Crackdown on Legalized Marijuana

White House Expects Justice Crackdown on Legalized Marijuana

"The Justice Department will step up enforcement of federal law against recreational marijuana, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday, offering the Trump administration's strongest indication to date of a looming crackdown on the drug, even as a solid majority of Americans believe it should be legal." I do believe you'll see greater enforcement of it," Spicer said in response to a question during a news conference. But he offered no details about what such enforcement would entail...

The Justice Department has several options available should it decide to enforce the law, including filing lawsuits on the grounds that state laws regulating pot are unconstitutional because they are pre-empted by federal law. Enforcement could also be as simple as directing U.S. attorneys to send letters to recreational marijuana businesses letting them know they are breaking the law.

Washington's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said he and Gov. Jay Inslee, both Democrats, requested a meeting with Sessions about his approach to legal, regulated marijuana. Ferguson led the states in fighting off Trump's executive order on immigration in court and said Thursday he's prepared to lead the way in defending legal marijuana, too."

Sure was fun while it lasted. So moving to Washington.

For those of us who thought Jeff Sessions might be too busy repressing immigrants and minorities, keep in mind that his first act as Attorney General was to weigh in on where kids go potty.



Attorney General Buzzkill.

 

States rights are only for reich-wingers

 

Too much easy to make political mileage in beating up pot users. Hopefully when the pendulum swings back to the left the new bosses will legally codify its usage at the national level instead of dumping its legalization and protection on the states.

 

Obama had eight years to work with Congress towards legalization but did absolutely nothing.

Actually he did do something, he stepped up the DEA raids on dispensary's.

 

Except this was Obama's stance eventually.

That guidance was issued after two states -- Colorado and Washington -- voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Obama said in the immediate aftermath of those votes that the federal government had "bigger fish to fry" than cracking down on marijuana use in states where it's considered legal.

Edit
Be careful and thoughtful in this thread. I've seen other threads similar to this get shut down due to heated conversations and bad manners. Make sure you know what are in the rules. Keep the community happy, politics seems to be a touchy subject these days

 

I was so disappointed that Obama never pushed for legalization. And after finding out about his raids, I was even more disappointed. This is why I don't trust any of these people in office. Democracy is meant to create law whilst listening to the voice of the people. It seems like this doesn't really ever happen, even with politicians who try to say it does. So I don't know who is worse, people who say one thing and do another, or people who are outright against it

 

I would think the big pharmaceutical companies would oppose the crackdown. They still have plans to take over the market.

 

All you need to succeed is a need and a seed.

 

Looking at pot as just as a medical drug, it could cost drug companies big money if folks use self procured pot in place of proscription products. Worse than just this one drug is if people realize how good herbal remedies can be then the whole grow it/gather it yourself thing could really bite into their pockets. Easier to just suppress pot then end up fighting on multiple fronts.

 

HI Carol - I agree with you and agree that the last administration was much more friendly to MJ than this one (or at least what we are divining from the tea leaves from all of the contradictory and off the cuff statements).

But the fact remains that Obama had many opportunities to significantly change the MJ regulatory and legal landscape at the Federal level and he passed on it. Simple as that.

 

Maybe so, but wouldn't it have been just one more accomplishment for the current administration to repeal?

 

I live in Washington, DC area. I am inundated with political news, a very large amount of which, while taken by some to be facts, nonetheless start with the words: could, might, maybe, possible, conceivable, predicted, and every other weasel word for presenting as facts mere possibilities when really there is no fact involved at all.

So, for me, whether the current administration would/could/might/possibly repeal MJ legalization falls well into that complete idle speculation territory.

 

Busted.

Indeed. Hoping passions are beginning to cool. Find it helps to read a lot and genuinely try to understand. (Which we should have been doing all along. This could be a good place to start, or this.) And there is one thing we all agree on.

 

It was complete, idle speculation territory before the recent announcement from Spicer/the White House (IIRC it was him). Now the how is still unclear, but there was certainly more clarity that the powers that be in the White House are against legalization of recreational and are prepared to take action to that effect. What the actions might be, we don't know. That is where the speculation comes in now. Before it was completely speculative. Now we've got a clearer idea of how the powers that be regard recreational cannabis at present - and it is not a positive view, my friend!

Here's to hoping that this is not a high priority and nothing happens to effect legal recreational users or producers/providers all the same though

 

Because we clearly cannot trust anything this administration says, or even trust they talk to each other, any clarity here is incremental at best. (Did Spicer talk to anyone before he said that? Was it a trial balloon, and they wanna see how upset people get? Can anyone in the WH even tie their own shoes, let alone agree on weed policy?)

We know, thanks to the 10th amendment and recent court cases (including Roberts' recent opinion in a SCOTUS case) that the feds cannot compel local law enforcement, and thus have very few options to "enforce" federal drug policy at the state level: namely, they can send in federal agents to disrupt extant retail operations in recreational states (for the moment, anyway, they can't direct any federal funds towards disrupting mmj operations, and it appears for now 45 et al are cool with medical...) In the four states that just passed rec laws, there's no retail to disrupt, yet. This leaves WA, CO, OR, and, hilariously, Alaska as states where the feds could create real problems. (I wanna see them take on the deep red state of Alaska...)

As has been noted above, almost any actions in these states will immediately end up in court accompanied by injunctions etc. To my mind the worst aspect of all this is the chilling effect on new biz owners and start-ups. Tommy Chong tweeted a few days ago: "Of course Trump is going after legal marijuana but like the failed Muslim ban it will be defeated in court. Don't worry stay High." Perhaps the best advice I've seen yet on the subject. (Hell, even the Republican attorney general here in ME, who was against legislation of rec weed, just issued a statement telling the Feds to, in effect, butt out.)

(Oh and of course call, don't write, your local reps and senators. Call them every week on this issue until it's resolved.)

 

The federal government could simply choose to enforce federal laws for producers/retailers in legal states again man. That would be enough to cause chaos and funnel more of the cannabis community into the prison system.

My view is much the same as Chongs by the way. I believe that this government are absolutely about pursuing the things they announce - doggedly and with little regard for negotiation! We have enough evidence now to see that this is the case. I also agree that this isn't always enough for them to get what they want, obviously the immigration ban is clear evidence of this.

However, there are existing means by which this government could make things difficult for legal recreational without having to necessarily worry about the courts! This is a different kind of legal matter to the immigration ban and that is why there is cause for concern. Of course, folks should clearly stay high as Chong says. All we can do is hope for the best and work where we can to avoid the worst now!

 

.........................................................
Now we do have a more clear idea of where they really stand (in contrast to where they said they stood AND in contrast to their own party's major plank of, "states rights").

Only light I can see is if Feds push it and an impacted State sues them, and wins some kind of state's rights precedent for ALL states in future. AND---maybe they throw in some kind of "Constitutional Right" to cannabis under "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as cannabis and hemp were widely used then and some colonies mandated that farmers grow some hemp as it had soooo many uses. It was legal when the constitution was created so how can we now make it illegal??

Or if the feds try, maybe instead of a million man march, there needs to be a million person "cannabis constitution day", to show what support there is for cannabis?
It's so frustrating as the legalize MJ movement is going so slow and even when voted in, it gets sabotaged under the guise of "we need more time to get our shit together before we start our state program" so we'll delay it XXX months. BS

 

Priority? Whose priority? See potty reference, above. Sessions got his way on an issue that's dear to his heart but Trump couldn't give a toss about. What's another of those issues? He does what he's told, and he gets his shot.

Private prisons are thriving in the new administration. Could have doubled your money investing in them on 11/9.

 

Damn it! I always miss those bumper shares!

I did say I'm hoping for the best - doesn't mean that is what we should expect as you suggest

 

But that's exactly what I said. "Disrupt retail". That's all they can do, and they can only do it with federal manpower. They cannot compel state or local authorities. Once again, 10th amendment. And several recent case law precedents.

Would going into, say, CO, and closing shops etc cause major disruption and outrage? Absolutely. Which is why....

No, actually, any action they take to disrupt the production or sale of weed in legal states will be subject to court action. Again, 10th amendment. How the courts rule, whether stays/injunctions are served, how long, how high up, blah blah blah...who fucking knows. But there will be court actions filed in any state where this activity occurs. I suspect the paperwork is drafted already.

I'm not being pollyanna here...this is bad news, but anyone surprised by it hasn't been paying attention to the GOP since the Nixon era. My point (and the point of others on this thread) is that the "oh well legal rec weed was fun while it lasted, it's all over now" reactions are getting way ahead of themselves. It remains to be seen if the feds can or will wield the manpower necessary and/or weather the legal challenges to really fight this across four states...and again, there's nothing (yet) to fight in the other four, so there's literally nothing the feds can do that changes the situation on the ground in those states, at least for the next year.

 

Tongue firmly in in cheek, @mitchgo61. Agree, big money buys big lawyers. There's no telling how this will go. Maybe that's as it should be, WDIK? But the happy march to legalization won't be a walk in the park.

Don't worry, there's still time to get in on this one.

The new gal.

 

The pharmaceutical companies would greatly benefit from the crackdown, as it eliminates competition. The pharmaceutical lobby is probably one of the largest, if not the largest. This is simply about suppression of competing industry. Once again the feds decide who are to be winners and losers in a business. Also, the injustice system is too lucrative an industry for the prison industrial/police complex to drive real repeal of the federal laws on cannabis. It's all about the money.

 

As Trump Said in the Campaign, Leave Pot to the States

By ETHAN NADELMANN

"In pulling back from Mr. Trump’s assurance during the campaign that states should be left to decide their own marijuana policies, Mr. Spicer made clear that a battle is coming over marijuana policy. It will be a fight that pits a Justice Department headed by a fervent prohibitionist, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, against the eight states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — in which voters have approved ballot measures to legally regulate marijuana, as well as other states likely to legalize marijuana in the near future...

What Mr. Sessions’ Justice Department can do, however, is cast a chill over the rapidly growing legal and regulated marijuana industry by targeting key players with raids, seizures of property and prosecutions in federal court, and by challenging the ability of state authorities to regulate the industry...

Mr. Spicer’s comments made clear what Congress most needs to do. When it re-approved the Rohrabacher-Farr medical marijuana amendment in 2015, by a vote of 242 to 186, it also narrowly failed to approve, by 206 to 222, a McClintock-Polis marijuana amendment that would have prohibited the Justice Department from going after recreational marijuana in the states that had legalized it. That same amendment would almost certainly pass today given both the doubling in the number of legal marijuana states this past Election Day as well as changes in the composition of the House. It should be a top priority of the newly created, bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Caucus, which includes the second-longest serving member of Congress, the Republican Don Young from Alaska."

More food for thought.

 

Hello my friend - Well, I certainly never said that I have a positive view of this current administration position on MJ, medical or not. However, I also think that this administration is not as competent as some may believe that that much of this stuff is off the cuff and not coordinated policy either within the White House nor with the rest of the majority party representatives.

I believe when asked what the hell he meant by enforcement, Spicer said something like that this would need to be answered by the DoJ. While this is certainly not positive, and certainly not what I wanted to here, I also wonder the degree to which Spicer's comments really reflect a policy shift...or even a real policy position.

I agree that its very worrisome. But I also stand by the fact that I have found myself inundated with critical and worrisome news stories that do indeed contain "could, might, maybe, possible, conceivable, predicted, and every other weasel word for presenting as facts mere possibilities". Hysteria and hand wringing, ahead of the facts, seems to be at a high point in our country these days.

Personally, and I don't have any inside info, Spicer's comments do not appear to me to be a statement of firm policy and that Trump and Sessions will get an earful from legislators on both sides of the aisle if he tries to roll back referendum passed state law/constitutional changes. Nor do I think that Jeff Sessions neanderthal views of MJ are the last word as this (state's rights and the overwhelming number of people who support various levels of legalization) will be another political hot third rail and they are all politicians enough that expediency and politics will win over.

Also, I agree with @mitchgo61 that if they try, we will be reading about court cases for many, many years.

Yes, its worrisome. Yes, Spicer is an idiot (the gateway drug crap among other statements) but I'm tending to wait until I see an actual policy statement...on really any of these hot issues...before I go to war.

Donald Trump vs. marijuana: Here’s who will win

 

Ugh.

http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/02/27/jeff-sessions-federal-marijuana-policy/74493/