|
computer parts posted:No, I mean if another administration comes to power they can reschedule it and then do what they like. It will prevent you from getting a lot of government jobs though. Anyone have any thoughts on if this will change if it becomes legal federally?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
computer parts posted:No, I mean if another administration comes to power they can reschedule it and then do what they like. Right, but theoretically at least if Obama said "Marijuana is now Schedule V" a doctor couldn't be prosecuted for handing it out until some other president changed it back. Example: September 1, 2013: Obama deschedules Mary Jane December 25, 2013: Dr. Feelgood prescribes it to a sick orphan January 2020: President Jeb Bush reschedules Mary Jane as a Schedule 1 drug Under that scenario, Dr. Feelgood couldn't be retroactively prosecuted or sued. Conversely -- unless I misunderstand something -- under this scenario: September 1, 2013: Obama says "we won't prosecute or sue people over small amounts of MJ" December 25, 2013: Dr. Feelgood prescribes MJ to a sick orphan January 2020: President Jeb Bush says "gently caress hippies, we're prosecuting and suing the poo poo out of everybody" Under that scenario, Dr. Feelgood would be hosed, because there would be a clear paper trail of him conspiring to distribute a schedule 1 drug to a minor. Basically as I understand it, with descheduling, ex post facto protections would apply; with simply refusing to prosecute it they won't. So that's a significant difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
This is great news, but I'm still pretty hesitant to celebrate. Can we take this to believe that now, as long as dispenseries in MMJ-legal states don't break any of those eight laws, then Obama will stop the various raids, etc? At least, on strictly face value?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Link to DOJ memorandum: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:This is great news, but I'm still pretty hesitant to celebrate. Can we take this to believe that now, as long as dispenseries in MMJ-legal states don't break any of those eight laws, then Obama will stop the various raids, etc? It pretty explicitly states that this is a guidance and can't be used as a legal defense by anyone, so if a prosecutor decides on his own to go after small players that are otherwise obeying the law they can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:This article from CNN has an admittedly vague paragraph on that topic: So that situation is unlikely to change until federal law changes, which is probably to be expected I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Do I have this correct? So Colorado goes forward with legal recreational weed, with a tax. Tax money goes from the business that sold the weed, to the state. Thus, because they are handling money obtained via a drug purchase, according to Federal Law, the entire state of Colorado is engaged in a criminal enterprise and the entire government could be held responsible. Is that technically correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Do I have this correct? That's a very interesting way of thinking about it. Although, I'm not sure -- is this illegal under federal law? It may just be state laws that establish that someone who handles money from criminal activity knowingly also assumes criminal liability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Am I the only one here who is OK with those 8 guidelines? I mean replace the word marijuana with alcohol, tobacco or whatever else and it still seems pretty reasonable. That doesn't work with "preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property", although I can understand that one as it's still illegal according to the federal government. It seems like this thread wouldn't be happy unless pot was rescheduled tomorrow, which won't happen. Celebrate the baby steps kids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Am I the only one here who is OK with those 8 guidelines? I mean replace the word marijuana with alcohol, tobacco or whatever else and it still seems pretty reasonable. That doesn't work with "preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property", although I can understand that one as it's still illegal according to the federal government. Nope, I'm perfectly fine with the 8 guidelines as they all also fall squarely into line with the individual state laws. In a way, it'll kind of be the Feds enforcing the state's laws, as opposed to the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
InsomnicIneptitude posted:That's a very interesting way of thinking about it. Although, I'm not sure -- is this illegal under federal law? It may just be state laws that establish that someone who handles money from criminal activity knowingly also assumes criminal liability. I'd be kind of surprised if there weren't something like that in federal law. Except governments "handle money from criminal activity" every time a drug dealer gets busted. Plus federal law explicitly states that illegal income is subject to taxation just like any other. So the legal case for prosecuting state employees here looks shaky at best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:I'd be kind of surprised if there weren't something like that in federal law. Well, they're ostensibly taking money that was illegally taken out of the economy in a harmful way, and cannot easily be returned to its rightful owners(who also broke the law anyway), and putting it towards the betterment of the country. I realize how ridiculous this actually is in practice, but that's the justification in theory anyway. They'll claim your 100,000 dollar house was purchased with drug money because you were busted selling 100 bucks of weed, but hey. Whaaaatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
In case everyone didn't know, about half of the states in the U.S. already have a marijuana tax law in effect. It's just that no one follows them. When you buy or sell cannabis in these states, you're supposed to affix a marijuana tax stamp to each purchase. Like these:     
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
I like how the alabama one has 'say no to marijuana' on it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Devyl posted:In case everyone didn't know, about half of the states in the U.S. already have a marijuana tax law in effect. It's just that no one follows them. When you buy or sell cannabis in these states, you're supposed to affix a marijuana tax stamp to each purchase. Like these: Actually, federal law has exactly the same thing - they've simply been refusing to issue tax stamps since the law was passed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Actually, federal law has exactly the same thing - they've simply been refusing to issue tax stamps since the law was passed. Actually congress repealed that law after it was ruled unconstitutional: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leary_v._United_States
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
So, it seems like the announcement from Holder is a pretty big deal. My take is the Feds are basically saying, "States, do what you want, as long as you keep these 8 guidelines in mind". Those guidelines seem pretty fair to me. I figure this will unleash the flood gates with several other states passing full legalization laws in 2016 at least, and more to follow. I'd bet Alaska and Maine at least will be fully legal in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
redshirt posted:So, it seems like the announcement from Holder is a pretty big deal. My take is the Feds are basically saying, "States, do what you want, as long as you keep these 8 guidelines in mind". Doesn't Alaska have a legalization bill in the pipeline or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Doesn't Alaska have a legalization bill in the pipeline or something? Yup, for 2014. mintskoal posted:Am I the only one here who is OK with those 8 guidelines? I mean replace the word marijuana with alcohol, tobacco or whatever else and it still seems pretty reasonable. That doesn't work with "preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property", although I can understand that one as it's still illegal according to the federal government. I am perfectly fine with the guidelines, I just think that a lot of advocates are completely jaded since Obama said that he wouldn't prosecute medical facilities that were in cooperation with the law, and then busted several facilities that were, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Thus, because they are handling money obtained via a drug purchase, according to Federal Law, the entire state of Colorado is engaged in a criminal enterprise and the entire government could be held responsible. Every single person involved in the state administration of recreational marijuana could be charged personally. The individual bureaucrats interacting with the stores would be guilty of various drug trafficking statutes and the supervisors, managers and support staff above them could be held responsible via the RICO act because there's a clear pattern of criminal activity in their organization. I'd be extremely worried about a change in administration leading to a change in federal policy if I was involved in administering the mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Every single person involved in the state administration of recreational marijuana could be charged personally. The individual bureaucrats interacting with the stores would be guilty of various drug trafficking statutes and the supervisors, managers and support staff above them could be held responsible via the RICO act because there's a clear pattern of criminal activity in their organization. I would think they'd at least have an argument for official immunity, but yeah, nobody wants to be in a position where they only have an argument between them and federal drug conspiracy charges.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Bureaucrats have a vested interest in protecting bureaucrats; no government is ever going to prosecute state officials for their role in decriminalized or legalized marijuana. For reference see how the Obama administration has protected Bush era officials from facing torture charges, it just isn't how our government operates. If someone has an example of any official facing prosecution for actions taken by the government I'll happily eat these words but until then I just can't believe it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Bureaucrats have a vested interest in protecting bureaucrats; no government is ever going to prosecute state officials for their role in decriminalized or legalized marijuana. Unless they want the official gone for other reasons. Then it becomes a nice convenient legal excuse to remove them from office, or threaten them into compliance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
redshirt posted:So, it seems like the announcement from Holder is a pretty big deal. My take is the Feds are basically saying, "States, do what you want, as long as you keep these 8 guidelines in mind". I agree that these seem totally fair and fit the state laws. And was already stated, Alaska has their bill in the pipelines already. Alaska currently doesn't have a law for cultivation of less than 25 plants or less than 4oz in your residence, so it isn't like personal growing and use is that huge of a concern to begin with. http://norml.org/laws/item/alaska-penalties
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Joint letter of complaint from a variety of law enforcement organisations:quote:On behalf of the undersigned national law enforcement organizations, we write to express our extreme disappointment that the U.S. Department of Justice does not intend to challenge policies in Colorado or Washington that legalize the sale and recreational use of marijuana in contravention of Federal law. https://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/FINALLawEnforcementGroupLetteronDOJMarijuanaPolicy.pdf More coverage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/police-eric-holder-marijuana-_n_3846518.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:Yup, for 2014. Pretty much... watch preventing "revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels" be interpreted as any money going to businesses compliant with state laws when the DEA and US attorneys start targeting people who produce and sell legal marijuana, because it's still illegal federally and therefore criminal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
I can't believe how many people are celebrating what amounts to the DoJ repeating what Obama said when he became President. Are you all so naive?mintskoal posted:Am I the only one here who is OK with those 8 guidelines? I mean replace the word marijuana with alcohol, tobacco or whatever else and it still seems pretty reasonable. That doesn't work with "preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property", although I can understand that one as it's still illegal according to the federal government. There is no small step here. This is the same situation we've been in up until now. They will continue to ignore the end users and attack the distribution under the guise of protecting the children or whatever bullshit they make up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I can't believe how many people are celebrating what amounts to the DoJ repeating what Obama said when he became President. Are you all so naive?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:It does mean something, because the DOJ could sue these states over these laws. They could mount a court challenge and kill this stuff before it even begins, but they have chosen not to do so. Like I said, it doesn't change anything from how it's been. The threat of legal action is still there against medical users. All they've said is that they aren't pursuing legal action against the states themselves. Emphasis on the said because I think it's fair to say that words haven't been worth much from this administration w/r/t the drug war and marijuana legalization. Either way... this poo poo: rscott posted:Well that's about the best outcome short of actually descheduling marijuana altogether. mintskoal posted:Am I the only one here who is OK with those 8 guidelines? I mean replace the word marijuana with alcohol, tobacco or whatever else and it still seems pretty reasonable. That doesn't work with "preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property", although I can understand that one as it's still illegal according to the federal government. Is just comical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Like I said, it doesn't change anything from how it's been. The threat of legal action is still there against medical users. All they've said is that they aren't pursuing legal action against the states themselves. Emphasis on the said because I think it's fair to say that words haven't been worth much from this administration w/r/t the drug war and marijuana legalization. Except that this is the first time anyone, anywhere has legalized marijuana for recreational use, and the DOJ saying "yeah, whatever" is absolutely a huge deal. But I suppose that's why you're such an awful poster? e: Like, to expand upon this a little bit so as to balance out the snark: The worst case (and what I thought the most likely) was that the DOJ and Holder come down on the legalization process in the name of federal supremacy, or concerns over how well it would remain an in-state market, or any other myriad of potential complaints that they could have used to stop the law dead in its tracks. But they didn't! So yay for Obama, doing a not bad thing. MODS CURE JOKES fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Joint letter of complaint from a variety of law enforcement organisations: Not the most distinguished group of signatories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
it's Colorado, so I'd guess "guns galore".
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Not the most distinguished group of signatories. Please don't end our addiction to federal war on drugs funding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
SWITCH HITLER posted:Except that this is the first time anyone, anywhere has legalized marijuana for recreational use, and the DOJ saying "yeah, whatever" is absolutely a huge deal. But I suppose that's why you're such an awful poster? They aren't saying "yeah, whatever". They're saying "ok, we won't sue you as a state, but we will continue to pursue legal action against the marijuana industry as a whole" (ps thats the situation we've been since Obama became President). Also it's not the first time anyone anywhere has done this, marijuana is decriminalized and/or legal in plenty of municipalities across the United States. Nederland for example, a town near where I am, legalized marijuana in 2010. Snark is just the best when it follows factually incorrect statements. Maybe drop the personal grudge and do a little reading before you try to swing your hammer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:They aren't saying "yeah, whatever". They're saying "ok, we won't sue you as a state, but we will continue to pursue legal action against the marijuana industry as a whole" (ps thats the situation we've been since Obama became President). Also it's not the first time anyone anywhere has done this, marijuana is decriminalized and/or legal in plenty of municipalities across the United States. Nederland for example, a town near where I am, legalized marijuana in 2010. It is the first time it has been implemented on a state level (well, other than Alaska sort of) and states adopting laws like this can get things done surprisingly quickly as more and more sign on. Obama could have decided to bog down Washington and Colorado with endless legal challenges, which would make other states considering legalization like Rhode Island perhaps less enthusiastic about implementing it consideing that an expensive, embarassing, and prolonged legal battle against the federal government would be the price. He's not exactly helping the situation but he isn't crippling the movement either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:It is the first time it has been implemented on a state level (well, other than Alaska sort of) and states adopting laws like this can get things done surprisingly quickly as more and more sign on. Obama could have decided to bog down Washington and Colorado with endless legal challenges, which would make other states considering legalization like Rhode Island perhaps less enthusiastic about implementing it consideing that an expensive, embarassing, and prolonged legal battle against the federal government would be the price. He's not exactly helping the situation but he isn't crippling the movement either. I mean yes, he hasn't changed his stance at all. When municipalities legalized pot, he didn't come down on them. If the DoJ wasn't going to pursue Nederland, a town of 1,400 people, when they legalized, why would they ever go after an entire state? What I'm trying to say is that nothing has changed. This is the status quo. There is nothing to celebrate other than "well, poo poo didn't get worse". Is that really what we've been reduced to? Also, beyond all of that, we should all be very hesitant to celebrate words at all. Like I said, the Obama administration has said one thing and done another already on this issue, what makes you think they won't again? A memo? When has that ever stopped anyone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I mean yes, he hasn't changed his stance at all. When municipalities legalized pot, he didn't come down on them. If the DoJ wasn't going to pursue Nederland, a town of 1,400 people, when they legalized, why would they ever go after an entire state? What I'm trying to say is that nothing has changed. This is the status quo. There is nothing to celebrate other than "well, poo poo didn't get worse". Is that really what we've been reduced to? Also, beyond all of that, we should all be very hesitant to celebrate words at all. Like I said, the Obama administration has said one thing and done another already on this issue, what makes you think they won't again? A memo? When has that ever stopped anyone? The DoJ wouldn't pursue Nederland because they have a very high tolerance for what they would view as crank ordinances that don't change anything, but a state nullifying federal law is a totally different and much more controversial thing, just like a secession attempt by a town is ignored but a secession attempt by a state is serious loving business. And yeah, it's more or less a celebration of poo poo not getting worse but that was the only realistic outcome while the Very Serious People continue to consider support for legalization to be political kryptonite. I don't feel like it's a totally secure victory because Holder went out of his way to say that it's not and that prosecution could happen at any time if the DoJ feels it's justified, but it is a surprisingly pleasant bit of news for people who were gearing up for a nullification showdown, which the feds generally do not lose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
So then why not pursue the medical programs when they first started. The federal government has a long history of NOT intervening in these matters. I agree, a state legalizing it completely is a new thing. But there was absolutely nothing to suggest that the federal government was going to try to get involved here. If the federal government was interested in avoiding the legalization of pot in Colorado and Oregon we would have seen that move long ago in response to any one of the steps that took place before this hugely publicised democratically decided on policy. It would destroy the administration's support in those states. Granted, the only reason they AREN'T nullifying this is because of the overwhelming public support. It has nothing to do with science, progressive ideals, or achieving the best policy possible. Suing the state would be a nightmare for the federal government to put it lightly. And if the DEA can keep raiding people and justifying their budget, they probably don't give a poo poo too. Everyone gets paid, innocent people keep rotting in jail, and Obama carries on a long tradition of revolting ethics and poo poo leadership. All I'm saying is that we should be cautious to label this a victory or a good thing. We were saying the same thing after Obama got elected and we know how that turned out. Let's wait and see what they actually do before we start praising the Department of Justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
CO and WA are fairly blue aren't they? You crack down on the democratically legislated legal weed and you run the risk of perhaps not turning them red, but possibly making making an entire new generation even more apathetic than they historically have been.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:CO and WA are fairly blue aren't they? You crack down on the democratically legislated legal weed and you run the risk of perhaps not turning them red, but possibly making making an entire new generation even more apathetic than they historically have been. Colorado is a swing state that's been trending blue and Washington is a light blue state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 04:34
|
|