating that it will not fight liberalized marijuana laws in states like Colorado and Washington, but made that promise conditional on a set of guidelines, such as requiring efforts to dissuade underage use. From the Washington Post's coverage: "Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole detailed the administration's new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands."

Comments

Discouraging underage use?

[cold fjord]

Maybe this is why?

Is Marijuana a Safe Drug? Teenage Brain at Risk for Drug Abuse

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[icebike]

There was also a study of New Zealanders. They found that people who began using pot earlier in life and used it most frequently over the years experienced an average decline of eight IQ points by the time they turned 38. By comparison, those who never smoked pot had an average increase of one IQ point by the same age.

A reanalysis of the New Zealand data by Ole Røgeberg of the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Oslo, however, suggested that the IQ difference could be explained by socioeconomic factors. People who start smoking marijuana at an earlier age are often less intelligent to begin with.

You will find most of the research is similarly tainted.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[SuricouRaven]

The ideal solution to me would be to treat it like tobacco: Keep it legal, but at the same time take measures to very strongly discourage use.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[echnaton192]

Maybe this is why?

Is Marijuana a Safe Drug? Teenage Brain at Risk for Drug Abuse

Why modded -1? This study supports other studies that came to similar conclusions:

Yes. Marijuhana-abuse by minors is a big problem. Not if done once, but an abuse, that does not affect grown ups (from 21 or better, 25 years on) very much has a devastating effect on their brains. The reason, as I understood it, is the rearranging of the whole brain structure while being juvenile. This rearrangement, as new scans showed, is much more fundamental than previously known. And smoking grass fucks that up big time. And it messes with the hormon levels. Those rearrangements possibly can not take place after the normal timeframe. If they were haltet or obfuscated by marihuana abuse, those youngsters have a permanent brain damage.

But: Abusing any brain affecting drug in that time will possibly do the same, so drinking alcohol instead of smoking is not an option. If I had children, I would insist on limiting marijuhana use to one time pet year, four times max until they are 21 (you are an adult at 18 here, so a bit of cooperation from the other side would be necessary. Any smoking of marihuana under the age of 16 would be completely out of the question.

Your war on drugs was one big mistake. But inform yourself before letting your kids use it limitless. If those studies are right, they suggest that using marihuana (esp. in a vaporizer) is indeed less dangerous than alcohol for the body. And does not effect grown ups as much as heavy drinking would. Even really heavy abuse does not make you significantly dumber, just a measurable bit and it is possible that the brain could recover, except for some problems with the short time memory, which MAY stay. But for youngsters that use marijuhana heavily, it may be that it really blows their mind away. But they would be DEAD if they drank as much, so demonizing pot is really dumb. Being dead means no brain functions whatsoever, so instead of being less stellar in school, they would rot...

But: It seems like the dangers to young people were underestimated.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I'm no medicalologist, but I have to imagine that mass consumption of any mind-altering chemical (tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, etc.) while the brain is still developing will have an effect. The question is, is it worth keeping our prisons full of non-violent offenders to discourage their use?

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[icebike]

The ideal solution to me would be to treat it like tobacco: Keep it legal, but at the same time take measures to very strongly discourage use.

Except the tobacco scare tactics are unwarranted, with the possible exception for under-age use, or use while driving, as with any intoxicant.
Beer and wine regulatory mechanisms seem more appropriate. In fact Washington State tasked the Liquor board with the job of managing Marijuana sales and use in the state.

Yet still feds seem intent on sticking their oar in.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[geekoid]

medicalologist, nice., I like it better the scienctician.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[interval1066]

Regulate it like alcohol, including enforcing bans on driving while high, just like alcohol. Now tax the hell out of it, and end of discussion. The "war" on pot was a rediculous waste of fed and state resources, and created a permanant underclass of unemployable criminals who've done nothing more thann get high. The fed needs to get off its high horse and rewrite whatever laws are keeping pot in the "felony" lists (other than, like I said, driving while high that results in killing someone, maybe). Enough is enough. Knock off this sham.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[PopeRatzo]

They found that people who began using pot earlier in life and used it most frequently over the years experienced an average decline of eight IQ points by the time they turned 38.

I'm betting most people lose at least eight IQ points by the time they turn 38.

That's why the mathematicians who do the groundbreaking work mostly are younger than 38. There are still brilliant mathematicians older than that, but they're not the ones who are doing the most important new work.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded you insightful but I'd like to challenge one point of yours: what makes you believe that smoking marijuana impairs one's ability to drive? This seems to be a common assumption among non-smokers, but I can tell you from (daily) experience such is not the case. It requires the consumption of quite a bit of pot to impair one's driving -- usually this means eating it rather than smoking it -- and once a person is that high they don't want to drive. It's just too stressful (as opposed to driving drunk, where alcohol gives one 'liquid courage').

Even with alcohol, one is considered legally drunk much before they've consumed enough to actually be impaired.

A person shouldn't be considered impaired just because a particular chemical is in their body. They should be given basic coordination tests -- such as a field sobriety test (but something that's computerized, kind of like a video game, to eliminate bias on the part of the officer). If you can't pass a field sobriety test because you're too old, you shouldn't be able to drive. If you can't pass it because of a prescribed medication, you shouldn't be able to drive. If you can't pass a field sobriety test because you're just a naturally uncoordinated person, you shouldn't be able to drive. A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Zero__Kelvin]

So you are saying that social sciences aren't actually science? Say it isn't so!

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[couchslug]

Is MJ safer than jail?

The laws don't have their intended effect.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[icebike]

Marijuana impairs attention. That seems to be the linkage that most people cite. But I find no hard statistics on this either.

Since there is no legally recognized impairment level for Marijuana, and no legally recognized tests, (other than blood draws) either device based tests, or field sobriety tests, its hard to prove the extent to which it is present in accident situations. So if there was a car crash, the police have no real way to prove it was even a factor.

University of Washington cited an Australian study showing that the research is a total mess in this area. So a local TV station then went out and did their own tests.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[lgw]

No, they are statistical science. They say nothing about the behavior of individuals, but make useful predictions about the statistical distribution of behaviors in the population. Just like the gas laws, Zero Kelvin.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[RabidReindeer]

Regulate it like alcohol, including enforcing bans on driving while high, just like alcohol. Now tax the hell out of it, and end of discussion.

Question. Would taxing it control it? Unlike tobacco, or even alcohol, I thought weed was supposed to grow just like, um, weed.

Taxation can control a lot of things, but only until alternatives become less expensive ("expensive" not being solely in dollars and sense). In the case of Marijuana, the bar appears pretty low to me.

Then again, I never went that route, so I'm just guessing.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[RabidReindeer]

I modded you insightful but I'd like to challenge one point of yours: what makes you believe that smoking marijuana impairs one's ability to drive?

Because the whole point of it is to alter one's mental state?

Granted, some people drive so badly, that any change is likely for the better. I, of course, am not one of them.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Kjella]

I'd lean more towards the explanation that older people have more knowledge and experience which means they're more set in their ways and don't challenge accepted truths like the younger generation does. While it also from time to time produces gems it's also the cause of all the people trying to reinvent the wheel, why go for the new and crazy when you can use the tried and true. It might not be quite as glamorous, but the world needs both highly competent doctors as well as the odd Nobel prize in medicine.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Lehk228]

growing pot is quite a bit of work. right now it is worth it because it is illegal so a) the price is high and b) the enterprises selling it are shady

once those issues are cured with legalization, the effort time and legal risk of a tax evasion charge would really not be worth it compared tyo walking down to the gas station and buying a pack of scooby snacks.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[demonlapin]

I don't smoke or grow pot, but I do grow a couple of vegetables and fruits. I get probably twenty lemons a year off my small tree. Jalapeños, maybe thirty over the course of summer per plant. Basil, I get enough for maybe a couple of pints of pesto (and that is bulked up with pine nuts). It's a pleasant hobby and it is tasty, but it's not industrial production.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[icebike]

Washington recreational pot vote had nothing to do with medical marijuana.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[khellendros1984]

It's a metaphorical comparison, not a literal one.

They say nothing about the behavior of individuals, but make useful predictions about the statistical distribution of behaviors in the population.

Individual particles of a gas don't necessarily share all of the qualities of the gas as a whole. Some particles may be highly energetic in a low-energy mass, similar to how an individual may be a genius in a population of people with mediocre intelligence.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Anonymous Coward]

In New York City, a pack of cigarettes ($3-$7.00 retail) has $5.85 in state/local excise taxes and $1.01 in federal excise tax.

Do you suppose they have more blackmarket cigarettes and associated crime than, say, Pennsylvania where the state excise tax is only $1.60/pack?

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[mjwx]

Marijuana impairs attention. That seems to be the linkage that most people cite. But I find no hard statistics on this either.

Well, there's plenty of evidence that Marijuana has effects on response time (like most depressants).

For most of us who've smoked pot, we know it definitely affects your faculties to the point where you cant drive safely, more over this is more noticeable to the user than it is with alcohol. Unlike alcohol, pot users tend to avoid taking extreme risks like excessive speed (people driving high tend to be slower than the median, which is still bad) but still have the problems with fine motor control (keeping the wheel straight) as well as reduced response speed and impaired perception.

I'm pro-decriminalisation of marijuana, but really it needs to be treated like other legal mind altering drugs (I.E. Alcohol). In Australia we treat driving under the influence of drugs to be the same as driving under the influence of Alcohol but you also get a drug conviction, not just a DUI conviction.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Zontar The Mindless]

And I challenge your statement that

A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.

Back in the late 70s, Car & Driver magazine did an informal study (with a couple of professional test drivers) which was later reprinted in High Times, IIRC.

Their results appeared to indicate that small amounts of cannabis actually improved the pros' driving performance slightly and for a very short while, after which performance fell rapidly to much less than normal. They found in addition that using more than a small amount also quickly caused the pros' driving performance to decrease to much less than normal.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Zontar The Mindless]

You don't know too much about Norway, or many people from there, do you? "Røgeberg" is a completely legitimate Norwegian surname.

BTW, Ø is not zero; it's the Norwegian (and Danish) equivalent of Ö.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Samantha Wright]

Can you explain how IQ test data is subjective? It was my understanding that it was a bad indicator of intelligence as a whole because the repeatable IQ tests all depend on pattern recognition and other very narrow topics, and that the test itself had a "subjective" component in how the definition of "intelligence" was established—not in the test data itself.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[zippthorne]

Google seems to think tobacco is pretty easy to grow if you're in the right climate, so I suspect that the same thing that keeps people buying regular cigarettes despite high taxation would come into play with marijuana as well - no one really wants to be bothered with the time and expense of going through the whole process to get a finished product when it's readily available in every corner store, gas station, and convenience mart.

Re: Discouraging underage use?

[Badblackdog]

I totally agree, I speak from the enlightened mind of a Master Weed Sommelier . If I am are too, baked, toasted, roasted, and fried to drive a vehicle, then I wouldn't get up of the sofa in the first place. It's called "couch-lock". It's hard to get there by smoking even good weed. For a smoker with a high tolerance such as myself, I pretty much have to eat a redicilous amount of "home made" baked goods or smoke some killa, monster, bad-ass, wicked, dog poop-looking Maroccon Hash to get, too high to drive. To much of anything is not good for you. What were we talking about? Oh, another benefit would be accurate measurements of potency for edibles and smokeables. Also a /. comments formatting question. Can I use HTML code from the IPhone app in my comments for italics, bold and hyper-links? I'm sure I should know this, not trying to be a dick or anything, but somebody give me a simple answer before the sarcastic wise ass answers start flying around. Dude, it took me like an hour and 45 minutes to type that.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[russotto]

In New York City, a pack of cigarettes ($3-$7.00 retail) has $5.85 in state/local excise taxes and $1.01 in federal excise tax.

Do you suppose they have more blackmarket cigarettes and associated crime than, say, Pennsylvania where the state excise tax is only $1.60/pack?

Yes./a?

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[davester666]

Now I understand why here in Canada, Harper announced he was considered just fining people for simple possession instead of the current law which requires cops to formally charge you, take you to jail, then you get bail and have to go through a formal trial [last week, the association of police chiefs recommended just fining people, but the Justice Minister rejected it immediately].

Just another example of Harper chasing after whatever the US wants/is doing.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Anonymous Coward]

no legally recognized tests, (other than blood draws) either device based tests, or field sobriety tests

I've got a field test - just ask them a question, and then ask them the same question 2 minutes later.

I'm not sure how to end that joke, but it seemed funny enough (I'm high as fuck right now.)

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Khyber]

I see and hear tons of people going 'statistically speaking' and yet I can almost always show them contrary evidence.

An example I use from my experience in horticulture and photobiology: Statistically speaking, red and blue photons have higher absorption by plant leaves, hence why red and blue LED panels exist and claim to be very energy efficient. Scientifically speaking, green has higher overall quantum yield and thus is a better sustaining light source for photosynthesis, which is why the old-fashioned high-pressure sodium lamp works so well, despite an obvious lack of blue and quite horrible CRI. In this case, lumens (which is measured/weighted at 550-555nm green light) does matter.

But then it varies WILDLY per plant anyways, so statistics regarding this is bullshit, and has no place.

There's also the old saying: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Very wise words to pay heed to when someone says "Statistically speaking..."

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Samantha Wright]

I don't know all that much about photosystems, so I'll have to trust your first two statements at face value—but what you're describing has nothing to do with statistics at all; that's just a misunderstanding of the physics at hand. Statistical calculations are only valid if the hypothesis is valid—in this case, that high absorption is proportional to chlorophyll activation.

You don't have a problem with statistics, you have a problem with ignorance of the facts—that's perfectly normal and healthy, and is necessary in all sciences. There is no causal link between people who are poorly informed and people who back up their statements with statistics; it's just the case that overly simple hypotheses, for which it is easy to derive the relevant statistics, are also easy to arrive at.

In bioinformatics we use statistics at just about every waking moment, and they do matter quite a lot when considering the false positive rate for tests. A microarray containing a million wells that has an error rate of 10^-5 will generally have about a thousand bogus values in it—cases where genes either activated completely or not at all simply because of hardware or procedural defects. Similarly, the likelihood of a random valid open reading frame (start and stop codon spaced 3 * k nucleotides apart, for some value k) below about 100 nt has a higher chance of being spontaneous than being an actual gene. These are things that can easily be demonstrated to be true physically, and yet are perfectly predictable through statistical procedures.

So go easy on the math. Yes there are serious problems in the social and medical sciences with flawed and shill studies, and yes there are plenty of figures thrown around in politics that are derived through questionable methods, but what matters is really that the people generating the figures are fools and scoundrels, not the fact that they framed the results as statistical measures or used some mathematical framework to produce them. The most shameful uses of data collection and extrapolation generally aren't even statistically or empirically sound, as antivirus companies constantly remind us. Rely on your gut instinct that they're slimeballs, not that they tried to dress up their garbage to sound scientific.

Re:Discouraging underage use?

[Inda]

For the first time ever, I've grown tobacco in my greenhouse, in the UK. I've also grown it outside but the size of the plants are about 50% smaller than the greenhouse plants. I'm going to harvest any day now.

One of the most simplist plants I've grown. They've needed no TLC.

My peers are interested in doing the same next year. Seeds are a penny each. One plant could last a smoker a month. A square metre per plant is not a lot of space for an expensive crop.

Um, my point: people will grow both plants if they have a little knowledge (three cheers for the internet).

The emperor has no clothes

[intermodal]

Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.

Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that is exactly what it does. If you think the executive has ever enforced all the laws on the book, you are a fool. The resources simply have never existed.

It's just the highest level of prosecutorial discretion.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[zlives]

what is this constitution you speak off?

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[LetterRip]

Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.

The government has limited resources and it is literally impossible to enforce all of the federal laws to the full extent. Therefore the government must prioritize enforcement. If some laws are so low in priority that there is no enforcement, then congress can increase funding for federal law enforcement officials if they really want those enforced.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[BasilBrush]

Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce.

Which specific item of the constitution do you imagine prevents that?

As the lead of the federal executive, it's precisely his job to choose what priorities the feds have, amongst those things they are empowered to do.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[KiloByte]

No, this means the amount of laws needs to be cut by a factor of 100 if not 1000.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[NoKaOi]

Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.

Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.

Actually, law enforcement is the executive branch's job. It was congress's failure to recognize the constitution that was the failure on this one. Can somebody please explain to me why in 1917 it required a constitutional amendment for the federal government to make alcohol illegal, which would show it was recognized that without the 18th amendment, that making alcohol illegal was a violation of the constitution because the federal government didn't have that power, but now the federal government can make marijuana illegal without a constitutional amendment? Whether or not a drug is illegal is supposed to be up to each state, not the federal government.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[PRMan]

Other documents that used to be taken seriously, and were written for the concerns of their times, (and are still hung on to by some.)

The Old Testament. The New Testament. The Torah. The Koran. The Magna Carta. The Domesday Book.

The Bible is still the best selling book in the world by over 40 times. So by "some" what you really mean is billions.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[icebike]

But a SPECIFIC offense ought to be treated the same in one place as another, don't you think?

The only prosecutorial discretion being practiced here is the evaluation of the likelihood of obtaining
a verdict in a state like Washington or Colorado, where juries are simply going to start handing federal prosecutors their hat.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[CohibaVancouver]

The government has limited resources and it is literally impossible to enforce all of the federal laws to the full extent. Therefore the government must prioritize enforcement.

No, the government needs to axe the laws. Drives me bananas when governments pass law after law after law, with no mechanism for enforcement. It should be required that the government fund enforcement if a new law is passed, and that enforcement cannot be funded through borrowing.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[Mr. Slippery]

Well, it used to be a seriously taken document...

When was that?

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed just seven years after the Bill of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was pretty dormant until the 1930s, and nobody took that "equal protection" bit seriously until the 1960s.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Think hard about all that.... He isn't violating the constitution.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[JohnG]

Well, the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to enforce marijuana laws at all. That's why they had to pass an amendment to enforce alcohol prohibition at the federal level. Aside from preventing the sale of marijuana across state lines, the federal government has no constitutional authority to enforce the laws that Obama is saying he will be lenient on. Seems to me this is one of the few times that he actually does understand the restrictions on his power.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[Frobnicator]

In the United States, both selective enforcement and selective prosecution are generally legal.

You can go back over a century to Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) to see SCOTUS rulings on that. There are probably older rulings than that, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

Impartial selective enforcement is legal to a degree. On its face police cannot enforce every law on the books. Even if they do intervene, the officer may know there is insufficient evidence for a known violation. Even if they intervene and there is likely sufficient evidence, they may believe a lesser action is appropriate, such as giving an individual a warning for a minor offense. Similarly for selective prosecution, the state is not required to blindly prosecute every offense, but to use prudence in selecting which cases to prosecute. Yes sometimes it is abused, but generally it is to the citizen's favor of dropping a case rather than abuses of prosecuting aggressively.

Prejudicial selective enforcement is not legal. Only applying the law to people of a specific skin color or economic status or age or other aspect, that is unlawful.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[interkin3tic]

I'd argue that the laws should be decided on their merits or problems, not something purely artificial like "This seems like a good number of laws."

If we told the government it could do ten things and only ten things, the first thing it would do would be to try to increase the number. The second would be to define however many things it was doing as ten. The third would be taxes. The fourth would be NSA spying. They'd argue about the remaining six slots, and after heated yelling matches on cable news, it would be announced that education, healthcare, and several other services you might actually use sadly could not be included on the list of ten.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[geekoid]

Nope.

This is the best political move to get it legalized. If the people in the state want it legal, the fed is saying they are going to respect that states right, with qualifiers.

It's a great move and the best one that could happen in the current political climate. As far as moving towadrs legalization.

Please try to remember he is contending with a congress full of obstructionist and people who would let the country burn before legalizing marijuana.

" This usually happens. Its the norm."
no, not really.

How is this divide an conquer? If your state want's it to be legal, then we won't go in.

And the poster was just using Queensland as an example of rule or law. Calm down.

Oh, you are so filled with hate for Obama that you stopped thinking. I should have gathered that form the first post.
My bad, please go on frothing.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[jcr]

Federal marijuana prohibition is not a law, it is a usurpation. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no legal authority whatsoever for the federal government to ban a drug.

-jcr

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[gman003]

NCC-1700, USS Constitution. First ship in the Constitution class, which included the NCC-1701 Enterprise.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[Froboz23]

Establishing drug legislative policy requires a joint effort between the states and the federal government, especially when reefering to marijuana, instead of this state-by-state grass roots effort. It’s high time that they hashed these problems out. Still, it's nice to see that Eric Holder is willing to be blunt about this issue instead of just blowing smoke. He understands that we'ed all be better off with this decision.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[Artifakt]

The very same people who told you this, told you Bush 43 could pick and choose any way he wanted simply via a signing statement, under the theory of his having "Unitary Executivehood". The VERY SAME PEOPLE! Why are you letting anyone use you like that without getting angry? Do you not remember these liars telling you the exact opposite when their guy was in power? Are you too young to have noticed what they said only six to ten years ago?

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[DaHat]

and they have wide latitude in doing so

There may be some latitude, but not 'wide latitude'... to quote the ruling in the recent Yucca mountain decision against the NRC:

Our analysis begins with settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law. Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.

It goes on from there quite a bit, but then this is nothing new, the President has a long history of playing "catch me if you can" with policies and selective enforcement.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[J053]

Federal marijuana prohibition is not a law, it is a usurpation. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no legal authority whatsoever for the federal government to ban a drug.

-jcr

Actually, the basis for present-day prohibition of marijuana is the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, which updated the Paris Convention of 1931. The Paris Convention was targeted at opioids, while the Single Convention of 1931 added cannabis and other drugs, as well as establishing the "Schedules" of drugs used today. Since the Single Convention is a treaty, it had to be ratified by the US Senate (in 1967), and has the same force as any other law or provision of the Constitution itself (see Art. VI, US Constitution). Thus, no Amendment was required to allow Congress to pass legislation implementing the Convention.

I don't like it, but it's not unconstitutional.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[jcr]

That's another very common resort for power-grabbing, to pretend that the commerce clause grants the power to do anything and everything the government wants to do. The purpose of the commerce clause was to prohibit the states from creating internal trade barriers.

-jcr

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[aardvarkjoe]

I just don't understand why Congress puts up with it. It's their toes being stepped on.

This is mostly due to the belief of many congressmen (along with most of the voting public) that the office of President is really that of Supreme Legislator.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[ShadowRangerRIT]

You're off by roughly a factor of 4. Prior to the printing press, the number of bibles produced yearly would have been trivial. Printing of the Bible from non-movable type woodcuts preceded the Gutenberg press by a century (give or take), but prior to movable type, the numbers were still fairly trivial. During the early years of movable type (1475-1500) only 20 million books were printed total, less than a million a year (source). So in order to hit 6B, you'd be dividing (roughly) over the last 500 years, not 2000. So the yearly print runs would be over 10 million, and probably 2-3x that recently (given that the rate of production would surely be much higher now than it was in 1500-1800).

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[sjames]

If the president believes mandatory minimum sentences are un-Constitutional, he is sworn to make sure they don't happen.

Re:The emperor has no clothes

[necro81]

wrote up to protect ourselves from facist, oppressive governments like the one we have now

Fascism is a 20th century invention; it did not exist during the monarchy of George III. Oppression and tyranny have existed since ... well, probably before there was civilization.

Weasel words

[fhic]

All of these "conditions" are arbitrary and open to whatever interpretation the feds feel like today. In the meantime, it's still being kept as a Schedule 1 drug. This administration has repeatedly and consistently said one thing and done another. You'll forgive me if I don't believe a word of this, which has no more weight than a touchy-feely press release.

Re:Weasel words

[Sponge Bath]

The next few years will demonstrate legal recreational use won't cause the Reefer Madness Armageddon. More people will recognize the stupidity of squandering billions on the prohibition/prison industry and a tipping point will be reached.

Re:Weasel words

[SoupGuru]

But it's better than Obama saying he's going to double the enforcement of marijuana laws, right? Or do you want the laws enforced? I get confused. It's so hard to understand people when they're more interested in tearing the man down than any discussion.

The President just said he's not going to enforce federal pot laws in states that want to legalize it. I think that's kind of a big fucking deal. If you're pro-legalization, this should be a big fucking deal. The President himself just legitimized your position that has been marginalized for DECADES.

Re:Weasel words

[interkin3tic]

Specifically on this issue too. Obama said he wouldn't spend federal funds fighting state's medical marijuana laws, yet his government has raided more dispensaries in states with medical marijuana laws than Bush's. source.

I don't regret voting for him in the general elections, but I do regret not giving money or volunteering for a better candidate in the primaries.

Re:Weasel words

[zippthorne]

Lax enforcement of an unjust law allows the law to continue on the books. There is some argument for trying for "perfect" enforcement - it will then affect enough people that the clamor to strike the law from the books will become too great to ignore.

Re:Spaced Out!

[zlives]

Outsourced prisons and then removal of citizenship will fix that. Most felons already can't vote.

More fallout from Snowdon....

[whoever57]

a rather crude attempt to get Obama's supporters back on his side.

"Don't look over there..... look here, shiny!"

Re:More fallout from Snowdon....

[Ghjnut]

If he gets us all thoroughly stoned, we may forget what we were up in arms about. That conniving bastard!

Re:More fallout from Snowdon....

[Typical Slashdotter]

Oh no, there's a scandal going on, so the president absolutely shouldn't do anything else until the scandal is completely resolved! And if it's something you like, that's even more sinister!

Yes, but what about banking?

[14erCleaner]

Are the Feds going to stop harassing banks that accept marijuana businesses as customers? Currently, medical dispensaries have to operate as cash-only businesses, which leaves them vulnerable to robberies.

Re:Yes, but what about banking?

[stox]

Also, they can't deduct expenses from their revenue for tax purposes. So, basically, they have to pay the current tax rates on revenue, and not income.

Re:Yes, but what about banking?

[PraiseBob]

Also relevant: DEA bans Armored car services from picking up Pot Shop cash

Step 1) Prevent credit cards from being used
Step 2) Prevent armored car services from being used
Step 3) Complain about the high number of robberies and crime that type of business "attracts" and use that as justification for more regulation / bans

Everyone has to set priorities for everything

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Complete enforcement of every law on the books is impossible. Making choices is inevitable.

With a hundred quatloos to spend, it is better management to spend a hundred deterring sales to minors than to split it between protecting children and harassing adults.

Making choices consistent with the will of the people and with states's rights seems like a good idea.

Re:That's all very nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Wickard vs Filburn was EXACTLY the case you are asking about. Supreme court ruled the commerce clause allowed the federal government to regulate an item grown on a farmer's land used by the farmer himself, it didn't even leave his private property much less the state.

Since that decision the federal government has used the commerce clause to regulate anything that could be sold for money even if it doesn't cross state lines.

Vote smaller government if you want less of this, but as long as you vote for the guys growing the government faster you will get more of it.

I really like these new Marijuana laws

[rsilvergun]

they let the police ignore wealthy smokers while still using the Federal Law to lock up poor people. It's a great way to keep the poor out of your neighborhood. Odds are if you get a group of lower income people together at least one has pot on him, and Federal law lets you seize everyone's property. Sure, legally you get it back, but if you're working 50+ hours/week at two $7.25/hr jobs who's got time for that (unless you can afford a lawyer, but then wealth rears it's head again).

So viva la Medical Marijuana, and our two separate legal systems: One for the poors and one for the rich.

Re:Since there is no rule of law

[rahvin112]

The supreme court ruled a long time ago at the start of the war on drugs that the Fed's have the right to restrict intrastate drug production and distribution because it "creates a market". So no such luck there, the Supreme court allowed congress to poke so many holes in states rights that you will have no such luck defending the end of prohibition. As has been said many time, the war on drugs allowed the government far more powers than they ever had in the past or the founders ever intended them to have.

Hell the government can take your property without you ever being convicted of a crime just by claiming it was used in a drug crime. Little or no proof even required and even if they do charge you and you beat bogus charges they can still take the property. The war on drugs ruined much of the real freedom we had and most of the population cheered it away.

Netherlands

[Atticka]

Let us not forget that in the Netherlands (Amsterdam) pot is still technically a controlled substance in their law books. They have a policy of "non-enforcement" similar to what Obama is introducing.

Take MJ off schedule 1, please

[PeterM from Berkeley]

MJ has been shown to have legitimate medical uses. It doesn't belong on Schedule 1.

If it's off Schedule 1 then research to use it SAFELY as a drug can proceed far more easily, and maybe we can use it for things like neuropathic pain and appetite recovery during chemotherapy WITHOUT the potential brain-damaging side effects.

I've got a friend who has neuropathic pain and none of the legal drugs work for him. And he can't use MJ because he's subject to drug testing.

Take MJ off Schedule 1 and maybe he can stop living with pain 24/7!

--PM

Re:Why does everybody want to get on drugs?

[manwargi]

Everyone has a vice for coping with a hard, painful world. Sometimes it is drinking. Sometimes it is smoking. Sometimes it is cheating on their partner. Porn. Hard drugs; and some would dare to argue that prescribed psyche medication is the same thing but more legal. Escapism to the fantasy of books/movies/games. The excitement of gambling. In the absence of these things people will do absolutely absurd things to get out of their skull such as strangling themselves or "i-dosing". Don't forget about suicide. Many brilliant minds belong to someone addicted to something or depressed and looking for a way out. While I don't smoke or use any drugs myself I won't judge anybody who does too hard.