As we discussed earlier, the Justice Department issued a statement after the passage of state laws legalizing marijuana that they would not affected federal enforcement. Obama officials also stated after the election (after being silent during the campaign) that marijuana policy would not change. Now, President Obama has given an interview that the federal government will not make enforcement a “priority” against recreational users. This is being billed as a major scope on “Obama’s pot problem.” However, there may be less than meets the eye here. He does not address the organizations and distributors of legal marijuana, which his Administration has cracked down on for the last four years. It also raises an interesting contradiction with other fields where Obama had insisted that matters are left to the Justice Department on questions of enforcement.
Obama told ABC “We’ve got bigger fish to fry . . . It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal.” His use of “recreational users” is telling. The state police generally goes after recreational users. The controversy for the last four years has been the Administration’s crackdown on distributors and growers who supply legal marijuana for medical use etc.
The statement also contradicts the statements of officials in the Administration. The U.S. Attorney’s office in Seattle (the highest Justice official in the state) issued a public warning after the election that “[r]egardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on Dec. 6 in Washington state, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law. … Neither states nor the executive branch can nullify a statute passed by Congress.”
As I noted earlier that the Justice Department statement is a curious statement since the Obama Administration recently did precisely that in the immigration area — it declared that it would no longer enforce the express law with regard to certain illegal aliens. It also refused to defend such laws as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Moreover, the Justice Department routinely makes decisions on the allocation of resources and priorities. Likewise, soon after taking office, Obama notoriously went to the CIA and assured CIA employees that they would not be prosecuted for torture, even though he admitted that water boarding used is torture. The President’s statement would reflect that he is going that route, but only for recreational users.
He remains uncertain, however, on how he can refuse to enforce this federal law despite his promise not to prosecute torture at the CIA or refusal to enforce immigration rules: “This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law,” Obama said. “I head up the executive branch; we’re supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we’re going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it’s legal?”
He can clearly make marijuana enforcement a non-priority and I agree with that move. Yet, such statements on “users” avoids the primary question. Will he continue his controversial policy of cracking down on distributors and growers in these states?
Source: ABC
Elaine,
That was a wonderful interview with Spitzer and Taibbi. To big to Jail is a great bumper sticker line.
Gene,
We should put out a missing person’s report for BIL!? 🙂
Speaking of “so many people in politics unwilling or blind to bring your points to a national conversation.: [from David B above] here’s a blurb from the KOS (we love everything Obama does or even thinks about doing) story:
[from Walters interview]
“There are a bunch of things I did that I regret when I was a kid,” Obama told Walters. “My attitude is, substance abuse generally is not good for our kids, not good for our society.
“I want to discourage drug use,” he added
————————–
Could there be a more sloppy, uniformed, throwaway line?
Specifically, conflating the issue simply with “substance abuse” among kids is misleading, inaccurate, and dilatory. Implying that removing the legal stigma from adult use will create more of an attraction for kids shows he knows little about the psychology of kids. Stating the issue as one of “substance abuse” takes one down the garden path of finding “abuse” as the result of all substance “use” (and, incidentally stigmatizing even innocent, potential one time experimental adolescent use with a label) — of which I’ve seen many cases.. Without trying to make a case for “harmless” [though illegal] use of pot among kids, failing to acknowledge the different dimensions along the spectrum of substance use through addiction, and particularly the variant issues between kids and adults — even with the merest nod — renders his performance shallow.
If Obama chooses to acts like the doting daddy over the welfare of the nation’s children, he needs to do so in an honest way that acknowledges stark realities, and differences between adolescent use and responsible adult use. But he won’t touch that hot potato. Why? Because decrying pot use among kids is safe, but wading into adult use in an adult way is oooh so risky for Mr. bipartisan?
And, very specifically, when it comes to kids, alcohol remains the predominant drug negatively influencing their behavior. And what about them apples? Kid’s ain’t stupid.
And thank you all for the kind words. There is no higher service than the service of justice and equity. To quote the missing BIL, “One lives to be of service.”
There is nothing pragmatic about sacrificing justice for political expediency. Cowardly and spineless is not excuse for undermining the rule of law and the will of the People. Well. It’s an excuse. Just not a good one. Ultimately, such “pragmatic” behavior destroys the rule of law and democracy. A country of laws, not men. Liberty and justice for all. The right to be free of all political and economic tyranny. These are principles upon which this country was founded. They are not to be discarded in the name of pragmatism.
Gene,
“. . . Sorry. I guess the NyQuil really doesn’t mix well with the torture issue combined with the hypocrisy of the Federal government acting like a national government instead of a Federation. Graft, greed, stupidity, inequity and injustice always makes me cranky. That and the continual abuse of the Constitution by the Office of the President.
Oh. Wait. No. I’m not sorry.
I’m just pissed. . .”
———————————————————
NyQui suits you well, nice post and on the money.
For those of you who haven’t seen it, I strongly recomend the discussion between John Cusack and Jim Turley
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution
@ Nal, I agree with your quote. At heart, I see Obama as a pragmatic politician. He’s always been cautious about possibly getting out too far ahead of public opinion on controversial issues. This quote seems like just another instance of that–basically saying nothing but maybe indicating a possible, gradual loosening of federal pot enforcement depending upon which ways the wind blows. I imagine any move we see from the Obama Administration will be gradual and mostly under the radar.
Gene H. – couldn’t agree more. Why are more people, especially those interested in justice and human rights, not upset about this – and the many other police state like actions – such as killing US citizens with drones on one man’s say so?
I do believe we are at the tipping point of future legalization of marijuana.
That is my impression of the results of voting in Col. and Wash. The cannibus paste ain’t going back in the tube. It’s about time.
Gene H. your lucid rant is painfully sane. IMO everything you mentioned is spot on logical and valid. The pain comes from so many people in politics unwilling or blind to bring your points to a national conversation.
Here’s the video of Elliott Spitzer talking to Matt Taibbi about the HSBC (Too Big to Jail) settlement:
Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke
By Matt Taibbi
POSTED: December 13
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213
Excerpt:
If you’ve ever been arrested on a drug charge, if you’ve ever spent even a day in jail for having a stem of marijuana in your pocket or “drug paraphernalia” in your gym bag, Assistant Attorney General and longtime Bill Clinton pal Lanny Breuer has a message for you: Bite me.
Breuer this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who’s ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a “record” financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank.
The banks’ laundering transactions were so brazen that the NSA probably could have spotted them from space. Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC’s Mexican branches and “deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows.”
This bears repeating: in order to more efficiently move as much illegal money as possible into the “legitimate” banking institution HSBC, drug dealers specifically designed boxes to fit through the bank’s teller windows. Tony Montana’s henchmen marching dufflebags of cash into the fictional “American City Bank” in Miami was actually more subtle than what the cartels were doing when they washed their cash through one of Britain’s most storied financial institutions.
Though this was not stated explicitly, the government’s rationale in not pursuing criminal prosecutions against the bank was apparently rooted in concerns that putting executives from a “systemically important institution” in jail for drug laundering would threaten the stability of the financial system. The New York Times put it this way:
“Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.”
It doesn’t take a genius to see that the reasoning here is beyond flawed. When you decide not to prosecute bankers for billion-dollar crimes connected to drug-dealing and terrorism (some of HSBC’s Saudi and Bangladeshi clients had terrorist ties, according to a Senate investigation), it doesn’t protect the banking system, it does exactly the opposite. It terrifies investors and depositors everywhere, leaving them with the clear impression that even the most “reputable” banks may in fact be captured institutions whose senior executives are in the employ of (this can’t be repeated often enough) murderersand terrorists. Even more shocking, the Justice Department’s response to learning about all of this was to do exactly the same thing that the HSBC executives did in the first place to get themselves in trouble – they took money to look the other way.
And not only did they sell out to drug dealers, they sold out cheap. You’ll hear bragging this week by the Obama administration that they wrested a record penalty from HSBC, but it’s a joke. Some of the penalties involved will literally make you laugh out loud. This is from Breuer’s announcement:
“As a result of the government’s investigation, HSBC has . . . “clawed back” deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement.”
*****
Taibbi, Spitzer Fume Over HSBC Settlement
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/taibbi-spitzer-fume-over-hsbc-settlement-20121214
Quote of the Day: Obama’s Non-Answer Answer About Pot
For what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone should take this as meaningful. The federal government doesn’t “go after” recreational users right now, and no one thinks they’re going to start. But they do go after growers and distributors of pot, and Obama said nothing at all about that. This is basically a non-response and probably shouldn’t be taken as an indication of what federal policy is likely to be going forward.
POT (not post) = devil’s weed!
Yeah, and I understand Obama’s charade/dodge/smokescreen/excuse/patronization of being FIRST DAD, the moral conscience. , more accurately scold, of the nation and protector of Sacha, Malisha, or whatever their names are.
And there are very few such postures that piss me off more. Mainly because when it comes to things like smoking people with drones, brushing torture prosecutions under the rug, dangling cuts to the safety net, and a host other issues with incredible moral implications, he’s shown squat leadership. So he hides behind this one with some misleading representation of the legal realities at his disposal.
But our moralistic daddy is right there to slurp up the dregs of those who are ignorant but totally convinced that post is the devil’s weed.
Gene rants so I don’t have too!!
But anyway, once again citing my 30 years in the substance abuse counseling business, I long ago ran out of rants on marijuana policy from about every standpoint. There is no argument against legalizing /taxing/controlling it for adults that bears any credibility, truth, or absence of hypocrisy. Mr. self-righteous Obama needs to be slapped into reality; and get a new drug czar while he’s at it. The turkey (Obama) doesn’t even open him mouth on the obscene disgrace of incarcerations, particularly of color, for non-violent, marijuana related prosecutions.
Well said shano!
Justice Holmes, sure, depending on the prosecutor. You could get a hard core drug warrior.
Should justice be a lottery?
Same dreadful deadlock in the UK. Do I have to keep reminding people this is the 21st Century? That unique chemicals in this plant have scientists all over the world wanting to study them? At least England has legalized industrial hemp, so they are ahead of the US in that regard.
They are building ‘zero energy use’ houses out of hemp crete all over Ireland. These homes use zero energy for heating and cooling.
MATT CHORLEY, MAILONLINE POLITICAL EDITOR
PUBLISHED: 03:26 EST, 14 December 2012 | UPDATED: 11:45 EST, 14 December 2012
David Cameron and Nick Clegg today clashed dramatically over calls to relax Britain’s drugs laws.
In an explosive interview Mr Clegg claimed the government is losing the war against drugs ‘on an industrial scale’ and told Mr Cameron to ‘pluck up courage’ to set up a Royal Commission into decriminalising possession of some substances.
But the Prime Minister is furious at the idea, remaining adamant that existing policy is working and there will be no change in the government’s approach.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247946/Nick-Clegg-says-war-drugs-lost-industrial-scale.html#ixzz2F3Qv2kXx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
the whole argument is old. The evidence is obvious that the war changes nothing and prohibition causes the worst aspects of any association with marijuana. It is not physically additive, in fact aspirin would be higher on a real scientific scale of harm.
Gosh, Gene, you sure got your dander up. Well said.