Obama administration goes back on its words about medical marijuana.

Story available here.

You know how anti-pot crusaders often claim to be defending morality? Whichever of them support this would now be hypocrites to claim that, for they have supported dishonesty.

edited 8th Nov '11 4:52:10 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Well, it would be a waste of time and political capital for Obama to fight Congress over this, and he's technically Constitutionally bound to do so regardless of whatever his campaign promises were, due to Federal law overruling California State law.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Meh, what ever. If it's well regulated I'm happy. (btw, it's not in Cali.)

I'm baaaaaaack

Well, the article says that they're attempting to close down the businesses in California, and as California is a State, it's law is trumped by the Federal law.

Do I like it? No.

But California should have seen this coming, and I don't know what they really planned to do about it, since at the moment I'm not aware of any grand political resistance to it...

I am now known as Flyboy.

There's a lot he could do without stepping on the legislative or judicial branch's toes, though, that he hasn't.

It's part of the overarching story that Obama is way more conservative and establishment than he claimed in his campaign; it goes along with his decision-making on a whole bunch of other issues.

I suspect that there'll be a lot more political resistance if it turns into real action rather than threats; a lot of Californians support medical marijuana, and several years of effective legalization in the state have not had the negative consequences that the scare-mongers predicted.

edited 8th Nov '11 5:28:05 PM by Morven

A brighter future for a darker age.

I could see concerned Californians primarying the Democratic representatives in those states. If Obama wanted to walk the walk, he'd be handing out presidential pardons pretty freely about now.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

The anti-drug advocates have their laws. And the stoners have their weeds. Everybody's happy.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

These places aren't legitimate "medical" marijuana dispensaries.

I live in So Cal, about 45 minutes out of Los Angeles. These dispensaries are everywhere, all it takes is a little 50 dollar charge to see a doctor and complain about any random thing hurting and you suddenly get a marijuana card.

It's not the government being dishonest, it's these quack doctors handing out cards that let people buy medicinal drugs for recreational use, that's pretty dishonest.

I'm pro-legalization so long as we tax the hell out of it, but I'm not for this little cloak and dagger game where this whole legal marijuana industry hides behind the words "Medicinal" when it is in fact not medicinal in how it is being used.

That and I just really hate stereotypical california stoners. They are by and large lazy shitheads without any real ambition or motivation in life past making 12 bucks an hour to afford an apartment and weed, and act like it's the fucking holocaust when the DEA busts someone for breaking a law they already knew they were violating.

edited 8th Nov '11 7:39:09 PM by Barkey

I hate it when people complain about the government enforcing laws.

I'm baaaaaaack

Laws they said they would not enforce?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Uh, no, if the stoners have their weed it means the laws are not being enforced, which the genuine anti-drug advocates would not be happy with.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

@Barkey: The same thing happened with alcohol during prohibition. Stepping stones and all that.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

The issue of weed prohibition is more about gaining political capital one way or another than it is about taking care of people. Course, I'm Canadian, and my city is pretty relaxed when it comes to small amounts of weed, so American drug laws don't have any jurisdiction over what I do or don't do.

Rather ill-gotten political capital to be getting, too, since it`s from those who`d be okay with them going back on their word.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

@barley: The flaunt there frankly lies with California, not marijuana.

hashtagsarestupid

Marijuana, as currently enforced against, is a Fourth Amendment issue. Also fits cleanly with current interpretations of the Ninth. So yeah, I'm rooting for California here.

Hail Martin Septim!

"guards against unreasonable searches and seizures" and "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", which, quoting a proffesor on the constitution "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."

So yea, is it unreasonable to seize illegal contraband? I think not. Thus, your with out constitutional support. Have a nice day.

I'm baaaaaaack

Time for California to stop all cooperation with any federal agency/institution on any matter under any circumstance.

California law enforcement should be banned (under penalty of summary dismissal) from ever cooperating with Federal law enforcement.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:13:17 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Good luck with funding education, roads, etc., then.

USAF713 on his phone or iPod.

I'd make it 20 mandatory years to life without possibility of parole for conducting any search or arrest in California without either a warrant from a Californian judge (which can't grant them on matters that don't violate Californian law) or in circumstances on which a citizen's arrest would be permissible.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:16:58 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

That's highly impractical for them to do, Savage. You seem to think that the states aren't answerable to the Federal government. The Federal government can essentially hamstring them, and given that California is pretty much financially screwed up, it's not a good idea to fuck with them like that. There's probably a lot better ways for California to handle it that doesn't involve losing all Federal money (which they need) and other such important things that the Federal government provides them.

Thing is, the President can't pardon State offences. California could imprison the whole of the DEA and the virtual entirety of Federal law enforcement with a law like that. Additionally, there are a lot of ways on which California could sabotage the work of the IRS on their State: By defining audits as searches and equally criminalizing them.

If they essentially obstruct the IRS into nothingness, they could levy their own taxes for their own stuff.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:19:27 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Federal law enforcement trumps the State enforcement, though. All that would do is waste a lot of time and money on everyone's part. And California would not come out looking good for it.

Seriously, you ought to look at how practical the solutions you suggest are. Because very few of them would actually work in real life.

Also, I'm pretty sure taxes don't work like that. California would look collectively like even bigger fools for doing that. Great job trying to hand us over to the Republicans, there.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:21:38 PM by AceofSpades

@Savage: So searching someone without a warrant is equal to four counts of manslaughter?

edited 9th Nov '11 1:21:46 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

I'd make it a capital crime, but the SCOTUS would strike it down.

States can criminalize things that are legal under Federal law and enforce those laws (as long as they don't violate the Constitution). Nothing bars a State from enacting draconian penalties on searches and enforcing them against everybody.

edited 9th Nov '11 1:24:27 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.