Obama's Medical Marijuana Policy Issued

[B. Elliott]

New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
By DEVLIN BARRETT, AP

WASHINGTON (Oct. 19) - Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department.
Under the policy spelled out in a three-page legal memo, federal prosecutors are being told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

http://news.aol.com/article/new-med...m/article/new-medical-marijuana-policy/445182

 

[mheslep]

New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
By DEVLIN BARRETT, AP


http://news.aol.com/article/new-med...m/article/new-medical-marijuana-policy/445182

That's a mistake imo. They should repeal or override the law if they see fit, not refuse to enforce it, or any other law.

 

[OmCheeto]

New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
By DEVLIN BARRETT, AP


http://news.aol.com/article/new-med...m/article/new-medical-marijuana-policy/445182

Odd. Strikes me as a Libertarian move. And here we all thought he was either Jesus or a Commie...

Thank you Mr. President, for giving us back one of our civil liberties.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It makes sense. There are a number of states where people acquire marijuana for medical purposes under controlled circumstances (regulated by the state). The fear of a federal crackdown is a bit much to put someone who already has medical problems through; obviously this isn't the best solution but until something more permanent can be followed through on it's a good band-aid approach. I'm surprised it took this long to happen

mheslep, federal agencies only have limited resources. Should they go after people who are criminals basically on a technicality? I would hope they have bigger fish to fry

 

[russ_watters]

mheslep, federal agencies only have limited resources. Should they go after people who are criminals basically on a technicality? I would hope they have bigger fish to fry

What are you talking about? What technicality? Bigger fish? None of that bears any relation to what mheslep said. Mheslep provided no opinion about medical marijuana, only a complaint about the Obama administration not properly utilizing the functioning of government to make/repeal/enforce laws.

Anyway, I agree with him: if a law is on the books, it must be enforced. If a law is wrong, it should be challenged in the courts or repealed via the proper process. To order prosecutors not to do their jobs is unconstitutional.

 

[mheslep]

What are you talking about? What technicality? Bigger fish? None of that bears any relation to what mheslep said. Mheslep provided no opinion about medical marijuana, only a complaint about the Obama administration not properly utilizing the functioning of government to make/repeal/enforce laws.

Anyway, I agree with him: if a law is on the books, it must be enforced. If a law is wrong, it should be challenged in the courts or repealed via the proper process. To order prosecutors not to do their jobs is unconstitutional.

In addition to undermining the respect for the law, this action undermines the opportunity to properly regulate the sale of this narcotic, as there would be if the law was properly repealed. As it is, one can search the FDA on aspirin and get a mountain of recommendations, but for the narcotic marijuana on the FDA we get zip. Edit: scratch that, there is plenty of home drug test information!

 

[Hepth]

Legally, pot isn't a narcotic.

While I wouldn't call it a technicality, I would call it a dilemma. Right now, (i don't know) what happens when:
A) A state creates a law in direct conflict with a preexisting Federal law.
B) A Federal law is created that is in direct conflict with a preexisting state law.

Does the Federal Law take precedence? In both cases? Can a state prosecute someone for something that, while a federal law grants the right, a state law removes it?

Is there a machine in place to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws?

 

[Hepth]

Anyway, I agree with him: if a law is on the books, it must be enforced. If a law is wrong, it should be challenged in the courts or repealed via the proper process. To order prosecutors not to do their jobs is unconstitutional.

That's another issue I wonder about. If a law on the books is in the process of being repealed, do they suspend the prosecution of said law breakers? Do you keep prosecuting and if the law is repealed, just void their sentences/punishment? Is it retroactive for everyone? Whats the precedence in this?

My opinion would be to prosecute all law violations currently on the books. Whether or not it may be legal tomorrow does not influence its illegality today, and as such you should be prosecuted for today's actions, under today's laws.

 

[chroot]

I suspect it's being done to set up a precedent (look, the DEA stopped prosecuting medical marijuana users, and nothing bad happened) so that later full-legalization legislature will be easier to pass.

I don't think it's a waste of anyone's time for Obama to tell his federal employees to respect state laws. In my opinion, state laws should override federal laws in all circumstances where they conflict. Maybe Obama agrees.

- Warren

 

[lisab]

I suspect it's being done to set up a precedent (look, the DEA stopped prosecuting medical marijuana users, and nothing bad happened) so that later full-legalization legislature will be easier to pass.

I don't think it's a waste of anyone's time for Obama to tell his federal employees to respect state laws. In my opinion, state laws should override federal laws in all circumstances where they conflict. Maybe Obama agrees.

- Warren

I have to take issue with the second part of your statement (bolded). If that were the case, we might still have slavery in most of the South. I seriously doubt Obama would agree with that policy.

However, the first part I agree with. (Caveat: I have to admit, I don't pay much attention to drug laws/enforcement issues...it's all well off my radar screen.) Perhaps this is a step in the direction of re-thinking the war on drugs?

 

[B. Elliott]

I suspect it's being done to set up a precedent (look, the DEA stopped prosecuting medical marijuana users, and nothing bad happened) so that later full-legalization legislature will be easier to pass.

I don't think it's a waste of anyone's time for Obama to tell his federal employees to respect state laws. In my opinion, state laws should override federal laws in all circumstances where they conflict. Maybe Obama agrees.

- Warren

That's primarily what I was getting out of it. This could make for some very interesting cases in the future. If one state decided to fully legalize it for general use, same as alcohol, this administration wouldn't pursue legal action under the federal statute.

 

[Al68]

That's a mistake imo. They should repeal or override the law if they see fit, not refuse to enforce it, or any other law.

They should just enforce it legally, ie only in the cases where there is federal jurisdiction in the matter like D.C., military bases, crossing state lines, etc.

There is no need to repeal the law, any more than the State of Alabama would need to repeal their laws because they don't enforce then in Georgia. Any law is only valid where it has jurisdiction.

Declining to enforce federal laws where there is no constitutional federal jurisdiction should be the standard, not the rare exception.

 

[Al68]

Anyway, I agree with him: if a law is on the books, it must be enforced. If a law is wrong, it should be challenged in the courts or repealed via the proper process. To order prosecutors not to do their jobs is unconstitutional.

Can you reference the specific part of the constitution? I can't seem to find it. And my dislike for Obama had me looking pretty hard.

 

[russ_watters]

Does the Federal Law take precedence? In both cases?

Yes.

Can a state prosecute someone for something that, while a federal law grants the right, a state law removes it?

No.

Is there a machine in place to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws?

Yes: the USSC.

 

[russ_watters]

Can you reference the specific part of the constitution? I can't seem to find it. And my dislike for Obama had me looking pretty hard.

Article 1, Section 1.

 

[dx]

If a law is wrong, it should be challenged in the courts or repealed via the proper process. To order prosecutors not to do their jobs is unconstitutional.

The problem is that it is not easy to repeal this particular law due to the huge propoganda and brainwashing campaigns that have been going on for decades. This damage must be undone of course, and it may take a while, but there is no reason for medical marijuana users to suffer in the meantime.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The problem is that it is not easy to repeal this particular law due to the huge propoganda and brainwashing campaigns that have been going on for decades.

Yes, but this is the democratic process. Having one man decide what laws will and will not be executed puts his decision above those of the people who elected him. Historically, even when started with the best of intentions, it seldom ends well.

 

[dx]

I don't think its fair to say that he is putting his decision above others. The support for legalization of medical marijuana is close to 50% (and 70% among liberals). Also keep in mind that all the policy does is to advise the feds that it is not the best use of their resources. The law will still be enforced; only the focus of the enforcement will change.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is that it is not easy to repeal this particular law due to the huge propoganda and brainwashing campaigns that have been going on for decades. This damage must be undone of course, and it may take a while, but there is no reason for medical marijuana users to suffer in the meantime.

In no country ruled by law is such s position acceptable. You advocate a decent into anarchy.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think its fair to say that he is putting his decision above others. The support for legalization of medical marijuana is close to 50% (and 70% among liberals). Also keep in mind that all the policy does is to advise the feds that it is not the best use of their resources. The law will still be enforced; only the focus of the enforcement will change.

What popularity fraction do you consider sufficient to allow a leader to disregard the constitutional process?

Also, just to be clear, this is just about MEDICINAL marijuana, right? You would support regulation of it on a similar level as tylenol, right?

 

[Vanadium 50]

In no country ruled by law is such s position acceptable. You advocate a decent into anarchy.

Actually, I think it's a descent into dictatorship. One person decides which laws are fair and just and which ones aren't.

This has been tried before, and like I said, it seldom ends well. (To connect it to science, this is what killed Antoine Lavoisier)

I don't think its fair to say that he is putting his decision above others. The support for legalization of medical marijuana is close to 50% (and 70% among liberals).

The US system, as I understand it, decides what is law and what is not via Congress, not via opinion polls. And certainly not via opinion polls among only liberals.

 

[dx]

What popularity fraction do you consider sufficient to allow a leader to disregard the constitutional process?

Since you bring up constitution so much, can you tell me which part of the constitution allows there to be laws against people growing or possessing plants? It can be argued that the law against possession of marijuana itself is unconstitutional.

Also, just to be clear, this is just about MEDICINAL marijuana, right? You would support regulation of it on a similar level as tylenol, right?

Personally, I support legalization (not only for medicinal purposes), and regulation of it on a similar level as tobacco and alcohol. I don't know if that was the question though.

 

[dx]

The US system, as I understand it, decides what is law and what is not via Congress, not via opinion polls. And certainly not via opinion polls among only liberals.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating breaking existing laws. What Obama has done does not break any law as far as I am aware.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since you bring up constitution so much, can you tell me which part of the constitution allows there to be laws against people growing or possessing plants?

The Commerce Clause.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating breaking existing laws. What Obama has done does not break any law as far as I am aware.

No, but you are arguing that he should be allowed to pick and choose what laws he will enforce and what laws he will not.

 

[dx]

I assume you're talking about the Gonzales v. Raich case. Don't you think its a little weird that they have to resort to the commerce clause to justify a drug law? It seems pretty clear that it is a desperate attempt to ban marijuana on some obscure technicality or vagueness in the constitution. Here is what Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas said:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers

If I were an American, this is the kind of thing I would be worried about. It seems way more dictatorship-like than what Obama is doing.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers

Precedent is against Justice Thomas. The case of Wickard v. Filburn in 1935 established that, under very similar circumstances. In it, the Court held that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own personal use was subject to federal legislation under the Commerce Clause. That ruling essentially ended the idea that the federal Government is one of limited and enumerated powers, since virtually any action - or inaction - has some non-zero effect on interstate commerce.

You might not like this, but unless you can find 62 million people who agree with you: 51% of the population of 75% of the states, the minimum it takes to amend the Constitution, that's how things will stay.

 

[Al68]

No, but you are arguing that he should be allowed to pick and choose what laws he will enforce and what laws he will not.

The U.S. Constitution vests all federal executive power in the President. That's his job. Enforcing all laws 100% has never been an option. He must "pick and choose".

Precedent is against Justice Thomas.

But the actual words of the constitution are not.

That ruling essentially ended the idea that the federal Government is one of limited and enumerated powers

The "idea" is still the actual supreme law of the land, whether it is honored or not.

 

[Al68]

Anyway, I agree with him: if a law is on the books, it must be enforced. If a law is wrong, it should be challenged in the courts or repealed via the proper process. To order prosecutors not to do their jobs is unconstitutional.

Can you reference the specific part of the constitution? I can't seem to find it. And my dislike for Obama had me looking pretty hard.

Article 1, Section 1.

Art 1 Sec 1 says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Enforcement of law is executive power, not legislative power, and is vested entirely in the President.

 

[mheslep]

They should just enforce it legally, ie only in the cases where there is federal jurisdiction in the matter like D.C., military bases, crossing state lines, etc.

There is no need to repeal the law, any more than the State of Alabama would need to repeal their laws because they don't enforce then in Georgia. Any law is only valid where it has jurisdiction.

Declining to enforce federal laws where there is no constitutional federal jurisdiction should be the standard, not the rare exception.

Commerce clause. The feds have that jurisdiction:

By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Congress's constitutional authority to regulate the interstate market in drugs, licit or illicit, extends to small, homegrown quantities of doctor-recommended marijuana consumed under California's Compassionate Use Act, which was adopted by an overwhelming majority of voters in 1996.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06

I think I disagree w/ that ruling, and prefer Thomas in dissent:

In a separate dissent, Thomas added that if "the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

None the less because of that ruling the feds have authority.

Edit: I see now all this has already surfaced up thread.

 

[mheslep]

The problem is that it is not easy to repeal this particular law due to the huge propoganda and brainwashing campaigns that have been going on for decades.

Easy or not, the legislative process by way of the people's representatives is the way to address this.

This damage must be undone of course, and it may take a while, but there is no reason for medical marijuana users to suffer in the meantime.

Clearly there is reason as has already been stated. The respect for rule of law suffers, and there will be widespread use of a drug completely outside the usual FDA process.

 

[mheslep]

Article 1, Section 1.

No, but you are arguing that he should be allowed to pick and choose what laws he will enforce and what laws he will not.

The U.S. Constitution vests all federal executive power in the President. That's his job. Enforcing all laws 100% has never been an option. He must "pick and choose".But the actual words of the constitution are not.The "idea" is still the actual supreme law of the land, whether it is honored or not.

Art 1 Sec 1 says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Enforcement of law is executive power, not legislative power, and is vested entirely in the President.

This entire line is about the separation of powers debate which could take over the thread. Its akin to Bush's signing statements. Congress indeed writes the laws, but Presidents have been pushing back saying in effect to Congress 'you may not usurp my executive authority in the act of writing these laws'. Congress replies 'you can not defacto rewrite the law in the act of enforcing it'. To be continued.

 

[mheslep]

... That ruling essentially ended the idea that the federal Government is one of limited and enumerated powers, since virtually any action - or inaction - has some non-zero effect on interstate commerce.

Ended for the moment, unfortunately

You might not like this, but unless you can find 62 million people who agree with you: 51% of the population of 75% of the states, the minimum it takes to amend the Constitution, that's how things will stay.

I dunno. Racial segregation had plenty of precedent and was eventually reversed. The Commerce Clause has been distorted beyond recognition. Some good cases and clever jurists might eventually undue the ills.

 

[mheslep]

Since you bring up constitution so much, can you tell me which part of the constitution allows there to be laws against people growing or possessing plants? It can be argued that the law against possession of marijuana itself is unconstitutional...

Jumping in ... The individual states unquestionably have the authority to regulate drugs and alcohol. THC in marijuana is a drug. The federal government through the the commerce clause (as stated) has also taken on that authority nationwide. Whether the states and the fed should have actually written these laws as they have is another matter, but they have the power.

 

[mheslep]

The law will still be enforced; only the focus of the enforcement will change.

Per the announcement, it is clear that any enforcement action against medicinal users will come to a halt.

 

[russ_watters]

Since you bring up constitution so much, can you tell me which part of the constitution allows there to be laws against people growing or possessing plants?

Congress has the power to pass laws for the common good. Making harmful drugs illegal is part of the public good. That's article 1, section 8.

It can be argued that the law against possession of marijuana itself is unconstitutional.

Go for it - and good luck.

Personally, I support legalization (not only for medicinal purposes), and regulation of it on a similar level as tobacco and alcohol. I don't know if that was the question though.

That's what I was getting at, yes. The reason I ask is that it seems to me that the medicinal marijuana issue is just an attempt at a red herring argument. A smokescreen to mask a further adjenda. It is my perception that all these absurd specious arguments we get are just part of that. People are throwing as much crap at the wall as they can, hoping something will stick. And, it seems, some of it actually is sticking - the arguments are specious and don't hold up in court, nevertheless, Obama's using it and California is using it. But again, that's the bigger issue to me. I'm not a big fan of pot either way, but I'm much more concerned about these violations of the rule of law. These types of issues with states rights and constitutional powers are how we ended up with slavery and a civil war. I thought we had moved past that.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating breaking existing laws. What Obama has done does not break any law as far as I am aware.

It is crystal clear that both California and Obama (not to mention the "clinics" themselves) are breaking federal law.

Something from earlier:

This damage must be undone of course, and it may take a while, but there is no reason for medical marijuana users to suffer in the meantime.

You do understand that even if the federal government decriminalizes marijuana for medicinal use, to eventually classify it similar to something like Tylenol, the state of California and those "clinics" are still in violation of federal law, right? In order to properly turn marijuana into a drug like Tylenol, it would take a decade at least to get through FDA approval. Considering how many cancer patients are screaming for new drugs, it is a pretty specious argument about medicinal pot users "suffering in the meantime".