WASHINGTON — Senior White House and Justice Department officials are considering plans for legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in those states, according to several people familiar with the deliberations.
Even as marijuana legalization supporters are celebrating their victories in the two states, the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings since the election to debate the response of federal law enforcement agencies to the decriminalization efforts.
Marijuana use in both states continues to be illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. One option is to sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by federal law. Should the Justice Department prevail, it would raise the possibility of striking down the entire initiatives on the theory that voters would not have approved legalizing the drug without tight regulations and licensing similar to controls on hard alcohol.
Some law enforcement officials, alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly, are said to be pushing for a stern response. But such a response would raise political complications for President Obamabecause marijuana legalization is popular among liberal Democrats who just turned out to re-elect him.
“It’s a sticky wicket for Obama,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, saying any aggressive move on such a high-profile question would be seen as “a slap in the face to his base right after they’ve just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams.”
Arrggghhhhhh–that’s pirate talk for slippery slope. This situation carries heavy implications. On the one hand, do states have the power to opt out of federal laws, even if my referendum? Questionable. How about California that has already approved medical marijuana laws which aren’t awfully tied to medical?
Will the Obama White House come across as betraying the hand that fed him? (mixing my metaphors) I never heard President Obama mention pot during the campaign.
So what do you think the Obama administration should do?
They’re trying to figure out who will benefit from the revenue. States or Feds.
This argument was decided in 1865 with the end of the Civil War. States do not have sovereignty over themselves and derive their authority from the Federal govt. So no….states can not opt out of Federal laws…whether you agree with legalize weed or not, it is a Constitutional issue. If the Feds allow Washington and Colorado do this (and California for that matter etc…) then they are opening the door for other states to opt out of other Federal laws (ie health care)
@Bob, immigration laws?
Minimum wage? States can pass a higher minimum wage.
It seems to me that these States are only opting out of enforcing Federal laws, thus requiring the Feds to expend energy, time and resources going after potheads on their own. My prediction is that the Feds will rattle sabers and puff chests but not send in the troops going after old ladies enjoying a reefer or two.
Ah that makes it different then. So they aren’t going to use their peeps to enforce.
Since states are not allowed to enforce federal law, ie, immigration law….let the feds enforce the law by sending law enforcement to go arrest the users. It seems that if a state can have state laws OUTLAWING certain things, then under that authority, they can legalize it.
@Bob
Fortunately, you are incorrect. The 10th Amendment is still in force. The Civil war decided only the idea that the Union was more powerful than the Confederacy. There is nothing that says that states derive their sovereignty from the federal gov’t, only that in cases of contested law, federal law trumps state law. So, states cannot prevent the feds from enforcing the law. Nothing forces a state to enforce federal law.
There are sure condsequences for those who don’t however. I am thinking of the drinking age being 21 and the federally suggested speed limits.
I think that is covered in one of the Articles. Federal law is the rule of the land – in some cases states can improve on it to benefit (minimum wage) but otherwise not. This is what 287g did – it federalized local officer so they could enforce federal law.
@Moon-howler
Yep. The feds have all sorts of tools to “incentivize” the states to comply. One day, the states are going to realize that they hold the power…all they have to do is ignore the feds.
If the states don’t comply…what will the feds do? I don’t mean rebel or secede… I mean, just don’t enforce federal mandates. Let the feds do all of the work. If the states can’t enforce immigration law..then they shouldn’t have to enforce any OTHER federal law.
But on a larger scale, should pot be legal? Well, I think that in those states, possession of one ounce is legal. But where are they buying it? THOSE guys are still breaking the law.
What would be the result if drug use was decriminalized? I can see pot being legalized. Emotionally, I have a hard time saying that all drugs should be, at least, decriminalized, but intellectually, I feel that the militarization of law enforcement and the other results of the drug war are actually more dangerous to the American way of life and freedoms.
I dont believe all drugs should be decriminalized or legalized. Not even close. I see a huge difference in weed and say heroin, meth, crack or coke.
So it’s the opposite of fireworks – legal to sell, illegal to light.
In Prince William County and the City of Manassas, it is legal to sell and light only those fireworks that have been approved by the local Fire Marshal’s Office. Fire Marshal’s inspect fireworks stands to ensure only legal items are offered for sale and do investigate reports of illegal fireworks.
Good for Prince William – has pot been legalized there? Fireworks are illegal in places beyond Prince William.
@Moon-howler
Oh, I do too. That’s why I have trouble actually promoting the idea. But then I see the increase in police powers, militarization, and draconian laws that result from the “war on drugs.” Furthermore, since we HAVE to treat all that show up at the ER without proof of ability to pay, legalizing the hard drugs would result in enabling drug abuse and medical care.
If we could tell the abusers…pay and we’ll treat you. If you continue with your addiction, we are not paying for your treatment.
A compelling reason to legalize pot it to get the Mexican drug lords out of the loop.
Throw the revenue from pot to health care. It would become profitable.
@Lyssa
I don’t understand where the revenue comes in. Its still illegal to buy or sell or own more than an ounce. All this does it save the people caught smoking casually from jail. Which is not a bad idea.
Tax it like cigarettes!! It a gold mine.
@Lyssa
But the sale of it is STILL illegal. They CAN’T sell it, buy it, or grow it.
Legalize it, tax it and sell it. All that reduced court, legal aid and cop time. Think of the job growth – VA could transition from tobacco to pot.
Bongs could be sold at all the pottery factories.
I dont have a problem legalizing pot. I just think the feds are going to have to relax on it first in oder to keep control of some other things.
We can go to head shops again while singing “White Rabbit”. I’m sure I have a leather headband somewhere….and jeans with colorful borders around the hems. ….go ask Alice…
Wouldn’t it be fun with OUR Attorney General…
That brings back memories….
And with our Attorney General…you might be surprised….how libertarian is he in regards to drugs and the drug war? More and more conservatives are moving to the libertarian position that the drug war and prohibition is more costly and dangerous than the drugs.
Of course, you won’t get conservative POLITICIANS to say that…..
So we get toughen up on booze and introduce weed into the regulation and tax system. I am not sure I see that as progress. I am also not ready to say Pot is harmless. I would certainly expect tax moneyto go into treatment for addictions. Everything can be addictive.
@Moon-howler
Are you talking about the increase in drinking age in regards to “toughen up on booze?”
Because that absolutely should be returned to 18. OR raise the age of majority to 21.
If you can get married without permission, sign contracts, be treated as an adult in court, join the military, be in charge of the lives of other people, be responsible for millions of dollars of equipment, engage in combat while being in charge of a fire team, be promoted to higher ranks and be even MORE responsible, etc…
you should be able to enjoy a freaking beer without being charged.
I have no problem with the drinking age being 18 on military bases. Let the MPs deal with it.
However, for the rest of us, kids shouldn’t be learning to drink and drive at the same time or close to the same time. Statics show again and again that raising the drinking age to 21 saves lives. Significantly so.
I would like to see the age of majority raised unequivocally to age 21. I am not sure how many contracts can be signed by 18 year olds. That seems to vary. You have always been able to join the military at 18, even before the 26th amendment was passed.
I stand by the current drinking age being 21 except on military bases. (and contained on military bases)
@Cargo, and no, that isn’t what I meant about toughening up on booze. I meant every year more and more restrictive laws are placed on selling and consuming alcohol.
@Moon-howler
I haven’t seen that. Where?
A chance to agree unequivocally with Cargo: If you can vote, sign contracts, die for your country in combat, you get a beer (or, more precisely, the opportunity to have a beer if you so choose.)
Re the feds and states who opt out of the federal system: the President and his officers take oaths to uphold the Constitution. As Bob suggested way up the thread, while the states have significant autonomy in some areas, they can’t just secede from the federal system. This is true no matter how enlightened or visionary one thinks the given state action might be. Whether it be environmental, defense, controlled substances or any other area where the federal law is the “supreme law of the land,” a sitting President has to tell his AG to back down any state that attempts to opt out of the federal system. This is a fundamental, conservative, constitutional point. If Washington and Colorado think the federal drug control system is a mess (and I think they have some good arguments to that effect) take it up with the Congress.
@Scout
Here’s an interesting point of view:
http://www.munchkinwrangler.com/2012/12/11/do-you-hate-a-plant-more-than-you-love-your-rights/
CS – thanks for the link. I find it largely reasonable as to why our drug laws need wholesale revision. Of course, the point that I’m focussing on in the previous comment is that this revision (like immigration and a handful of other issues) must come from the federal level. Perhaps what will happen is that thes extra-legal actions by states will force the feds to alter the federal structure. In the meantime, I think the Administration must wade in unequivcally to invalidate the state actions on marijuana. Not because the federal prohibitions on marijuana are a model of enlightened policy, but because the Constitution gave us a structure that must be respected.