Obama Administration Deferring To States On Medical Marijuana - Guns Next?

Status
Not open for further replies.

damien

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
1,212
Location
Northern IL, USA
Ha - don't hold your breath, but this is sort of interesting to me as a matter of law. What the Administration is saying is, and I am paraphrasing them here, but even though marijuana possession and distribution is against the letter of the federal law, because it conflicts with state laws, the federal government is instructing prosecutors not to prosecute those violations. Obviously, there are other places where state and federal laws do not agree. Gun laws are one of the places. Any chance this administration or maybe the next administration might just do the exact same thing (instruct prosecutors to ignore the law or kiss their career goodbye) for guns or some other thing in favor with that administration? After all, now there is precedent. I call it "super selective prosecution".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_medical_marijuana

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

WASHINGTON – Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

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 law.

The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.

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.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

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 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.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.

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.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Soon after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.
 
Don't count on it. They take a pick & choose approach to governing. The constitution only means something to them when it's convenient.
 
Yeah gun control may not be tops on their list, right now, but they're not going to unilaterally concede the issue to the pro-gun side. They only give unilateral concessions to people who deserve it, like Ahmadinejad and Putin.
 
Medical marijuana is a darling of the cultural left. The very notion that the plant they've been demonizing for so long might have some medicinal value bugs the crap out of some on the cultural right.

Personally, I don't see a single reason for the government to do a single thing to try to stop people from smoking a plant they can grow themselves, for any reason they choose.

However, one has to remember that the same cultural left that wants slightly less government intrusion into the rights of sick people generally wants total gun bans.
 
Federal law is paramount, thats all need be said.

Sure it is - unless the boss says "Prosecutors - don't prosecute the law X - OR ELSE". Obama is showing that this is always a possibility (in fairness, this always happens because of limitations on law enforcement resources too - the government doesn't prosecute the tens of millions that copy videocassettes or fail to do their tax returns because the number of people disobeying those laws are enormous).
 
Remember something else: if you want to see Obama's real platform on any issue, see what nonsense the campus lefties and college administrators are spouting.

It doesn't have to be consistent, or constitutional.
 
Its medical marijuana, not all marijuana, so its not really giving up anything. My guess is they said this so all the pot smokers think Obama's still on their side, but I highly doubt he'd go and legalize it, or allow Cali to legalize it. As for guns..... maybe if I smoked a pound of that pot I might believe it.
 
The only connection between marijuana and firearms is the 5th, 9th & 10th amendments. The same methods and tactics the government used with fighting marijuana in the mid-late 1900's, are being used today to fight the RKBA. If you ignore that then yes, marijuana and firearms have nothing to do with each other. It's all about the escape from overreaching government, which coincides with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!!!
 
The gun issue will be considered in what ever health care legislation is brought forward. It will likely be described as a behavioral matter when reviewing who gets coverage and at what cost. Laugh if you want but the things you and I have in our homes that can hurt us and are not popular with those in control will be considered in the final bill.
 
Laugh if you want but the things you and I have in our homes that can hurt us and are not popular with those in control will be considered in the final bill.
Would not be surprised one bit.
 
Obama is deferring on MEDICAL marijuana, not marijuana in general. So the best you could hope for is him deferring on medical guns, not guns in general.
 
Also keep in mind that any sort of marijuana legislation coming out of DC is completely unconstitutional to begin with, and so the relation to guns isn't too close. This probably isn't all the significant, whether with guns or even marijuana. Off topic, but anyway, if its one step closer to completely legalizing marijuana and ending a good chunk of the drug war, the better. Seems lessons of the Prohibition are quickly lost - or not, since marijuana prohibition has nothing to do with logic.
 
Legalizing marijuana has been encouraged by many in the Judicial arena for decades. They feel that the time, energy and expense necessary to prosecute marijuana users was not justified by the threat that marijuana use brought to society. It was a practical consideration over the legal one. Legalize marijuana and you free up a lot of court dockets.
 
There's no direct connection, but it does signal an increasingly exhausted and cash-strapped federal law enforcement. And to that extent it's good news for us. Resources are being vented into the WOT and overseas shooting wars away from the war on some drugs. While it won't mean an end to federal involvement in firearm laws, it does mean it's HIGHLY unlikely we will see a Big New Plan to attack guns from the federal level. They've long since run out of actual cash and are running on the fumes of Chinese investment.
 
I often wonder, if every Federal LEO took a flying leap off the nearest cliff, how we'd be any worse off as a country. In all seriousness, what exactly do the laws they enforce do for us?

They've long since run out of actual cash and are running on the fumes of Chinese investment.

Those who lust for power, lust until the bitter end. I doubt that the KGB cared that the Soviet Union was going broke in the 1980s.
 
Last edited:
They are not saying it is legal or setting any form of precedent.
They are saying not to prosecute. Meaning it is still illegal, but they are being told not to spend resources enforcing the law.
Completely different.
Obama is not saying it is legal, and no legislative precedent is established through this order. It is still illegal, and a prosecutor could still disregard what he said and bring valid legal charges at any time. When he is out of office this temporary request will no longer be in effect.


Gun rights and weed are not linked in any meaningful way, IMO.

They are absolutely 100% linked simply because the SCOTUS decision set precedent over what is covered by federal jurisdiction through a marijuana case. Gonzales v Raich.
That case is the strongest federal reason states no longer have the right to manufacture firearms outside of federal jurisdiction (and therefore outside federal legal restrictions like the NFA.)

This was proven 100% when the 9th circuit ruled in United States v. Stewart that the NFA did not apply to homemade firearms intended for personal use within a state as they were not a part of trade or commerce, and federal authority is through the ability to regulate interstate commerce.
This was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Having just decided on Raich what the limits were on federal authority.
In Raich they declared even a plant being grown for personal use on private property and never intended to enter any form of commerce or cross state lines was subject to federal authority.

The Supreme Court sent United States v. Stewart back to the 9th circuit, telling them to come up with a different result "in light of Raich". So the SCOTUS essentially told them to reverse the decision, and that the justification could be found in the Raich decision.
The 9th Circuit obeyed, and found that those homemade firearms stored at home only for personal use were in fact subject to federal jurisdiction. Meaning they did in fact fall under NFA restrictions.

So it was through expansion of federal authority over marijuana that was state legal and not a part of commerce which led to expansion of federal authority on all other matters, including firearms.

There was previous precedent, but it was much weaker. Even Wickard v. Filburn dealt with farmers receiving massive government subsidies, and hence making most of thier living through such government funding. Not merely applying to anyone and everyone.
However mounting a case to argue with the Raich logic, especially in light of the SCOTUS point of view in United States v Stewart is nearly impossible.
People are trying (like the firearm law passed in Montana and now others), but Raich covers everything in the nation quite clearly. States' rights ceased to exist as a result of Raich.
Anything in federal law supersede state law now, because the scope of federal power is all encompassing over anything and everything, including things not involved in commerce in any way.

So the primary reason you will not be able to own state legal firearms that would violate the NFA if under federal jurisdiction is because federal jurisdiction was expanded to combat marijuana.
The drug war strikes again.
So now the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment (asset forfeiture), the 9th Amendment, and 10th Amendment (no more state rights, unless the feds say so for a given item) have been lost to the drug war.
(The war on terror seems to be doing well in reducing most of the protections provided by the rest.)
 
Last edited:
Raich is one reason I'm disgusted with both "left" and "right."

There are clear reasons for a civil libertarian (often lumped in with "left") to want this limit on the Federal Government, to err on the side of limitations on government power over individuals as in Roe vs. Wade. There are also clear reasons for an originalist (often lumped in with "right") to see the Commerce Clause as "meaning what it says", and only allowing Federal oversight of actual interstate commerce, not something that could possibly be imagined by a drunk person to maybe have some miniscule impact on interstate commerce.

Neither side should have found as the majority did in Raich, if they stuck to their legal and constitutional principles.

Instead, the sides joined together to create an outcome they both want for their own purposes: no limit on Federal power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top