PDA

View Full Version : Nullification Works: Congress Ends Federal Ban on Medical Marijuana




Occam's Banana
12-18-2014, 05:11 PM
Nullification Works: Congress Ends Federal Ban on Medical Marijuana
http://mises.org/blog/nullification-works-congress-ends-federal-ban-medical-marijuana
Ryan McMaken (17 December 2014)

The LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html) reported on December 16:


Tucked deep inside the 1,603-page federal spending measure is a provision that effectively ends the federal government's prohibition on medical marijuana and signals a major shift in drug policy.

The bill's passage over the weekend marks the first time Congress has approved nationally significant legislation backed by legalization advocates. It brings almost to a close two decades of tension between the states and Washington over medical use of marijuana.

Under the provision, states where medical pot is legal would no longer need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations. Agents would be prohibited from doing so.

The Obama administration has largely followed that rule since last year as a matter of policy. But the measure approved as part of the spending bill, which President Obama plans to sign this week, will codify it as a matter of law.

For decades, anyone who suggested that the Federal government loosen up its drug laws would have been laughed out of DC. So, pro-freedom activists turned to the states instead. Over the years, more than 30 states approved medical marijuana, and in recent years, it has been legalized for recreational purposes in four states: Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska.

All these measures, whether for medical marijuana or recreational, have been instances in which states have nullified federal law to varying degrees. The recreation legalization measure in Colorado, which prohibits any state agent from arresting, ticketing, raiding, or otherwise interfering with users of cannabis (if over age 21, etc.) makes it unconstitutional (according to the Colorado constitution) to assist federal agents with prosecuting cannabis users.

This is nullification pure and simple, and other states that declare various types of cannabis use to be legal are also nullifying federal law by passing laws in direct contradiction to federal law.

Experience has proven this works. The federal government, at this point can either continue to raid people in states where the democratic majority has clearly approved of its use, or the feds can admit defeat and quietly legalize what they can no longer prohibit without calling into question its own claims to democratic legitimacy.

This political reality is at the heart of the matter. We should not be surprised if the feds interpret the law in such a way as to still allow for raids and prosecution of peaceful people. This happens all the time. The Feds make a change designed to look like a move toward freedom, but bend over backwards to make sure they don't actually curtail their own power. But the fact remains that the feds feel they need to at least give the impression that they respect state laws and the so-called political will of people in those states. Putting one's faith in changes in legislation is a fool's game, but we can indeed point to the political climate and see that at least on this issue, the feds are on the losing side. How long it takes for them to finally admit it remains another question.

Meanwhile, opposition to these legalization movements is beginning to look comical. Asking a DEA agent if legalization is bad is like asking your barber if you need a haircut, so you get laughable results such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwerkxE21Ac


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwerkxE21Ac

surf
12-18-2014, 06:58 PM
"I've been serving the country since i'm 18 years old...."

f#cking leach.

JK/SEA
12-18-2014, 07:13 PM
sorry Mr. DEA....you lose...retire or quit...and go smoke a bowl...

seapilot
12-18-2014, 07:21 PM
I guess states that refuse to have medical marijuana can no longer use the argument "well its not legal at the Federal Level so its a mute point". Expect to see a lot more states to legalize it going forward, not because it gives people more freedom to choose but because it generates more tax revenue.

Working Poor
12-18-2014, 07:58 PM
Meanwhile, opposition to these legalization movements is beginning to look comical. Asking a DEA agent if legalization is bad is like asking your barber if you need a haircut, so you get laughable results such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwerkxE21Ac
What an asshole. He looks like a dickhead.

JK/SEA
12-18-2014, 08:08 PM
What an asshole.


pretty sure he'd take that as a compliment.

phill4paul
12-18-2014, 08:35 PM
Federal tax on sales in..3...2...1....

Origanalist
12-18-2014, 10:41 PM
Federal tax on sales in..3...2...1....

Of course, it's the George Washington way.

Spikender
12-18-2014, 11:14 PM
The DEA is worried because there will be much less paperwork to file and less posturing to perform if this all comes to pass.

Working Poor
12-19-2014, 06:17 AM
The DEA is worried because there will be much less paperwork to file and less posturing to perform if this all comes to pass.
Sounds like it would be saving tax dollars to me.

Mr DEA's voice sure was quivering in his testimony.

Spikender
12-19-2014, 07:04 AM
Sounds like it would be saving tax dollars to me.

Mr DEA's voice sure was quivering in his testimony.

Save tax dollars and the lives of tax payers. Sweet two for one deal.

Of course his voice was shakin', he was imagining a future where people's lives aren't being ruined over a plant and it was terrifying him.

tod evans
12-19-2014, 07:08 AM
Save tax dollars and the lives of tax payers. Sweet two for one deal.

Of course his voice was shakin', he was imagining a future where people's lives aren't being ruined over a plant and it was terrifying him.

I don't believe for a minute that this POS cares about saving lives or tax dollars, the ONLY thing important to folks of his ilk is maintaining power.

And there's nothing I'd like to see more before I die than every government employee who's ever been involved in the drug war stripped of all their worldly possessions and then publicly beaten by those whom they've accosted....

Spikender
12-19-2014, 07:18 AM
I don't believe for a minute that this POS cares about saving lives or tax dollars, the ONLY thing important to folks of his ilk is maintaining power.

And there's nothing I'd like to see more before I die than every government employee who's ever been involved in the drug war stripped of all their worldly possessions and then publicly beaten by those whom they've accosted....

He doesn't. He only cares about his job and maintaining his power over people. I was simply talking about the effects of the road we're taking when it comes to drugs.

That seems a bit harsh. I'd prefer a quick bullet to the back of their heads and a puff on a cig, but I guess your method involves a bit more "learning" than mine.

tod evans
12-19-2014, 07:20 AM
He doesn't. He only cares about his job and maintaining his power over people. I was simply talking about the effects of the road we're taking when it comes to drugs.

That seems a bit harsh. I'd prefer a quick bullet to the back of their heads and a puff on a cig, but I guess your method involves a bit more "learning" than mine.

Given the amount of damage these cocksuckers have done to untold numbers of families across the nation I believe I'm being quite lenient.....

osan
12-19-2014, 09:00 AM
Ten thousand percent Federal tax on sales in..3...2...1....

Fixed that fer'ye

Mach
02-09-2015, 06:54 PM
When it comes to the Feds I wouldn't bet on it...... I'd go more with this story, than the other one.....

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/16/congress-did-not-repeal-the-ban-on-medic


Yesterday I argued that it's not clear whether a rider aimed at stopping federal harassment of medical marijuana patients and their suppliers will accomplish that goal. The provision, introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and included in the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last week, bars the Justice Department from spending money to "prevent" states or the District of Columbia from "implementing" laws allowing medical use of cannabis. I am not sure exactly what that means, but I am pretty sure it does not mean what the Los Angeles Times claims it means in a story headlined "Congress Quietly Ends Federal Government's Ban on Medical Marijuana":

Tucked deep inside the 1,603-page federal spending measure is a provision that effectively ends the federal government's prohibition on medical marijuana and signals a major shift in drug policy.

The bill's passage over the weekend marks the first time Congress has approved nationally significant legislation backed by legalization advocates. It brings almost to a close two decades of tension between the states and Washington over medical use of marijuana.

Under the provision, states where medical pot is legal would no longer need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations. Agents would be prohibited from doing so.

The Obama administration has largely followed that rule since last year as a matter of policy. But the measure approved as part of the spending bill, which President Obama plans to sign this week, will codify it as a matter of law.

The Rohrabacher amendment is a welcome indication that many members of Congress, including a sizable number of Republicans, are inclined to let states set their own marijuana policies, and it may indeed deter federal prosecutors from targeting patients and suppliers who comply with state law. But it clearly does not end the federal ban on marijuana, which makes no distinction between medical and recreational use. Even if the rider affects enforcement of that ban in the 23 states with medical marijuana laws, it has no impact in the other 27. Nor does it necessarily end tension between the federal government and states that let patients use marijuana for symptom relief.

First, the rider expires at the end of next September and may or may not be renewed. Second, federal prosecution of particular growers or dispensaries does not, strictly speaking, prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws, since it does not force states to punish activities they have decided to stop treating as crimes. Third, even if we read the rider as prohibiting raids, arrests, prosecutions, and forfeiture actions aimed at people complying with state law, who those people are remains a matter of dispute in California and other states that do not explicitly allow dispensaries. In those states, where the rules for supplying medical marijuana remain fuzzy, people do still "need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations."

Finally, the Justice Department is not the only source of tension in this area. The Rohrabacher amendment has no impact on actions by the IRS or the Treasury Department that make it difficult for medical marijuana suppliers to pay their taxes and obtain banking services. Solving those problems will require changing the statutes those agencies are charged with enforcing.

muh_roads
02-09-2015, 07:31 PM
The War on Drugs is one of the worst atrocities the Government has imposed on its people since slavery. Imprisoning non-violent people for years to life is downright disgusting.

TheTexan
02-09-2015, 07:34 PM
The War on Drugs is one of the greatest atrocities the Government has imposed on its people since slavery. Imprisoning non-violent people for years to life is downright disgusting.

Sure, a LOT of people got thrown behind bars, but think of all the children who now don't have drugs in their lives because of it.

Mach
02-09-2015, 08:01 PM
Sure, a LOT of people got thrown behind bars, but think of all the children who now don't have drugs in their lives because of it.

Sarcasm? or just plain stupid?