• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

What else to do when one digs theirown grave.
Another utterly unsupportable comment.

When you think you can actually join the conversation, please do.

Maybe you can tell us how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds water.

Certainly, states can have whatever laws that want.

That they have whatever law they want in no way nullifies a federal law.
That is, something can be legal according to state law, but illegal under federal law; that someting is legal under state law in no way justifies the decision to not enforce the relevant federal law in that state.

The point of a federal law, after all, is that it applies everywhere, to everyone.
 
Another utterly unsupportable comment.

When you think you can actually join the conversation, please do.

Maybe you can tell us how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds water.

Certainly, states can have whatever laws that want.

That they have whatever law they want in no way nullifies a federal law.
That is, something can be legal according to state law, but illegal under federal law; that someting is legal under state law in no way justifies the decision to not enforce the relevant federal law in that state.

The point of a federal law, after all, is that it applies everywhere, to everyone.

I'll take some proof of that. My understanding is that the law makes provisions all the time. For example, the health care proposals floating around in Congress that make some form of insurance mandatory make provisions for lower income persons.
 

Maybe you can tell us how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds water.

Not what i said. Or any else around.


That they have whatever law they want in no way nullifies a federal law.

and federal law will still pursued.
 
That the law doesn't make provisions for persons based on some pretext or other.
Its possible that some laws do specify some 'provision' for certain people as part of the law itself.

But that's not that we have here. This is a change in policy, deciding to not prosecute federal law based on the permissiveness of a state law.
 
Last edited:
Not what i said. Or any else around.
Its the New Obama policy re: medical marijuana.

and federal law will still pursued.
Selectiveely, based on the permissiveness of state laws.

So, I ask again:
Maybe you can tell us how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds water.
 
Its the New Obama policy re: medical marijuana.


Selectiveely, based on the permissiveness of state laws.

So, I ask again:
Maybe you can tell us how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds water.

It is the State of California's problem to deal with misdemeanors not the Feds. The will still pursue federal concerns according to the policy.
 
It is the State of California's problem to deal with misdemeanors not the Feds.
How does this response make sense, given the subject and question I asked?
 
Last edited:
How does this response make sense, given the subject and question I asked?

Well California gets to deal with the situation on their level and the feds get to with it on their level.
 
If what you say is true, Goobieman, the solution is simple: impeach him. Anything else is hot air.

Yes -- because I have no right to openly disagree with the policies or the President and/or claim that he isnt doing his job.

Oh, if I had only known that when all the BDS droolers were out...
:roll:

I just reread what I wrote and it was a bit harsh. I meant that you can't do anything to change his decision short of impeachment - I guess beating him in 2012 would work as well.
 
Well California gets to deal with the situation on their level and the feds get to with it on their level.
Ok...
... but that doesnt explain how or why state law should determine where and when federal laws are enforced; if a state law allows something, a contrary federal law should then be ignored.

That runs completely afoul of the supremacy clause.
 
So, I ask again:
Maybe you can tell us how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds water.

This is a canard.

The only thing that the memo does is set priorities, and establish guidelines as to how to utilize resources.

Here read it yourself then tell me where they said they "will not prosecute under federal law":

http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

Since you probably will not pick up on the relevant parts:

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals... ...who use marijuana... ...consistent with applicable state law... ...is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.

Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law

This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges... ...Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Also of relevance is the fact that the DOJ maintains a strategic plan on how to carry out their mission. Part of the strategic plan is conveying where or how to allocate resources.

here from the DOJ strategic plan under the DOJ goals and objectives section Strategic Plan 2007-2012:

Integrity.
Our leadership role and the funds entrusted to us by the taxpaying public demand that we maintain the highest levels of integrity and trustworthiness. This affects not only the way we carry ourselves as representatives of the law, but the manner in which we manage the resources entrusted to us to carry out our mission.

from the same section of the strategic plan (goals):

Goals...
...2.4 Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal drugs

The DOJ just issued guidance in the manner in which [they] manage the resources entrusted to [them] to carry out [their] mission, and effectively pursue their strategic goals. Not the first time this has happened, and certainly will not be the last.

They made a decision that resources to reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal drugs were better focused where the states and the DOJ were in agreement, and that their strategy is best accomplished by maintaining the good will of the peoples and the states by not wasting resources where the people and the state do not feel there is a crime.

They made a strategic decision, and personally I think it was an excellent strategic decision. So long as there is a prohibition, and we have finite resources, then it is vital that strategic decisions set priorities so that limited resources are used prosecuting those that are of the most harm to society. That is how justice is supposed to work.
 
Last edited:
Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the federal government can force a farmer to sell his crop in its entirety, including the portion he might keep for himself.

Commerce need not cross state lines for the ICC to have a regulatory effect.

The current rationale for Federal prohibition of drugs per the Commerce Clause is a laughably, hysterically absurd notion. The idea that regulating interstate commerce somehow translates into the authority to comprehensively criminalize drug use is immensely dishonest and illogical.
 
Want to add that I'm not attributing this logic to you, Goobie, but that's just how I feel on the issue of the Commerce Clause.
 
Here read it yourself then tell me where they said they "will not prosecute under federal law":
Seems pretty obvious to me:

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals... ...who use marijuana... ...consistent with applicable state law... ...is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.
Not sure how you think this says anything different.
'if a state does not make this illegal, you should not prosecute these offenses in that state under federal law'.

Medicinal marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
How/why does a state making it legal change that?
If it doesnt change that, then what argument is there that, because of it being legal under state law, it shoudl not be prosecuted under federal law?

If 'effective resource management' is the REAL issue, why not simply not prosecute it in ANY state?
 
The current rationale for Federal prohibition of drugs per the Commerce Clause is a laughably, hysterically absurd notion. The idea that regulating interstate commerce somehow translates into the authority to comprehensively criminalize drug use is immensely dishonest and illogical.
If the commerce crosses state lines, then the power clearly exists.

And I agree with you -- the power that the federal governmenr has claimed under the ICC has grown far out of control.
 
Everyone who thinks marijuana should be legalized smokes it.
 
Back
Top Bottom