http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

Dems are going to lose a bunch of seats in California when all their voters are too high to show up at the polls next November.  :D

He all ready has Cheech and Chong's votes!

;D

My opinion, the federal prohibitions against marihuana use (or any drug use and manufacture for that matter) are against the US Constitution if they prohibit the production and use of drugs that are produced and consumed within the borders of a given state (which they do).

Now, that said, this action by Holder is a bit disturbing.  Whether we agree with the Federal laws or not, the job of the Justice Department is to enforce the laws of the United States.  To come out with a proclamation that basically says "we do not care about the Federal law in certain states" is unseemly.  It says that as a Pennsylvanian, the Fed can prosecute me for behavior that it would not care about if I lived in, say, California.

Holder's proclamation I think is a degradation of the rule of law.  Better that the Administration worked to overturn the Federal laws instead of selectively ignoring them.

I don't see where this goes against federal law.  Federal law speaks to illegal possession and distribution, but the people are being given prescriptions by doctors, making it legal for them for possession and use.

I don't see where this goes against federal law.  Federal law speaks to illegal possession and distribution, but the people are being given prescriptions by doctors, making it legal for them for possession and use.


The applicable law is the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 811).  Under this act, marihuana is a "Class 1" controlled substance which even doctors are not allowed to prescribe.  As a Class 1 substance there is no federal recognition of medical marihuana.  The Federal law specifically prohibits the possession, production, and distribution of Class 1 drugs, so a or marihuana shop would be in strict violation of the CSA.  (I am guessing that a doctor who prescribes it would be seen as guilty of conspiracy under Federal statutes, but I am no lawyer).

While you or I may disagree with all of this, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the CSA.

Ideally, the laws wouldn't overlap, and they'd be comprehensible and logically consistent.  But what's there in that for anyone?

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr.  Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
  - one of the villians from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, 1957.


My opinion, the federal prohibitions against marihuana use (or any drug use and manufacture for that matter) are against the US Constitution if they prohibit the production and use of drugs that are produced and consumed within the borders of a given state (which they do).


Ah, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I agree with you, by the way, but for the benefit of the peanut gallery, the way the Supremes have used the ICC to undermine the spirit of the Constitution while still adhering to the letter of the Constitution is a pretty clever workaround.

In a nutshell, the logic goes like this.  "X grew some pot in California.  He used rainwater that fell in California.  He used a solar panel to be sure that all the electricity for his grow lights was generated in California.  (Let's assume that the solar panel was made from slicon extracted from a California beach, and was refined in a California fab.)  But because the pot was produced in California by a California grower, and bought by a Californian for consumption in California, the transaction made sure that demand in California for non-California-grown pot - say, Mexican ditchweed imported through New Mexico, or even (gasp!) grown in Washington or Oregon - was decreased.  That could have changed the street price of pot in states other than California.  Therefore, the Interstate Commerce Clause applies.  The activities of these Californians are affecting interstate commerce, and the Federal laws come into play."

It says that as a Pennsylvanian, the Fed can prosecute me for behavior that it would not care about if I lived in, say, California.

Nope.  You're right -- but you miss the point.  There's no unequal treatment, because as a Californian, the Fed can still prosecute me for behavior that it doesn't care about in California.

(Well, they could, except that I don't do THC.  I'm into alcohol and caffeine (guess which of those two drugs I'm consuming right now!, and I'll give you a hint, it's named after one of the Constitutional Amendments!), both of which will eventually kill me, but at least they're legal!)


Holder's proclamation I think is a degradation of the rule of law.  Better that the Administration worked to overturn the Federal laws instead of selectively ignoring them.


Hey, we haven't had the rule of law for years; why start now?


I don't see where this goes against federal law.  Federal law speaks to illegal possession and distribution, but the people are being given prescriptions by doctors, making it legal for them for possession and use.


Nope, LyricBoy's right.  There are Federal laws that prohibit posession (all posession and distribution), and there are Californian laws that permit posession/distribution under certain circumstances.  It's a catch-22.

You can be prosecuted by the Feds for doing something that's legal in California.  It's the same thing as immigration law -- there's no state or local law about being an illegal immigrant, and that's why some states turn a blind eye to it.  It's not their problem.  ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and other Feds can ask you if you're a citizen, and if you're within a certain distance of the border, they can even demand proof.  On the other hand, the guys at the random immigration checkpoints on border highways probably can't give you a ticket for speeding or for a busted taillight -- because those are violation of state laws and/or local ordinances, not Federal law. 

The only good news is that Obama's asked (and I point out that he's asked, not told) that his forces - and this is one of his few reversals from Bush II's policies - play nice with the States on this one specific issue. 

Once upon a time, Republicans would have said "Hey, States' rights.  When in doubt, apply the Tenth Amendment.  Don't like your State's laws, move to a different one, there's 50 of 'em fer cryin' out loud, you oughta find one you can live with!"  But those Republicans are long gone, and all that remains is a rump of puritans and hypocrites.  But I repeat myself.