In yet another merging of Barack Obama with George W. Bush, the Obama Justice Department has declared that it believes that it can (and may) prosecute licensed growers and dispensaries in medical marijuana states for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws. The position came from U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole who rejected claims that a 2009 memo by then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden gave states some protection from prosecution.
The 2009 memo signaled a new policy when it asked prosecutors not to focus investigative resources on patients and caregivers complying with state medical marijuana laws.
Cole however said that, as more states legalize medical marijuana and allow for legal production, the Justice Department may crackdown on these facilities. Cole wrote that “[s]ome of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.” So what? Either states are allowed to legalize medical marijuana or they are not. The Justice Department appears to have adopted yet another incoherent Obama policy: it is allowed, but not if it is too big. I believe states should have a right to legalize medical marijuana. Perhaps Obama does not. However, he should have the integrity to say it.
While the Obama Administration is not signalling a change in targeting individual users, the new policy statement signals a hostility to the use of medical marijuana and a belief that it remains a violation of federal law.
Once again, Ron Paul is bucking his party on the issue. Paul has introduced legislation to make marijuana legal and allow it to be taxed and regulated. He introduced the bill with Barney Frank.
Source: Chronicle
Jonathan Turley
Log, Romney didn’t sign the pledge. Only the anti-abortion extremists did. Sometime I think Paul’s views about women fly under the radar so I want to make it known that he is no friend to women and we should beware.
Swarthmore mom –
Why do you insist on posting something negative about Ron Paul every time Dr. Turley posts something narrowly supportive of him? By now any reader of these comments is well aware of Dr. Paul’s failings. Can’t we still recognize his successes?
Any civil libertarian should have at least a few good things, as well as a few bad things, to say about Dr. Paul.
@eniobob
Thanks for being my typo monkey.
Who needs it when you can buy synthetic OTC from the local habib store
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137529482/more-states-consider-stricter-medical-pot-rules
Holder finally drops investigations of CIA interrogators
Most CIA interrogation cases won’t be pursued
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-cia-interrogations-20110701,0,7543617.story
Kderosa:
” (part of the jusicial branch) -Judicial
” executive brancht.” branch
“Stop before you hurt yourself.
This guy has been seeking cover ever since it was passed here:
Christie says he’ll delay medical marijuana law until feds give OK
TRENTON — Governor Christie won’t implement the state’s medical marijuana law until the federal government assures him they won’t prosecute anyone for working in the program.
The federal government has not given similar assurances to other states running medical marijuana programs. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has not sought to prosecute anyone working in a state-approved medical marijuana program.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/061611_Christie_says_hell_delay_medical_marijuana_law_until_feds_give_OK.html
@AY, that’s a good idea but there is no support in either party to do that.
@Frank, You’re confusing the Supreme Court Justices (part of the jusicial branch) with the U.S. Justice Department (part of the executive brancht. Dude, that’s just too funny. Stop before you hurt yourself.
“First is a promise to nominate judges who “are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.”
Like some on our current Supreme Court?
I think this shit should be legalized….oh…. pharmacology wouldn’t make near as much money….but, I bet the US could balance the hell out of its budget…and states too…lets see…
Present Burden:
Prison costs, prosecution costs, investigative costs, defense costs, military costs…..
Future Benefits:
Not controlled, Gang activity down, taxes, cia won’t have to compete, LEO could focus on actual crime the list goes on and on…
Besides, Obama….keep your word…
Kdreadful – “are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.”
I’d like to introduce you to 5 justices of the USSC who have made more new laws in the last dozen years than previous courts have made in the proceeding 20 years. Of particular note was a singular decision from 2000 that was such a great law the majority ruled that it could never be used as a precedent ever.
As for original intent should they also rule that blacks only count as 3/5 of a person? Should the second amendment only apply to muzzle-loading muskets? Should the first only apply to actual printing presses? What an infantile definition; here in the real world we understand that times change, needs, wants and dangers change and the Constitution has to be viewed as a framework to deal with these issue not a straightjacket and blindfold.
The pledge itself consists of four parts.
First is a promise to nominate judges who “are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.”
Second is a vow to appoint only anti-abortion personnel to “relevant” administration posts.
Third is a promise to “advance pro-life legislation” and end taxpayer funding of abortion and de-fund Planned Parenthood “and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions.”
Finally, candidates must pledge that they will “advance and sign” legislation to protect “unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”
Bearing in mind that the current interpretation of the Constitution pretty much mandates the unfettered right to abortion, where’s the extreme part come in?
SwM.
“Paul along with Bachmann signs extreme anti-abortion pledge”
Now if abortion is stopped right in its tracks what is the end game?
I know you’d like to know also.
http://www.dailypaul.com/168314/rep-ron-paul-signs-anti-abortion-pledge Paul along with Bachmann signs extreme anti-abortion pledge. Guess his freedom loving ways do not extend to women.
“While the Obama Administration is not signalling a change in targeting individual users, the new policy statement signals a hostility to the use of medical marijuana and a belief that it remains a violation of federal law”
Says it all.
– Barack Obama March 23, 2008
This is a tough one for me. I am in favor of legalization, not just because the entire war on drugs has been a complete and utter disaster but because marijuana is not nearly as harmful as legal booze or the enforcement effort.
But, that said, the Federal government has to be able to take a nation-wide view. Just because one state does something does not mean it doesn’t impact other states. There are cases where the Fed should step in to protect the national interest. I don’t think this is a good example of this principle but a bad choice of exercising it.