US Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use

[qualia]

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 Obama because 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.”

Federal officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. Several cautioned that the issue had raised complex legal and policy considerations — including enforcement priorities, litigation strategy and the impact of international antidrug treaties — that remain unresolved, and that no decision was imminent.

The Obama administration declined to comment on the deliberations, but pointed to a statement the Justice Department issued on Wednesday — the day before the initiative took effect in Washington — in the name of the United States attorney in Seattle, Jenny A. Durkan. She warned Washington residents that the drug remained illegal.

“In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance,” she said. “Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.”

Ms. Durkan’s statement also hinted at the deliberations behind closed doors, saying: “The Department of Justice is reviewing the legalization initiatives recently passed in Colorado and Washington State. The department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged.”

Federal officials have relied on their more numerous state and local counterparts to handle smaller marijuana cases. In reviewing how to respond to the new gap, the interagency task force — which includes Justice Department headquarters, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the State Department and the offices of the White House Counsel and the director of National Drug Control Policy — is considering several strategies, officials said.

One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.

A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be “severed” from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.

Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.

Mr. Katsas said he was skeptical that a pre-emption lawsuit would succeed. He said he was also skeptical that it was necessary, since the federal government could prosecute marijuana cases in those states regardless of whether the states regulated the drug.

Still, federal resources are limited. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department issued a policy for handling states that have legalized medical marijuana. It says federal officials should generally not use their limited resources to go after small-time users, but should for large-scale trafficking organizations. The result has been more federal raids on dispensaries than many liberals had expected.

http://www.nytimes.c...scrambling.html

 

[indigo264nm]

With more and more states allowing usage for medicinal purposes, along with 2 states legalising for recreational, I'm really curious how the federal vs state law differences are going to play out over the next few years.

On another note with the laws from Colorado and Washington taking effect today, I read today that Washington although planning to implement commercial regulated distribution of recreational cannabis, along with legal possession of an ounce or less, are not in fact allowing personal cultivation except for those using it for medicinal permission.

This kinda rubs me up the wrong way a bit - it's like selling beer in stores but denying those who would prefer to homebrew.

Colorado however are allowing personal cultivation of a reasonable amount of plants and making it legal for a person over 21 to grow and give another adult some of their bud for free... I'll see if I can hunt down the article.

Edited December 7, 2012 by -=IndigoSunrise=-

[indigo264nm]

Found the article I mentioned: http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/washington-legalize-marijuana-today

[Francois le Danque]

Yeah Colorado definitely get the better deal out of this.

I am disheartened to see that in Washington it's to be regulated by a Liquor control board. I don't know if the liquor industry is directly involved. Maybe it's just an archaic name, i haven't looked into it, but personally i think the liquor industry is big enough already, and it hasn't really done a good job of minimising alcohol's risks, so it shouldn't be entrusted with a new drug commodity. At least it isn't the tobacco industry...

Also, the use of this agency/title creates a pairing between alcohol and cannabis in the minds of the public. I think the same laws should apply to both, but publicly they should be treated very separately because, as different drugs, they have very different issues surrounding their use. I think it goes without saying they should be sold in different outlets. It also makes cannabis look like some sort of subsidiary to alcohol. "We are the alcohol board. Yeah we also do weed.. i guess". I don't think this is very fair as cannabis is clearly the superior drug. Moving on..

The differences between the new 'allowances' are very interesting as well, good link. I love the drug policy alliance. I think Washington is trying harder to make this a financial move, with the ban remaining on cultivation. But there is no way that will work and Colorado knows it. On the whole it seems Washington is really going for the sterile, all-encompassing approach, and Colorado is just all like "yeah man, go for it, whatever!".

..school construction?

[whitewind]

It's ideological hell over there in the good old US of A, less United than they would have you believe, with reds versus blues versus greens all over the place, even the liberals ain't as liberal as they'd have you believe, nanny state versus troubled teen states.

I keep hearing rumours that many of the states are seriously considering going it alone and hiving off from the group, but it's all carefully quashed by the MSM who are helping big governments and corporations provide a united front so the plebs don't get too many ideas. Big nanny federal government here needs taking down a peg or too with her stupid ideas of aligning all laws so the most fascist / restrictive ones win (we know exactly what we are talking about here) you'd think the local right-wingers would be happy to oppose the aggressive fascism of the lefties at the top, but they all seem to have the same agenda nowadays, it's a hairs-breath between them, and usually boils down to who comes up with the most restrictive idea first being opposed very half-heartedly by the so-called "opposition". I'm traditionally a "fuck them I'll do what I want so long as they leave me alone" kind of guy, which doesn't work too badly in rural areas, and if you keep your head down in the burbs, but they're getting rather heavy handed now and it's getting more and more difficult to avoid those extremists. Annoying, because going up against them arguably, gives them authority.

We should keep careful watch on what's going on in the 'States as we may be able to do similar things over here, unfortunately potentially handing more power to local authority and creating greater divisions, but arguably giving us more freedom to move away from oppressive regimes. Not that it stops people from living in Queensland, it seems.

[Francois le Danque]

Personally i predict that this century will see the fragmentation of the united states, and stronger cohesion within europe. Often the latter seems a lot more like a single country, compared to the bickering mish mash of the US, state versus federal, and they even have conflicting county laws. !

I think on the whole we are seeing a growing resistance to world governments as we know them. I hope scotland secedes from the UK. I wonder what their laws will be like.

In any case i think politically at least, things are looking up. just very very slowly..