SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Courthouse News Service reports:
The Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that the Justice Department is barred from using federal funds to prosecute individuals in states where medical marijuana is legal and the individuals are in compliance with state law.
Federal prosecutors in California and Washington state indicted a number of individuals under the Controlled Substances Act on a range of offenses related to the growing and distribution of marijuana plants.
The defendants moved to dismiss the indictments, arguing that an appropriations bill passed by Congress in 2014 and renewed in 2015 and 2016 explicitly bars the Justice Department from using federal funds to interfere with states that have legalized medical marijuana.
The story goes on to characterize the legal battle and the reasoning behind the ruling. Basically that ruling boils down to the fact that the state laws apply in this case, and the funding laws passed by congress seem to be only a bit player in this ruling.
Writing for the three-judge panel, O'Scannlain said that Congress' appropriations bill expressly prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to keep 40 states — including California and Washington — the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico from implementing their own medical marijuana laws. And federal criminal defendants may fight the use of those funds, he said.
The panel appeared to go further than just enforcing the "No Federal Funds" use by stating:
"By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct."
That seems as close as you can come to a "States Rights" line of reasoning and still be welcome in liberal circles. The decision is reportedly being carefully scrutinized in the other circuit, and I would expect to see the government seek another venue.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday August 17 2016, @10:42PM
"You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing, once they've exhausted all other avenues"
(ish)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:12PM
From the government's perspective, yeah. But from the peoples' perspective there are lots who self-medicate, but for some reason cannot smoke pot so they instead drink alcohol or ingest one of Big Pharma's poisons instead.
And for those of you who are holier than thou, everybody self-medicates...whether it be coffee, tea, Mountain Dew, booze, weed, painkillers, meth, and/or the whole galaxy of Big Pharma's offerings.
This is why the booze lobby (and I suspect the pharmaceutical lobby) is scared shitless of Marijuana normalization -- it would gut huge chunks of their profits to put more control of self-medication into the hands of the patients.
Because far more toxic and harmful substances reap far larger profits, especially if all marijuana users are legally allowed to grow.
Legalizing weed in a piecemeal fashion is better than nothing, but there are some big major glaring hurdles -- employers can still reject applicants based on the results of drug-tests (Thanks Wal-Mart!). Employers who require security clearances and random drug-tests lose a hell of a lot of otherwise-decent applicants, as if they'll lose control of OPSEC more readily on pot than on booze. Another hurdle is testing for DUI purposes, for example. I do believe that it is possible to be high to the degree that it is unsafe to drive, but since THC exits the bloodstream too slowly to introduce a consistent, feasible roadside test, then perhaps other testing avenues should be considered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:00AM
And for those of you who are holier than thou, everybody self-medicates...whether it be coffee, tea, Mountain Dew, booze, weed, painkillers, meth, and/or the whole galaxy of Big Pharma's offerings.
You forgot water.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @04:10AM
I assume you are referring to pharmaceuticals found in drinking water [ap.org]?
That's one reason why my household still is used to distill tap water.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:01PM
Employers who require security clearances and random drug-tests lose a hell of a lot of otherwise-decent applicants, as if they'll lose control of OPSEC more readily on pot than on booze.
Just so you know, a drug test is not required to get a security clearance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:55PM
Interesting if true, but also largely irrelevant. Holders of US government security clearances may be directed to submit to drug testing at any time, and refusing said testing is likely to result in the suspension or revokation of the security clearance.