# Obama's New Marijuana Policy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326 "2009-10-19T14:09:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/21 "2009-10-19T15:14:11Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > 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? It’s funny. In _Gonzales v. Raich_, one of the three dissenters was Clarence Thomas, a usually much-reviled name around here. As he put it, commenting on the absurdity of the Commerce Clause covering material grown and used completely inside a state’s borders: “…if the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.” Absurd as the interpretation seems, it is the law of the law. Equally true, however, is the fact that the courts cannot compel an executive to enforce a particular set of laws with vim and vigor. Congress can pass stronger versions of the laws, and wait the four years for popular outrage at lack of enforcement to sweep the executive away. And if that doesn’t happen, perhaps Congress was out of touch. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/22 "2009-10-19T15:42:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. And what, aside from the President’s assumed truthfulness, distinguishes the two rationales in effect? The President is tasked with not violating the Constitution in enforcement of statutes, but “I believe this law is unconstitutional” could be nothing more than a PC(in its original meaning) version of “you’re a bunch of idiots.” **Blalron** , the canonical remedy for a President who refuses to enforce statutes which pass Constitutional muster is impeachment and then removal from office for non-performance of his duties. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/23 "2009-10-19T16:00:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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). From a case where a judge disagreed with the U.S. Attorney’s decision not to prosecute, refused to dismiss the charges even though the prosecution asked for the dismissal, and tried to appoint a special prosecutor: > [@In Re United States of America 345 F.3d 450 (2003)](#): > > The district judge simply disagrees with the Justice Department’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion. As he explained in his response to the petition for mandamus, he thinks the government has exaggerated the risk of losing at trial: “the evidence was strong and conviction extremely likely.” The judge thus is playing U.S. Attorney. It is no doubt a position that he could fill with distinction, but it is occupied by another person. > [@](#): > > The Constitution’s “take Care” clause (art. II, § 3) places the power to prosecute in the executive branch, just as Article I places the power to legislate in Congress. A judge could not properly refuse to enforce a statute because he thought the legislators were acting in bad faith or that the statute disserved the public interest; it is hard to see, therefore, how he could properly refuse to dismiss a prosecution merely because he was convinced that the prosecutor was acting in bad faith or contrary to the public interest. > [@](#): > > A judge in our system does not have the authority to tell prosecutors which crimes to prosecute or when to prosecute them." United States v. Giannattasio, 979 F.2d 98, 100 (7th Cir.1992). ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/24 "2009-10-19T16:01:08Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > 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. I love the giganta-splash on Drudge. Screaming green headline: HIGH TIMES: OBAMA TO ISSUE NEW MARIJUANA POLICY. Photo: Obama reading from a paper to a bunch of kids. I don’t have a problem with prosecutorial discretion. There are a lot of laws that have fallen into that-word-which-means-disuse-through-nonprosecution-but-I-just-can’t-remeber-it-at-the-moment. As Obama is the head of the executive branch, his direction of discretion is in line with the same principle. Should he be enforcing _every_ Federal law as much as possible? Irrespective of the Constitution, shouldn’t he direct the Justice Department’s priorities? The one-step-at-a-time nature of the move has benefits as well. It creates space for states to act, but if it works out poorly (for some bizarre reason), it won’t take a reenactment by Congress to address things. (Note, this is a procedural/technical argument, not whether the law was/is good in the first place.) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/25 "2009-10-19T16:15:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From a case where a judge disagreed with the U.S. Attorney’s decision not to prosecute, refused to dismiss the charges even though the prosecution asked for the dismissal, and tried to appoint a special prosecutor: That’s not quite what I was asking. I have conceded that there are times at which a crime may not be prosecuted for a variety of reasons: insufficient resources to prosecute, a belief that specific circumstances would make prosecution unfair or unwise, and so on. In other words, a case-by-case evaluation of whether something should be investigated or prosecuted. Although I didn’t say it, those citations seem to indicate that a judge cannot compel a prosecutor to take up a particular case. I have no quarrel with that, as it seems to be a matter of opinion on whether a case involved wrongdoing, as opposed to a response to a policy not to enforce the law. What I do have a disagreement with is that the Executive can simply decide not to prosecute a whole class of cases. I would point out 28 USC 547: “Except as otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney, within his district, shall—(1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States; …” Obviously, it simply isn’t feasible to accomplish to the letter of the law. However, if the Executive decides not to apply the law to a whole set of activities as a blanket rule – or even in a wink wink nudge nudge sort of way – then it allows the executive to disregard the enforcement of laws at its convenience. If an Administration happens to like the coal industry, for example, should they be granted leeway not to apply the Clean Air Act to the worst polluters? That doesn’t seem fair at all. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/26 "2009-10-19T16:18:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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). **Bricker** has supplied ample cites. I’ll add one more: > [@](#): > > In some instances, there may be difficulty in applying the rule to particular cases; but there cannot, it is believed, be much difficulty in laying down the rule. > > By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders. > > In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the Executive, the decision of the Executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of Congress for establishing the Department of Foreign Affairs. This officer, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the Courts. > > But when the Legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law, is amenable to the laws for his conduct, and cannot at his discretion, sport away the vested rights of others. > > The conclusion from this reasoning is that, where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy. _Marbury v. Madison_. So it is clear that the executive possesses a certain degree of discretion, and this is not even reviewable by the judicial system as such - there is some immunity here. Only individuals who have had their rights violated by these decisions have the right to challenge them in court. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/27 "2009-10-19T16:57:39Z")
This seems a wise and proper shift in Federal law-enforcement policy, given the medical-marijuana laws of (now) 14 states, and the undoubted urgency of other priorities for the Justice Department. It is entirely within the President’s discretion, as exercised by the Attorney General. Congress may pass a law to the contrary and force the President’s hand on this issue, but I highly doubt it will. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/28 "2009-10-19T17:30:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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 if he said something along the lines of “I believe this is a case in which there may be no universal approach, and different states should treat it as they see fit for now. Perhaps we will see which policy garners the best results in terms of alleviating human suffering and building the economy in a few years.”? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/29 "2009-10-19T17:38:48Z")
Well done Obama. Now we need Federal regulators to set up national standards on quality, purity, growing standards etc. One step at a time. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/30 "2009-10-19T17:45:06Z")
Good news, albeit tempered somewhat by the [simultaneous announcement](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gD-D_Ac1QVI6pUuyz5rX_HpghtEQD9BE9F2G0) by an LA district attorney vowing to crack down on pot shops. Stoners just can’t catch a break! ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/31 "2009-10-19T17:45:17Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Well done Obama. Now we need Federal regulators to set up national standards on quality, purity, growing standards etc. One step at a time. Whats the purity problem? I suppose for weed lovers quality is subjective, isn’t it? I ask because in my shielded existence, I have never smoked anything. I hear dopers talk of different weeds like a wine lover distinguishing grades of wine. Isn’t that a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/32 "2009-10-19T17:52:55Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Good news, albeit tempered somewhat by the [simultaneous announcement](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gD-D_Ac1QVI6pUuyz5rX_HpghtEQD9BE9F2G0) by an LA district attorney vowing to crack down on pot shops. Stoners just can’t catch a break! That’s too bad. It’s interesting how many people think they need to tell us what to do. All in the name of freedom of course. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/33 "2009-10-19T17:56:58Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Whats the purity problem? I suppose for weed lovers quality is subjective, isn’t it? I ask because in my shielded existence, I have never smoked anything. I hear dopers talk of different weeds like a wine lover distinguishing grades of wine. Isn’t that a good thing? Some of the hydroponic stuff is grown with not very nice chemicals. There should be only organic pot allowed to be grown. And the government should set up a new Federal agency to encourage Americans to eat their pot instead, both for health and stone benefits. And another purity problem is with the new kinds of hash. In the last few years for a variety of reasons hash conoisseurs have moved from the old-school great hashes of the world like Nepalese Temple Balls, Mazar-I-Sharif Afghani and Kashmiri water hash to the newer bubblehashes and those things are so potent that it’s easy for unscrupulous dealers to mix in crap with them. There needs to be some kind of national purity standard and regulations so that government-certified high quality products are freely available to every consumer. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/34 "2009-10-19T18:04:34Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Some of the hydroponic stuff is grown with not very nice chemicals. There should be only organic pot allowed to be grown. And the government should set up a new Federal agency to encourage Americans to eat their pot instead, both for health and stone benefits. And another purity problem is with the new kinds of hash. In the last few years for a variety of reasons hash conoisseurs have moved from the old-school great hashes of the world like Nepalese Temple Balls, Mazar-I-Sharif Afghani and Kashmiri water hash to the newer bubblehashes and those things are so potent that it’s easy for unscrupulous dealers to mix in crap with them. There needs to be some kind of national purity standard and regulations so that government-certified high quality products are freely available to every consumer. How about the government just set FDA standards of full-disclosure and allow people to decide what they want to put into their bodies? You know…freedom? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/35 "2009-10-19T18:12:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > How about the government just set FDA standards of full-disclosure and allow people to decide what they want to put into their bodies? You know…freedom? Provided the pot companies are regulated like the alcohol industry and the pharmaceutical industry, OK. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/36 "2009-10-19T18:20:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > How about the government just set FDA standards of full-disclosure and allow people to decide what they want to put into their bodies? You know…freedom? This is probably a subject for another thread, but I’m not convinced people buying drugs would benefit from your version of freedom. ---
**Author:** ![badlyburnttoast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ad7895/32.png) [@badlyburnttoast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badlyburnttoast)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/37 "2009-10-19T18:32:09Z")
Personally I think they should drop the whole ridiculous ‘medical’ marijuana farce - It’s my understanding (and I apologize if I’m wrong, I don’t partake or live in California) it’s very easy to get a ‘prescription’ for ‘medical marijuana’ even if your only condition is wanting to smoke pot. They should either legalize it completely and stop all this stupidity about selectively enforcing laws and ‘medical’ uses (yes it might have some, we all know that’s not REALLY the point) or actually enforce the laws and treat marijuana as any other illegal drug that has medical uses. ---
**Author:** ![Hirundo82](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@Hirundo82](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirundo82)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/38 "2009-10-19T18:35:28Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Whats the purity problem? I suppose for weed lovers quality is subjective, isn’t it? I ask because in my shielded existence, I have never smoked anything. I hear dopers talk of different weeds like a wine lover distinguishing grades of wine. Isn’t that a good thing? But if we’re going to continue to pretend that medical marijuana laws are actually about medical use of marijuana and not just a way to get high legally (a large percentage of prescriptions for medical marijauna are for reasons such as “anxiety”), then marijuana should be characterized like any other pharmaceutical, including measuring and standardizing the amounts of the active components. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/39 "2009-10-19T18:38:10Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Provided the pot companies are regulated like the alcohol industry and the pharmaceutical industry, OK. I was thinking the food industry but yes, precisely. As long as there is information regarding what you are putting into your body available, that should be sufficient. > [@Marley23](#): > > This is probably a subject for another thread, but I’m not convinced people buying drugs would benefit from your version of freedom. Who are ‘People buying drugs’? There seems to be an implicit judgment underlying your statement and before I go off and assume that you are dealing with an extremely broad set of people who share only one characteristic, I’d like for you to clarify how you view, ‘People buying drugs’. > [@badlyburnttoast](#): > > Personally I think they should drop the whole ridiculous ‘medical’ marijuana farce - It’s my understanding (and I apologize if I’m wrong, I don’t partake or live in California) it’s very easy to get a ‘prescription’ for ‘medical marijuana’ even if your only condition is wanting to smoke pot. > > They should either legalize it completely and stop all this stupidity about selectively enforcing laws and ‘medical’ uses (yes it might have some, we all know that’s not REALLY the point) or actually enforce the laws and treat marijuana as any other illegal drug that has medical uses. Agreed. They should legalize it completely. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326/40 "2009-10-19T18:44:05Z")
Ooh, I feel a spell of glaucoma coming on . . . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-new-marijuana-policy/514326.md?page=3)