Drug Czar: No State Can Nullify Federal Marijuana Ban

[Purveyor]

President Barack Obama’s drug czar toed a strict line on marijuana Wednesday, saying federal laws will prevail regardless of state-level efforts to legalize pot.

Gil Kerlikowske said enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 — which ranks marijuana as a Schedule One drug alongside heroin, LSD and ecstasy — remains in the hands of the US Department of Justice.

“No state, no executive can nullify a statute that has been passed by Congress,” the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy told a National Press Club luncheon.

“Let’s be clear: law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold federal law and they are going to continue to pursue drug traffickers and drug dealers,” he said.

Voters in Colorado and Washington last November approved proposals to legalize the possession of small quantities of marijuana by individuals in their respective states

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/drug-czar-no-state-can-nullify-federal-marijuana-ban/

[Blue Owl]

1. It's a perfectly sane policy!

[grahamhgreen]

2. Fire him! call the WH!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the WH is already well aware of his statement.

[awoke_in_2003]

24. How will that do any good?...

He is only following the orders of his boss, the president.

[11 Bravo]

31. For what? Understanding the Constitution? Federal law trumps state law ... end of discussion.

I disagree with federal law in this case, but firing someone for stating a categorical truth seems somewhat harsh.

[grahamhgreen]

37. Yes. Let's harsh all over this dude. If the white house can jail whistleblowers and have a kill list

they can fire this loser.

[green for victory]

3. allow state stores in WA? Sure! Put your money down...

When Holder tells WA their stores can't bank money from illegal drug transactions will those that put money down get it back?

Medical Marijuana is Legal in California

[Eleanors38]

4. So, which state will be the next to legalize?

Make your choice, and state why.

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. There have been legalization bills introduced in 10 states this year.

At least three are already dead. I expect none of them to actually pass this year.

Look for an initiative in Alaska in 2014 (where possession of small amounts at home is already legal), and possibly Oregon and the District of Columbia.

Look for more initiatives in 2016: Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Mexico are likely then.

[Eleanors38]

9. Mass & New Mex seem good choices. My pipe dream:

Florida. The economic/ waste argument could play big here. If Fla were to legalize, this prohibitionist game would fold.

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. I'm going with Alaska, California, and Oregon.

Massachusetts is a good bet, too.

The problem with Florida is it will never get through the legislature (they can't even get medical marijuana out of committee), and that means an initiative. But you have to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures, and that gets expensive. Especially in a state that hasn't shown it's ready to go there yet. That means big donors will stay away, and it's awfully difficult to get those signatures with volunteers only.

Activists figure it costs about $1 million just to gather signatures for California, and maybe $10 million for the entire campaign, including a good last few weeks advertising blitz. But there will be money to do that if the polls stay like they are.

I also like DC. They just polled 63% in favor of legalization this week, 75% in favor of decriminalization. They have the initiative process, and it's a small market, so it would be relatively inexpensive.

[Eleanors38]

35. Florida does use initiative, sometimes to good effect...

in 1966, the governor floated a big road bond issue that was loaded with pay-back & sweetheart deals. It was put on the ballot by grass-roots groups and roundly defeated. It is expensive, but there is money in surprising places in Florida.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. ...and the feds can't make any state criminalize marijuana.

They can send in the DEA to enforce federal law if they wish, but they don't have enough DEA agents.

The feds are in a quandary: If they successfully block Colorado and Washington from taxing and regulating marijuana commerce, they are still left with marijuana being legal (and unregulated) in those states.

[Eleanors38]

11. Good points. Folks forget "legalization" means applying the law.

[MindPilot]

7. “Let’s be clear: law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold federal law..."

Yeah I'll buy that line of bullshit when I see NYPD cops doing stop & frisks on suited white guys walking down Wall Street.

[Hugabear]

8. If they prosecuted Wall Street crooks the same way they do inner-city youths...

...we'd need a bigger jail.

[Initech]

10. Nah let's turn their $100 million mansions into prisons. Problem solved.

[Hugabear]

12. Better yet, turn those mansions into homeless shelters

Then force the Wall Street fatcats to live in the homeless shelters.

[Initech]

15. I like this idea.

[MindPilot]

18. Financial criminals should be treated like sex offenders.

We know their addiction to money cannot be cured. Therefore they should have to register as a Financial Offender, be prohibited from having any contact with money and must stay at least 500 feet away from any financial intuition.

[cthulu2016]

13. Legally, that's correct. It's in the Constitution.

And since Congress has not eliminated these federal laws then Congress is at fault for their existence.

The executive should use whatever reasonable discretion it has to de-prioritize marijuana enforcement, but the president must "uphold the laws" so the power for the executive to ignore federal law is far from absolute

And federal trumps state

[TheKentuckian]

19. The Executive can reschedule and shift focus. This is a choice to a significant degree.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. Okay, then send in the DEA. Because the cops in legal states aren't going to bust you.

Oops, there's only a limited number of DEA agents.

State and local cops make about 99% of all drug arrests.

The best the DEA could do is symbolic busts, like they do with dispensaries in California. But you know what? We still have hundreds, if not thousands, of dispensaries.

[cthulu2016]

23. I think the quote is being misread

If someone is saying that local LE is required to act on federal law, that's wrong.

But I do not think that is what is being said.

If it is, it's flat wrong.

[Initech]

14. End the war on drugs. Now!!!

[zappaman]

16. oh, FFS

[TeamPooka]

21. Then how come states can outlaw abortion, which is legal?

What a Czar douche.

[cthulu2016]

28. Two reasons. 1) I think that there is no federal law in play -- if

Congress passed a law saying that no state can unreasonably restrict rights under Roe v. Wade then we would have a federal law vs. state law issue. Instead we have a Constitutional issue that is in the hands of courts.

2) they can't. They CAN insofar as they do, but they cannot do so properly. But there is no efficient mechanism for the courts to prevent these anti-constittional state laws because Congress is very weak on abortion rights.

[Buns_of_Fire]

30. They regulate the clinics out of existence.

Make the requirements so strict that they simply can't afford to stay in business.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. Non-Prohibition states to Drug Czar: fuck off.

[cthulu2016]

26. Perhaps the quote is being misread? 'Cause there's no controversy here

I oppose enforcement of federal pot laws 100%. Very pro-pot.

The quote in the article, however, is not referring to LOCAL law enforcement so it's really a statement of the law, and of the status quo

No state law trumps federal law, but a state can decide to not enforce federal law. New York dropped out of prohibition in the 1920s, outlawing use of state funds to enforce prohibition. But Treasury agents could still hassle drinkers in New York... just without cooperation from the NYPD or state police.

Gil Kerlikowske said enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 — which ranks marijuana as a Schedule One drug alongside heroin, LSD and ecstasy — remains in the hands of the US Department of Justice. (CORRECT)

“No state, no executive can nullify a statute that has been passed by Congress,” the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy told a National Press Club luncheon. (CORRECT)

“Let’s be clear: law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold federal law and they are going to continue to pursue drug traffickers and drug dealers,” he said. (CORRECT, in reference to federal law enforcement officers. As to which LE he was referring to, the previous statements offer more than enough context.)

[geek tragedy]

27. Legally he's correct. What he's not saying is how DoJ prosecutors

will use their discretion on such matters.

[Paul E Ester]

29. Stop the war on people...nt

[Rex]

32. States rights says FUCK YOU!

Eat shit Gil.

[RainDog]

33. Feds: Stop Wasting Money on Marijuana Prohibition

Yes, federal law matters.

But when federal law is removed from reality (as in Schedule I classification) people say - your law is bad and wrong and IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO ADDRESS THIS, then people will do so at the state level.

STOP LYING.

Then people will have more respect for the law.

It's absolute bullshit for marijuana to be classified as a substance with no medical value. Anyone who isn't an idiot or a captive of propaganda knows this.

Until the feds want to address the corruption and cronyism in the DEA concerning this issue - then you'll find that people will tell the feds they don't care what federal law is when that law is based upon lies.

Simple.

[bobclark86]

34. This is a good thing...

Much like when states choose to ignore other federal laws on health care, gun control, taxation, immigration, abortion...

NOBODY has the right to nullify federal law. I believe we fought a war (partially) about that once...

The next step is to CHANGE the federal law.

[Eleanors38]

36. the feds can be overloaded by trying to enforce exclusively...

The strategy by legalizers, IMO, is the "lotto model," where a few states, strategically & geographically positioned, can put pressure on nearby states by posing the question: Am I gonna watch all that potential tax revenue go over the border, or am I gonna get my share?
You don't need too many states to begin a cascading effect...which can and will change federal law.