

No federal challenge to marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington - Alex3917
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

======
Alex3917
I'm surprised more people apparently don't find this to be important. It
reminds me of the day the EU formed, warranting all of a two paragraph blurb
somewhere in the back of the NYT. Or when the first successful manned
commercial launch happened as part of the X-Prize, and all of zero people in a
certain ivy league engineering school program had heard about it the next day.
As general life advice, I think there's a certain value in cultivating the
ability to recognize big events when they happen.

~~~
andrewpi
Unfortunately, this administration has a history of broken promises when it
comes to respecting state medical marijuana laws. They have always given
themselves ample loopholes in any guidance so that they can justify desired
prosecutions.

~~~
lukifer
They even said as much in the announcement:

> The size and profitability of marijuana businesses will still be a factor
> prosecutors can consider, but there also must be additional illegal
> activities for prosecutors to take action.

With enough scrutiny (which we know the Feds have the capacity for), it's
trivial to find some regulation that a particular business is violating. And
as soon as they have their justification, they'll come down on suppliers and
vendors like a ton of bricks, using both the official violation _and_ the
federal Controlled Substances Act in the prosecution.

Overall, this announcement is a good sign that they're losing the war on
public opinion, and I don't suspect they'll crack down unilaterally. I think
they're going after a strategy of containment; disincentivizing the experiment
from spreading, as well as preventing bales of cannabis from flowing across
state lines (which, in fairness, will certainly happen).

------
keithah
Realize Eric Holder said the same thing about respecting state laws over
federal, and then proceeded to attack dispensaries, so it's hard to believe
him this time.

~~~
russellsprouts
If you're talking about the ones in Washington, weren't those operating
illegally under Washington law and federal law? They didn't attack
dispensaries because they were dispensaries -- in Washington some will be
legal soon -- but because they weren't following the guidelines Washington
sent.

~~~
r0s
All are illegal under federal law.

What's it called when laws are enforced for some people and not others?

------
dragonwriter
The federal government hasn't challenged partial legalization elsewhere,
either; what it has done (even _after_ announcing that it would not make it a
prosecution priority) is continue to _prosecute_ people who were complying
with the state law for violating federal drug laws.

So, its really _not_ big news that they aren't challenging the legalization.
What will be big news is if there really is a durable consistent accommodation
in the way they choose to prosecute (not just a statement or guidelines that
seems to indicate a deprioritization, but something that is tangible in terms
of differences in action.)

------
qdog
I think the problem is selectively enforcing federal laws isn't a good option.
Even thought he supreme court struck down DOMA, they stated that until that
happened the administration should have still defended it.

While I think they should change the federal marijuana laws, I do not relish
the future prospect of an administration deciding not to enforce federal laws
they don't like because of this precedent. Voter ID, Abortion, racial
profiling, etc.

Admittedly, though, I'm not sure how the laws will get changed. The Right to
Vote took a very long time, so the Right to Toke might take a bit longer than
the next couple of years.

------
betterunix
No challenge? They are sending teams of soldiers in to attack marijuana
dispensaries in these states. I think the confusion here was the assumption
that the "challenge" would be civilized and conducted in the courts.

~~~
chx
Slow down, slow down. Is there a URL on this? When you mean soldiers, do you
mean the US Army?

~~~
betterunix
"Is there a URL on this?"

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/dea-raid-
marijuana-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/dea-raid-marijuana-
dispensaries-washington-state_n_3653071.html)

"When you mean soldiers, do you mean the US Army?"

No, I mean these soldiers:

[http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_Dea_drug_trafficking...](http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_Dea_drug_trafficking_thg_120622_wg.jpg)

------
genwin
Seems like the feds are reserving the right to swoop in and put a lot of
people in prison for a decade+, perhaps after enough lobbying $$$$ from the
privately-run prison companies. Sickening.

~~~
anigbrowl
Unlikely, given that the DoJ unveiled a plan to hugely reduce the number of
drug prosecutions, avoid mandatory minimum sentences through procedural means
etc. What's 'sickening' is you mental picture of what _could_ happen, but
there's no great reason to believe it actually will; don't mistake your bias
for reality.

~~~
genwin
The same person who ruined the lives of many people who previously believed
him when he told them he wouldn't ruin their lives, is now telling us he won't
ruin more lives. So I don't think I'm overstating the odds of further
ruination here.

~~~
anigbrowl
You're not stating the odds at all, but treating your own opinion as fact.
However, I don't think nuance is your thing and I'm a well-known pedant, so
we're unlikely to reach agreement on this.

~~~
milkshakes
no, this actually happened. feel free to respond with some evidence to the
contrary though.

[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-
pot-...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-
pot-20120216?print=true)

------
redthrowaway
I'm not American, so I'm not well informed on this, but is the basis for
federal prohibition of narcotics not the Commerce Clause? Doesn't that mean
that, constitutionally (as far as the USSC is concerned), the states have no
right to overrule the federal gov't?

What does this mean for other state nullifications of federal law, like
attempts to ignore Obamacare or gun control? Can the states use the USG's
acquiescence to state nullification of federal powers ensured by the Commerce
Clause in this instance to establish precedence for nullifying federal law in
other areas?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> is the basis for federal prohibition of narcotics not the Commerce Clause?

Most likely, along with most federal restrictions. However, if you're making a
constitutional argument, the Commerce Clause only regulates _interstate_
commerce, not _intrastate_ commerce. The federal government has no
constitutional grounds to regulate anything created, sold, and consumed within
the bounds of a state. Hence why Prohibition required a constitutional
amendment. If you're looking for precedent, there it is.

~~~
eurleif
In Wickard v. Filburn
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)),
the Supreme Court pretty much ruled that everything is interstate commerce.
That case involved a farmer growing wheat for consumption on the farm. The
court ruled that because the grain he grew was grain he wouldn't have to buy,
he was having an indirect effect on the interstate market for wheat.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I'm familiar with the precedent, and I'm aware that the federal government has
interpreted the commerce clause as carte blanche for arbitrary regulation; I'm
arguing that such interpretation seems blatantly wrong to me.

------
mratzloff
Like gay marriage, history is on the side of legalization and normalization.
Once the issue has a non-threatening human face, opinions change. Medical
marijuana is a great vehicle for this, because only a real jerk is going to
deny someone undergoing chemotherapy or suffering from glaucoma something that
alleviates their pain.

As someone who lives in Seattle, it's fairly common at this point to walk past
people downtown openly smoking pot on the street, without fear of arrest. I
mean, the city even has a festival called _Hempfest_. Tourists may notice this
and be shocked at the openness, but Seattle is not overrun by rampaging
marijuana addicts, so what conclusion must they draw from it?

I noticed that alcohol is not listed in the controlled substance schedules.
That seems like it would be a schedule I or II based on the definition and
other drugs that are also on the list. Worse, you can die from an alcohol
overdose, unlike cannabis. Why is this dangerous drug legal? Because people
are conditioned to believe it is socially acceptable, and know that
prohibition doesn't work. The same is now happening for cannabis.

------
pyrophane
As a Washington resident I'm glad that the DoJ has decided not to drag us into
a legal battle over this that could have delayed the opening of recreational
marijuana storefronts, which should happen around the end of the year.

This bit is just as interesting to me:

> Under the new guidelines, federal prosecutors are required to focus on eight
> enforcement priorities, including preventing marijuana distribution to
> minors, preventing drugged driving, stopping drug trafficking by gangs and
> cartels and forbidding the cultivation of marijuana on public lands.

The federal government's interference with state marijuana laws in recent
years has not come via grand legal challenges to the laws themselves, but
rather through continued and sometimes arbitrary harassment and arrest of
medical marijuana providers across the country.

Hopefully this signals that the DEA will no longer go after producers and
distributors who are complying with state laws, but instead leave it to the
states to enforce their own laws.

~~~
jlgreco
> _opening of recreational marijuana storefronts, which should happen around
> the end of the year._

My understanding is that legal growing for recreational use cannot begin until
around the end of the year, so it will probably be a few months after that
when the stores actually have goods to sell and can open.

~~~
pyrophane
That may very well be. I wonder if there will be any way for existing medical
growers to "convert" plants to recreational production, which would speed
things up at the outset given that I'm sure a lot of current medical growers
are applying for these licenses.

~~~
jlgreco
I would hope so, but I haven't heard anything about that. It would make sense
if they were able to "convert" plants by just paying the recreational tax for
an existing plant.

They may not have bothered to cover that edge-case though, since it is
probably only really going to be an issue once (I assume it would be perfectly
on the level to sell "recreational pot" to people with prescriptions for
"medical pot"... Growing plants specifically for medical use may stop being a
thing.)

------
D9u
Meanwhile, Roger Christie, a "cannabis sacrament minister," remains in pre-
trial detention, without bail, for over three years. The Federal Magistrate in
the case said that Christie is "a danger to the community."

[http://www.hawaiireporter.com/three-years-after-his-
arrest-h...](http://www.hawaiireporter.com/three-years-after-his-arrest-
hawaii-island-rev-roger-christie-still-fighting-for-his-release/123)

Then there's the current administration's attacks upon medical cannabis
dispensaries in states where medical cannabis is legal.
[http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/barack-
obamas-...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/barack-obamas-
hardline-turn-medical-marijuana-mystery)

Is this another example of "flip flopping?"

~~~
qdog
Roger Christie dispensed pot for a donation of 'The Approximate Street Value'.
I'm not sure that a non-profit religious organization that is in effect
'selling' un-taxed goods is going to get out of jail soon. If he'd been
handing out alcohol or Pez Dispensers it'd still be pretty shady.

The second article is a little more interesting, but I'll repeat from my
comment above, it is very difficult for the administration not to enforce
federal laws, even when they may want to. I would be very worried about
operating a dispensary until federal laws change, unless you are ok with going
to jail as an act of civil disobedience because you believe the law is unjust.

~~~
D9u
We have numerous examples of criminals accused of exponentially more serious
crimes being granted bail, the latest of which is a woman who stabbed her
boyfriend to death. [http://www.hawaiipolice.com/puna-murder-
update-08-23-13](http://www.hawaiipolice.com/puna-murder-update-08-23-13)

Are you seriously trying to imply that an alleged pot dealer is more dangerous
than an alleged murderess?

~~~
icebraining
_Are you seriously trying to imply that an alleged pot dealer is more
dangerous than an alleged murderess?_

Who alleged she's a murderess? She may have allegedly killed her boyfriend,
but murder implies malice aforethought, while the victim's "lengthy criminal
record and history of domestic violence" paints a different picture.

Let's not use terms that aren't justified by the facts, please.

~~~
D9u
Way to parse words!

Semantics aside, killing is definitely more dangerous than selling pot

Please, let's just stick to the heart of the matter here.

We see numerous instances where killers, rapists, child molesters, etc, are
granted bail, so why not a mid level pot dealer?

The big banks get caught laundering billions of dollars in cartel drug money
yet not one bank employee ever saw the inside of a federal detention center,
much less held without bail for over 3 years!

------
r0s
This is selective enforcement.

All the more insulting when sending kids and innocent people to jail for
simple cannabis use in other areas.

