Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday January 04 2018, @09:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the up-in-smoke dept.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will reportedly rescind the Cole Memo (DoJ), effectively ending the moratorium on enforcing cannabis prohibition in states where it has been legalized:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will roll back an Obama-era policy that gave states leeway to allow marijuana for recreational purposes.

Two sources with knowledge of the decision confirmed to The Hill that Sessions will rescind the so-called Cole memo, which ordered U.S. attorneys in states where marijuana has been legalized to deprioritize prosecution of marijuana-related cases.

The Associated Press first reported the decision.

Sessions, a vocal critic of marijuana legalization, has hinted for months that he would move to crack down on the growing cannabis market.

Republican Senator Cory Gardner says he will hold up the confirmation process for DoJ nominees:

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) threatened on Thursday to start holding up the confirmation process for White House Justice Department nominees unless Attorney General Jeff Sessions reverses a decision to roll back a policy allowing legalized recreational use of marijuana in some states.

Gardner said in a series of tweets that Sessions had told him before he was confirmed by the Senate that he would not change an Obama-era policy that discouraged federal prosecutors from pursuing marijuana-related offenses in states where the substance had been legalized. Colorado is one of those states.

[...] The Justice Department's reversal of the Cole memo on Thursday came three days after California's new law allowing recreational marijuana use went into effect.

Other politicians have reacted strongly to the news.

Previously: New Attorney General Claims Legal Weed Drives Violent Crime; Statistics be Damned
4/20: The Third Time's Not the Charm
Jeff Sessions Reboots the Drug War
According to Gallup, American Support for Cannabis Legalization is at an All-Time High
Opioid Commission Drops the Ball, Demonizes Cannabis
Recreational Cannabis Goes on Sale in California

Related: Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions Backs Crypto Backdoors


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:27PM (6 children)

    by insanumingenium (4824) on Thursday January 04 2018, @11:27PM (#618068) Journal

    Wait a second, law enforcement is the very definition of what is correctly in the hands of the executive branch. Congress can't nor should they take that from them. Are you a troll, or did you skip the checks and balances portion of highschool civics?

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:09AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:09AM (#618099)

    We,, unfortunately this is why prohibition must be enforced, because it is still the law. Double unfortunate is that the courts didn't find all the federal anti narcotics laws unconstitutional, because they are! The prohibition against liquor required a constitutional amendment, the drugs laws should also if they want to ban them. So we have situation with unconstitutional law, and a majority of voters who don't give a damn. IOW we are fucked! Majority rule has reached its logical conclusion. Now we need something completely different. Something where individual liberties can not be taken away by popular whimsy.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:20AM (#618106)

      Now we need something completely different. Something where individual liberties can not be taken away by popular whimsy.

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

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @02:48AM (#618179)

        Or we could have a constitutional republic to make arbitrarily taking away people's rights more difficult at least, but good luck getting the government to follow the Constitution.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 05 2018, @02:52AM (2 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday January 05 2018, @02:52AM (#618180) Journal

      Double unfortunate is that the courts didn't find all the federal anti narcotics laws unconstitutional, because they are!

      Yeah, SCOTUS used to find such things unconstitutional -- for decades such laws were repeatedly overturned, until the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine." (For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I've traced the history of this fundamental legal shift -- why alcohol required an amendment but drugs don't -- here [stackexchange.com].)

      Majority rule has reached its logical conclusion. Now we need something completely different.

      It's important to note that the Founders also were largely afraid of democracies. They knew the ancient and early modern precedents for democracy, and they tried to design a system that gave individual voters only a very limited voice in the federal government. (The original Constitution basically only asked for input from voters for the House of Representatives -- and even then, in many states it was mostly only landed "heads of household," sort of similar to the heads of the "demos" that represented the voice of the people in Athenian democracy. Supreme Court judges were appointed. Senators were elected by state legislators. Presidents were elected by the Electoral College, whose representatives were appointed in a manner set by the states -- and most states in early elections didn't even bother holding popular votes for the presidency. Electors were often appointed by state legislatures, governors, or some combination thereof.)

      So "majority rule" (or "mob rule" as some of the Founders would have termed it) was not the way the system was originally designed. But over the years we've modified things to increasingly emphasize popular voice, something that came about largely through the influence of political parties that sought to exploit the will of the masses.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @07:37AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @07:37AM (#618254)

        Just wondering... that Constitution thing you're talking about, was that passed down in stone tablets or OMG! voted on by the mob?

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 05 2018, @01:13PM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday January 05 2018, @01:13PM (#618304) Journal

          Just wondering... that Constitution thing you're talking about, was that passed down in stone tablets or OMG! voted on by the mob?

          The Constitution was never voted on by popular vote, if that's what you're asking in your flippant reply.

          It was drafted by representatives from states and then approved by state conventions of representatives, never voted on by everyone (or even by all white male landowner head of households). The Founders didn't even want to subject that to direct democratic vote: they believed, as in the examples I mentioned previously, that the uninformed masses can be too easily swayed by misleading rhetoric. So they left the matter to representatives of the people to vote on: representatives who could take time to become truly informed on a matter of such importance and who could take time to have lengthy public debates (which went on for months in some States) before making an informed decision.

          And there were vigorous ratification debates in many states, mostly about the sweeping powers perceived to be given to the new federal government. In many states, the Consitutition was only approved for ratification after being assured that the Bill of Rights amendments would soon follow to constrain federal power significantly.