Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday February 25 2017, @06:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the uphill-battle dept.

The State of Washington's Attorney General says he will resist federal efforts to undermine his state's legalized cannabis laws:

With White House press secretary Sean Spicer suggesting Thursday that the Trump administration would crack down on states that have legal recreational marijuana, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson vowed to defend Washington state's legal pot law. "I will resist any efforts by the Trump administration to undermine the will of the voters in Washington state," Ferguson said in an interview. Spicer said during a press briefing Thursday that the issue rests with the Justice Department. But he said, "I do believe that you'll see greater enforcement of it."

[...] Ferguson and Gov. Jay Inslee sent a letter to U.S. attorney general Jeff Sessions, dated Feb. 15 that laid out arguments for Washington's state-regulated pot industry. They said illegal dealing is being displaced by a tightly regulated industry that is projected to pay $272 million in taxes this fiscal year. That frees up law-enforcement officers to protect communities facing more pressing threats. They also noted that legal pot entrepreneurs must undergo criminal and financial background checks.

California's Attorney General is also on board:

"Until we see any sort of formal plan from the federal government, it's full speed ahead for us," said Alex Traverso, a spokesman for the California Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation. In Congress, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa) plans to introduce legislation that could blunt Spicer's threat by preventing the Department of Justice from enforcing federal laws against the recreational use of marijuana in states that have legalized it, a spokesman said Friday. [...] California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra says he is ready to safeguard the rights of the 56% of voters who approved Proposition 64, which allows California adults to possess, transport and buy up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational use.

In other weed news, make sure to check your weed bales for nukes.


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:23PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:23PM (#471573)

    Not to mention, soon as the feds crack down on the evil weed all local aid and support will dry up. Think the feds can be effective without the native's support? Think again.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by butthurt on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:46PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:46PM (#471579) Journal

    General Sherman was fairly effective.

    [...] should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @04:27PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 26 2017, @04:27PM (#471900) Journal

      General Sherman was fairly effective.

      So "General Sherman" is going to burn down Seattle because hippies smoke weed? Anyone idiotic enough to escalate to this extent is idiotic enough to not be able to deal with the consequences.

      • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday February 26 2017, @08:06PM

        by butthurt (6141) on Sunday February 26 2017, @08:06PM (#471981) Journal

        According to John Ehrlichman,

        The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.

        --
        https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ [harpers.org]

        The association of hippies with cannabis has, judging by your remark, endured. Mr. Nixon adopted the term "war on drugs," indicating that his initiative ought to be taken seriously. His Drug Enforcement Administration remains intact.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administration [wikipedia.org]

        In 1861 Mr. Lincoln was saying he'd let slavery continue and would respect the rights of the states; he denounced the use of force:

        Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. [...] I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
        [...]
        Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

        -- http://www.ushistory.org/documents/lincoln1.htm [ushistory.org]

        The escalation from there was unfortunate but I hesitate to say it was idiotic. And if the leaders of the 1860s were idiotic, I'm not convinced that the present-day ones are wiser.

        I don't propose that federal agents ought to start fires to extract suspects from their dwellings. However I'm not understanding why, in the absence of co-operation from the states, the DEA wouldn't be able to resume enforcing cannabis prohibition in the same way it's been enforcing laws against other drugs. Doesn't it have the staff, facilities, equipment, funding and legal framework to do so?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @10:34PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 26 2017, @10:34PM (#472026) Journal

          The association of hippies with cannabis has, judging by your remark, endured.

          I believe that there are other reasons than half century old propaganda for why hippies might continue to be associated with marijuana.

          The escalation from there was unfortunate but I hesitate to say it was idiotic. And if the leaders of the 1860s were idiotic, I'm not convinced that the present-day ones are wiser.

          I don't so hesitate. For example, it was in the Confederacy's strategic advantage to avoid or delay escalation to war. There were a fair number of European powers that could have assisted the Confederacy with substantial military and economic assistance at the US's expense. But instead the South shot first, not only creating the easy pretext for the US to invade, but also discouraging any involvement by European military powers.

          And once again, I did say that modern escalation to that extent would be idiotic. I agree that there is a glaring lack of wisdom among US leadership, but it still remains that they might not be quite that dumb.

          The Fortune at the bottom of my page seems somewhat relevant:

          cerb: we subscribed you to debian-fight as the moderator
          cerb: list rules are, 1) no nice emails, 2) no apologies