SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:34AM
Lets remember that the SCOTUS has already ruled that States can't do what they are doing, and they all knew it. Obama just ordered law enforcement to ignore detail that but if we really are restoring the Rule of Law then the solution is obvious. Now note that with the exception of Alaska, every state that has legalized is Blue and lousy with sanctuary cities. It is inconsistent to order them to obey the immigration laws while granting them leave to continue flouting the laws on weed. This logical flaw will be exploited if left.
So Trump and Sessions should make examples of CO and WA, for maximum impact. Both are major media markets but not a monster like CA. Roll in and RICO the State and local government, seize every dollar raised by taxing an illegal product, arrest every elected official who publicly supported the policy of ignoring Federal Law. Arrest everyone working at a dispensary, the owners, growers, etc. Quietly let most of them out on minimal bail since keeping them isn't the point, holding the possibility of an eventual felony conviction is. This keeps the whole political machinery in those two states entirely invested in self preservation. Make it clear an office barring felony conviction is going to be the minimum deal acceptable. Also make it clear that if these test cases succeed that CA and the rest will also be rolled up.
Then once total bowel stewing panic has broken loose in the Democratic Party's officeholding class, open negotiations in DC on a deal. Make Congress go on the record one way or the other and in exchange for any legalization extract maximum value for the agenda items Trump actually cares about. Any deal could include an amnesty on pending charges and any future prosecution for crimes committed during the lawless period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:41AM
This would not fly. The states are not obliged to agree with the federal government, and are not obliged to mirror its laws. The courts would most definitely rip the feds a whole range of exciting and varied new assholes if they tried this.
If anyone would end up with bowel control issues, it wouldn't be the Dems.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:02AM
You forget, but I didn't since I mentioned it in the first sentence of my post, CA already took your belief to the Supreme Court and lost 6-3. Doubtful they want to reverse such a recent decision considering the possibility Trump will appoint more Justices. If they make such an obviously political reversal it would remove any possibility of appeal to Stare Decisis in maintaining the many utterly lawless decisions handed down during the heyday of the lawmaking court. Roe v Wade anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @05:32AM
You misconstrue what the court actually decided.
They did not decide that California can't have that law. California still has that law. They just couldn't prevent the feds from having a contradictory law.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 26 2017, @05:55AM
So CA can say they won't arrest ya, but since they can't stop the DEA, FBI. IRS and the rest of the alphabet soup from crawling right up yer bunghole, and a State law doesn't even absolve the local elected officials from being charged under Federal law as being the the narco trade by accepting payments from known drug dealers... to borrow a line: What difference, at this point, does it make?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @05:32PM
Excellent question. Glad you asked.
Here's the difference it makes:
If pot smoking (or pot brownies, or vape juice or whatever) locally produced, locally taxed, locally consumed is something that the feds can have total control over, then we finally expose the lie of limited federal government.
If the feds can NOT have total control until state borders are crossed (or some other "red line") then wickard v filburn is not carte blanche for the feds to regulate anything and everything, and californians in California can get, like, so totally baked, dude. Legally.
At its heart, it's a jurisdictional issue, and states' rights are at the core of it, just (for a change) in a way that the left wing actually cares about.
However, it's entirely possible that the right anticipates losing in court on this front and intends to take a dive on this, in the interests of limiting federal power. That's what makes the realpolitik of this so interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:47AM
Then once total bowel stewing panic has broken loose
jmorris, stewing bowels! Gotta love those Southern recipies!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:12PM
You are a fantasist. They did not do that in Ferguson, MO, when it was clearly established that the local courts and LEOs there were running what amounted to an extortion racket. If there was ever a test case to take out a polity through RICO, that was it. But the feds didn't.
If the federal government were to do what you want, it would shatter the Union. Something like that would meet the criterion of a trigger event for the next revolution or civil war. So, basically, take your annoyance at the people protesting Trump's immigration order and multiply that by 10,000.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:25PM
There is the fascist himself, foaming at the mouth with the possibility of causing pain to others. You're a sick person jmorris.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @04:46PM
So Trump and Sessions should make examples of CO and WA, for maximum impact. Both are major media markets but not a monster like CA. Roll in and RICO the State and local government, seize every dollar raised by taxing an illegal product, arrest every elected official who publicly supported the policy of ignoring Federal Law. Arrest everyone working at a dispensary, the owners, growers, etc. Quietly let most of them out on minimal bail since keeping them isn't the point, holding the possibility of an eventual felony conviction is. This keeps the whole political machinery in those two states entirely invested in self preservation. Make it clear an office barring felony conviction is going to be the minimum deal acceptable. Also make it clear that if these test cases succeed that CA and the rest will also be rolled up.
What schedule I substance are you illegally smoking, jmorris? Let's note all the obvious problems of this approach.
First, it's a blatantly unconstitutional enforcement of unconstitutional law. The federal law shouldn't exist in the first place and only exists because of the abusive flexibility as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the Commerce Clause. Second, if such power exists to be abused by Trump, it can be abused by the next Obama, say to crush gun manufacturers, business, animal farmers, coal miners, whatever. It's deeply delusional to think that only your guy will get to break the rules.
Third, it's not the job of state elected officials to enforce federal law nor is it illegal for state officials to not enforce a federal law that is at odds with state law. Finally, you speak of the rule of law and then write about very selective enforcement of federal law (letting people out on minimal bail while extorting them with the threat of felony conviction). That's not rule of law but its opposite. If you're going to arrest a bunch of people for marijuana possession, distribution, etc, then they should all receive the punishment defined by the laws. I think such a grotesque and unjust application of law would destroy any remaining resistance to at least partial removal of federal drug laws.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 26 2017, @06:42PM
Agree entirely about the Commerce Clause. The Enemy depends on that abuse for much of their program though so the only possible way to make some of their more reasonable members agree to returning to sane boundaries is to inflict sufficient pain on them and theirs that it ending the abuse of the Commerce Clause becomes as important to them as it is to me. It simply does no good to appeal to a Progressive's better nature, his patriotism or to his love of the Constitution since he lacks all those things, what he does have is self interest.
The legalizing states already tried their arguments at SCOTUS and lost. What part of that escapes you? And you know they are way beyond simply not enforcing Federal Laws, they are regulating and taxing the stuff which makes then part of the illegal drug trade. Riddle me this, when the drug gangs pay off a LEO under the table to leave their operation alone is it a crime? Does it suddenly become "not a crime" when the drug gangs brazenly walk into the legislature and offer them a cut? Remember we all agree they are still criminals under Federal Law and the State (especially CA) knows it because they lost 6-3 at SCOTUS already.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @07:04PM
The legalizing states already tried their arguments at SCOTUS and lost. What part of that escapes you?
As others have noted, that case doesn't mean what you think it means.
And you know they are way beyond simply not enforcing Federal Laws, they are regulating and taxing the stuff which makes then part of the illegal drug trade.
Which is fine with me.
Riddle me this, when the drug gangs pay off a LEO under the table to leave their operation alone is it a crime? Does it suddenly become "not a crime" when the drug gangs brazenly walk into the legislature and offer them a cut?
To the latter question, once the legislature makes it legal, then it is no longer a crime. But why would drug gangs do that? Their economic power comes from the illegality of the market. Making their drug products legal would open them up to competition from normal businesses which have far stronger logistics and marketing competence. Sure, it is possible that some gangs could evolve into significant market share of a legal market, but it's not likely IMHO.
Remember we all agree they are still criminals under Federal Law and the State (especially CA) knows it because they lost 6-3 at SCOTUS already.
Except that we don't agree on that.
And what's the point of your post here? The obvious solution is simply to make marijuana and similar recreational drugs of low risk, legal at the federal level. Then we don't have to care anymore about these supposed moral dilemmas or state-federal conflicts. There has been way too much destruction of our freedoms just to ineffectually keep dumb kids from getting high. The war on drugs is harmful to us on so many levels with so little to show for its purported benefits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @07:06PM
the feds are smarter than to come to states in full force like that. they do it incrementally with front organizations at the state level and fed sympathizers in the state houses. i wish they would come hard like that so the people would wake up and see the enemy for what it is.