January 4, 2018

"The Trump administration freed federal prosecutors on Thursday to more aggressively enforce marijuana laws..."

"... effectively threatening to undermine the legalization movement that has spread to six states, most recently California. In a move that raised doubts about the viability and growth of the burgeoning commercial marijuana industry, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded an Obama-era policy that had discouraged federal prosecutors from bringing charges of marijuana-related crimes in states that have legalized sales of the drug. In a statement, Mr. Sessions said the Obama-era guidance undermined 'the rule of law' and the Justice Department’s mission to enforce federal statutes. 'Today’s memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S. attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country,' he said. In a briefing with reporters, Justice Department officials refused to say whether they intended for federal prosecutors to carry out a federal crackdown on marijuana dispensaries, or whether the Trump administration was merely creating ambiguity to chill growth of the semi-legal commercial marijuana industry."

The NYT reports.

I loathe the disorder of the seeming legalization while there is still a threat of prosecution under federal law. As I read today's statement, the kinds of "legalized" drug sales we're seeing in California and Colorado are not really going to be the target of prosecution. The idea is to empower prosecutors to use marijuana laws where it is part of dealing with violent crime and larger drug problems.

But the haziness about marijuana is ridiculous. I'd like to see Trump — in this year's State of the Union Address — propose legislation that would fully legalize the marijuana operations that various states have authorized.

104 comments:

Dude1394 said...

He might do it. The one thing that is pretty consistent throughout the trump administration is abiding by the law in most cases.

Even now, he is forcing the congress to think about actually tackling the issue versus just non-enforcement.

rhhardin said...

Selective prosecution isn't going to work. They'll charge selective prosecution.

Ken B said...

Terrible.

Original Mike said...

Oh, if Sessions only had something important to do ...

Jaq said...

Congress, do your job!

Earnest Prole said...

I'd like to see Trump — in this year's State of the Union Address — propose legislation that would fully legalize the marijuana operations that various states have authorized.

And give up the delights of tormenting California's Democrats? If not for California, Trump would have won the popular vote, and that's a crime that deserves to be punished.

readering said...

At the moment there is an appropriations statute that bars DOJ from spending $$ on criminal prosecutions. It's been used to dismiss cases. Up to Congress to decide whether to re-up the provision or not.

Jaq said...

I think that legal hygiene for the nation is important. This stuff leads to rot in the DoJ, widely flouted laws lower respect for the law, and should be repealed. Clinton and Obama looked for cracks in the law and its enforcement to exploit, this is really about Congress reclaiming their role.

Chuck said...

Trump actually campaigned on “leaving it up to the states.”

Which was yet one more reason why I resented his campaign and candidacy.

It is all yet another incomprehensible Trump flexible-policy flip-flop.

Jaq said...

that’s a crime that deserves to be punished.

“Reward your fiends, punish your enemies” - Barack H Obama.

Jaq said...

It is all yet another incomprehensible Trump flexible-policy flip-flop.

Congress should fix it, I am sure he would sign the law if they did, but Trump doesn’t pretend that laws don’t exist. He is consistent in that, risk corridors, DACA. It’s not a flip flop. Congress, do your job!

Jaq said...

If Congress were to fix it, banks could work with growers and sellers, for one thing, which is impossible under the current system.

n.n said...

ambiguity ... semi-legal

A problem with an unambiguous source. Pro-Choice is for babies.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

I doubt he remembers what he said yesterday, much less a year and a half ago.


President-elect Donald Trump has said, “I really believe you should leave it to the states. I think it should be a state issue.

Obama’s great accomplishment, some say, was getting out of the way after voters in Colorado and Washington approved state-regulated pot production and sale in 2012.

“What he did was respect the democratic process,” said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, a sponsor of Washington’s groundbreaking Initiative 502.

Obama didn’t try to quash state laws with federal pre-emption. And he didn’t prosecute legal pioneers.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/marijuana/pot-legalization-marches-ahead-trump-calls-it-state-issue/

n.n said...

re: Pro-Choice

They can't fix it. So, they follow the prevailing winds at the twilight fringe, hoping to remain in good standing with the judicial prophets. They need to go full twilight where democracy chokes under a veil of privacy. At least until the allies arrive and expose, depose the progressive corruption.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

I agree, Ann. I doubt Sessions, who has Trump by the shorthairs, will let Trump do it.

It would be wise political move and a good move for freedom.

tcrosse said...

What's the legal difference between Nevada ignoring Federal marijuana laws, and California ignoring Federal immigration laws ? Asking for a friend.

Kevin said...

Trump actually campaigned on “leaving it up to the states.”

It is all yet another incomprehensible Trump flexible-policy flip-flop.


He also ran as the "law and order" candidate. So had it left it up to the states, you would have hit him with that.

How about, until we "leave it up to the states", we "enforce the laws as passed by Congress and signed by the President"? I realize it's mind-blowing to contemplate for many on this blog, but it actually makes the most sense of all if you believe in the US Constitution.

Kevin said...

Obama didn’t try to quash state laws with federal pre-emption.

Unless it was Arizona trying to maintain it's border with Mexico.

Or trying to force more restrictive gun laws onto states who felt they were unnecessary.

Or arguing the SC should vote to legalize gay marriage nationally, despite states who took actions to the contrary.

Or....(I'll leave it open so others can play along too).

Jaq said...

“What he did was respect the democratic process,”

He didn’t try to change Federal law though. That’s why he has almost zero lasting legacy. He couldn’t stand to compromise, so he got nothing done legally. The American people duly elected a Republican Congress, and he went into a six year tantrum, breath holding thing. Real respect for the democratic process would involve fixing federal law, not ignoring it. But thanks for cutting and pasting the talking points for us, Inga!

Ficta said...

Not mentioned in the NYT article, but this, from Sessions' confirmation hearing sums it up nicely:

"I think one obvious concern is that the United States Congress has made the possession of marijuana in every state and distribution of it, an illegal act," Sessions replied. "So, if you -- we need to -- if that's something that's not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule. It's not so much the attorney general's job to decide what laws to enforce. We should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we're able."

Legalize it or don't legalize it, but selective enforcement is just plain lawless. Congress needs to actually do their jobs, and the executive branch will do theirs.

Yancey Ward said...

I would also hope it forces Congress to do something that aligns federal law and the now unstoppable push for decriminalization at the state level. If the Trump Administration had done nothing to change the stance of the DoJ, it leaves the law in a state of ambivalence for which Congress will feel no pressure to rectify. Like Ms. Althouse, I am hopeful that Congress will now act to harmonize the federal statutes in a way that accepts the various states' decriminalization moves. Trump probably could get Congress to act on this if he proposed it just as Ms. Althouse wishes. I am not sure, though, it is going to happen.

Thorley Winston said...

What's the legal difference between Nevada ignoring Federal marijuana laws, and California ignoring Federal immigration laws ? Asking for a friend.

Under the Tenth Amendment, States can refuse to use their resources to enforce federal law which AFAIK is what Nevada is doing. What they cannot do is try to supersede or interfere with federal enforcement of federal law which is what California is trying to do by making it a crime for employers in their state to voluntarily cooperate with ICE.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Sessions MUST go.

tcrosse said...

@Thorley - Thanks. Mine was not a rhetorical question. I have no idea how Nevada would deal with a sweep by DEA against its marijuana industry.

LYNNDH said...

So he doesn't like "undermining the rule of law". Then, GD, enforce the rules against comey, hillary, huma, clapper, Mueller, etc. Waste of resources, much like Prohibition.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

“President-elect Donald Trump has said, “I really believe you should leave it to the states. I think it should be a state issue.

Which is not inconsistent. It *should* be a state issue, but it's not. Congress could change that, but until then it's a federal issue.

Original Mike said...

Sessions is a waste of resources.

Etienne said...

It's a waste of money to prosecute. The way to win this deal is to tax the shit out of them, and send the money to Israel to build a new Embassy (Crusader Fort) in Jerusalem.

Jaq said...

This dream of taxing heavily something as easy to produce as pot is, well, a pipe dream, maybe a “bong dream.” One thing that won’t happen is that they won’t produce a NASCAR, the way taxing moonshine did, maybe they can come up with slow races, like OJ and the white Bronco.

Wince said...

Seems to me Sessions is the one who has done more to actually change the federal law than anyone else.

tcrosse said...

Same-sex marriage and abortion didn't stay state issues very long.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that so many lambaste those in the Trump administration for saying that they will enforce the laws on the books. If some Congress critter from CO or CA thinks the Federal law should be changed then they can quite easily introduce a bill to that effect and have an open and free debate on its merits. Until then the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws as written.
There is a difference in degree , but a similarity with the secessionist movement that was crushed in 1865.

If you don't like a law have the courage to try to change it or shut up when it is enforced.

Jaq said...

On the plus side for California, Trump just opened the coast for drilling, so you guys could probably take care of these costly self-inflicted issues, like millions of illegal immigrants, yourself.

Ooops! You better head back to your talking points dispensers!

Jaq said...

It is so amazing to me that a website named “Talking Points Memo” gets so much respect on the left, even though the name is not ironic.

The Godfather said...

I suppose I'm a member of the first pot generation (that is, the first generation of people who used pot but weren't musicians), but if it were up to me, I'd favor every State banning it. I think that there's already too much reality-avoidance in our society, we don't need chemical assistance.

But as a federalist I don't see how this is the proper business of the federal government; prohibition of pot ought to be solely a State law issue. As long as there are many States that continue to criminalize pot, it may be appropriate for federal law to support them (e.g., to prohibit folks from carrying pot from a State where it's legal to one where's not), but the federal government should not be criminalizing what's legal in a particular State. Congress should amend the federal laws accordingly. Until it does, Sessions is right.

Oso Negro said...

@ Inga - Ha ha ha! I am not a criminal! I am a legal pioneer! If only the secessionists had been such sophists!

Hagar said...

It is sedition, so the President could declare a state of insurrection to exist, declare martial law, and send in the army and a military governor to restore order.

That is a little strong, but neither do they have the heart to repeal the Federal classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug, since if they do, they set a precedent for Congress repealing Federal regulations whenever some states decide to give them the finger.

Pianoman said...

This is stupid. Give it up already. Just tax everything, double up the penalties for DUI, put people in jail for being high in public, and then free all the people who went to jail over pot.

Who cares if someone gets high in their house? We don't care if people get falling down drunk at their house, do we?

Hari said...

The correct way to leave it to the states is for congress to repeal the federal law. Trump does not have to take a stand on the issue one way or the other. (Why should Trump expend political capital helping the governors of states that hate his guts?)

Trump should simply say that if congress votes to repeal the law, he will sign it. Congress wants it both ways, but can only have it both ways if the president winks and agrees not to enforce the federal law. That's not Trump. Every time he has had a chance to push decisions to congress where the belong, he has done so.

Hagar said...

The question is: Do we observe the Constitution or not?

You need an Amendment revising the Supremacy Clause, or specific legislation about marijuana, immigration, and any other issue that some group dominating a state's politics may disagree with.

Michael K said...

Sessions has better things to do but he's right about Congress.

They live for "juice bills," what we used to call in California bills that generated a lot of contributions by both sides.

The Colorado Senator is threatening to hold up judicial nominations. Why doesn't he introduce a bill to do what he wants?

Without Roe V Wade we would have had state options. Abortions were legal in California by 1969.

Do the same for marijuana.

Matt Sablan said...

If congress wants they can legalize it. Until they do, it kinda is the law.

Earnest Prole said...

It is so amazing to me that a website named “Talking Points Memo” gets so much respect on the left, even though the name is not ironic.

The name of Josh Marshall's blog is an ironic reference to Monica Lewinsky's talking points memo, which Kenneth Starr thought was the smoking gun in his investigation of Bill Clinton. The problem with irony is that most people don't get it.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Every fucking thing this administration involves itself in is a waste of time, money and energy. I seriously can't imagine a bigger waste of DOJ resources. It's proving how irrelevant it is. Hopefully the war on jaywalking will be next. A law is a law, everybody.

Matt Sablan said...

Is jaywalking a federal crime?

Matt Sablan said...

You know what is a bigger waste of resources? Selling guns to drug cartels.

Known Unknown said...

This is where I depart from Trump -- I think marijuana should be declassified and legalized nationwide even though I've never tried marijuana myself.

Of course, I think the solution to the drug war (why fight a war against your own citizens) is to legalize most drugs.

Drago said...

TTR: "Every fucking thing this administration involves itself in is a waste of time, money and energy."

Well, except for the increase in actual domestic energy production which increases revenues for our energy producers and decreases the cost of our energy so that less actual time working is spent by American workers working to pay their energy bills.

Improvements in time, money and energy.

Should we discuss the impact of the rollback of unnecessary regulations and the direct impact on time, money and energy of our corporations and workers?


Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

So what's Sessions bullshit all about anyway? Federalizing an issue that should either not be a law or left to the states anyway? Perhaps it's his way of exacting revenge over Union victory when it came to ending the unfashionable practice of slavery. Yep, this marijuana prohibition thing has a real future going for it. Clearly we've not incarcerated enough people and brought down enough businesses. I'm so glad that this fascist knows better what should go into an American's body than the citizen himself. And will the parents of kids with untreated Dravet syndrome get this whiny cracker to pay for their children's treatments, now? Especially that he's denying them the most effective one, while simultaneously representing a government that has moved to price twenty million Americans out of the health insurance market?

What a travesty.

Matt Sablan said...

Ask Congress to pass a law. It is their job.

Jim Gust said...

" I'd like to see Trump — in this year's State of the Union Address — propose legislation that would fully legalize the marijuana operations that various states have authorized."

Trump promised this during the campaign. If he has any brains--and i think he does--he will do this.

madAsHell said...

Funny, Trump has taken away the deductions for SALT (State And Local Taxes), the mortgage deduction, and now he's going after the marijuana. He's taking money from the states! I'm not sure how this ends.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Well, except for the increase in actual domestic energy production which increases revenues for our energy producers and decreases the cost of our energy so that less actual time working is spent by American workers working to pay their energy bills.

Oh I know. We had a real energy shortage without reviving the 19th century's best industry so that fewer workers than are employed by Arby's could have jobs polluting rivers and streams, giving themselves black lung disease by the time they're 40 years old (which the government pays for), warping the earth's climate systems and abandoning our participation in growing energy markets worldwide. Real foresight, there.

But at least he got to show his favoritism for the owners of one industry over the owners of others. Extraction rights are important. If no one can own the sun and the wind then clearly the energy from them should not be developed.

Original Mike said...

"Ask Congress to pass a law. It is their job."

Opportunity for bipartisanship.

Jupiter said...

"The idea is to empower prosecutors to use marijuana laws where it is part of dealing with violent crime and larger drug problems."

The idea is to seize money.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

I know there are people on the right who think pot is bad and they want to keep it illegal and repeal legalization - but it's a loser at the ballot box.

Sessions has brought nothing but loser to Trump's show. Time to go, swampcreature.

madAsHell said...

Of course, I think the solution to the drug war (why fight a war against your own citizens) is to legalize most drugs.

I disagree. The cost of mental health issues would be staggering. Some people just can't say no. The drugs may mask other physical symptoms e.g. cancer.

Larry J said...

Like it or not, the Attorney General's job is to enforce the laws as written. Here's a radical thought that's so crazy, it might just work: chand the law. Several states have legaluzed recreational marijuana and several more allow medicinal marijuana. Together, their congressional delegations can work to change the federal law and make the whole issue moot.

Steven said...

Selling marijuana in a state with no law against it is precisely as legal as paying people wages below $7.25/hour in states with no state minimum wage.

And, in fact, six states have no minimum wage law. Does the New York Times describe paying employees less than the federal minimum in those states as "semi-legal"? Would Inga happily nod along and suggest Trump should defer to the democratic process when it comes to those state laws?

Of course not. If you're selling marijuana in Colorado, you're just as much a criminal as someone paying New Hampshire residents wages of $3.00/hr.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Funny, Trump has taken away the deductions for SALT (State And Local Taxes), the mortgage deduction, and now he's going after the marijuana. He's taking money from the states! I'm not sure how this ends.”

Not well.

Earnest Prole said...

All the States Rights conservatives here should be delighted that pot and immigration have produced a Strange New Romance between California and John C. Calhoun.

Michael said...

I am hoping against hope that it is legalized nationally. There is nothing better in this world than watching stoners ponder a topic, any topic. Really excellent fun. Best of all, stoned people delude themselves into believing they are deep thinkers. I happen to know this first hand having smoked a good bit early on and then discovering that the weed was sapping my energy and subtracting whole novels from my memory. I eschew it. I am happy for all and sundry to get ripped. It is not a gateway drug. It is not harmful at least in moderation. It could conceivably shut down the black market which could send the suppliers into overdrive in other illicits. Still, it should go full legal.

Michael K said...

Congress needs to actually do their jobs, and the executive branch will do theirs.

Yes and someone, maybe that Colorado Senator, should be asked to introduce a bill that legalizes under federal law, at least marijuana, and encourage the states to set their own laws.

The opportunity to do that with Abortion was lost and the same thing could end up with drug laws to the everlasting frustration of half the citizens.

FullMoon said...

Fairly obvious move by Trump. Let the left, especially California, screaming and hollering about this, then in a few days or a week or so start tweeting how it is up to congress to pass a law. He will brilliantly phrase it in a way that puts dems as being against legalization that removes it as a federal crime. Then , when Pelosi and Finestien and Maxine Waters and Schumer come out for it, Trump will make it seem as if he convinced them.

Drago said...

TTR: "If no one can own the sun and the wind then clearly the energy from them should not be developed."

Industry is free to develop whatever they would like and put it on the open market. But that's not really what you were going for, is it?

Little windmills and solar panels are quaint though significantly more expensive and less efficient. But who cares if the little people have to pay more for energy. The important thing is you get to feel better about yourself, assuming that is even possible.

Nuclear power is the future. Perhaps you should think more about that. You know, if you didn't despise engineers so much you could probably speak to a couple and become more educated on this.

But since you hate them with the red hot intensity of the sun, here's someone who isn't an engineer but can "hip you" to some facts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak&t=979s

"Why I changed my mind about nuclear power"

Here's

Michael said...

Inga

Elaborate if you can on why "taking money from the states" will not end well. Understanding that he is taking away deductions from Federal Income taxes and not from the states. The states continue to charge state taxes, the local governments get their beak in as well. Elaborate on the "not well" comment if you can.

Michael K said...

"pot and immigration have produced a Strange New Romance between California and John C. Calhoun."

Abortion was legal in California in1969. Had Roe v Wade never been decided, there would be far less animosity in politics.

Marijuana is like that and the only problem might be with DUI and THC. The state should be responsible for the law violations against citizens of other states.

Big Mike said...

I'm waaaaay past tired of handling marijuana by wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Legalize it nationally or start sending marijuana users to the slammer.

FullMoon said...

Michael said...

Inga

Elaborate if you can on why "taking money from the states" will not end well. Understanding that he is taking away deductions from Federal Income taxes and not from the states. The states continue to charge state taxes, the local governments get their beak in as well. Elaborate on the "not well" comment if you can.

1/4/18, 6:24 PM


Because, that's why..haha!

Oh, wait, California gonna secede from union, I forgot.

Pianoman said...

DUI already has monstrous penalties associated with it in California. Here's what happens to you on a first offense:

* $1800 in fines
* 48-hour jail sentence or a 90-day license restriction allowing you to drive to and from your work—and for work—if required, and to and from an alcohol treatment program
* Attendance and completion of a $500, three-month alcohol-treatment program (nine months if your blood alcohol level was 0.20% or higher. Completing the program is a requirement for ever being able to drive again in CA
* Loss of your driver’s license for at least 30 days, followed by either a five-month restriction to drive to, from, and for work and to and from an alcohol treatment program, or an additional two-month restriction that allows you to drive only to and from the program

These penalties have been amping up higher and higher over the years, and you can see the results on the roads. People in SoCal *always* get Uber/Lyft/DesignatedDrivers when going to parties. It's just not worth it to be caught in CA.

And remember -- in CA, the legal limit is .08%, which for some people is two glasses of wine.

So if I were in charge, I'd double these penalties whenever pot is involved. And take away the offender's license for six months too. You want to be a stoner, do it in your own house -- don't bring it to the road with you.

Drago said...

TTR: "So what's Sessions bullshit all about anyway? Federalizing an issue that should either not be a law or left to the states anyway?"

Laughable, and quite time late.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sessions-legal-marijuana-policy-20180104-story.html

obama "federalized" this. Trump is "unfederalizing" this.

It can be confusing.

Congress is free to act to, you know, pass a law or something.

Crazy, I know. That Constitution is like, what, over a 100 years old!!

StephenFearby said...

AA wrote:

"I'd like to see Trump...propose legislation that would fully legalize the marijuana operations that various states have authorized."

Even though...

Addict Behav. 2017 Dec 9;79:178-188

Cognitive, physical, and mental health outcomes between long-term cannabis and tobacco users.

RESULTS:

Cannabis users exhibited poorer overall learning and delayed recall and greater interference and forgetting than tobacco users, and exhibited poorer recall than norms. Inhibition and executive control were similar between groups, ***but cannabis users had slower reaction times during information processing and sustained attention tasks***.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29291509

Which is consistent with:

MensHealth October 12, 2017

Here's an Important Reason Why You Should Never, Ever Smoke Pot and Drive

A new report from Colorado, where marijuana is legal, offers some chilling statistics

https://www.menshealth.com/health/marijuana-and-traffic-deaths-colorado

Referencing:

The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact Vol. 5/October 2017 (176pp)

Executive Summary

Section 1 – Impaired Driving and Fatalities:

 Marijuana-related traffic deaths when a driver was positive for marijuana more
than doubled from 55 deaths in 2013 to 125 deaths in 2016.

 Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 66 percent in the four-year average
(2013-2016) since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana compared to the
four-year average (2009-2012) prior to legalization.

o During the same time period, all traffic deaths increased 16 percent.

http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%202017%20Legalization%20of%20Marijuana%20in%20Colorado%20The%20Impact.pdf


Do you really want to share the road with a pothead just because their state wanted to legalize marijuana and collect more tax money?

Colorado passes a milestone for pot revenue (July 19, 2017)

VS Strategies, a pro-legalization research company in Denver, says the state has pulled in $506 million since retail sales began in January 2014. That includes taxes and fees from medical marijuana, which was legalized years earlier, but the vast majority of the revenue came from recreational.

Colorado was the first state to legalize recreational weed, so its market is the most mature. And lawmakers and entrepreneurs in other states, and other countries, look at Colorado as a measuring stick.

Revenue from taxes and fees has increased each year, from $76 million in 2014 to $200 million last year, and the state is on track to beat that this year, according to VS Strategies, which used state revenue data in its report Wednesday.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue/index.html

Bob Boyd said...

Sessions is high. Piss test him.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

CO's top cop said that the feds are going to go after illegal pot - not legal pot.

You'd think the legal pot people - over 1000 of them - would be happy?

Michael K said...

Do you really want to share the road with a pothead just because their state wanted to legalize marijuana and collect more tax money?

I could see a clause in federal legalization that any state that chooses to legalize pot is responsible for injury to other states' residents injured by DUI drivers on pot,

Why not ?

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Instead of Sessions obsession with pot - where is his obsession with draining the swamp?

Strozk and McCabe fired from the FBI. NOW.

cronus titan said...

Sessions is the embodiment of the Peter Principle. His principal contribution as AG is elevating civil forfeiture and marijuana enforcement to the front. He still lives in 1980. He is nowhere to be found on any issue of consequence. Sessions should be given a nice watch, thanked for his public service, and exit.

Meanwhile, Rome burns.

Gahrie said...

Do you really want to share the road with a pothead just because their state wanted to legalize marijuana and collect more tax money?

I'd rather share it with a pothead than a drunk.

We figured out almost 100 years ago that not only does prohibition not work, it produces worse results than legalization.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Disrespect for the Rule of Law is societal chaos. It is bad all around. There are too many laws. Laws are needlessly complicated, larded with special exceptions.

For that, I blame the Legislators. Legislators should be curators of a Body of Laws which are few in number, easily understood, and universally applicable. The primary propensity of our Legislators is pandering.

For that, I blame the voters.

As to the ganja, it would be good to get the Feds out of the weed business. Let the States sort it out. Goes for a lot of other issues.

As to Trump, he does seem to honor the Rule of Law more than the average President. If that is the Law, then that is what we will do. Congress could use a good face rubbing, and the voters could use a good lesson in civics.

Hammond has spoken.

n.n said...

The issues are two-fold. One, impairment. Two, stability (the left's moral imperative). Perhaps, three, Obamacare, or progressive costs, and shifted responsibility.

The swamp, in part, is filled with creatures from the twilight fringe, selective, opportunistic. and congruent. There are already too many wicked solutions processed under the Pro-Choice Church's authority, which are first-order forcings of catastrophic anthropogenic progressive corruption (CAPC). This is a representative republic, not a democracy, let the legislature represent the People.

Anyway, Trump is right. The issue is Pro-Choice as a first-order forcing of CAPC.

Chas S. Clifton said...

This is the Golden Age for small, local cannabis entrepreneurs, like the woman whose cannabis-arnica salve I pick up at the farmers market in Pueblo, Colorado.

One unintended consequence of the DOJ's attitude may be that it causes the big corporations to hold back, leaving the small entrepreneurs time to grow.

Meanwhile, if the feds want to go after the cartel-sponsored illegal grows on national forests, for example, which happen all over southern Colorado, I say, go for it.

MacMacConnell said...

I don't think President Trump or AG Sessions gives a dump about national legalization of weed. They probably want to leave it to the states. But, it's the law till congress changes it. The way to do that is strict and visible enforce, it's the old Kansas AG Vern Miller's tactic in the early seventies. A Democrat, Miller even pulled over an AMTRAK train issuing tickets to railroad employees on the train for breaking Kansas Liquor laws. The railroad sued, Miller won in SCOTUS causing even airliners to stop serving while over Kansas. He did the same for drug laws. His point to strictly enforce the laws to pressure on the Kansas Legislature to pass liquor by the drink and soften the weed laws.

Anonymous said...

I don't know that the goal is necessarily to get Congress to legalize, since in theory Congress can at some later date re-impose a ban. It seems more like a strategy to goad the California and New York AGs into suing the feds, with the hope of getting a court ruling diminishing federal power that the left may find inconvenient later.

stevew said...

They take an oath to enforce the law. Congress needs to change the law.

-sw

BUMBLE BEE said...

The social ramifications of pot usage are already staggering. They are concealed, like the cost of the illegal population's crimes, for other purposes, as noted in other's comments at this blog. Two words... Gateway Drug.

Fernandinande said...

StephenFearby said...
Here's an Important Reason Why You Should Never, Ever Smoke Pot and Drive


Your stats don't actually show what you apparently hoped people would believe they show.

If more people wore red hats there'd be more traffic accidents involving people wearing red hats, but it doesn't mean that red hats contribute to accidents unless the accident rate increases.

Crash Fatality Rates After Recreational Marijuana Legalization in Washington and Colorado

"Conclusions. Three years after recreational marijuana legalization, changes in motor vehicle crash fatality rates for Washington and Colorado were not statistically different from those in similar states without recreational marijuana legalization. Future studies over a longer time remain warranted."

Known Unknown said...

"Do you really want to share the road with a pothead just because their state wanted to legalize marijuana and collect more tax money?"

Newsflash: You are already sharing the road with potheads. And drunks. And pill poppers. And meth-heads.

Known Unknown said...

"Cognitive, physical, and mental health outcomes between long-term cannabis and tobacco users."

Why would the study compare pot smokers to tobacco smokers? Seems like a useless comparison.

Jeff said...

You want jury nullification? This is how you get it.

MAJMike said...

Well, then the proper course of action is to repeal existing Federal anti-marijuana laws. Until such time as that's accomplished, then the DOJ should enforce them.

Kirk Parker said...

Hagar,

If we really did follow the Constitution, there wouldn't be any federal laws regarding marijuana at all, other than perhaps whether marijuana could be traded across state lines. There isn't a single word in the Constitution granting the federal government power over personal consumption of intoxicants.

Our forebears were much more honest, politically and constitutionally, then we are -- they realized that prohibition of trade in alcohol required a whole f'ing Constitutional Amendment!

Achilles said...

I wonder if Sessions is trying to get fired. He is just a total and complete loser at this point. No redeeming value in the position of AG. A complete waste of space and Oxygen.

Jon Ericson said...

RE: Achilles
I'm mighty confused too.
But Trump's a finagler.
Sessions? He's been busy.
But I feel for the CA pot entrepreneurs.

StephenFearby said...

@Fernandistein 1/4/18, 9:13 PM
StephenFearby said...
Here's an Important Reason Why You Should Never, Ever Smoke Pot and Drive

Your stats don't actually show what you apparently hoped people would believe they show.

'If more people wore red hats there'd be more traffic accidents involving people wearing red hats, but it doesn't mean that red hats contribute to accidents unless the accident rate increases.

Crash Fatality Rates After Recreational Marijuana Legalization in Washington and Colorado

"Conclusions. Three years after recreational marijuana legalization, changes in motor vehicle crash fatality rates for Washington and Colorado were not statistically different from those in similar states without recreational marijuana legalization. Future studies over a longer time remain warranted."'

Comparing apples to oranges.

The study you cite examined only changes in vehicle crash fatality rates (in two states, including Colorado).

The study I cited examined only changes in vehicle crash fatality rates in Colorado when a driver involved tested positive for marijuana.

The study you cite didn't do this. The reason why (in the full text of the article) was:

"...We studied total crashes rather than marijuana-impaired crashes because testing for marijuana use is not uniform in FARS [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System] reported crashes, and the limitations of laboratory testing make studies of marijuana-impaired crashes difficult.11"

Footnote 11 is:

TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION 2016, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 105-108
Delays in DUI blood testing: Impact on cannabis DUI assessments

"Objective: This study examined the time from law enforcement dispatch to the first blood draw in cases of driving under the influence (DUI) vehicular homicide and a subset of DUI vehicular assault cases in Colorado in 2012 [before cannabis use was legal in Colorado]."

"Conclusion: Given the current delays to blood testing in cases of arrests for vehicular homicide and vehicular assault in Colorado, ***many blood tests*** are unlikely to confirm that drivers who are impaired from smoking marijuana have THC levels above established legal limits."

http://www.duidvictimvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/269-Wood-Delays-in-DUI-blood-testing.pdf

In other words, if the delays cited (in the 2012 data) for obtaining a warrant for blood tests have continued, this would likely significantly understate the actual number of marijuana-related VH [vehicular homocide] cases reported in Colorado.

Either way, they seem to grow at an alarming rate every year.

Jon Ericson said...

Ooh, FEARby.
FEAR THIS!
Jackass.

rcocean said...

Amazing how Judge Moore refused to pull down 10 commandments from AL SCOTUS building and was labeled a terrible person because THE RULE OF LAW!!!

Meanwhile, California legalizes MJ - in direct contradiction of Federal Law, while refusing to enforce Federal immigration laws and allowing illegal aliens vote.

When are Peeps going to understand they're getting played?

Jon Ericson said...

Easter is coming up soon.
Peeps will be covered in due course.
Don't be such a Debbie Downer!
Be a Debbie Doer!

MB said...

This sort of ambiguity is how highly-paid and unscrupulous lawyers (pleonasm?) and lobbyists earn their fees. Probably some enterprising mobsters, business people, lawyers, etc. are making fortunes right now. This legal imbroglio is just keeping the small stakes gamblers out.
If it goes beyond this, though, the lawyers will soon be replaced by people with guns.

J said...

Ann loathes the disorder.I transfer my loathing to the socalled constitutional scholar who set the situation up in the first place.

Kevin said...

Federalizing an issue that should either not be a law or left to the states anyway?

Just to be clear, most of the people making this argument believe Chicago can't really regulate guns in its jurisdiction because they come in from neighboring states, thus we need federal gun control laws.

Just to be clear.

Kevin said...

Amazing how Judge Moore refused to pull down 10 commandments from AL SCOTUS building and was labeled a terrible person because THE RULE OF LAW!!!

Don't stop there. Inga wants Trump removed from office for collusion which isn't even a crime.

I have found no basis for which some people will retrain themselves. They want what they want and wherever they're standing is the new moral high ground.

Guildofcannonballs said...

The real question is Can we allow others to shower at their preferred water temperature?

Hot showers drain limited natural (organic) resources and could melt first the skin and then dissolve the bones ergo the Feds ought to Waco any troublemakers advocating they know best what temperature their own shower ought to be.

We can't trust people to do what is right, which is a lot more than just getting by stoned and content taking too-hot showers when we know they ought to live in order to produce more GDP.

Make no mistake, whether food, cocks, drugs or air, whatever you ingest had better past my muster or I will get your ass locked up until you obey, loser.

ceowens said...

Question 11e on Form 4473?