Crackdown on Legalized Marijuana

[howie105]

I completely grant that the Cole Memo was an imperfect solution. Will you grant that having it and the thriving Cannabis Industry that it allowed, is better than not?

With respect we already have a thriving MJ industry its just uncontrolled by government regulation and as much as politicians claim to respect and support small business they obviously don't in the case of pot IMO.

 

[florduh]

With respect we already have a thriving MJ industry its just uncontrolled by government regulation and as much as politicians claim to respect and support small business they obviously don't in the case of pot IMO.

Oh I completely agree with you. I'm just saying that the Cole Memo prevented raids by the DEA that were hurting the industry. The Cole Memo gave confidence to investors and allowed businesses to thrive these past few years. Not a perfect solution, or even a good one. But it was better than nothing, and nothing is what we are left with now.

I also agree that it's a shame that Small Business owners, supposedly beloved by politicians, are now screwed.

The Party of Small Business and Limited Government is really stupid for not taking up Legalization as their cause. It would win them support in demographics they've never had a chance with.

 

[grampa_herb]

Since when has the Party of Small Business and Limited Government supported Small Business and Limited Government?

 

[Tranquility]

I hate to break it to you, but by your standard we already live in a dictatorship.

I agree the imperial presidency is a problem. A far, far bigger problem than the legal status of cannabis.

Feds are ignoring the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 by not prosecuting college students stealing Wifi from Starbucks. I haven't seen a single raid, come to think about it.

I know you think you are making an important point here. I could distinguish in a lot of ways. If I were to get legalistic (Something which I am wont to do and am pretty good at.), I might point out the subtle difference between knowing that, federally, pot is illegal and that, federally, accessing computer records beyond one's permission is potentially a crime. In other words, I'd get to the mens rea between the two.

I might also mention the feds, as a policy, are not going after people in possession of small amounts. IF going beyond permissions is illegal, and, IF Wifi surfing outside of Starbucks would fall under that provision of the law, THEN the feds are doing exactly the same thing with the purported Wifi thiefs as they are with users. If some Russian hackers came up with a large scale program to mine bitcoins using the Wifi and other resources at Starbucks that resulted in hundreds of thousands of value shifted from Starbucks to the hacker, should the government get involved then? What if the great state they were in said it was OK?

Personally, I don't see that as tyranny. I see that as Federal Law Enforcement being good stewards of my tax dollars.

It seems to me almost definitional. Tyrants can be fairly good stewards of tax dollars--they have a tradition of making the trains run on time too.

By the way, there are many dumb Federal Laws just like that one. We don't waste resources pursuing prosecutions for them. That doesn't make us a dictatorship. It makes us realists.

How is the law "dumb"? How would you write it to keep hackers from getting free reign over systems?

That being said, there are a ton of dumb laws; Federal, state and local. It is entirely different (From a policy perspective.) to say, Joe Dumbass was holding a joint when he entered a federal building and we shouldn't prosecute 'ol Joe because it is a waste of resources. And, the law is stupid in general and we won't enforce it.

If you want to make an argument the law is not Constitutional, I hear you and can go down that path. I want politicians to not enforce clearly unconstitutional laws. Cannabis laws, however, have been tested so many time in court on so many levels, it is unreasonable for anyone to believe they are unconstitutional unless we find lots and lots of laws unconstitutional. I'm in on that too. I tend towards being a libertarian and am disgusted at where we have let ourselves get to. I want more freedom. I want less laws. I want less government.

I don't want those things in the moment when the executive, the governor, and, state and local prosecutors agree with me. I want them whether they agree with me or not.

If the whiff of Democrat or Republican crosses the wind when you think of legalization, we can get this settled in the same time frame we got abortion and immigration handled. If, instead, we focus on the facts of the situation rather than the tribe one belongs to, we will continue to win the hearts and minds of all. Once legalization becomes nothing more than politics, opinions harden and all the gains are at risk.

 

[florduh]

I might also mention the feds, as a policy, are not going after people in possession of small amounts.

Aren't you making my point for me? Law Enforcement makes determinations on how to spend their limited resources all the time. You seem to believe that not putting infinite resources into pursuing prosecutions for every law on the books is "tyranny". I think that's insane, but agree to disagree.

And, the law is stupid in general and we won't enforce it.

The Controlled Substances Act was enforced in legalized States. Feds were just focused on illegal grows, dispensaries selling to minors, and distributors sending weed across State lines.

The weren't "ignoring" the law. They were spending limited resources in ways that most closely aligned with their goals. That isn't tyranny. It is fiscal responsibility.

How is the law "dumb"? How would you write it to keep hackers from getting free reign over systems?

I may have misspoke. We need to have a law against illegal access of networks. But I'm sure we could come up with language that wouldn't make College Students at Starbucks Federal Felons.

Follow this Twitter account https://twitter.com/CrimeADay

They've tweeted Hundreds of ridiculous Federal Laws that I guarantee LE spends zero time pursuing. That doesn't make us a tyranny.

If the whiff of Democrat or Republican crosses the wind when you think of legalization...

It brings me no joy to advocate for Dems. But the fact remains that one Party is demonstrably worse on Cannabis: The Republican Party. I hope that the saner Republicans and Dems can come together to correct this issue. But pretending that Republicans and Dems are equally hostile to Cannabis in 2018 is a fantasy.

 

[Tranquility]

Aren't you making my point for me? Law Enforcement makes determinations on how to spend their limited resources all the time. You seem to believe that not putting infinite resources into pursuing prosecutions for every law on the books is "tyranny". I think that's insane, but agree to disagree.

Do you really not see the difference? I'll stop after this because I don't think you are getting my point and I've tried at least three times.

See:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7080789915693710984&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

1. Enforcement should depend on "factors which are peculiarly within [agency] expertise."
2. The President "Cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attrmpt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.
3. The President cannot "consciously and expressly adopt a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.
4. (From Heckler v. Chaney progeny.) Non-enforcement decisions are most comfortably characterized as judicially unreviewable exercises of enforcement discretion when they are made on a case-by-case basis.

I may have misspoke. We need to have a law against illegal access of networks. But I'm sure we could come up with language that wouldn't make College Students at Starbucks Federal Felons.

Try it. Remember, there is a phalanx of smart people on the other side who are going to argue if they don't agree with your new law. If you look at the history, most laws are vague. For real fun, look to obstruction laws. They cover just about anything you can think of.

It brings me no joy to advocate for Dems. But the fact remains that one Party is demonstrably worse on Cannabis: The Republican Party. I hope that the saner Republicans and Dems can come together to correct this issue. But pretending that Republicans and Dems are equally hostile to Cannabis in 2018 is a fantasy.

I can see the slogan now, "Legal by the Millennium".

 

[Jill NYC]

Want to get really pissed off? Take a look at this 2 minute clip of this Kansas GOP rep explain why he thinks marijuana should not be legal.
He said this in 2018. You have been warned.....

 

[florduh]

@OldNewbie I understand what you're saying. I think you are making a good argument. I also think you are wrong. This is a matter of opinion and there are good arguments on both sides. You think the Cole Memo represents the Justice Department Unconstitutionally rewriting the law.

I reject that interpretation and maintain that it is perfectly legal for them to prioritize certain prosecutions over others. Again, the CSA was still being enforced in Legal States, but they focused on those causing the most harm to the public (selling to minors, interstate trafficking, etc). Here is an author from a Libertarian site who agrees with me: http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/05/did-jeff-sessions-marijuana-memo-restore

He writes: "Contrary to what a Justice Department official claimed yesterday, that memo did not create a 'safe harbor' Cole issued no orders to ignore federal law, made no promises, and gave no guarantees. In practice, however, U.S. attorneys since 2013 generally have refrained from prosecuting state-licensed cannabusinesses unless they violate state as well as federal law."

I realize there are many smart people who agree with you as well. Neither of us has a slam dunk case here.


And the only reason I'm advocating for Dems is, like you said, passing new legislation is the only way to permanently fix this. We only have a choice between two Parties. One is demonstrably better on this topic.

 

[Tranquility]

@OldNewbie
I reject that interpretation and maintain that it is perfectly legal for them to prioritize certain prosecutions over others. Again, the CSA was still being enforced in Legal States, but they focused on those causing the most harm to the public (selling to minors, interstate trafficking, etc).

Though, to be fair, "that" interpretation was the holding in the Supreme Court case I cited for the first three elements and from later cases considered to be the progeny of that decision for #4.

Once you get into arguing the actual facts as might be interpreted by a court, that is different.

And the only reason I'm advocating for Dems is, like you said, passing new legislation is the only way to permanently fix this. We only have a choice between two Parties. One is demonstrably better on this topic.

In [year] and [year], the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) spent four percent of its budget on the medical marijuana crackdown. Having conducted at least 270 paramilitary-style raids during the past four years, [Rep/Dem President]’s DEA spent approximately $8 million to carry them out. However, the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on raids was dwarfed by the amount spent on investigative efforts preceding raids, indictments, and lawsuits, which has totaled more than $200 million. Over the past two years alone, the DOJ has effectively shuttered more than 500 dispensaries in California, Colorado, and Washington State by sending letters to landlords, threatening criminal prosecution and seizure of their property.

While we were drafting the report, the cost estimates had to be updated to reflect two more raids, a series of asset forfeiture threats against landlords in Washington State, and the surrender of three individuals to begin serving 5-year mandatory minimum sentences. While the report was being formatted, Michigan cultivator and organ transplant recipient Jerry Duval began serving a 10-year prison term, which will not only be detrimental to his health but according to the Huffington Post is also expected to cost taxpayers more than $1 million. In addition, at least another hundred letters went out to landlords in California, and US Attorneys filed two more asset forfeiture lawsuits. By the same estimates used in the report, those actions would add another $10 million to the amount President [Rep/Dem] has spent on this senseless war.​

--https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steph-sherer/obama-medical-marijuana-cost_b_3443095.html

 

[florduh]

Once you get into arguing the actual facts as might be interpreted by a court, that is different.

Correct. And like the Libertarian author I quoted pointed out, in a Supreme Court case the Obama Justice Department could've simply said the Cole Memo was guidance, not an order to ignore Federal Law. US Attorney's simply chose to focus on prosecuting offenders that were most harmful to the public. No way to know for sure what would've happened though.

As for raids during the Obama era, prior to the Cole Memo.... we're back to the Democrats aren't perfect, so they must be just as bad as Republicans. Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

Look at the joker @Jill NYC posted a video of. Literally no Dem in 2018 (or possibly ever) sounds like that.

 

[vapirtoo]

I'm 65 ears old, and I cannot believe that MY generation still has not legalized marijuana.
WTF, alcohol prohibition was nixed decades ago, and weed, one of the safest drugs around,
is still considered dangerous and a so-called gateway drug. I'm just too through with America,
but there is no other country to go to.

 

[Tranquility]

As for raids during the Obama era, prior to the Cole Memo.... we're back to the Democrats aren't perfect, so they must be just as bad as Republicans. Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

You may be back there, but I'm still in the same place. I don't want to live my life through the whims of some guy.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

It's not like we're talking about ancient history. We're talking about the most recent administration that turned rapidly around (at least twice) on MEDICAL. He used multiple levers of government power in an attempt to stomp medical out. Read the article. Many here lived it.

All on the whim of Obama.

 

[florduh]

So let me see if I have this straight:

When Obama fully enforces Federal Law, he is a bad guy.

When Obama chooses not to fully enforce Federal law, he is a lawless tyrant?

You may be back there, but I'm still in the same place. I don't want to live my life through the whims of some guy.

I don't either. But if the Democrat won in 2016, I wouldn't be wondering if my dispensary is going to be open tomorrow. Is that as good as the perfect, legal system you and I would like passed into Law?

No.

But it's sure as shit better than what the current Administration is giving us. Bringing up Obama's fuckups from half a decade ago doesn't change that fact.

It was clear before the election that Trump would nominate a rabid prohibitionist to the AG spot.

Meanwhile, the Dems became the first major Party to call for moving towards legalization in their platform.

In 2018, the Parties aren't equivalent on this topic.

 

[Tranquility]

So let me see if I have this straight:

When Obama fully enforces Federal Law, he is a bad guy.

When Obama chooses not to fully enforce Federal law, he is a lawless tyrant?

Everyone who cares has read my posts. If YOU believe that is my position, then I have not been a good communicator to you. I bet most who have read this far KNOWS that is not my position. So much so that I might put it in the "straw man" category.

I don't either. But if the Democrat won in 2016, I wouldn't be wondering if my dispensary is going to be open tomorrow. Is that as good as the perfect, legal system you and I would like passed into Law?

You have no basis for that belief, then or now. We have a recent real world example of Democrats (Not some nutjob with an odd opinion, but the President.) doing exactly that for medical.

But it's sure as shit better than what the current Administration is giving us. Bringing up Obama's fuckups from half a decade ago doesn't change that fact.

I missed the round up. Do you have an article?

You have an inchoate fear of what this administration might do. Yet, the prior administration, by any measure did far worse. By any measure. Maybe your fears will come true. Or, maybe....

(As to the rest, simple partisan baloney.)

Since PB seems where this is going now, I'm out. But, thank you for your prior thoughtful discussion.

 

[florduh]

@OldNewbie It is incredible to me that you dismissed what I wrote as "simple partisan baloney".

Yes the Obama Admin acted badly. But then their Justice Department implemented the Cole Memo and things got better. Not perfect, but plainly better. Leaving that part out is intellectually dishonest.

As expected, Trump nominated an extreme prohibitionist as AG who rescinded the Cole Memo and has indicated he would like to see the legal cannabis industry gutted.

And you don't get to dismiss the Kansas Republican who says black people are genetically susceptible to Cannabis as "some nutjob". As I've pointed out, EVERY rabid prohibitionist Politician is a Republican, including Jeff Sessions.

I'm arguing the obvious. That in 2018 the Republican Party in general and this Admin in particular are worse on Cannabis than the alternative Party. I wish this wasn't the case. I wish the Republicans walked their talk on freedom and limited government. They haven't.

Me pointing this out isn't "simple partisan baloney".

I agree we are talking past each other though, so I'll stop. We both want the same thing. And I hope the Trump Admin will end up being as benign on Cannabis as you believe. Peace

 

[neverforget711]

@OldNewbie It is incredible to me that you dismissed what I wrote as "simple partisan baloney".

Yes the Obama Admin acted badly. But then their Justice Department implemented the Cole Memo and things got better. Not perfect, but plainly better. Leaving that part out is intellectually dishonest.

As expected, Trump nominated an extreme prohibitionist as AG who rescinded the Cole Memo and has indicated he would like to see the legal cannabis industry gutted.

And you don't get to dismiss the Kansas Republican who says black people are genetically susceptible to Cannabis as "some nutjob". As I've pointed out, EVERY rabid prohibitionist Politician is a Republican, including Jeff Sessions.

I'm arguing the obvious. That in 2018 the Republican Party in general and this Admin in particular are worse on Cannabis than the alternative Party. I wish this wasn't the case. I wish the Republicans walked their talk on freedom and limited government. They haven't.

Me pointing this out isn't "simple partisan baloney".

I agree we are talking past each other though, so I'll stop. We both want the same thing. And I hope the Trump Admin will end up being as benign on Cannabis as you believe. Peace

You are being rather down and it is not due. The asshats are in flyover states where the law will culturally lag (no offense and my condolences) and won't be coming for your grass in a presumably legal state. Even my NJ gov will proceed with his legalization promise despite the news.
Furthermore it really is less binary,.
Look here a bipartisan backed legalization bill, maybe sessions is the grease for the barrel.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/975/cosponsors?q={"search"%3A%5B"h.r.+975"%5D%7D&r=1

And last flogging of the dead horse, Dubya was not even aggressive vs Obama who really let many people down, who would have a blind spot for executive orders once this topic comes up. 1 year now and no major raids from this admin, people get busted for state violations but no guns blazing from the Feds.

 

[florduh]

@neverforget711 Do you think Hillary would've nominated someone as bad as Sessions to AG?

Before the election we knew Trump's short list for AG was Sessions, Giuliani, and Christie. There isn't a single member of the Democrat Party who are as bad as them on weed.

When you hear that a politician is on tape saying we need to keep weed illegal because of those "low character" blacks... you KNOW it's a Republican. You don't even need to look it up.

Yes, Dems have been bad in the past. Yes there are some Republicans who are pro-weed, but they are on the fringe of their Party.

You just aren't convincing me that in 2018, Republicans and Dems are equally bad on cannabis.

Yes Sessions being an asshole may finally force Congress to act, but I'm not giving Trump or Sessions credit for that.

 

[nickdanger]

Unfortunately, this has become a partisan issue, because both parties are evil on so many levels. The corruption runs wide and deep.

 

[florduh]

Unfortunately, this has become a partisan issue, because both parties are evil on so many levels. The corruption runs wide and deep.

I agree both Parties are evil. But they aren't equally evil. At least in terms of Cannabis in 2018.

Saying both parties are equally evil gave us Jeff Sessions.

 

[MyCollie]

I don’t know the statistics.... but how many more clinics were in existence from 2009 forward vs all eight years of the Bush administration?

 

[neverforget711]

@MyCollife
I'm digging through this for anything. I'll edit once something pops up.
https://mjbizdaily.com/category/charts/

 

[florduh]

I don’t know the statistics.... but how many more clinics were in existence from 2009 forward vs all eight years of the Bush administration?

That's a good point. Of course there were more dispensaries during the Obama years. He was a dick for raiding so many during his first term. But as his reign winded down, things were on a better track.

Furthermore it really is less binary,.
Look here a bipartisan backed legalization bill, maybe sessions is the grease for the barrel.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/975/cosponsors?q={"search"%3A%5B"h.r.+975"%5D%7D&r=1

You're right. That is a bipartisan bill. But twice as many Dems as Republicans are signed on. And the bill was proposed by a Republican. If both Parties were equally pro-cannabis... you'd see an equivalent number of Republicans signed on to this Republican bill.

I'm not arguing that Dems are perfect on this issue. They aren't. But they are better than Republicans. There is a zero percent chance any future Dem Admin will go back to dispensary raids. You can't say the same thing about Sessions/Trump and the GOP.

I don't want to beat a dead horse but thinking "both parties are bad so I may as well vote for the Party of Jeff Sessions" is insane to me. Many people fell into that trap in 2016.

Choose wisely this November.

 

[neverforget711]

@florduh
I hear you but you need these Rs, they are the majority and both parties need to play together for this issue which is just a warmup. You can feasibly get a plurality of D's and a minority of R's to advance this and start some momentum against the default gridlock. There's nearly a year until you can exercise that vote, they can reach an answer before such time.

Once again, it just sounds like you've memorized a bit too much Bill Maher and it's kind of an impasse.

 

[florduh]

@florduh
I hear you but you need these Rs, they are the majority and both parties need to play together for this issue which is just a warmup. You can feasibly get a plurality of D's and a minority of R's to advance this and start some momentum against the default gridlock. There's nearly a year until you can exercise that vote, they can reach an answer before such time.

Once again, it just sounds like you've memorized a bit too much Bill Maher and it's kind of an impasse.

I hope they do figure all of this out before November. And I do appreciate the saner Republicans, and would absolutely vote for them. However, they are outliers in their party.


I am a Bill Maher fan but I'm not a political ideologue. I'm a pragmatist. And I'm just calling a spade a spade. Sorry, I'm not going to pretend there's an equivalency where none exists.

 

[howie105]

@florduh
I hear you but you need these Rs, they are the majority and both parties need to play together for this issue which is just a warmup. You can feasibly get a plurality of D's and a minority of R's to advance this and start some momentum against the default gridlock. There's nearly a year until you can exercise that vote, they can reach an answer before such time.

Once again, it just sounds like you've memorized a bit too much Bill Maher and it's kind of an impasse.

You know I think gridlock is/has become the preferred approach for governing. It's often quicker, easier and sadly the longer it goes on the less people care. Following the logical course of such an approach should be disturbing enough to get people out of their idealogical foxholes, but it isn't.