This is a smart, long overdue move, and hopefully is the first tiny, baby step on the path toward reclassifying (or declassifiying) marijuana, which has no business being a Schedule I drug.WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes...
A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law...
And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.
P.S. I would like acknowledgment for resisting the urge to begin this post with the following taunt: "Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"
Posts
5 comments:
Yet again the Obama Administration has shown how out of step they are. If you want to have an effect, change the law - don't choose to ignore the law. It is incredible to me DOJ would recommend the federal govenment choose NOT to enforce federal law. Assume they choose not to proactively investigate these cases...what happens when the come to their attention otherwise? Just another bad piece of public policy by Barry
Scoobs-
Take a look at Walker's Sense and Nonsense where he discusses drugs and the law. I seem to recall he mentions that some of our global treaties and whatnot complicate pure legalization of at least some controlled substances. I believe Walker proposes that non-enforcement is actually all we could do in some instances without retracting those documents. My memory might be failing me so someone can verify. I'm out of the office for a few days on a grant project.
Unless I missed something, the FBI is not a policy making arm of government - they are a policy enforcement arm of government. While all FBI Directors, like police chiefs and prosecutors, have discretion which crimes to prioritize for enforcement, to essentially say we are deliberately ignoring certain type of crime is completely inappropriate. Let’s remember, we are talking about setting forth a policy whereby we are by design ignoring serious felonies. While I appreciate the debate if marijuana should be a schedule 1 drug, as of now it is. If the collective will of federal POLICY and LAW makers is that marijuana should be a schedule 1 drug and that federal law should supersede state law in this case, the FBI is out of like to sidestep it. Let the courts decide if this is appropriate or not. Now, after saying that, I am the biggest believer the feds have generally overstepped their role in getting involved in what are otherwise state crime issues (e.g., hate crime is bad legislation at all levels of government, especially for the feds to get involved) but it is NOT the role of the FBI to be the arbiters of this. Is the quite the same as local chief saying, "You know, I don't think domestic violence is really that big of a deal. So, I will actively refuse to investigate such cases." Just because domestic violence laws might be laws you like and you believe it, enforcement officials should not be placed in a position to judge what is good and bad law.
Yet again, this is just another example of the arrogance of this administration. To ignore the collective will of voters, use bullying tactics when it suits them, and when its convenient, circumvent the law. Last I recalled, those are what the left argued against so passionately against the Bush administration. I can only assume these are values of convenience.
What is so wrong with a law enforcement agency prioritizing the enforcement of one law at the expense of another? Assume, for example, that the FBI has fifty agents conducting active investigations involving known pot smokers. Few would argue that it would be a bad idea to reassign them to an anti-terrorism task force, even if the agents have to drop the drug investigations.
Moreover, the only states affected by the administration's new policy are those which have enacted laws decriminalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. So on the one hand, the administration is arguably undermining a federal law by refusing to enforce it in certain instances. But on the other side of the balance, the administration is respecting state sovereignty in situations where state law conflicts with federal law.
The executive branch makes policy decisions all the time. And many of President Obama's most vocal critics strongly support comity and federalism.
I don't see what the big deal is.
Please have a look at Terror State with System and leave a comment... (to change the world)
thanX
Post a Comment