The part I bolded pertains to a big question, which is also brought up in the article, and I actually consider this question to be more pertinent than the prospect of legalization itself . Suppose California legalizes marijuana. If that happens, then the Obama administration is faced with a huge dilemma. If they allow California to ignore Federal law, but are suing Arizona for ignoring Federal law, don't you think that this makes Obama in violation of Federal law himself, since he is picking and choosing which Federal laws to enforce? The role of the executive branch is to enforce the law, and Obama took an oath to do just that. He is going to be put on the spot if California passes this law.SAN FRANCISCO – California has a long history of defying conventional wisdom on the issue of marijuana, including its embrace of the drug in the 1960s and its landmark medical pot law 14 years ago. So it may not be all that surprising that a November ballot measure to legalize the drug has created some odd alliances and scenarios.
Pot growers have opposed it. Some police have favored it. Polls show the public is deeply divided. Only politicians have lined up as expected: Nearly all major party candidates oppose the measure. And hanging over the whole debate is the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
Don't get me wrong here. I actually support legalization, but the article has raised a fascinating legal question here, which I would like to be the topic for this thread.
What would YOU do?
Article is here.