Slashdot Mirror
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."
Maybe this is why?
Is Marijuana a Safe Drug? Teenage Brain at Risk for Drug Abuse
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
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.
what is this constitution you speak off?
a rather crude attempt to get Obama's supporters back on his side.
"Don't look over there..... look here, shiny!"
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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.
Have you read my blog lately?
No, this means the amount of laws needs to be cut by a factor of 100 if not 1000.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
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.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
NCC-1700, USS Constitution. First ship in the Constitution class, which included the NCC-1701 Enterprise.
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.
Take off every Sig. For great justice.
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
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.