Obama Admin Says It Won't Fight Looser Marijuana Laws, With Conditions 526
schwit1 writes with news that the Obama administration has released a memo stating that it will not fight liberalized marijuana laws in states like Colorado and Washington, but made that promise conditional on a set of guidelines, such as requiring efforts to dissuade underage use. From the Washington Post's coverage:
"Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole detailed the administration's new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands."
Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe this is why?
Is Marijuana a Safe Drug? Teenage Brain at Risk for Drug Abuse [scienceworldreport.com]
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Informative)
There was also a study of New Zealanders. They found that people who began using pot earlier in life and used it most frequently over the years experienced an average decline of eight IQ points by the time they turned 38. By comparison, those who never smoked pot had an average increase of one IQ point by the same age.
A reanalysis of the New Zealand data by Ole Røgeberg of the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Oslo, however, suggested that the IQ difference could be explained by socioeconomic factors. People who start smoking marijuana at an earlier age are often less intelligent to begin with.
You will find most of the research is similarly tainted.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideal solution to me would be to treat it like tobacco: Keep it legal, but at the same time take measures to very strongly discourage use.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideal solution to me would be to treat it like tobacco: Keep it legal, but at the same time take measures to very strongly discourage use.
Except the tobacco scare tactics are unwarranted, with the possible exception for under-age use, or use while driving, as with any intoxicant.
Beer and wine regulatory mechanisms seem more appropriate. In fact Washington State tasked the Liquor board with the job of managing Marijuana sales and use in the state.
Yet still feds seem intent on sticking their oar in [theatlanticwire.com].
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Interesting)
I modded you insightful but I'd like to challenge one point of yours: what makes you believe that smoking marijuana impairs one's ability to drive? This seems to be a common assumption among non-smokers, but I can tell you from (daily) experience such is not the case. It requires the consumption of quite a bit of pot to impair one's driving -- usually this means eating it rather than smoking it -- and once a person is that high they don't want to drive. It's just too stressful (as opposed to driving drunk, where alcohol gives one 'liquid courage').
Even with alcohol, one is considered legally drunk much before they've consumed enough to actually be impaired.
A person shouldn't be considered impaired just because a particular chemical is in their body. They should be given basic coordination tests -- such as a field sobriety test (but something that's computerized, kind of like a video game, to eliminate bias on the part of the officer). If you can't pass a field sobriety test because you're too old, you shouldn't be able to drive. If you can't pass it because of a prescribed medication, you shouldn't be able to drive. If you can't pass a field sobriety test because you're just a naturally uncoordinated person, you shouldn't be able to drive. A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Informative)
Marijuana impairs attention. That seems to be the linkage that most people cite. But I find no hard statistics on this either.
Since there is no legally recognized impairment level for Marijuana, and no legally recognized tests, (other than blood draws) either device based tests, or field sobriety tests, its hard to prove the extent to which it is present in accident situations. So if there was a car crash, the police have no real way to prove it was even a factor.
University of Washington cited an Australian study [uw.edu]showing that the research is a total mess in this area. So a local TV station then went out and did their own tests. [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Marijuana impairs attention. That seems to be the linkage that most people cite. But I find no hard statistics on this either.
Well, there's plenty of evidence that Marijuana has effects on response time (like most depressants).
For most of us who've smoked pot, we know it definitely affects your faculties to the point where you cant drive safely, more over this is more noticeable to the user than it is with alcohol. Unlike alcohol, pot users tend to avoid taking extreme risks like excessive speed (people driving high tend to be slower than the median, which is still bad) but still have the problems with fine motor control (keeping the wheel straight) as well as reduced response speed and impaired perception.
I'm pro-decriminalisation of marijuana, but really it needs to be treated like other legal mind altering drugs (I.E. Alcohol). In Australia we treat driving under the influence of drugs to be the same as driving under the influence of Alcohol but you also get a drug conviction, not just a DUI conviction.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Funny)
no legally recognized tests, (other than blood draws) either device based tests, or field sobriety tests
I've got a field test - just ask them a question, and then ask them the same question 2 minutes later.
I'm not sure how to end that joke, but it seemed funny enough (I'm high as fuck right now.)
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:4, Funny)
I modded you insightful but I'd like to challenge one point of yours: what makes you believe that smoking marijuana impairs one's ability to drive?
Because the whole point of it is to alter one's mental state?
Granted, some people drive so badly, that any change is likely for the better. I, of course, am not one of them.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Interesting)
And I challenge your statement that
A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.
Back in the late 70s, Car & Driver magazine did an informal study (with a couple of professional test drivers) which was later reprinted in High Times, IIRC.
Their results appeared to indicate that small amounts of cannabis actually improved the pros' driving performance slightly and for a very short while, after which performance fell rapidly to much less than normal. They found in addition that using more than a small amount also quickly caused the pros' driving performance to decrease to much less than normal.
Re: (Score:3)
Regulate it like alcohol, including enforcing bans on driving while high, just like alcohol. Now tax the hell out of it, and end of discussion.
Question. Would taxing it control it? Unlike tobacco, or even alcohol, I thought weed was supposed to grow just like, um, weed.
Taxation can control a lot of things, but only until alternatives become less expensive ("expensive" not being solely in dollars and sense). In the case of Marijuana, the bar appears pretty low to me.
Then again, I never went that route, so I'm just guessing.
Re: (Score:3)
once those issues are cured with legalization, the effort time and legal risk of a tax evasion charge would really not be worth it compared tyo walking down to the gas station and buying a pack of scooby snacks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Google seems to think tobacco is pretty easy to grow if you're in the right climate, so I suspect that the same thing that keeps people buying regular cigarettes despite high taxation would come into play with marijuana as well - no one really wants to be bothered with the time and expense of going through the whole process to get a finished product when it's readily available in every corner store, gas station, and convenience mart.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most simplist plants I've grown. They've needed no TLC.
My peers are interested in doing the same next year. Seeds are a penny each. One plant could last a smoker a month. A square metre per plant is not a lot of space for an expensive crop.
Um, my point: people will grow both plants if they have a little knowledge (three cheers for the internet).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes./a? [nydailynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
tianted? you bias is showing.
There is a lot of good data the backs that up.
I would say there is enough evidence to put a over 21 law into effect until it is furthered studied.
It does seem to happen to upper middle class kids as well.
Clearly, we need better studies, but sometime we should be prudent.
Re: (Score:3)
Washington recreational pot vote had nothing to do with medical marijuana.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm betting most people lose at least eight IQ points by the time they turn 38.
That's why the mathematicians who do the groundbreaking work mostly are younger than 38. There are still brilliant mathematicians older than that, but they're not the ones who are doing the most important new work.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd lean more towards the explanation that older people have more knowledge and experience which means they're more set in their ways and don't challenge accepted truths like the younger generation does. While it also from time to time produces gems it's also the cause of all the people trying to reinvent the wheel, why go for the new and crazy when you can use the tried and true. It might not be quite as glamorous, but the world needs both highly competent doctors as well as the odd Nobel prize in medicine.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they are statistical science. They say nothing about the behavior of individuals, but make useful predictions about the statistical distribution of behaviors in the population. Just like the gas laws, Zero Kelvin.
Re: (Score:3)
They say nothing about the behavior of individuals, but make useful predictions about the statistical distribution of behaviors in the population.
Individual particles of a gas don't necessarily share all of the qualities of the gas as a whole. Some particles may be highly energetic in a low-energy mass, similar to how an individual may be a genius in a population of people with mediocre intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you explain how IQ test data is subjective? It was my understanding that it was a bad indicator of intelligence as a whole because the repeatable IQ tests all depend on pattern recognition and other very narrow topics, and that the test itself had a "subjective" component in how the definition of "intelligence" was established—not in the test data itself.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know all that much about photosystems, so I'll have to trust your first two statements at face value—but what you're describing has nothing to do with statistics at all; that's just a misunderstanding of the physics at hand. Statistical calculations are only valid if the hypothesis is valid—in this case, that high absorption is proportional to chlorophyll activation.
You don't have a problem with statistics, you have a problem with ignorance of the facts—that's perfectly normal and healthy, and is necessary in all sciences. There is no causal link between people who are poorly informed and people who back up their statements with statistics; it's just the case that overly simple hypotheses, for which it is easy to derive the relevant statistics, are also easy to arrive at.
In bioinformatics we use statistics at just about every waking moment, and they do matter quite a lot when considering the false positive rate for tests. A microarray containing a million wells that has an error rate of 10^-5 will generally have about a thousand bogus values in it—cases where genes either activated completely or not at all simply because of hardware or procedural defects. Similarly, the likelihood of a random valid open reading frame (start and stop codon spaced 3 * k nucleotides apart, for some value k) below about 100 nt has a higher chance of being spontaneous than being an actual gene. These are things that can easily be demonstrated to be true physically, and yet are perfectly predictable through statistical procedures.
So go easy on the math. Yes there are serious problems in the social and medical sciences with flawed and shill studies, and yes there are plenty of figures thrown around in politics that are derived through questionable methods, but what matters is really that the people generating the figures are fools and scoundrels, not the fact that they framed the results as statistical measures or used some mathematical framework to produce them. The most shameful uses of data collection and extrapolation generally aren't even statistically or empirically sound, as antivirus companies constantly remind us [slashdot.org]. Rely on your gut instinct that they're slimeballs, not that they tried to dress up their garbage to sound scientific.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:4, Informative)
You don't know too much about Norway, or many people from there, do you? "Røgeberg" is a completely legitimate Norwegian surname.
BTW, Ø is not zero; it's the Norwegian (and Danish) equivalent of Ö.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this is why?
Is Marijuana a Safe Drug? Teenage Brain at Risk for Drug Abuse [scienceworldreport.com]
Why modded -1? This study supports other studies that came to similar conclusions:
Yes. Marijuhana-abuse by minors is a big problem. Not if done once, but an abuse, that does not affect grown ups (from 21 or better, 25 years on) very much has a devastating effect on their brains. The reason, as I understood it, is the rearranging of the whole brain structure while being juvenile. This rearrangement, as new scans showed, is much more fundamental than previously known. And smoking grass fucks that up big time. And it messes with the hormon levels. Those rearrangements possibly can not take place after the normal timeframe. If they were haltet or obfuscated by marihuana abuse, those youngsters have a permanent brain damage.
But: Abusing any brain affecting drug in that time will possibly do the same, so drinking alcohol instead of smoking is not an option. If I had children, I would insist on limiting marijuhana use to one time pet year, four times max until they are 21 (you are an adult at 18 here, so a bit of cooperation from the other side would be necessary. Any smoking of marihuana under the age of 16 would be completely out of the question.
Your war on drugs was one big mistake. But inform yourself before letting your kids use it limitless. If those studies are right, they suggest that using marihuana (esp. in a vaporizer) is indeed less dangerous than alcohol for the body. And does not effect grown ups as much as heavy drinking would. Even really heavy abuse does not make you significantly dumber, just a measurable bit and it is possible that the brain could recover, except for some problems with the short time memory, which MAY stay. But for youngsters that use marijuhana heavily, it may be that it really blows their mind away. But they would be DEAD if they drank as much, so demonizing pot is really dumb. Being dead means no brain functions whatsoever, so instead of being less stellar in school, they would rot...
But: It seems like the dangers to young people were underestimated.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
medicalologist, nice., I like it better the scienctician.
Re:Discouraging underage use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is MJ safer than jail?
The laws don't have their intended effect.
The emperor has no clothes (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that is exactly what it does. If you think the executive has ever enforced all the laws on the book, you are a fool. The resources simply have never existed.
It's just the highest level of prosecutorial discretion [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
But a SPECIFIC offense ought to be treated the same in one place as another, don't you think?
The only prosecutorial discretion being practiced here is the evaluation of the likelihood of obtaining
a verdict in a state like Washington or Colorado, where juries are simply going to start handing federal prosecutors their hat.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But a SPECIFIC offense ought to be treated the same in one place as another, don't you think?
Are you kidding? Do you always drive the speed limit? Do you always cross and sidewalks? Do you always give way to people on crossing the road. (As soon as the foot hits asphalt you are meant to stop.) In Queensland Australia, it is illegal to pass a person on the right side.
There is a difference between rule and law.
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Informative)
In the United States, both selective enforcement and selective prosecution are generally legal.
You can go back over a century to Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) to see SCOTUS rulings on that. There are probably older rulings than that, but I'm too lazy to look them up.
Impartial selective enforcement is legal to a degree. On its face police cannot enforce every law on the books. Even if they do intervene, the officer may know there is insufficient evidence for a known violation. Even if they intervene and there is likely sufficient evidence, they may believe a lesser action is appropriate, such as giving an individual a warning for a minor offense. Similarly for selective prosecution, the state is not required to blindly prosecute every offense, but to use prudence in selecting which cases to prosecute. Yes sometimes it is abused, but generally it is to the citizen's favor of dropping a case rather than abuses of prosecuting aggressively.
Prejudicial selective enforcement is not legal. Only applying the law to people of a specific skin color or economic status or age or other aspect, that is unlawful.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope.
This is the best political move to get it legalized. If the people in the state want it legal, the fed is saying they are going to respect that states right, with qualifiers.
It's a great move and the best one that could happen in the current political climate. As far as moving towadrs legalization.
Please try to remember he is contending with a congress full of obstructionist and people who would let the country burn before legalizing marijuana.
" This usually happens. Its the norm."
no, not really.
How is
Re: (Score:2)
This directive applies to all states, not just Wa and Co.
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Funny)
what is this constitution you speak off?
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Funny)
NCC-1700, USS Constitution. First ship in the Constitution class, which included the NCC-1701 Enterprise.
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:4, Interesting)
When was that?
The Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org] were passed just seven years after the Bill of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was pretty dormant until the 1930s, and nobody took that "equal protection" bit seriously until the 1960s.
Re: (Score:3)
Fascism is a 20th century invention; it did not exist during the monarchy of George III. Oppression and tyranny have existed since ... well, probably before there was civilization.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other documents that used to be taken seriously, and were written for the concerns of their times, (and are still hung on to by some.)
The Old Testament. The New Testament. The Torah. The Koran. The Magna Carta. The Domesday Book.
The Bible is still the best selling book in the world by over 40 times. So by "some" what you really mean is billions.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible is still the best selling book in the world by over 40 times.
Bullshit. It's not even the world's best selling book, let alone 40 times the nearest competitor. Your religious leader lied to you.
If you think otherwise, a citation that doesn't originate from a religious organisation please?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Domesday book is not a book of law. It's an inventory. A very comprehensive inventory.
William the Conqueror, having just earned that title, was left with a bit of a problem: He was now the new ruler of England, but didn't know exactly how much he ruled. The records were a mess, and he needed to put his own loyal men in positions of land ownership and power, which required knowing which land was the most valuable. To make it even worse for him, the existing landowners recognised that their possessions we
Re: (Score:2)
The Domesday Book is still taken very seriously today. In fact, I can’t think of one person who does not think of it seriously.
It is one of the best historical surveys of England and Wales. A classic example of primary documentation. I can think of few things that can rival it until America starting doing census back in the 1880.
Or are you thinking about something else?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's exactly what I was referring to. It's a list of who owns what. No more and no less. And as it's a millennia old, none of that property is still in the same hands.
Of course all of the documents I listed are interesting as history. And the US constitution will be too, long after it no longer is used as a current legal document.
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.
The government has limited resources and it is literally impossible to enforce all of the federal laws to the full extent. Therefore the government must prioritize enforcement. If some laws are so low in priority that there is no enforcement, then congress can increase funding for federal law enforcement officials if they really want those enforced.
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this means the amount of laws needs to be cut by a factor of 100 if not 1000.
Re: (Score:3)
If we told the government it could do ten things and only ten things, the first thing it would do would be to try to increase the number. The second would be to define however many things it was doing as ten. The third would be taxes. The fourth would be NSA spying. They'd argue about the remaining six slots, and after heated yelling matches on cable news
Re: (Score:3)
The government has limited resources and it is literally impossible to enforce all of the federal laws to the full extent. Therefore the government must prioritize enforcement.
No, the government needs to axe the laws. Drives me bananas when governments pass law after law after law, with no mechanism for enforcement. It should be required that the government fund enforcement if a new law is passed, and that enforcement cannot be funded through borrowing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spoken with all the experience, knowledge and view of a 14 year old.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce.
Which specific item of the constitution do you imagine prevents that?
As the lead of the federal executive, it's precisely his job to choose what priorities the feds have, amongst those things they are empowered to do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Think hard about all that.... He isn't violating the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
There may be some latitude, but not 'wide latitude'... to quote the ruling in the recent Yucca mountain decision against the NRC [findlaw.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
If the president believes mandatory minimum sentences are un-Constitutional, he is sworn to make sure they don't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Every jurisdiction effectively picks and chooses which laws it's going to enforce and when. It's called "prioritizing". And sure enough, that's what the feds are doing:
The moral and legal value of prioritization is in the results (i.e. who gets targeted and who gets ignored)
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously believe the office of the Attorney General lacks the authority to give federal prosecutors direction on how they manage their limited resources?
Re: (Score:3)
Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.
Actually, law enforcement is the executive branch's job. It was congress's failure to recognize the constitution that was the failure on this one. Can somebody please explain to me why in 1917 it required a constitutional amendment for the federal government to make alcohol illegal, which would show it was recognized that without the 18th amendment, that making alcohol illegal was a violation of the constitution because the federal government didn't have that power, but now the federal government can make
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming that constitutional amendments are passed by the federal government alone, and ignoring the fact that 3/4ths of the several states must also ratify a given amendment for it to be adopted.
As far as it taking an amendment to make alcohol illegal but not pot... talk to the courts. They have (sadly) upheld the federal laws to this effect repeatedly.
Granted... they did once also say that a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own consumption did run afoul of a federal law (Wic
Re: (Score:2)
Must have never heard of prosecutorial discretion, then. Nobody, neither personally nor at any level of government, has any obligation to uniformly enforce all laws. I'd have hoped that people who think otherwise are just happy drug users - to my bewilderment, it turns out not to be the case :(
Everyone has to set priorities for everything (Score:3)
Complete enforcement of every law on the books is impossible. Making choices is inevitable.
With a hundred quatloos to spend, it is better management to spend a hundred deterring sales to minors than to split it between protecting children and harassing adults.
Making choices consistent with the will of the people and with states's rights seems like a good idea.
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to enforce marijuana laws at all. That's why they had to pass an amendment to enforce alcohol prohibition at the federal level. Aside from preventing the sale of marijuana across state lines, the federal government has no constitutional authority to enforce the laws that Obama is saying he will be lenient on. Seems to me this is one of the few times that he actually does understand the restrictions on his power.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The emperor has no clothes (Score:4, Informative)
Federal marijuana prohibition is not a law, it is a usurpation. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no legal authority whatsoever for the federal government to ban a drug.
-jcr
Actually, the basis for present-day prohibition of marijuana is the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [wikipedia.org] of 1961, which updated the Paris Convention [wikipedia.org] of 1931. The Paris Convention was targeted at opioids, while the Single Convention of 1931 added cannabis and other drugs, as well as establishing the "Schedules" of drugs used today. Since the Single Convention is a treaty, it had to be ratified by the US Senate (in 1967), and has the same force as any other law or provision of the Constitution itself (see Art. VI, US Constitution). Thus, no Amendment was required to allow Congress to pass legislation implementing the Convention.
I don't like it, but it's not unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The very same people who told you this, told you Bush 43 could pick and choose any way he wanted simply via a signing statement, under the theory of his having "Unitary Executivehood". The VERY SAME PEOPLE! Why are you letting anyone use you like that without getting angry? Do you not remember these liars telling you the exact opposite when their guy was in power? Are you too young to have noticed what they said only six to ten years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
This administration plays pretty fast and loose with enforcement and SELECTIVE enforcement.
Who said the feds are going to selectively enforce? The presidential memo specifically says the new policies for enforcement apply in ALL states.
Re: (Score:3)
I just don't understand why Congress puts up with it. It's their toes being stepped on.
This is mostly due to the belief of many congressmen (along with most of the voting public) that the office of President is really that of Supreme Legislator.
Weasel words (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
i almost wish the statute of limitation was long enough that the Last 3 presidents could have been brought up on charges... maybe that would change the thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office. Right now he's trying to save face and this is a really easy way for him to do it without having to spend more money. As soon as the new boss buys his way into office it'll be his (or hers, but really it'll be his) discretion to prosecute users in those states.
Re: (Score:2)
The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office.
That depends. If it's a Republican president, you're probably right. If it's a democrat one, that's unlikely.
In this day and age, the majority of Democratic voters don't want a war on cannabis users. And there's no strong business case to either (other than the private prisons providers.) That reality applies just as much to the next Democrat president as this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All of these "conditions" are arbitrary and open to whatever interpretation the feds feel like today.
Well, Obama has about as much credibility here as his detractors, which is to say, not much. I lost the last of my respect when he issued a memo saying he'd only use drones in the event of an imminent danger to the country. He then went on to redefine imminent in geological terms, and danger as pretty much whatever the Administration thought it was. Your point here is very valid -- what the government says anymore has as much value as a Zimbabwe dollar. What it does, however, can be judged.
All the people wh
Re: (Score:3)
But it's better than Obama saying he's going to double the enforcement of marijuana laws, right? Or do you want the laws enforced? I get confused. It's so hard to understand people when they're more interested in tearing the man down than any discussion.
The President just said he's not going to enforce federal pot laws in states that want to legalize it. I think that's kind of a big fucking deal. If you're pro-legalization, this should be a big fucking deal. The President himself just legitimized your
Re: (Score:3)
Lax enforcement of an unjust law allows the law to continue on the books. There is some argument for trying for "perfect" enforcement - it will then affect enough people that the clamor to strike the law from the books will become too great to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, given ALL the evidence, and all the studies, the fact that this remains Schedule 1 clearly shows that DEA is driving the law, and not the other way around.
But as more states follow Colorado and Washington, the whole issue ill eventually resolve itself, as congress will be forced to remove it from the purview of the DEA.
Re:Weasel words (Score:4, Informative)
I don't regret voting for him in the general elections, but I do regret not giving money or volunteering for a better candidate in the primaries.
More fallout from Snowdon.... (Score:5, Insightful)
a rather crude attempt to get Obama's supporters back on his side.
"Don't look over there..... look here, shiny!"
Re:More fallout from Snowdon.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no, there's a scandal going on, so the president absolutely shouldn't do anything else until the scandal is completely resolved! And if it's something you like, that's even more sinister!
Yes, but what about banking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, they can't deduct expenses from their revenue for tax purposes. So, basically, they have to pay the current tax rates on revenue, and not income.
Re:Yes, but what about banking? (Score:5, Informative)
Step 1) Prevent credit cards from being used
Step 2) Prevent armored car services from being used
Step 3) Complain about the high number of robberies and crime that type of business "attracts" and use that as justification for more regulation / bans
this Washingtonian's observation (Score:2)
preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands.
Which is typically how you get pot in the first place, historically. Now you just buy it in the store! :-D
Meantime, drive down your average Washington metro city's street and you'll see dispenseries every other block. Funny how that industry cropped up so quicklike. (Irony: Voters closed the state liquor stores, so alcohol
In other words NSA needs (Score:2)
more money. Use the NSA to spy on drug usage/distribution and use that as evidence http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 [reuters.com]
Since there is no rule of law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The supreme court ruled a long time ago at the start of the war on drugs that the Fed's have the right to restrict intrastate drug production and distribution because it "creates a market". So no such luck there, the Supreme court allowed congress to poke so many holes in states rights that you will have no such luck defending the end of prohibition. As has been said many time, the war on drugs allowed the government far more powers than they ever had in the past or the founders ever intended them to have.
H
Re: (Score:2)
I really like these new Marijuana laws (Score:5, Interesting)
So viva la Medical Marijuana, and our two separate legal systems: One for the poors and one for the rich.
Take MJ off schedule 1, please (Score:5, Interesting)
MJ has been shown to have legitimate medical uses. It doesn't belong on Schedule 1.
If it's off Schedule 1 then research to use it SAFELY as a drug can proceed far more easily, and maybe we can use it for things like neuropathic pain and appetite recovery during chemotherapy WITHOUT the potential brain-damaging side effects.
I've got a friend who has neuropathic pain and none of the legal drugs work for him. And he can't use MJ because he's subject to drug testing.
Take MJ off Schedule 1 and maybe he can stop living with pain 24/7!
--PM
Re:Spaced Out! (Score:4, Insightful)
Outsourced prisons and then removal of citizenship will fix that. Most felons already can't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, they're probably just trying to lull us into a false sense of security before deploying the dragnet.
Remember, private prisons often sell themselves on promises of 90-95% fill rates!
Re: (Score:2)
The appropriate thing to do would be to make it a felony for federal agents to attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws in your state at the same time you legalize marijuana, with the stipulation that they have to pay for all legal defenses out of their own pockets.
That doesn't work. Here's why:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
That makes any state attempting to nullify a federal law completely pointless, even if they keep on trying to do so (the latest being Missouri).
The recourse you're supposed to have is this: Demand from your federal elected officials that they change / repeal the federal law about it. Obama says he's changing federal law enforcement practice (who knows if it will actually change), but the only legitimate legal option here is to get Congress to change it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wickard vs Filburn [wikipedia.org] was EXACTLY the case you are asking about. Supreme court ruled the commerce clause allowed the federal government to regulate an item grown on a farmer's land used by the farmer himself, it didn't even leave his private property much less the state.
Since that decision the federal government has used the commerce clause to regulate anything that could be sold for money even if it doesn't cross state lines.
Vote smaller government if you want less of this, but as long as you vote for the gu
Re:Why does everybody want to get on drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has a vice for coping with a hard, painful world. Sometimes it is drinking. Sometimes it is smoking. Sometimes it is cheating on their partner. Porn. Hard drugs; and some would dare to argue that prescribed psyche medication is the same thing but more legal. Escapism to the fantasy of books/movies/games. The excitement of gambling. In the absence of these things people will do absolutely absurd things to get out of their skull such as strangling themselves or "i-dosing" [newsok.com]. Don't forget about suicide. Many [wikipedia.org] brilliant [wikipedia.org] minds [wikipedia.org] belong [wikipedia.org] to someone [wikipedia.org] addicted to something or depressed [chortle.co.uk] and looking for a way out. While I don't smoke or use any drugs myself I won't judge anybody who does too hard.