Obama's stance on marijuana and its role in the political spectrum

[Enderw24]

Yesterday, the Obama administration made clear that it would respect individual states and their decisions to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/medical_marijuana

Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a change on medical marijuana policy Wednesday, saying federal agents will target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state law.

That would be a departure from the policy of the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

It would be pretty easy to turn this into either a Bush/Obama bashing thread or a pro-marijuana thread, both of which have been done to death here on the Dope. I'd like to keep it on a different topic, if you please.

I grew up with the belief that one of the core differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believed in smaller governments and states rights, whereas Democrats believed in larger federal government as the encompasser of what government should be.

Now, I know that parties shift and change over time. One could argue quite effectively that the R/D parties of the 40s and before are completely opposite of those today and that the "Party of Lincoln" would be completely unrecognizable today.

Still, it seems as if Republicans do believe in smaller government and Democrats the opposite. Yet, here we have this example staring us in the face. Bush said "to hell with states rights, we're prosecuting you under Federal Law," whereas Obama couldn't even wait 100 days to say "no, I disagree. States rights trump Fed in this matter."

Ignoring your beliefs in marijuana for the moment, what do you think of this decision from a political party perspective? Is this an indication of a shift in party philosophy, has this shift been a long time in the making, or is this just a special case and means nothing more than what it means?

[bouv]

It seems to me that, especially lately, republicans are shifting further and further away from their "states' rights" and "small government" platforms from years gone by. That's one of the reasons certain republicans (such as Jim Jeffords,) left the party. It was no longer the party they joined.

I haven't seen as much from the democratic party going in the other direction, except for this, but I admit I am not a very political person. But still, to answer your question, I think it's been a slow, gradual progression from the republican party to move from states' controlling things to the federal government. A short list of topics they seem to be moving away from states being on charge of:
Abortion/woman's rights
Gay marriage
War on drugs
Civil rights
"Sciencey" issues (I don't know the right word i want here, but things like money for stem cell research, ID/evolution, etc...)

[Zeriel]

I'd argue that it's the same as it always was--generally speaking the national parties are for states' rights when the states are "right" but against states' rights when the states are "wrong".

See this behavior with Marijuana, with Gay Marriage, with whatever issue you can think of that varies state-to-state.

[PatriotGrrrl]

I'd argue that it's the same as it always was--generally speaking the national parties are for states' rights when the states are "right" but against states' rights when the states are "wrong".

See this behavior with Marijuana, with Gay Marriage, with whatever issue you can think of that varies state-to-state.

Yep. Betcha he's not so pro-states rights when it comes to guns, for instance.

[Der Trihs]

I'd argue that it's the same as it always was--generally speaking the national parties are for states' rights when the states are "right" but against states' rights when the states are "wrong".

See this behavior with Marijuana, with Gay Marriage, with whatever issue you can think of that varies state-to-state.I don't recall the Democrats ever being pro-states' rights.

As for the Republicans, yes; states' rights has never been an actual principle of theirs, just asn excuse to push an agenda on a state level that they couldn't on a national level. When they COULD push it on a national level, their states' rights 'principles' vanished.

[Frylock]

I don't recall the Democrats ever being pro-states' rights.

Well... they were all about State's Rights back in the last century.


[/QUOTE]

[Shodan]

Ignoring your beliefs in marijuana for the moment, what do you think of this decision from a political party perspective? Is this an indication of a shift in party philosophy, has this shift been a long time in the making, or is this just a special case and means nothing more than what it means?
Probably a special case. Obama didn't decide first that he thought states' rights were peachy and then resolved the marijuana issue based on that; he decided not to waste money going after medical marijuana. Bush did the opposition, not because of any beliefs about states' rights, but because he had more interest in outlawing marijuana.

Thus neither Obama nor Bush are abandoning principle here, let alone their parties. They disagree about marijuana, that's all.

I'm no different - I would like to see marijuana legalized altogether, so ignoring medical marijuana is a good but inadequate first step. I don't believe the hype the hemp folks push, but giggle weed is fairly harmless and enforcing the laws against it are a waste.

Regards,
Shodan

[Zeriel]

I don't recall the Democrats ever being pro-states' rights.

But that's pretty much what Obama's stance on Marijuana IS. "State law overrules the Federal DEA for medical marijuana."

[Der Trihs]

But that's pretty much what Obama's stance on Marijuana IS. "State law overrules the Federal DEA for medical marijuana."
I don't know that that qualifies. First, he's one guy, not "the Democrats". A position isn't a "Democratic position" until either it's part of the platform, or most of them support it platform or not.

And second, saying that state law supersedes a federal agency on that one issue doesn't make someone a supporter of states' rights as a principle. It just means that on that particular issue you think the states should be in charge, which isn't the same thing.

[begbert2]

But that's pretty much what Obama's stance on Marijuana IS. "State law overrules the Federal DEA for medical marijuana."The ends justify the means - he doesn't care about states rights unless it's handy.

And I kinda like the guy, but let's be realistic here, he's running the federal governement and if he wants to force an issue he's not going to give state's rights a second thought.

[mswas]

I think the party with the strongest social agenda is the one that tends to be most in favor of Federal power because they can influence the Federal Government and impose views on the states via the Fed. Back in the 60s it was the Liberals that had the strongest social agenda, and now it's flipped back the other way largely because liberals got what they wanted to a great degree on social issues. So the Republicans came to realize the social issue debate was to be had at the Federal level and adjusted accordingly.

Personally I think a whole host of issues should be decided at the state level.

Drugs
Abortion
Gambling
Marriage
Speed Limits
Drinking Statutes
Prostitution

If those things were left as states rights issues people could more easily find a cheerful conformity with their own tastes and move to the state that most pleases them. Right now we have the problem of imposing too much at the Federal Level so we are all subjects to the tyranny of the majority on every issue where our own views do not resemble the prevailing views in Washington. Some issues just stick through bureaucratic inertia.

Take the DEA and retool them for anti-piracy.

[Der Trihs]

The ends justify the means - he doesn't care about states rights unless it's handy.Has he ever said he cares about states' rights at all ? A phrase like "the ends justify the means" rather implies that he's violating some sort of principle to achieve a goal, which he's not if states' rights isn't one of his principles.

And I kinda like the guy, but let's be realistic here, he's running the federal governement and if he wants to force an issue he's not going to give state's rights a second thought.Should he ?

[Nametag]

Obama made an announcement that he is going to LET the states' policies on marijuana prevail -- the very fact that he made the announcement demonstrates that he knows better than to claim that states' "rights" override federal law. The Supreme Court of the US has ruled otherwise. The term is constitutionally meaningless anyway -- states have powers, not rights. Most arguments regarding the subject are incoherent because the actual basis for the positions held is not states' rights at all, but a non-negotiable stance on social morality vs. personal liberty.

[Mr. Moto]

I don't recall the Democrats ever being pro-states' rights.

Um, the Civil War? The maintenance of Jim Crow?

You are familiar with not only the states rights arguments there but the Democratic Party's role in both, right?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yep. Betcha he's not so pro-states rights when it comes to guns, for instance.
Actually, it's conservatives who don't like state's rights when it comes to gun laws.

[PatriotGrrrl]

Actually, it's conservatives who don't like state's rights when it comes to gun laws.

Which gun laws (and I guess, which conservatives) are you referring to? I know some people like the idea of a federal carry permit, and consider Section 926A (Interstate transportation of firearms) to be a good thing. But the same people generally think a federal assault weapons ban, the National Firearms Act, etc. to be bad.

Do you think Obama would veto a federal assault weapons ban because some of the states are fine with people owning assault weapons?

[Der Trihs]

Um, the Civil War? The maintenance of Jim Crow?

You are familiar with not only the states rights arguments there but the Democratic Party's role in both, right?Going back that far, the parties have essentially switched places, so such comparisons don't work.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Which gun laws (and I guess, which conservatives) are you referring to?
Which ones are YOU refrerring to? I do know that gun nuts object to pretty much any state's attempt to restrict anything. What state power do you imagine that Obama wants to abrogate with regards to guns?
I know some people like the idea of a federal carry permit, and consider Section 926A (Interstate transportation of firearms) to be a good thing. But the same people generally think a federal assault weapons ban, the National Firearms Act, etc. to be bad.
What does any of that have to do with states' rights?
Do you think Obama would veto a federal assault weapons ban because some of the states are fine with people owning assault weapons?
What state' rights do you imagine that an assault weapon ban would abrogate? You can't abridge rights that don't exist. Do you actually know what "states' rights" means?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By the way, Obama's stance on medical marijuana is not a recognition of states' rights. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Gonzales v. Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) that the federal government has the right under the commerce clause to ban wacky tobaccy. This is not an act of deference to an imagined right, it's a use of executive discretion not to use a power.

Incidentally, the Commerce Clause is also what gives the federal government the right to regulate guns.

[PatriotGrrrl]

Which ones are YOU refrerring to? I do know that gun nuts object to pretty much any state's attempt to restrict anything.

Approving or disapproving of certain state laws has nothing to do with state's rights.


What state power do you imagine that Obama wants to abrogate with regards to guns?

Most likely the power to decide whether or not the people of that state should be allowed to own assault weapons, though there may be others as well.


What does any of that have to do with states' rights?

A (hypothetical) federal carry permit law would make carrying legal in every state, whether that state liked it or not.

The Interstate Transportation of Firearms law makes it legal (under certain circumstances) to transport guns through any state, whether that state like it or not.

Both the National Firearms Act and a federal assault weapons ban make or will make it illegal for people in any state to buy certain firearms, whether the state would choose to allow them to or not.


What state' rights do you imagine that an assault weapon ban would abrogate? You can't abridge rights that don't exist. Do you actually know what "states' rights" means?

The right to make their own laws (which might allow such weapons) rather than be bound by the federal law.

If the federal government passes laws that make something (such as marijuana, or gay marriage, or certain guns) illegal, a state can't just decide that they don't like that law and that what ever it is is legal in that state. And the opposite, if the federal government says that abortion is legal, a state can't make it illegal in that state.

You are the one that doesn't seem to understand what states' rights means.

It's about whether the federal government should pass laws that apply in all states, or should not pass such laws and allow the individual states to have their own laws (which may be either more or less restrictive than the possible federal law). Being in favor of state's rights means that one believes the states should have the power to make their own laws, (which can be different from one state to another) rather than have things decided at the federal level. The Constitution says that some types of laws should be made at the federal level , and some left to the states. It is debatable exactly which types of laws fall into which category.

[Lightnin']

Personally I think a whole host of issues should be decided at the state level.

Drugs
Abortion
Gambling
Marriage
Speed Limits
Drinking Statutes
Prostitution


Drugs- agree.

Abortion- disagree. You'd have women going across state lines to get abortions.

Gambling- agree.

Marriage- disagree, unless marriages in one state are still valid when the couple moves to, or visits, a state which doesn't allow their type of marriage. If marriages are maintained across state borders, why force couples to travel to get married? Just to tell them, "Your kind ain't wanted 'round these parts"?

Speed Limits- agree. Their roads, their taxes, their rules.

Drinking Statures- disagree. If you allow states to set their own drinking ages, then you'll have kids traveling across the borders to get wasted. I can imagine border towns setting up lucrative checkpoints, targeted at teenagers. I can see more accidents as teenagers plan road trips to get hammered. Also, why is a kid old enough to drink in one area... but a hundred yards down the road, he's suddenly too young?

Prostitution- agree. I'd certainly rather the government make money off of the oldest profession than to see the criminal element continue to profit.

If those things were left as states rights issues people could more easily find a cheerful conformity with their own tastes and move to the state that most pleases them.

I'm changing jobs in about two months. It's a good choice for my career- exactly the project I want, better pay, and a better work environment. Unfortunately, it's literally all the way across the country from where I am now. There aren't a lot of areas where I can do the job that I do... I can think of, offhand, about five or six states where my job even exists. People don't always get to choose their location- jobs are too important. What if my new state refused to recognize my marriage because my wife and I are atheists? I'd have to choose between my rights and my career.

No thank you.

Basically, I think it boils down to this- I think that states' laws should trump those of the federal government... until those laws threaten my rights. States should not be able to take away my rights. Fighting for rights is hard enough when there's just one entity to deal with- make it fifty entities, and the fight will become nearly impossible. We'd be back to the Jim Crow era.

[ivan astikov]

Take the DEA and retool them for anti-piracy.

I'd rather all their funds be channeled towards fighting something more worthwhile. Or perhaps not 'fighting' anything, and actually doing something constructive, as opposed to restrictive.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Approving or disapproving of certain state laws has nothing to do with state's rights.
Sure it does. Whining about how a state exercises its own discretionary powers is whining about states' rights.
Most likely the power to decide whether or not the people of that state should be allowed to own assault weapons, though there may be others as well.
No such power exists.
A (hypothetical) federal carry permit law would make carrying legal in every state, whether that state liked it or not.

The Interstate Transportation of Firearms law makes it legal (under certain circumstances) to transport guns through any state, whether that state like it or not.

Both the National Firearms Act and a federal assault weapons ban make or will make it illegal for people in any state to buy certain firearms, whether the state would choose to allow them to or not.
Again, these do not abridge states' rights because you're talking about state powers which do not exist.
The right to make their own laws (which might allow such weapons) rather than be bound by the federal law.
Nope. That's not what it means.
If the federal government passes laws that make something (such as marijuana, or gay marriage, or certain guns) illegal, a state can't just decide that they don't like that law and that what ever it is is legal in that state. And the opposite, if the federal government says that abortion is legal, a state can't make it illegal in that state.

You are the one that doesn't seem to understand what states' rights means.

It's about whether the federal government should pass laws that apply in all states, or should not pass such laws and allow the individual states to have their own laws (which may be either more or less restrictive than the possible federal law). Being in favor of state's rights means that one believes the states should have the power to make their own laws, (which can be different from one state to another) rather than have things decided at the federal level. The Constitution says that some types of laws should be made at the federal level , and some left to the states. It is debatable exactly which types of laws fall into which category.
Some of what you're talking about is kind of close. What powers which are not given to the federal government are given to the states, but what you're missing is that the Supreme Court has ruled that guns and drugs can be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause, and are therefore NOT powers left to the states. They are not states' rights issues because they don't affect any powers left to the states. States' rights does not just amount to whining about federal laws you don't like and opining about what states "should" be allowed to do. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it's stepping on any "rights."

[Enderw24]

Diogenes brought up an interesting, yet (IMO) irrelevant distinction in this argument. In this case, Obama isn't saying that states rights trump Federal but rather says "Federal still is the law, yet I choose not to enforce it." Whether there's a federal law that's ignored in favor of state law or a federal law that's never created in the first place, the end result is the same: state law prevails.

So we have here a situation where Obama can use Federal law and federal power to enforce against a state level issue. He chooses not to. Call it state "rights" or state "power" or an absence of Federal "rights" or "powers," you come to the same conclusion: Obama has specifically said in this instance he will adhere to whatever the state legislature has decided in the matter, which is a marked difference from his predecessor.

[Hari Seldon]

I'd argue that it's the same as it always was--generally speaking the national parties are for states' rights when the states are "right" but against states' rights when the states are "wrong".

See this behavior with Marijuana, with Gay Marriage, with whatever issue you can think of that varies state-to-state.

Yeah, it goes way back. South Carolina, I believe, invented the idea of state nullification, but they were certainly utterly opposed to state's rights when it came to fugitive slaves.

Although off topic, I might mention that the most extreme advocate of original construction (say Clarence Thomas) becomes activist when faced with an original doctrine they disagree with. Example: I see nothing in the constitution that authorizes the Federal govenment to make drugs illegal anyway.

[Mr. Moto]

Going back that far, the parties have essentially switched places, so such comparisons don't work.

I'm sorry - history doesn't go away because you just shrug your shoulders. You said you weren't aware of the Democrat's ever being pro-states rights. This argument was a wrenching and divisive one for the Democratic Party, especially over the issues of slavery and race.

Your ignorance of this history doesn't make it any less relevant, even today.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That was, for all intents and purposes, a completely different political Democratic Party than the modern one. It represented a much different ideology.

[PatriotGrrrl]

Diogenes,

Please tell me where in the Constitution it mentions:
marijuana
abortion
gay marriage
gambling
speed limits
drinking age
prostitution
seat belt laws
motorcycle helmet laws

And tell me what issues DO you think states' right apply to?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Diogenes,

Please tell me where in the Constitution it mentions:
marijuana
According the the Supreme Court, the federal government has the right to regulate drugs under the Commerce Act.
abortion
Falls under the federal civil right to privacy.
gay marriage
There is no federal prohibition on gay marriage. States are allowed to recognize them if the want to. DOMA says that other states don't have to recognize them, and the federal government can't recognize them, but it doesn't abrogate any specific state power (it's Constitutionlity is questionable for other reasons, but not 10th Amendment reasons).
gambling
Commerce Clause.
speed limits
There are no federal speed limits.
drinking age
There is no federal drinking age. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act threatened to withhold federal highway funding from states to raise the age for purchase and public possession of alcohol to 21. It did not technically force them to raise the actual drinking age. The federal government derived this power, again, under the Commerce Clause. This did not represent an attempt to write a criminal law, it imposed a condition to receive federal funding.
prostitution
There is no federal ban on prostitution. States can legalize it if they want to. There are two states which have done it.
seat belt laws
motorcycle helmet laws
There are no federal seat belt or helmet laws. Those are all decided by the states.
And tell me what issues DO you think states' right apply to?
To whatever powers are not given to the federal government. Prostitution is a good example, I suppose.

[razncain]

There are no federal speed limits.



How did the feds get the states to comply with the 55 mph speed limit many years back? If states didn’t comply, didn't they threaten to withhold federal funds from them? Then, I suppose laws were passed that let them set the limit as to what they wanted again on the highways.

razncain

[razncain]

With prostitution, how did a certain county or counties in Nevada legalize it, while still being illegal on the fed and state level? Why don’t the feds or state enforcement agencies decide to trump these local laws?

Could some do the same for marijuana on the local level if a city or county voted it in, or for that matter, gambling too, when the states or feds say something differently?

razncain

[PatriotGrrrl]

How did the feds get the states to comply with the 55 mph speed limit many years back? If states didn’t comply, didn't they threaten to withhold federal funds from them?
razncain

Yep, and the same with helmet and set belt laws. And some states said, "No way, you can keep your damn money". Seat belts and helmets are not required here in NH for instance.

[PatriotGrrrl]

How convenient it is for certain people that the only things they count as "states rights" are the things they approve of.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How did the feds get the states to comply with the 55 mph speed limit many years back? If states didn’t comply, didn't they threaten to withhold federal funds from them? Then, I suppose laws were passed that let them set the limit as to what they wanted again on the highways.

razncain
Yeah, it was originally passed under Nixon as a response to a major oil shortage in the early 70's (OPEC imposed an embargo on the US for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War). The theory was that it would save fuel. It derived the power -- once again -- under the Commerce Clause. It was repealed in the 90's.

[PatriotGrrrl]

How convenient it is for certain people that the only things they count as "states rights" are the things they approve of.

Of course this only applies to those who claim to be in favor of more state's rights. Naturally those who openly favor more federal control would pick and choose.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

With prostitution, how did a certain county or counties in Nevada legalize it, while still being illegal on the fed and state level? Why don’t the feds or state enforcement agencies decide to trump these local laws?
Prostitution is not illegal on the federal level. In Nevada, it is state law that determines what counties are allowed to license brothels (basically it goes by population -- if the counties goes over a certain population level, it can't legalize prostitution).
Could some do the same for marijuana on the local level if a city or county voted it in, or for that matter, gambling too, when the states or feds say something differently?
Again, the prostition laws in Nevada are state laws. The answer is no, municpal laws cannot override state laws, just like state laws cannot override federal laws?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How convenient it is for certain people that the only things they count as "states rights" are the things they approve of.
I have no idea who you're talking about, but as a matter of hard legal fact, states can't override federal powers and that's the end of it.

It's not a question of personally "approving" of anything. I think marijuana should be totally legalized, for instance, but that doesn't mean the federal government doesn't have the legal power to regulate it. I personally don't support regulation of just about anything on your list (except maybe a drinking age), but not liking a federal law doesn't mean it's an imposition ons states' rights.

[Der Trihs]

I'm sorry - history doesn't go away because you just shrug your shoulders. You said you weren't aware of the Democrat's ever being pro-states rights. This argument was a wrenching and divisive one for the Democratic Party, especially over the issues of slavery and race.

Your ignorance of this history doesn't make it any less relevant, even today.I'm hardly ignorant, I simply considered it irrelevant. I perhaps should have said "at least after the two parties switched places" or "the modern Democratic party", but that's the sort of thing normally understood. It simply wasn't the same institution back then.

[razncain]

Prostitution is not illegal on the federal level. In Nevada, it is state law that determines what counties are allowed to license brothels (basically it goes by population -- if the counties goes over a certain population level, it can't legalize prostitution).

Again, the prostition laws in Nevada are state laws. The answer is no, municpal laws cannot override state laws, just like state laws cannot override federal laws?

I appreciate the answers, I've never understood any of this for a long time. Still don't really, but thanks for taking the time to help explain it.

razncain