Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Obama's Medical Marijuana Policy Issued

  1. Oct 19, 2009 #1
    New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
    By DEVLIN BARRETT, AP
    http://news.aol.com/article/new-med...m/article/new-medical-marijuana-policy/445182
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 19, 2009 #2

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  4. Oct 19, 2009 #3

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

  5. Oct 19, 2009 #4

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  6. Oct 20, 2009 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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 If a law is wrong, it should be challenged in the courts or repealed via the proper process.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.
     
  7. Oct 20, 2009 #6

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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undermines the opportunity to properly regulate the sale of this narcotic, as there would be if the law was properly repealed.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!
     
  8. Oct 20, 2009 #7

    Hepth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Legally, pot isn't a narcotic.

    While I wouldn't call it a technicality, I would call it a dilemma. Right now, (i dont 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?
     
  9. Oct 20, 2009 #8

    Hepth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  10. Oct 20, 2009 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  11. Oct 20, 2009 #10

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  12. Oct 20, 2009 #11
    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.
     
  13. Oct 20, 2009 #12
    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.
     
  14. Oct 20, 2009 #13
    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.
     
  15. Oct 21, 2009 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes.
    No.
    Yes: the USSC.
     
  16. Oct 21, 2009 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Article 1, Section 1.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
  17. Oct 21, 2009 #16

    dx

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  18. Oct 21, 2009 #17

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  19. Oct 21, 2009 #18

    dx

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Oct 21, 2009 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In no country ruled by law is such s position acceptable. You advocate a decent into anarchy.
     
  21. Oct 21, 2009 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Obama's Medical Marijuana Policy Issued
Loading...