Obama Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized mar1juana Use

Assassination of US citizens, indefinite detention, warrentless searches and monitoring, extraordinary rendition, etc. Excuse me if I don't believe this administration cares about defending the Constitution.

The supremacy clause does not make a law legal. Plus, as head of the executive branch, the president can change what drugs are schedule 1. So it does not even need to be a constitutional issue.

I'm sure the people of Colorado and Washington who passed the mar1juana law were a bunch of right wingers

 

I don't buy that one bit. The administration has never been concerned with what the GOP thinks. But yes, the right would be against it more so than the left.

The general consensus that I have came across is that mar1juana should be decriminalized, not so much legal. For the government, this is a lose-lose situation as they can't generate revenue from throwing people in jail. Their best bet is to tax it a bit more than the current market prices.

Another consideration is that mar1juana is a better proxy than the alternative. Selling mar1juana doesn't make a person a career criminal. Career criminals simply find the most efficient way to make money. Legalizing mar1juana doesn't simply do away with mar1juana dealers, they will just find another product to deal. I think we would all agree its better to deal mar1juana than opiates.

 

Who, huh wat? First of all, they sued Arizona, so that is a supremacy clause issue regarding illegal immigration where they acted. But more importantly, beyond that what does the supremacy clause have to do with illegal immigration? The issue is states creating laws in conflict with federal laws. That is what the supremacy clause is about. Did I miss where some states are deporting people that the US government says are legal US citizens or something?

But back to the weed, like most issues, drawing a line is not black-and-white. You are not, limited to either "fer it" or "agin it". For instance, they have been really hands off on medical dispensaries in Colorado, because the state regulated the issue well. In California, where there are no regulations, they have taken a more aggressive approach. So it is pretty clear that he has some bend on the state/mar1juana issue. His justice department is willing to tolerate a well regulated medical dispensary system on the margins of conflict with federal law. He doesn't have a whole lot of bend when people set up "medical dispensaries" and don't actually care about the medical part of it. And they definitely aren't going to be down with openly recreational use laws. They aren't quite so clearly "against mar1juana" like you seem to think or they would have shut down California and Colorado and wherever else a while ago. But when it is a blatant, direct contravention of the federal law, they have to defend that. Because if they don't defend the privilege of supremacy here, that supremacy will erode.

And most importantly, don't project your own beliefs of what is important onto Obama. Clearly he has a more circumspect view of immigration issues than you. In fact, it would be hard to have a less circumspect view.

Seriously, I still am baffled by your immigration non sequitur. The only instance where I can think of where it was an issue was Arizona. Where else are states openly violating enforced federal statutes with regards to immigration?

 

I want to disagree with a number of things you've said, but let me start with this little bit. This slippery slope argument that supremacy will erode is, in my opinion, total bull****. The President is certainly within his bounds to challenge the law and will probably be successful in overturning it, but choosing to not challenge the law doesn't mean that the Supremacy Clause then therefore cannot be enacted in the future. That's like saying because the DA uses prosecutorial discretion in one case or drug possession, drug possession is therefore not able to be prosecuted in the future.

Moreover, previously in the thread you stated that because the Supreme Court has ruled on an issue, it is therefore "constitutional" or "unconstitutional". This is certainly descriptively true, as the most recent standing precedent is obviously the one the government has to operate on, but it doesn't mean it's true forever. When someone says "x law is unconstitutional", the response of "well SCOTUS says it's not" is, in my opinion, a bit shallow. Presumably a challenge could be brought which would change that precedent like countless other decisions that have overturned previous ones. I think your strawman examples that you list afterwards are proof that your argument was either weak or flippant (more likely the latter).


On the issue of mar1juana, I think Obama should use discretion and just let it go. Look, I've defended Obama from his liberal and conservative critics. I've supported his drone programs, the al-Aulaqi assassination and increased intelligence programs, and I've supported the countless things he's done that conservatives hate. This doesn't mean he's beyond criticism. Obama's continuation of the War on Drugs is absolutely horrendous on a pragmatic policy level and in my opinion a philosophical level. Let the residents of Colorado do what they wish with their mar1juana laws. I'm a big believer of federal supremacy over states' rights, but it doesn't mean that states shouldn't be able to decide issues like this.

 

One thing we know for certain is that we are approaching a tipping point in this country in regards to legalization of mar1juana. FDR got behind repealing prohibition of alcohol when he deemed it politically safe to do so. Obama decided to support same sex marriage just this year. So, presidents, and other politicians can and do change their opinions on issues. Especially when it is advantageous to their political careers. We are most definitely approaching a tipping point.

 

I agree with what you are saying, but it will be a while before the tipping point is actually reached.

 

Please explain why a lame duck president would pander to voters. TIA.

 

The bigger issue is the failure of the government to realize it should be for the people, not against it.

When the people speak and pass legislation big brother really should listen.

Big pharma and big brother are threatened by people having a legit voice.

The whole idea of "the people passed a law and we don't like it so we're going to come down hard" reeks of tyranny.

SMH

 

I'm in my car for the rest of the night, so I apologixe, but any responses will be terse, and maybe not entirely complete.

I'm no expert, but from the little bit I've heard of Supreme Court oral arguments, they tend to ask quite a few questions about how the law is implimented. 'Slippery slope' is effectively a pejorative, used to negatively color the argument without refuting it.. A better way to say it would be that the federal government needs to draw a line in the sand, so that they will be able to prove to the Supreme Court that they have been effectively and efficently regulating a unified national narcotics policy.

Ok. Maybe my response was tuned a little bit to close to rtsy's shtick. A more generalized rendering of my point would be that you can't legally behave as though the Supreme Court has declared something unconstitutional, until they actually declare it so. Better?

It is entirely possible that I am wrong, but I think the generally benign way that marajuana is viewed is clouding the issue a bit. As a thought exercise, comsider they weren't legalizing cannabis, but rather opioids, like heroin for recreational use. Alternately, crystal meth - I just heard the other day that Bavaria has a major meth problem, since the Czech Republic has made posession of up to 2 grams of meth legal. Say a state wanted to do that, while keeping weed schedule 1. Would the federal government have any rights there, especially given the virtual borders between states, and the ubiquity of interstate commerce?

 

Thanks for the heads up.
Will not vote Obama in 2016.

 

Not going to happen.

 

Bigger fish to fry, yo.

 

“We’ve got bigger fish to fry,” Obama said. “It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal.”

 

NICE!

High fives for everyone.

 

Santa better not touch any cookies or brownies in CO or WA this year!

 

So, let me get this straight.

Colorado put a decision on the ballot for Voters in their state.

Voters voted in favor of legalizing the herb.

Voters spark up, and say screw you to the " man"

Now the " man" is trying to find ways to over-rule the voters.

Sounds like the White House has sand in their cooch. If they over-turn Voters decisions. Then that sets the stage to over-rule ANYTHING voters make decisions on, which would make this nation a Communist country instead of a Republic/Democracy.

Man, F*** Obama. Hypocrite

 

Is that a parody post?

 

I don't know, but it was pretty hilariously stupid.

 

I think you give him too much credit.