

In California, It’s U.S. vs. State Over Marijuana - ghshephard
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/14pot.html?hpw

======
nestlequ1k
Looking forward to another 4 more years of this "hope and change".

For the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame
Republicans for this one. If we can't trust Obama to take rational positions
on such clear cut issues, who can we trust?

~~~
cloudwalking
While I agree that pot should be legal, I don't think this is a clear-cut
issue.

The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce
Congress's laws.

Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the
law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required
to prosecute this.

Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty
of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given
Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.

~~~
iandanforth
The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad.
It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that
Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily outlaw substances within any
and all states. This is why it required a constitutional amendment to outlaw
alcohol. Given a traditional legal precedent and a strict-interpretation court
the President has both the grounds to deem certain provisions of the law
unconstitutional and the belief that that would be upheld by the court. Those
are the only two tests he needs to pass to refuse to enforce a portion or all
of the law.

Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law)

Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions:
<http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm>

History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause>

~~~
greenyoda
But if Obama claims the law prohibiting drugs is unconstitutionally broad and
shouldn't be enforced, he couldn't justify prosecuting the Mexican drug
cartels for selling drugs either. And I don't think he wants to go that far
toward drug legalization, given what his position has been on this subject so
far (he's waged the "war on drugs" as actively as his predecessors have).

------
blahedo
As much as I support marijuana legalisation, I'm always puzzled at the
righteous anger summoned against the federal government for prosecutions like
this---how dare they, when the states have said it's legal! The problem is,
that argument is an extremely shady one, with an extremely sketchy past. I
currently live in a state (Virginia) where, faced with the Brown v Board
ruling in the 60s, many counties just defunded their public schools entirely
and funneled the money to "private" academies for white kids, with the state's
blessing. The movement was called "Massive Resistance". Several other states
across the South had other policies that were not permitted to stand when they
conflicted with the federal government.

Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here
---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of
"when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for
surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.

~~~
thaumaturgy
The primary error in this line of thinking is to draw parallels between a
racial issue and a drug issue. In the case of the racial issue, the federal
government was acting on the behalf of a portion of its citizenry, and against
the will of a smaller portion of citizens; in this case the federal government
would find itself on the right side of history.

In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will
of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens
have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal
government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the
federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history.

Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in
the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own
merits.

That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue;
rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and
welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the
interests of some demographic group of victims.

------
ghshephard
More prosecutorial shady behavior by the federal government. Here they are
prosecuting someone who did everything above-board and in accordance with
state law, after the president has made it clear that this type of prosecution
should be low priority.

------
millstone
The article refers to Davies's "seizing on what he saw as uncharted territory
with a vast potential for profits." This is damning if true: California
dispensaries are required to be non-profit.

If Davies really did seek "large profits from the cultivation and sale of
marijuana", as the prosecuting attorney alleges, then he is in violation of
both state and federal law. If he did not seek such profits, then he may
indeed be in compliance with state law.

~~~
jimktrains2
Not really. IIRC he can pay himself a nice salary, he just needs to invest the
rest of the revenue back into the business.

------
rmc
Maybe it's the EU citizen in me, but I just done understand how this is
possible? Isn't it legal in that state? So how can you face jail time?

It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate
in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in
another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of
state law then?

Can someone explain this like I'm 5?

~~~
allerratio
Federal law breaks state law. It's the same in federal countries of the EU. In
Germany for example there are several laws where federal law overrides state
law. For example the [Constitution of
Hesse](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hesse>) allows death
sentences but is overruled by the German Constitution (the "Grundgesetz")

~~~
eru
A more practical example was the court case that allowed female soldiers to
serve with weapons in Germany.

It went all the way up to European level, and there they overturned German
law.

~~~
rmc
EU is not a great example, since there are no EU laws per se, it's countries
that have to implement EU directives. additionally there is no EU jails or
criminal justice system.

~~~
bscanlan
There are EU laws per se.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)>

------
caf
You would hope that, if it's true that this business was compliant with letter
and spirit of the State law, the California States Attorney would make a
polite request to their Federal counterpart asking that the case be dropped as
not in the public interest. If they don't, it seems like the State is hanging
him out to dry.

------
tsotha
That argument was settled pretty decisively in 1864.

------
davidw
Could we keep marijuana politics discussions elsewhere, please? This is one of
those hotbutton issues that starts to dull the focus and quality of a site
like this.

~~~
josephlord
I think there probably are issues in this case that feel quite relevant here
this week like federal prosecutorial discretion and the means by which plea
bargains are achieved.

~~~
davidw
So because something is tangentially related to something else here, it's
cool, right? Like since Aaron was Jewish, Israeli politics would fly too?

I disagree and think that "7 degrees of hacker news" is a fun game but should
not seriously be considered a serious or legitimate reason to include some or
other article.

~~~
josephlord
I didn't say it was cool but that many people may have felt it was relevant
for that reason. At times over the weekend the front page was 75% Aaron
related so there are clearly large numbers of people with very strong feelings
that his case is important. There is also a strong feeling that prosecutorial
conduct was a significant factor in his death making this story potentially
relevant. I haven't seen anyone suggesting Israeli politics was in any way
related to his death.

Personally I neither upvoted this story or downvoted your comment but the fact
that this story is on the front page and your comment has been downvoted may
indicate that others (shockingly) have different views to yourself and I
remind you of the submissions/comments guidelines:

> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
> for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going
> to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this;
> there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also
> comment that you did.

~~~
davidw
My guess is that those upvoting the article and downvoting me are people for
whom the issue is very important. Similar people might vote for articles about
gay rights, euthanasia, immigration, and so on and so forth. They're all very
important topics - probably more important than most of what we discuss here,
if you think about it. That's what makes them so good at getting 'airplay'.
Keeping them out has to be a conscious decision and effort.

There's nothing about this article that "gratifies one's intellectual
curiosity." and it might well be considered a "classic flamewar topic",
although I suspect _mostly_ a one-sided flamewar here. Still though, it's a
charged, political subject.

If no one calls out stuff that's off-topic, it's going to continue to be
propagated.

