Marijuana Legalization: What Can/Will the Feds Do?

[RainDog]

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/nov/14/what_will_feds_do_about_marijuana_legalization

So far, the federal response has been muted. The White House has not commented, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has not commented, and the Department of Justice has limited its comments to observing that it will continue to enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act.

"My understanding is that Justice was completely taken aback by this and by the wide margin of passage," said Eric Sterling, former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee and currently the executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. "They believed this would be a repeat of 2010, and they are really kind of astonished because they understand that this is a big thing politically and a complicated problem legally. People are writing memos, thinking about the relationship between federal and state law, doctrines of preemption, and what might be permitted under the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs."

Here is another group that didn't seem to think polls were telling the truth.

The article goes on to note the standard line about fed law and state law and quotes a former Drug Czar employee who said the crackdowns in CA regarding mmj provide a template for expected responses.

Then this article gets more interesting...

Less clear is what else, exactly, the federal government can do. While federal drug laws may "trump" state laws, it is not at all certain that they preempt them. Preemption has a precise legal meaning, signifying that federal law supersedes state law and that the conflicting state law is null and void.

"Opponents of these laws would love nothing more than to be able to preempt them, but there is not a viable legal theory to do that," said Alex Kreit, a constitutional law expert at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego who co-authored an amicus brief on preemption in a now mooted California medical marijuana case. "Under the anti-commandeering principle, the federal government can't force a state to make something illegal. It can provide incentives to do so, but it can't outright force a state to criminalize marijuana."

good read - more at the link above.

[RainDog]

1. WA Gov. Meets with DOJ

http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2012/11/14/WA-Governor-Meets-DOJ-Marijuana-Legalization

Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) met Tuesday with Deputy Attorney General James Cole to discuss her state's passage last week of an initiative that legalizes and taxes the sale of marijuana for adults 21 and over. Federal law continues to consider marijuana possession, cultivation, and distribution to be criminal offenses.

"We want direction from them," said Curtis. "Our goal is to respect the will of the voters, but give us some clarity."

They didn't get it Tuesday. Gregoire told the Associated Press the Justice Department had yet to make a decision on whether it would move to block the laws in Washington and Colorado. They needed to make a decision "sooner rather than later," she said.

“I told them,‘Make no mistake, that absent an injunction of some sort, it’s our intent to implement decriminalization,”’ Gregoire said. “I don’t want to spend a lot of money implementing this if you are going to attempt to block it.”

[liberal_at_heart]

6. Gregoire rocks

She's been through this before. When the medical marijuana laws were written the feds came in and rewrote the law. Told her what she was allowed to have in the law and what she wasn't. We'll see how this one goes.

[RainDog]

7. She seems to be very saavy

and have the best interests of the people of her state in mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. From California. They are going to be hard asses

Why I hope the DC circuit reschedules it. At that point it becomes moot.

[RainDog]

3. But they cannot stop everyone

Which they know. They can go for intimidation by picking a few targets, but they cannot stop every person in WA or CO who decides to go artisan.

The problem with this way, tho, is that the state misses out on direct taxation. While the states gain the benefit of not using their budgets to enforce prohibition, they would like to be able to generate revenue from sales. And if the Federal Govt. cracks down on those who are working within legal parameters, the Feds continue to encourage criminal involvement.

And even tho they cracked down in CA, they have not and will not eliminate the quasi-legal sales there.

However, the OP link really has interesting things to say about Feds lacking the power to tell a state they must make something illegal, even tho something is illegal at the Federal level.

Since the nation has come around on this issue over decades, I hope the Feds will get out of their bubble and see that rescheduling is the way to go.

Frank and Paul, authors of last year's decriminalization bill that got stuck in a Texas Republican legislator's committee, called for the DoJ to honor CO and WA state laws too.

And two more states plan to introduce legalization legislation when their new session starts.

I would prefer for the DEA to move on to other, actually harmful drugs, like meth. Let them take down the white supremacists who use meth to fund operations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Keep your eye in the DC court of appeals

Personally I can't wait to call Duffy and ask for comment if they reschedule and SCOTUS refuses to take it. Trust me, I don't expect a happy US attorney.

[RainDog]

5. Yeah, I've posted about that here in the Drug Policy Forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1170823