This is good news:
Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy
Basically, the federal government will not prosecute users and sellers of medical marijuana if it is legal in their state. About damned time. Bush was completely wrong on this issue - even from ‘conservative’ principles, since he was overriding states’ rights by ignoring state marijuana laws.
The treatment of pot users in the states is a big social injustice, and this is a step in the right direction.
Anyone disagree?
I’ve got no problem with that. Around here, that’s pretty much and Apple Pie issue.
Not me. The simultaneous prohitibition of pot and allowance of alchohol has always been a ridiculous irony.
One small step in the right direction.
I’m happy about it. This has to be the one genuine “change” I’ve seen from Obama since his term began.
Actually, yes, I have a problem with it. I think it is wrong for the executive to make a blanket decision not to enforce certain laws passed by Congress.
It is completely understandable that there is not sufficient time and resources for the Federal government to pursue every violation of law. But for the Executive Branch to decide as a policy that it isn’t going to enforce certain laws – whether it be on medical marijuana, or regulation of the financial industry, or the Clean Air Act to certain industries – is a serious constitutional matter. It amounts to an executive veto on laws passed by Congress long after the period that the Constitution allows a proposed law to be opposed by the Executive.
If the Obama Administration wishes to pursue this policy, Congress should pass a law to that effect.
Yay, it’s not even close to being good enough, but it’s a start.
I look forward to a day when the government actually gives a shit about personal freedom.
Good for Obama! I’m not a supporter but I give him all credit for this.
Technically, the memo is not saying to never enforce it:
I completely agree with you that Obama should ask Congress to change the law. For reasons of separation of powers, and so the next President doesn’t just unilaterally reverse the policy the instant he gets inaugurated.
What about cops who don’t enforce blue laws?
Personally, I think it is well within the rights of the executive to enforce some laws and exclude others. It’s checks and balances, man, if Congress doesn’t like it they can pass a stronger law, negotiate and/or compromise, or just wait until there’s a new fella in the White House.
I agree though, Congress needs to pass a law… repealing drug prohibition. Prolly won’t happen in my lifetime, but at least we’re ever so slowly crawling towards that direction.
I suppose a more proper response from Obama would be to wait until the Justice Department arrests medical marijuana users, and then pardon each and every one of them. Nobody could argue that would not be within his power. If he can do that, why can’t he tell the Justice Department to make it a very, very, VERY low priority?
Good luck with that. I can almost hear the "Soft on crime!"s from here. I want these laws to be changed by Congress and not just ignored, but it became obvious long ago that federal legislators are not up to dealing with this issue.
Despite your prediction, I think it will be interesting to hear what prominent conservatives have to say on the matter; particularly those who spend a few hours a day behind a microphone.
If the article portrays the direction accurately, it seems to be one of those “wink and a nod” things, as in telling US Attorneys, “We’re not saying don’t follow the law… but don’t enforce this law under these circumstances.” And let’s get real: the reason most people in this thread are supporting this decision is precisely because they are giving credit to the Obama Administration for saying in thinly-veiled terms that they aren’t going to enforce the law.
Stupid laws ought to be repealed.
No, it isn’t checks and balances. Find me the part of the Constitution or the Federalist Papers that enjoins the Executive Branch to ignore laws that it disagrees with. The law is the law. If Congress has to pass a new law to enforce an existing law, then why should the new law being passed have any better claim to legitimacy than the old one?
This type of announcement is, IMHO, even more egregious than the signing statements that so many people, both on the left and right, criticized Bush for using to try to exempt himself from laws he didn’t agree with. The Obama Administration is essentially doing the same thing.
This is why process is important.
I think the states that permit medical marijuana are making a mistake in doing so.
But it’s their mistake to make – the federal constitution is silnet on the issue, which means the federal government shouldn’t have the power to regulate intrastate marijuana.
So Congress shouldn’t have passed any laws to the contrary.
A personal distaste for the law should not prevent the Chief Executive from enforcing the law. But a good-faith belief that the law is unconstitutional is sufficient reason to act (or to fail to act).
So to evaluate this, I want to know what rationale the president offers. “I think medical marijuana is a great idea, and Congress are a bunch of idiots for disagreeing!” Sorry, but that’s not his call to make.
As opposed to: “I think Congress has no power under the constitution to regulate intrastate marijuana, and I believe statutes to the contrary are unconstitutional.” That is exactly his call to make, and a damned fine call it is.
What can Congress, backed by the Supreme Court, do to get a law enforced if the President decides to ignore it? Can they pass a “This Time We Really Mean It!” act?
No argument there. However, there are still many many stupid laws on the books at this moment. How do we go about dealing with them? Eventually, yeah, it would be nice to have them all repealed, but they’re low priority for the legislators, and we got this thing called the executive branch…
The Constitution establishes this thing called the Executive Branch whose purpose is to enforce laws. The leader of this branch is a pretty big deal; I don’t think his job consists solely of mechanically acting out the wishes of Congress. There is a great deal of leeway in how laws are enforced and I don’t see how “We’re going to enforce this law less and this one more” is too much different from “we’re just not going to enforce this law right now”. To me, it seems stuff like this is the whole reason for the executive branch to exist in the first place.
I disagree. Because executive power is vested with the President, he effectively serves as a prosecutor for all federal crimes. And our system of justice vests the prosecutor with wide discretion over which cases he will pursue.
But the Supreme Court ruled in the last few years that intrastate production and sale of marijuana was within Federal jurisdiction. If the Feds argued then that they can prosecute these drug laws, and the Supreme Court agreed, then just because the Feds argue today that they don’t want to enforce the law, shouldn’t give them a free pass on the court’s decision that the law stands… even if the reasoning the court used is pretty suspect.
I would appreciate a cite showing that a prosecutor has the latitude to choose that some laws simply shall not be enforced (barring the question of their constitutionality, as Bricker argued).
Again, I understand that the Executive does not have the resources to enforce every law. I agree that circumstances may mean that prosecuting someone under a valid law could result in a miscarriage of justice. I also understand that some crimes will constitute a higher priority than others. What I object to is the “Congress has made the law, now let them enforce it” approach of governance. It renders the legislative power meaningless to the same extent that segregationists attempted to neuter the courts by refusing to implement lawful orders.