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, 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.