Obama administration-DOJ considering how to crack down on states that legalized marijuana

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, right "democracy", LOL.

Yeah, right, "self determination", LOL.

Yeah, right, "land of the free", LOL.


Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: December 6, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html

WASHINGTON — Senior White House and Justice Department officials are considering plans for legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in those states, according to several people familiar with the deliberations.

Even as marijuana legalization supporters are celebrating their victories in the two states, the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings since the election to debate the response of federal law enforcement agencies to the decriminalization efforts.

Marijuana use in both states continues to be illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. One option is to sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by federal law. Should the Justice Department prevail, it would raise the possibility of striking down the entire initiatives on the theory that voters would not have approved legalizing the drug without tight regulations and licensing similar to controls on hard alcohol.

Some law enforcement officials, alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly, are said to be pushing for a stern response. But such a response would raise political complications for President Obama because marijuana legalization is popular among liberal Democrats who just turned out to re-elect him.

“It’s a sticky wicket for Obama,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, saying any aggressive move on such a high-profile question would be seen as “a slap in the face to his base right after they’ve just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams.”

Federal officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. Several cautioned that the issue had raised complex legal and policy considerations — including enforcement priorities, litigation strategy and the impact of international antidrug treaties — that remain unresolved, and that no decision was imminent.

The Obama administration declined to comment on the deliberations, but pointed to a statement the Justice Department issued on Wednesday — the day before the initiative took effect in Washington — in the name of the United States attorney in Seattle, Jenny A. Durkan. She warned Washington residents that the drug remained illegal.

“In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance,” she said. “Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.”

Ms. Durkan’s statement also hinted at the deliberations behind closed doors, saying: “The Department of Justice is reviewing the legalization initiatives recently passed in Colorado and Washington State. The department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged.”

Federal officials have relied on their more numerous state and local counterparts to handle smaller marijuana cases. In reviewing how to respond to the new gap, the interagency task force — which includes Justice Department headquarters, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the State Department and the offices of the White House Counsel and the director of National Drug Control Policy — is considering several strategies, officials said.

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.

Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.

Mr. Katsas said he was skeptical that a pre-emption lawsuit would succeed. He said he was also skeptical that it was necessary, since the federal government could prosecute marijuana cases in those states regardless of whether the states regulated the drug.

Still, federal resources are limited. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department issued a policy for handling states that have legalized medical marijuana. It says federal officials should generally not use their limited resources to go after small-time users, but should for large-scale trafficking organizations. The result has been more federal raids on dispensaries than many liberals had expected.

[ghengis86]

Choom wagon for me, rape cage for you!
-O

". Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."
-Barry S

[Anti Federalist]

The bullshit and hypocrisy is piled up halfway to the moon, and the zombies just shuffle along, accepting every last bit of it.

[Reason]

It's amusing to me to watch the feds refuse to give up a lost cause.

[twomp]

This is one of those situations that's going to be interesting to watch over the next few years. If States can nullify federal law on marijuana, why can't they do it on say... Obamacare? What will Obama do when more states continue to nullify federal laws on marijuana? Will he send in the tanks? Maybe the drones????

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQkd6crU7yA

[Cleaner44]

I love issues like this that expose the phonies for what they truly are. Democrats are no different than the social conservatives like Frothy... looking to control our lives regardless of the Constitution and the charade of we the people supposedly being free to govern ourselves.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people... really?

I call bullshit.

[Anti Federalist]

This is one of those situations that's going to be interesting to watch over the next few years. If States can nullify federal law on marijuana, why can't they do it on say... Obamacare? What will Obama do when more states continue to nullify federal laws on marijuana? Will he send in the tanks? Maybe the drones????

The tanks and drones are already here.

All that is needed is the authorization to start vaporizing us.

[Matt Collins]

Isn't it still illegal under federal law? My understanding is that the states only repealed their laws. In other words the feds are free to enforce their own laws themselves (although it violates the Constitution)

[Anti Federalist]

Isn't it still illegal under federal law? My understanding is that the states only repealed their laws. In other words the feds are free to enforce their own laws themselves (although it violates the Constitution)

Yes of course.

Read the article.

The feds are pissed because there, god bless their hearts, are not enough of them.

They relied heavily on state, county and local cops to do most of the "low level busts".

Why do think they set up asset forfeiture "sharing" agreements and handed out all the fed goodies, like tanks, APCs, helicopters and automatic weapons?

[twomp]

Isn't it still illegal under federal law? My understanding is that the states only repealed their laws. In other words the feds are free to enforce their own laws themselves (although it violates the Constitution)

The 10th amendment says this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Obviously it's up for interpretation but to me it says if it ain't in the Constitution, States get to decide it.

[Brett85]

So why exactly do the liberals in Colorado and Washington support President Obama?

[Anti Federalist]

The 10th amendment says this:


Obviously it's up for interpretation but to me it says if it ain't in the Constitution, States get to decide it.

The feds have gutted, raped, or just plain ignored the other nine.

I see no reason why they would pay the tenth any more mind than the others.

[Peace Piper]

Washington's law prohibits the growing of even 1 plant- still a felony (unless you have a med card).

502 also prohibits private sales.

"Legal" cannabis in WA must be bought from a State Licensed store (that doesn't exist yet) that is taxed 3 times- 25% tax when the grower sells to the distributor, a 25% tax when the distributor sells to the retailer and a 25% tax when the retailer sells to the consumer. The State Liquor control board will control the entire industry (nice work, yes voters)

Now does anyone here think that these stores that don't exist yet are going to put their money into an FDIC insured bank? Sure they are!

The writers of 502 knew all about the fact that dispensaries in CA have big problems finding banks to deal with-but didn't address it at all.

Spoon Bender gets it-
"MVRick. Where will the pot growers put their money? Where will the State put the tax money? Is there a bank out there that will let accounts be set up? The Feds will consider that money laundering. Bulldog is right, did any of you actually read the law? I did. I voted no. In the end only 2 provisions will stand, no legal grows and an unscientific duid law."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_id=2019803619&source_name=mbase&offset=80

Speaking of DUID-

There's a new front in the "War on Drugs" and its name is DUID.

DUID, short for "driving under the influence of drugs," is the latest buzzword among politicians and police -- however, in this case, words can be deceiving.

Though billed by its proponents as a necessary tool to crack down on persons who operate a motor vehicle while impaired by illicit drugs, in reality, many newly proposed DUID laws -- in particular "zero tolerance" per se laws -- have little to do with promoting public safety or identifying motorists who drive while intoxicated. Rather, these laws potentially classify many sober drivers as impaired under the law solely because they were presumed to have consumed a controlled substance -- particularly marijuana -- at some previous, unspecified point in time.

http://norml.org/library/item/you-are-going-directly-to-jail

Everyone talks about Washington "Legalizing Pot". The new Mandatory Blood Draws and the fact that the new DUID definition means most people that smoke every day are now facing a DUI -not so much,

[Anti Federalist]

So why exactly do the liberals in Colorado and Washington support President Obama?

Because they are not "liberals".

They are bloodthirsty statists, like much of the "right".

The only concern they have is that "their" guy is pulling the levers.

The fact that the anti-war crowd dried up and blew away like a fart in a blizzard is good indicator.

They are, like the vast majority of the population, shallow, mean spirited, dullards, without an ounce of empathy or compassion, interested in only three things:

Being fed, entertained and wielding petty power over their fellow citizens.

[bolil]

Yes of course.

Read the article.

The feds are pissed because there, god bless their hearts, are not enough of them.

They relied heavily on state, county and local cops to do most of the "low level busts".

Why do think they set up asset forfeiture "sharing" agreements and handed out all the fed goodies, like tanks, APCs, helicopters and automatic weapons?

Why I need spread rep around... what is rep? wealth?

[Brett85]

Because they are not "liberals".

They are bloodthirsty statists, like much of the "right".

The only concern they have is that "their" guy is pulling the levers.

The fact that the anti-war crowd dried up and blew away like a fart in a blizzard is good indicator.

They are, like the vast majority of the population, shallow, mean spirited, dullards, without an ounce of empathy or compassion, interested in only three things:

Being fed, entertained and wielding petty power over their fellow citizens.

That's all completely true, but the majority of liberal voters in Colorado And Washington did vote in favor of legalizing marijuana, so they do have a different position on that issue than President Obama. There seems to be quite a bit of difference between grassroots liberals and liberals in Washington DC, just like there's quite a bit of difference between grassroots conservatives and conservatives in Washington DC.

[Anti Federalist]

That's all completely true, but the majority of liberal voters in Colorado And Washington did vote in favor of legalizing marijuana, so they do have a different position on that issue than President Obama. There seems to be quite a bit of difference between grassroots liberals and liberals in Washington DC, just like there's quite a bit of difference between grassroots conservatives and conservatives in Washington DC.

Don't read too much into this.

This was not a vote based on some hifalutin ideas about federalism and state's rights and liberty.

It was a vote to satisfy basic desire number two.

At least for most anyways.

[Schifference]

So the Federal government has the authority to withhold money paid by the citizen to be given to the state if the state does not comply with certain mandates. Kinda like the 55 MPH speed limit years ago or Right turn on red or raising the drinking age to 21. Why can't individual tax payers withhold funding to the federal government if they fail to perform in a manner that suits the taxpayer?

[kathy88]

And they all sip their scotch while trying to figure out how to fuck us some more. Unbelievable.

[ghengis86]

So the Federal government has the authority to withhold money paid by the citizen to be given to the state if the state does not comply with certain mandates. Kinda like the 55 MPH speed limit years ago or Right turn on red or raising the drinking age to 21. Why can't individual tax payers withhold funding to the federal government if they fail to perform in a manner that suits the taxpayer?

Since when do peasants tell the king and his armies what to do?

[tod evans]

And they all sip their scotch while trying to figure out how to fuck us some more. Unbelievable.

Personally I have nothing against scotch, or gin, whiskey, rum or tequila.........

For that matter, weed, coke, meth and heroin are okay in my book right along with nicotine, caffeine penicillin and aspirin...

There's no reason for the federal government to drag people to court and lock them up for consuming any of these substances...

[devil21]

So the Federal government has the authority to withhold money paid by the citizen to be given to the state if the state does not comply with certain mandates. Kinda like the 55 MPH speed limit years ago or Right turn on red or raising the drinking age to 21. Why can't individual tax payers withhold funding to the federal government if they fail to perform in a manner that suits the taxpayer?

Maybe not. Read this: http://www.governing.com/blogs/fedwatch/gov-supreme-court-ruling-potential-fallout-for-federalism.html

[Acala]

I think the Feds are going to lose this one. Once a few states jump on the bandwagon, its history.

The argument they are tossing around here is based on the idea of pre-emption. While they could not force the States to make MJ illegal, they might be able to argue that the states can't REGULATE it in a way that is inconsistent with the Federal law because the Federal law pre-empts the States on MJ regulation. And since the laws passed in those states don't just legalize, but regulate, they must fall.

However, there are two responses a State might have to a successful suit along those lines: give up and go along with prohibition OR full legalization with no regulation. Pissed off voters just might go with the second option, which would really be a burn for the Feds.

[presence]

Obama administration-DOJ:

considering [/URL][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html"]how to crack down (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html) on states that legalized marijuana;
chief strategist suggests "Intercepting" "total absorption" "roof hits" with the "Choom Gang"
Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends... (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-and-his-pot-smoking-choom-gang/)

[seraphson]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


So, I guess that means were only down to one right? Am I wrong?

[torchbearer]

my thinkin'-
If Obama was really the one in charge, I don't think he'd go after anyone on mary jane. but with a shadow government that controls the puppet- the meeting is really them discussing their best course of action because they want a monopoly on the drug trade.

[tod evans]

Follow the money.....



my thinkin'-
If Obama was really the one in charge, I don't think he'd go after anyone on mary jane. but with a shadow government that controls the puppet- the meeting is really them discussing their best course of action because they want a monopoly on the drug trade.

[torchbearer]

Follow the money..... CIA?

[AlexAmore]

my thinkin'-
If Obama was really the one in charge, I don't think he'd go after anyone on mary jane. but with a shadow government that controls the puppet- the meeting is really them discussing their best course of action because they want a monopoly on the drug trade.

Obama is just looking out for #1. Nothing courageous or redeeming about that when you're president and supposed to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.

[Lucille]

But such a response would raise political complications for President Obama because marijuana legalization is popular among liberal Democrats who just turned out to re-elect him.

“It’s a sticky wicket for Obama,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, saying any aggressive move on such a high-profile question would be seen as “a slap in the face to his base right after they’ve just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams.”

Please! Like he GAF, especially now that he doesn't have to worry about being reelected. Bush on Steroids has broken every promise he ever made, and his cult still voted for him.

[Deborah K]

Washington's law prohibits the growing of even 1 plant- still a felony (unless you have a med card).



Well then....it's your patriotic duty to exercise civil disobedience. This applies to gun laws too, as far as I'm concerned. I personally believe that 'conscientious objection' shouldn't just apply to war.

[Deborah K]

You know, you would think they'd want weed to be legal. They seem to want the public to be on anti-depressant/anti-anxiety type drugs to keep us from feeling the screwing we're getting.

But, weed is a BIG HUGE part of the war on drugs, and they seem to like perpetuating that war.

[torchbearer]

You know, you would think they'd want weed to be legal. They seem to want the public to be on anti-depressant/anti-anxiety type drugs to keep us from feeling the screwing we're getting.

But, weed is a BIG HUGE part of the war on drugs, and they seem to like perpetuating that war.


you can't patent marijuana


gold is a freeman's money.
mary jane is a freeman's medicine.

[Lucille]

This Just In: Barack Obama Wasn't Actually Secretly Planning to End the Drug War
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/07/this-just-in-barack-obama-wasnt-actually


As my colleague Mike Riggs reported last night, the Obama administration is pondering ways to undermine the pot legalization laws that voters in Colorado and Washington state passed last month. Over at The Huffington Post, Radley Balko responds with a roundup of Obama boosters who assured us during the campaign that the president would back away from the drug war after he'd been safely reelected. Here's Lawrence O'Donnell in April, for example:


Although President Obama thinks it's entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether our drug laws are doing more harm than good, he has absolutely no intention of having that discussion in the United States until after he is reelected to a second term. With exactly 204 days remaining until the election, that makes possibly ending the war on drugs the 204th reason to vote for President Obama on November 6th.

That may or may not have worked as a get-out-the-vote drive, but as a prediction it looks like it was exactly backwards. Obama wasn't waiting for his second term to bring up an issue that's too hot for the voters. The voters themselves have shoved the issue onto the agenda, and second-term Obama is looking for ways to shove it back.

In Which Harold & Kumar Go Into Hiding
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/in-which-harold-kumar-go-_b_2255029.html


Well, dammit.

I was so very excited about all that sensible drug policy we were going to get out of President Obama in his second term. I mean sure, Obama had spent a good deal of his first term waging more raids on medical marijuana clinics in four years than Bush had waged in eight. And his administration defended DEA agents who point guns at the heads of children during drug raids. And his appointees continued to defend the carnage in Mexico as merely the consequence of good, sensible drug policy.

Sure. There was all of that. But there were also all of these progressive pundits who kept telling drug war reformers that they should go ahead and vote for Obama anyway . . . because they just knew, or at least they were pretty sure, or at least they had heard rumors, that maybe, possibly, Obama would turn the corner and show some leadership.
[...]
Notice what words and phrases do not appear in the New York Times article: pivot, possibly ending the war on drugs, whether our drug laws are doing more harm than good, the drug war a failure, crime and misery [the drug war] creates.

You'd think that if Obama were going to "pivot," simply leaving alone two states that overwhelmingly legalized pot and gave him their electoral votes would be the best place to start.

As for "bring some cases against low-level marijuana users....," I think that means you, Harold and Kumar. Hope you guys aren't dog people.

[torchbearer]

love it:
As for "bring some cases against low-level marijuana users....," I think that means you, Harold and Kumar. Hope you guys aren't dog people.

[Matt Collins]

my thinkin'-
If Obama was really the one in charge, I don't think he'd go after anyone on mary jane. but with a shadow government that controls the puppet- the meeting is really them discussing their best course of action because they want a monopoly on the drug trade.Well the bureaucracy is too big. Obama could issue orders to them and they could just thumb their nose at him.

[Peace Piper]

you can't patent marijuana
gold is a freeman's money.
mary jane is a freeman's medicine.

true but as i've tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to point out in many posts the USGov has patented the use of the main ingredient in cannabis--

United States Patent 6,630,507
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia....>.more

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

maybe there's something i'm not getting about this but the way I read i it should end the debate about whether cannabis is medicine or not. And I'm pretty sure they will legally protect this patent.

And it should be as clear as a summer day in LA that the feds are lying about this plant.

[Peace Piper]

You know, you would think they'd want weed to be legal. They seem to want the public to be on anti-depressant/anti-anxiety type drugs to keep us from feeling the screwing we're getting.
legal cannabis would cost big pharma. This would hurt campaign contributions



But, weed is a BIG HUGE part of the war on drugs, and they seem to like perpetuating that war.

without illegal cannabis there is simply no way in the semi-rational world to justify the war on drugs/liberties

Lots of people say the War on Drugs has failed.

I think it's one of the most successful, brilliant strategies the Feds have ever pursued. They've managed to strip the bill of rights, turn citizen against citizen, demonize a bunch of people that are hard to control and they've billed us all for it.

How else could they have stolen so much from a willing people?

[Deborah K]

legal cannabis would cost big pharma. This would hurt campaign contributions


Meh..they'd figure out a way to control that too. They sell it right now in liquid form called marinol to hospitals. They gave it to my son-in-law when he was in a coma after a tragic motorcycle accident.


without illegal cannabis there is simply no way in the semi-rational world to justify the war on drugs/liberties

Lots of people say the War on Drugs has failed.

I think it's one of the most successful, brilliant strategies the Feds have ever pursued. They've managed to strip the bill of rights, turn citizen against citizen, demonize a bunch of people that are hard to control and they've billed us all for it.

How else could they have stolen so much from a willing people

This I wholeheartedly agree with. While the public will eventually come around to accepting weed, it will be many decades before hard drugs are legalized. And the drug war seems to be lucrative to someone.

[RabbitMan]

Meh, I don't see the Feds doing anything drastic about it. The majority of Americans approve of legalization, and the Feds don't have the manpower to do anything about it. And Piper, can you stop spreading moronic propaganda about I-502?

The DUI provision is temporary, as it will be striken down in court the first moment it is brought up, and then they will have to change to mouth swabs. And you will ONLY be pulled over if you are driving erratically or in a dangerous way...like if you were drunk on alcohol. You deserve to be tested at that point for endangering the lives of others.

There are a lot of people in high places with money and influence who backed I-502 and are explicitly pro-legalization, everything is going to be fine. I wonder if you work in the MMJ industry, since they were the ones peddling the same BS before the election that you do on a consistent basis. As the previous posters said, "follow the money."

[Deborah K]

you can't patent marijuana


gold is a freeman's money.
mary jane is a freeman's medicine.

Why not? Monsanto can patent seed - which is basically our food.

[Lucille]

Does the DOJ Have an 'Open-and-Shut Case' Against Marijuana Legalization in Colorado and Washington?
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/07/does-the-doj-have-an-open-and-shut-case


In a new Rolling Stone piece on "Obama's Pot Problem," Tim Dickinson observes that it is entirely in the president's power to refrain from interfering with marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington:


If Obama were committed to drug reform—or simply to states' rights—he could immediately end DEA raids on those who grow and sell pot according to state law, and immediately order the Justice Department to make enforcement of federal marijuana laws the lowest priority of U.S. attorneys in states that choose to tax and regulate pot.

That probably won't happen, Dickinson says:


Privately, both drug reformers and drug warriors believe the Obama administration is likely to take Colorado and Washington to court to keep them out of the pot business.

But neither Colorado's Amendment 64 nor Washington's Initiative 502 requires the state to get into the pot business, and this is no small detail. As I explained last month, both initiatives were written to specify the circumstances under which people will be exempt from state penalties for growing, possessing, and selling marijuana—something states indisputably have the power to do. State officials will not be involved in growing, selling, or even handling marijuana; they will merely certify when growers and sellers have met the conditions to avoid prosecution under state law. Those growers and sellers will still be vulnerable to federal prosecution, however. Because Dickinson elides this distinction, he exaggerates the chances that the Justice Department could persuade the courts to rule that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prevents Colorado and Washington from legalizing the commercial production and distribution of marijuana:


Unfortunately for drug reformers, the administration appears to have an open-and-shut case: Federal law trumps state law when the two contradict. What's more, the Supreme Court has spoken on marijuana law: In the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich contesting medical marijuana in California, the court ruled that the federal government can regulate even tiny quantities of pot—including those grown and sold purely within state borders—because the drug is ultimately connected to interstate commerce.

In Raich the Supreme Court held only that the federal government can continue to enforce its ban on marijuana in states that allow medical use of the plant. That does not mean the feds can compel states to help them, let alone force them to enact or maintain their own bans. And contrary to Dickinson's implication, pre-emption by the CSA requires more than the sort of "contradiction" you have when a state chooses not to punish people for activities that the federal government continues to treat as crimes. It requires "a positive conflict" between state and federal law such that "the two cannot consistently stand together." The Supreme Court has said a positive conflict exists "when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law." That is clearly not the case here, since anyone in Colorado or Washington can comply with both state and federal law simply by staying away from marijuana.

It is notable that in the 16 years since states began legalizing marijuana for medical use, the Justice Department has never tried to overturn those laws in court with a pre-emption argument, even though it has interfered with the distribution of cannabis to patients (which began in yet another state yesterday) in many other ways. Perhaps that is because, contrary to what Dickinson says, a pre-emption argument would be anything but an "open-and-shut case." Last month Alex Kreit, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law who has studied the issue, told the Drug War Chronicle "opponents of these laws would love nothing more than to be able to preempt them, but there is not a viable legal theory to do that." Yesterday The New York Times noted that Gregory Katsas, who headed the Justice Department's civil division in George W. Bush's administration, likewise "was skeptical that a pre-emption lawsuit would succeed."

The Justice Department may be mulling a lawsuit, and it may, as Dickinson's sources suggest, end up filing one. But that does not mean it will win.

Breaking the Taboo (http://www.breakingthetaboo.info/view_documentary.htm) premiered today:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtNF-Le2L0

[BAllen]

This is one of those situations that's going to be interesting to watch over the next few years. If States can nullify federal law on marijuana, why can't they do it on say... Obamacare? What will Obama do when more states continue to nullify federal laws on marijuana? Will he send in the tanks? Maybe the drones????

They will do nothing. It's all fluff. As we've seen, a person can opt out of the tsa screenings. But most people don't know that, so they voluntarily go along with it.

[Anti Federalist]

They will do nothing. It's all fluff. As we've seen, a person can opt out of the tsa screenings. But most people don't know that, so they voluntarily go along with it.

You can not "opt out" of TSA screenings and still board your flight.

You can "opt out" of the porno scanners and the "chat downs", but rest assured, you will get a full on, hand groping instead.

[FindLiberty]

The tyrant Lincoln would order up the destruction of cities, homes and kill everyone (including women and children) in those states that refused to fall in line with the war on (some) drugs.

[tod evans]

I think it's one of the most successful, brilliant strategies the Feds have ever pursued. They've managed to strip the bill of rights, turn citizen against citizen, demonize a bunch of people that are hard to control and they've billed us all for it.

How else could they have stolen so much from a willing people?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[BAllen]

You can not "opt out" of TSA screenings and still board your flight.

You can "opt out" of the porno scanners and the "chat downs", but rest assured, you will get a full on, hand groping instead.

I can "opt out" of flying.