With the Justice Department’s new relaxed attitude about pot, marijuana has entered into a quasi-illegal status at the federal level. I applaud this decision, but I don’t like this ambiguity that I am seeing more and more where the DOJ decides it is going to ignore or simply not enforce the law. We saw it with the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court; we saw it with the immigrant DREAMers, and we’re seeing it now with marijuana laws.
I agree with these things from outcome point of view, but it shows how are country’s divisions are starting to fray our legal system.
Also, Gitmo.
refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court
This isn’t the same thing. They still upheld the legality of it, they just didn’t defend it in court. For example, you didn’t see any benefits raining down until SCOTUS.
immigrant DREAMers
This is closer, but still not the same in my view. He was acting within his full authority.
The marijuana issue, however, I agree. I don’t like that they have said, “We’re ignoring it for now, but we could prosecute you in the future.” It clears nothing up, and still leaves a lot in the air. I am also extremely uncomfortable with the “states should decide” argument within this context. They’ve had the authority to decide issues such as with marriage or insurance (although on the latter the dumb Republican governments seem to keep giving the federal government more power over that), but not on intercommerce drug dealing.
Mark Kleiman has seen a legal way out of all of this, although my preference is still federalized legalization and complete removal from Scheduling. Unfortunately, the administration has chosen more muddying and waffling:
Federalism and cannabis policy: the terms of a bargain
However, much like how anything Dick Cheney is on my side of the issues and might give me pause, the fact that Kev Kev (Kevin Sabet) is against this makes me happy:
http://learnaboutsam.com/sam-releases-statement-about-new-doj-trust-but-verify-approach-to-co-and-wa
-marijuana-legalization/
Yeah me too. Its a setup.
Would you prefer if DOJ came down hard on Colorado and Washington?
No, I posted a link. Did you click it?
Pete Guither comments:
Some of you surely are questioning the sanity of those who are releasing statements of exuberance about this announcement. However, I do understand at least one reason for doing so. Since the administration is playing the “game” of appearing to be reasonable while not actually committing to anything real, a tactic by the other side can be to publicly accept that “appearance” as something real, in order to cement that impression with the public. Thus, when the administration acts in a contrary manner, the public will view the administration as double-dealing once again.
The game doesn’t always work, and I certainly have no need to pursue such things here, but I understand it as a legitimate political tactic.
I am glad to see sane drug policy as marijuana should be legalized for a many reasons. Unfortunately a drawback is the “states rights” aspect to this story. “States rights” is a Pandora’s Box and historically it’s been a justification for racism. With the supreme court we have now anything is possible…..”Citizens United.”
Two problems.
One is that the DoJ’s actions still leave the banking prohibitions in place, meaning that anyone wanting to set up a pharmacy that handles medical marijuana still can’t get access to even basic banking services without further clarification.
Another, as seabe mentioned, is the threat that the laws could be more aggressively enforced in the future, by this or another administration.
Both serve to keep distribution in the black market, with all the attendant problems.
As with all the other issues where the federal government is paralyzed, what this comes down to is a legislative branch that can’t function, because one of this country’s two major parties refuses to allow it to. In the past, one way or another, such ambiguities would be clarified by legislation sponsored and signed by whomever was in power. Now we have a minority party dedicated to not only stopping anything it doesn’t like, but anything it does like if the opposition also likes it. The current makeup of the Republican Party is threatening to become the sort of existential crisis our country hasn’t faced for 150 years, because it literally doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of our form of government.
There’s really no good solution to the problem in the face of the completely broken Congress we have now.
“The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we’ve seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution. In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society.”
– Jim Garrison, 1967
What laws might a future Republican government ignore by this precedent? Executive clemency is better than the AG ignoring laws. Better that he should carefully choose a test case and deliberately blow the trial, so that the judicial branch invalidates the law.
It’s not like our justice system wasn’t a pretense before.
To the gills my good Man
Bring the cannabinoids
Dude here In Colorado things is allllright
If the Republicans want to sue Obama into upholding the law, all I can say is “Proceed gentlemen, proceed.” They’re more than welcome to offend more swing voters (and the entire state of Colorado).
If we had a working Congress, they could stop him. But if we had a working Congress, he wouldn’t need to do these things. Desperate times…
I don’t see how all these comments about Congress apply. The main relevant federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, doesn’t say marijuana is illegal; it says various substances can be controlled to various degrees. Currently, marijuana is in the highest category. Doesn’t the FDA reschedule without legislation all the time? Did it take legislation to schedule GHB, for example? All the secondary laws, against laundering and so on, I believe are against “controlled substances”, not marijuana specifically. Admittedly, I could be wrong on all this, as I haven’t looked into it specifically, but this is my understanding, so if it is incorrect, I like to know that and why.
Better late than never to join the club of those worried about what too many decades of “win at any cost” politics are doing to American government.
The Supremes were always the worst offenders and became the most constitutionally disobedient branch, and a spectacularly disobedient branch, with the numberous and actually rather shockingly revolutionary decisions of the Warren and succeeding liberal courts, continuing to our own day.
As for presidents, the Democrats have probably been the biggest offenders, over the long haul, too.
Nobody ever topped Wilson and FDR for stomping the constitution during wartime, and nobody ever topped Truman either in autocratic foreign policy or at home.
Sure, the Republicans had been constitutional fakers throughout the Lochner Era.
But the Democrats turned it around in 1937 and have been running with the ball, ever since.
These statements are in conflict:
“Sure, the Republicans had been constitutional fakers throughout the Lochner Era.”
“With the numerous and actually rather shockingly revolutionary decisions of the Warrwn and succeeding liberal courts.”
The Lochner era was followed by the spirit of the Warren era with Stone and Hughes, which upheld the Lochner tradition until as you say 1937.
So what was right then? Lochner or the reversals that began in 1937? It can’t be both.
i’ll throw out a prediction, though: if a democrat is elected in 2016, that president will be the one who presides over total legalization of marijuana.
This is like the gay marriage issue – the momentum is starting to build very quickly. Many states no longer have the budgetary luxury of using marijuana to lock up people they don’t like.
The only thing that could throw a wrench in it is a GOP presidency (let’s not be under the illusion any actually libertarian policies on social issues would ever come to pass under a GOP president at this point).
Really? who would that democrat be? Ms. Clinton?
Gimme a break, please.
You’re apparently forgetting the dozens (hundreds) of well paid lobbyists Big Pharma has in the beltway and the fact they are mostly responsible for maintaining the non legal status of marijuana.