# Federal law enforcement vs. State laws (CA prop 64) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 19, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563 "2017-03-19T19:46:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/1 "2017-03-19T19:46:43Z")
I’m sure it’s come up in some way before but my search skills are failing me today. In light of CA prop 64 recreational marijuana sales and production. Once the state starts issuing permits/licences is there any mechanism that stops agencies like the DEA from just showing up with a warrant/subpeona at the new licenceing agency demanding a list of all those license holders for purposes of raiding them? ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/2 "2017-03-19T20:13:54Z")
The [Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher-Farr_amendment) prohibits the DEA and other federal agencies from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. The catch is that it doesn’t change the legal status of marijuana nationwide, and since it was attached to an omnibus spending bill, it needs to be renewed every year in order to stay in force. It’s a paper shield, but better than what we used to have. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/3 "2017-03-19T20:17:45Z")
How is it any different from [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64)? Or [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Measure_2_(2014))? Similar issues have also arisen in [Maine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Question_1,_2016), [Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Question_2_(2016)), [Massachussetts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Legalization,_Regulation_and_Taxation_of_Marijuana_Initiative) and [Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_91_(2014)). The federal responses to the above should hint towards their response to California Prop 64. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/4 "2017-03-19T20:37:42Z")
Also, considering that Congress could have stopped [legalization in Washington, DC](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_D.C._Marijuana_Legalization,_Initiative_71_(November_2014)), but chose not to, I don’t think the feds would do much. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/5 "2017-03-19T20:44:10Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > The [Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher-Farr_amendment) prohibits the DEA and other federal agencies from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. The catch is that it doesn’t change the legal status of marijuana nationwide, and since it was attached to an omnibus spending bill, it needs to be renewed every year in order to stay in force. It’s a paper shield, but better than what we used to have. It should be noted that CA Prop 64 legalized marijuana for recreational use. Pot has been legal for medicinal purposes for years in CA. I’m not sure if your info applies in the case of recreational use. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/6 "2017-03-19T20:50:01Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > The [Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher-Farr_amendment) prohibits the DEA and other federal agencies from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. The catch is that it doesn’t change the legal status of marijuana nationwide, and since it was attached to an omnibus spending bill, it needs to be renewed every year in order to stay in force. It’s a paper shield, but better than what we used to have. As your own description makes clear, though, this law refers only to medical marijuana. It makes no mention whatsoever of recreational marijuana. > [@boffking](#): > > How is it any different from [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64)? Or [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Measure_2_(2014))? > Similar issues have also arisen in [Maine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Question_1,_2016), [Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Question_2_(2016)), [Massachussetts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Legalization,_Regulation_and_Taxation_of_Marijuana_Initiative) and [Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_91_(2014)). > The federal responses to the above should hint towards their response to California Prop 64. > [@boffking](#): > > Also, considering that Congress could have stopped [legalization in Washington, DC](https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_D.C._Marijuana_Legalization,_Initiative_71_(November_2014)), but chose not to, I don’t think the feds would do much. Neither of these posts address the OP’s question in any substantial fashion. Firstly, both posts talk only about what the federal government’s response has been SO FAR; neither one touches on the fact that a new Administration in Washington D.C. could dramatically change enforcement priorities in federal agencies like the DEA and the FBI. Secondly, in talking about priorities and choices, neither post answers the OP’s question about whether any mechanism would prevent federal agencies from enforcing federal prohibitions, if they did choose to make this an enforcement priority. On preview: I see that **John Mace** beat me to the punch of the medical/recreational distinction. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/7 "2017-03-19T20:50:29Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > The [Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher-Farr_amendment) prohibits the DEA and other federal agencies from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. The catch is that it doesn’t change the legal status of marijuana nationwide, and since it was attached to an omnibus spending bill, it needs to be renewed every year in order to stay in force. It’s a paper shield, but better than what we used to have. Looks like the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment only applies to medicinal marijuana … the OP is about recreational marijuana … AFAIK if the current administration repeals the Executive Order limiting enforcement of Federal marijuana laws, then yes the DEA could come in and demand the lists of State licensed _recreational_ marijuana producers, processors, wholesalers and retailers … for the purposes of throwing everyone involved in prison … and I think we’ll see the courts involved almost immediately … how it pans out there is anyone’s guess … Growing marijuana is a felony under Federal law … license up at your own risk … ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/8 "2017-03-19T23:37:31Z")
I called the local police dept to see what their policy was and when it would go into effect. I talked to 3 people and none of the were clear on the law yet or even the city policy. I guess my city doesn’t discuss it much. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/9 "2017-03-19T23:52:39Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > How is it any different from [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64)? Or [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Measure_2_(2014))? > Similar issues have also arisen in [Maine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Question_1,_2016), [Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Question_2_(2016)), [Massachussetts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Legalization,_Regulation_and_Taxation_of_Marijuana_Initiative) and [Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_91_(2014)). > The federal responses to the above should hint towards their response to California Prop 64. The federal responses to the above reflected the Obama DOJ’s hands-off attitude towards marijuana. The Trump administration’s DOJ has a [much different view](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-attorney-general-freaking-7-135725671.html): > [@](#): > > “Marijuana is against federal law, and that applies in states where they may have repealed their own anti-marijuana laws. So yes, we will enforce law in an appropriate way nationwide,” Sessions said. “It’s not possible for the federal government, of course, to take over everything the local police used to do in a state that’s legalized it. And I’m not in favor of legalization of marijuana. I think it’s a more dangerous drug than a lot of people realize.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s anti-marijuana views have long been reported by the press. In fact, one of the stories that made the headlines during the confirmation process was that he reportedly [said](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/jeff-sessions-coming-war-on-legal-marijuana-214501) (to an African American assistant US Attorney) that he thought the KKK “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” The legal marijuana industry is likely going to face a rude awakening in the coming months. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/10 "2017-03-22T00:11:18Z")
So in a nutshell CA sets up shop, starts issuing licenses DEA shows up at CA Marijuana licensing office with warrant for list of issued licenses CA is obligated to say “here is all of our records, have fun” Correct? ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/11 "2017-03-22T01:11:02Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > So in a nutshell > > CA sets up shop, starts issuing licenses > > DEA shows up at CA Marijuana licensing office with warrant for list of issued licenses > > CA is obligated to say “here is all of our records, have fun” > > Correct? The answer is probably a “no.” In _Printz v US_, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not compel states to carry out or enforce a federal program. But it’s unclear whether the DEA demanding such records rises to a prohibited level of compulsion. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/12 "2017-03-22T01:25:04Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > I’m sure it’s come up in some way before but my search skills are failing me today. > > In light of CA prop 64 recreational marijuana sales and production. > > Once the state starts issuing permits/licences is there any mechanism that stops agencies like the DEA from just showing up with a warrant/subpeona at the new licenceing agency demanding a list of all those license holders for purposes of raiding them? From the articles I read when Colorado legalized recreational use, the Feds said they wouldn’t prosecute anybody who was following the state law. There is no mechanism in place that requires them to do so, it’s just been their word so far. I found it intriguing at the time how all the marijuana fans suddenly started trusting the cops… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/13 "2017-03-22T13:53:37Z")
> [@dofe](#): > > The answer is probably a “no.” In _Printz v US_, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not compel states to carry out or enforce a federal program. But it’s unclear whether the DEA demanding such records rises to a prohibited level of compulsion. It’s not unclear at all; _Printz_ is simply not analogous. In _Printz_ the government was essentially federalizing local law enforcement to carry out duties mandated by federal law. In this scenario, the federal government is seeking a list the state already maintains at its own initiative, not requiring the state to create one. The federal power to subpoena or obtain state records by warrant is well-established. If it’s unclear why the two situations are not analogous, look at it this way: the federal government can compel an accountant to hand over an income tax return prepared for a client. It can’t compel an accountant to _do_ someone’s taxes. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/14 "2017-03-22T15:07:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The federal power to subpoena or obtain state records by warrant is well-established. The obvious (to me) strategy here would be for the state to require licensing, but keep no records of compliance. ---
**Author:** ![Anglachel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Anglachel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anglachel)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/15 "2017-03-22T18:18:10Z")
I really doubt they would need a warrant or subpoena. Seems like an open records request would suffice. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/16 "2017-03-22T19:34:05Z")
The OP specifies that a warrant or subpeona has been issued, presumable by the US District Court … and either the State didn’t appeal or the appeal was denied/refused/refuted … I believe at this point in the legal process, the State is compelled to surrender the documents to the DEA … An interesting question in this is would the courts take into account that 38 or more States joined together to defeat the issuing of the original warrant? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/17 "2017-03-23T00:12:00Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > The obvious (to me) strategy here would be for the state to require licensing, but keep no records of compliance. How do you imagine that working? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/18 "2017-03-23T11:43:11Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > How do you imagine that working? State requires purchase of a permit/license in order to be in state compliance. Growers are required to show license to state inspector on demand. Licenses are sold at the county courthouse in the same office dog licenses are sold. _No identifying information is collected from license purchaser at time of purchase._ So, if Ed Grower misplaces his physical license/permit, he cannot get a free replacement. But, if the DEA wants to see a list of licensees there isn’t one to show. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/19 "2017-03-23T13:19:51Z")
So how does the state verify a potentially fake license? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563/20 "2017-03-23T13:29:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So how does the state verify a potentially fake license? Watermark? Trust? If the state told me tomorrow I could legally grow, but required I pay $500 a year for a permit, I’d be there with cash in hand and I’d tip the lady who sold me the permit. I have PA stickers on my boats that allow me to boat legally on various waterways. I could make a reasonable facsimile and likely never get caught, but it’s easier to buy the stickers. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/federal-law-enforcement-vs-state-laws-ca-prop-64/782563.md?page=2)