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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @06:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @06:13PM (#471940)

    Hmm, since the Feds have outlawed interstate commerce of cannabis, does Wickard v. Filburn even apply? I mean, if there's no interstate commerce then local dealers and growers can't be impacting it. Currently the Feds should only be involved if it crosses state lines, or the national border.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @11:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @11:03PM (#472029)

    That's an open question, to be tried before the court.

    The court is quite capable of recognising the existence of illegal interstate commerce. The difficult part is proving that the intrastate arrangements are exacerbating the interstate issues. If the court simply accepts that the existence of interstate commerce (within the law or not) gives the federal authorities a skeleton key to regulating intrastate affairs, then we might as well tear up the tenth amendment... but we don't know that that will happen.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:04AM (#472177)

      The difficult part is proving that the intrastate arrangements are exacerbating the interstate issues.

      Which isn't relevant, because the interstate commerce clause applies only to things that are both interstate and commerce, no exceptions. If the courts rule otherwise, then they are simply wrong. More importantly, the commerce clause was only ever meant to give the federal government the power to stop one state from interfering with another state's interstate commerce; it wasn't meant to give the federal government power over all interstate commerce.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:17PM (#472327)

        By the text, you're exactly right.

        By the decisions of the court, less so.

        How this will play out remains to be seen.