Rocky Mountain High: Feds Won’t Go After Pot Use in Colorado, Other Places

[Steve williams]

Takepart.com

America got one step closer to ending marijuana prohibition this week when the U.S. Department of Justice formally announced it would not mount a legal challenge to Colorado and Washington’s state-regulated marijuana cultivation and distribution laws.

Federal prosecutors have long been at odds with state and local governments because so many have chosen to permit pot use for medicinal or recreational purposes, but it's still against federal law to smoke weed.
The announcement Thursday means a huge hurdle has been cleared in the movement to rework federal drug policy, Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, told TakePart.

“After Colorado and Washington passed their laws, the big question was ‘How will the feds respond?’" Riffle said, adding that the announcement "sends a clear signal not just to those two states, but to others, that they are free to decide their own policies regarding the cultivation and distribution of marijuana.”
That doesn’t mean that that state-licensed distributors of either recreational or medical marijuana have nothing to fear from federal law enforcement.
“In terms of enforcement action, this memo will only shield people complying with strict state laws,” explains Riffle. “There are plenty of distributors operating in gray areas, or in states with lax or no state regulation.”

That includes states like California and Michigan – which have medical marijuana laws, but no cohesive state policy for how to implement them from the ground up.
There are plans to get a cohesive, state-sanctioned marijuana sale and distribution policy on the ballot in California in 2016, Riffle said.
The most immediate front in the movement for marijuana legalization will be in Alaska, where advocates are attempting to get a legalization initiative on the ballot for the Aug. 19, 2014 election.

Similar efforts are underway in Nevada and Oregon, targeting the 2014 ballot.
Eleven other states—Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and New Hampshire—are all in the process of considering medical marijuana legislation as soon as the end of 2013. If all those efforts are successful, it will bring the number of states with some form of sanctioned marijuana distribution policy to 30.

Even if that scenario were to transpire, there are still major federal obstacles standing in the way of a more locally-controlled marijuana policy.
"The IRS will not allow dispensaries to deduct ordinary business expenses from their tax burden," says Riffle. "Also, there's the issue of access to banking. The DEA has sent memos to banks, letting them know that if they accept dispensary money, they will be participating in the equivalent of laundering money. The result is that legal dispensaries are forced to be cash only businesses, making them targets for theft."
Thursday may have been a major victory in the effort to end marijuana prohibition, but America is still a ways off from the time when states can fully enact their own policies without federal repurcussion.

 

[Mosin]

...America is still a ways off from the time when states can fully enact their own policies without federal repercussion.

[RANT=Me]One of the main reasons the US is in such debt and social disarray is because no one at the Federal level seems to know why we have states.

States were established, not only so they could better govern given areas, but so they could compete with one another. If one state implements some law that others do not like, that law should be viewed as a trait of that state. If it implements self-destructive laws, it cannot compete with the other states. That should be a wake up call to citizens of that state for change because such laws adversely affect the growth and well-being of their home state, but it is up to the people who live there to make changes, if they see the need. The end result would be that everyone benefits because a mistake made in one state would be realized and corrected by those in that given state. It wouldn't be a shotgun approach (like we have now) that might affect some state that had no part in the bad law. On the other hand, if a state implements a law that advances it in some way, the bar is raised for all the other states to do the same. The cumulative effect is that everyone wins, and that mistakes can be corrected with relative speed because a state would see them and react faster than the Feds. In any event, none of this is the Federal Government's business, unless a state law tramples on individual rights.

The failure of the Federal Government (and many voters) to grasp this simple concept that once made The United Sates the best country ever in existence is the reason the country is in its current condition.

If Colorado decides that it is acceptable for its citizens to mainline heroin in the middle of the street without legal recourse, it is the business of Colorado and the persons using the heroin, not the business of the Federal Government.[/RANT]

 

[dingus]

my take:

..the U.S. Department of Justice formally announced it would not mount a legal challenge...

the Justice Dept is taking this tact so they dont risk having to defend Prop 1 in court. also by not mounting a legal challenge they can continue with the status quo of using enforcement selectively at their whim. nothing changes, they bust whatever people and operations they choose to, whenever they choose to.

 

[dingus]

oops, i said Prop 1, i meant Schedule 1... big difference.

 

[amirm]

From what I have heard on radio interview with the feds (AG?), there is a shift that is slowly coming to not send people to prison for pot. It is expensive and puts these people next to criminals that are there for serious stuff. And has not deterred use of the stuff. I thought it was a fascinating shift in thinking on behalf of the government. The logic makes sense to me.

 

[LenWhite]

From what I have heard on radio interview with the feds (AG?), there is a shift that is slowly coming to not send people to prison for pot. It is expensive and puts these people next to criminals that are there for serious stuff. And has not deterred use of the stuff. I thought it was a fascinating shift in thinking on behalf of the government. The logic makes sense to me.

I've read the over crowding of jails is partly attributable to the prosecution of marijuana possession and public opinion is also becoming more tolerant of marijuana. I also don't think it's ever been proven marijuana leads to ingestion of more serious drugs.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

DANGER! Marijuana leads to audiophileism or audio addiction. Or is it the other way around.

 

[Mosin]

yes, fed law still trumps state law. our past history shows that states can not just go out on their own, (example, slavery) but when george washinton started the federal goverment it was needed to pull the country together to act as a unit and not 13 or how ever many cats running around doing as they pleased. The trick is the balance between the two, which has been lost in the same way as the trick is the balance between what we the people want, and what our so called elected representative parties decide we want.

Still...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - James Madison, Federalist Papers #46

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." "The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution…" - Thomas Jefferson - Letter to James Madison 1787

"I hope Congress, before they adjourn will take into very serious Consideration the necessary Amendments of the Constitution. Those whom I call the best - the most judicious & disinterested Federalists, who wish for the perpetual Union, Liberty & Happiness of the States & their respective Citizens, many of them if not all are anxiously expecting them. They wish to see a Line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal Powers vested in Congress and the distinct Sovereignty of the several States upon which the private & personal Rights of the Citizens depend. Without such Distinction there will be Danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated Government over all the States: which, although it may be wished for by some was reprobated in the Idea by the highest Advocates for the Constitution as it stood without Amendments. I am fully persuaded that the population of the U S living different Climates, of different Education and Manners, and possessed of different Habits & feelings under one consolidated Government can not long remain free, or indeed remain under any kind of Government but despotism." - Samuel Adams - Letter to Elbridge Gerry 1789

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." - Thomas Jefferson

There are endless similar quotes by various framers.

DANGER! Marijuana leads to audiophileism or audio addiction...

I can think of a few examples that support this scenario. I refuse to name names.

 

[GaryProtein]

They should sell all schedules of narcotics including schedule 1 preparations over the counter in special "drug stores" just like alcohol is sold in "liquor stores" and regulate it just like alcohol.

The "war on drugs" is a deadly flop and is no more effective than prohibition was with alcohol. People who want to use it will use it.

 

[Mosin]

They should sell all schedules of narcotics including schedule 1 preparations over the counter in special "drug stores" just like alcohol is sold in "liquor stores" and regulate it just like alcohol.

The "war on drugs" is a deadly flop and is no more effective than prohibition was with alcohol. People who want to use it will use it.

Exactly. That alone would go a long way towards reducing crime, not to mention the government waste that comes from trying to stop drug peddling.

 

[Steve williams]

Exactly. That alone would go a long way towards reducing crime, not to mention the government waste that comes from trying to stop drug peddling.

as well as all the tax monies it would produce

 

[Steve williams]

Marijuana Ruling Could Signal End of Prohibition on Pot

By COLLEEN CURRY | ABC News

It's legal to light up in Colorado and Washington, and soon smoking pot could be legalized across the country following a decision Thursday by the federal government.
After Washington state and Colorado passed laws in November 2012 legalizing the consumption and sale of marijuana for adults over 18, lawmakers in both states waited to see whether the federal government would continue to prosecute pot crimes under federal statutes in their states.
Both Colorado and Washington have been working to set up regulatory systems in order to license and tax marijuana growers and retail sellers, but have been wary of whether federal prosecutors would come after them for doing so. They are the first states to legalize pot, and therefore to go through the process of trying to set up a regulatory system.

Consumption and sale of marijuana is still illegal in all other states, though some cities and towns have passed local laws decriminalizing it or making it a low priority for law enforcement officers. There are also movements in many states to legalize pot, including legalization bills introduced in Maine and Rhode Island, discussion of possible bills in states including Massachusetts and Vermont, and talk of ballot initiatives in California and Oregon.
But on Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it would not prosecute marijuana crimes that were legal under state law, a move that could signal the end of the country's longtime prohibition on pot is nearing. "It certainly appears to be potentially the beginning of the end," said Paul Armantano, deputy director of the pot lobby group NORML.

The memo sent to states Thursday by the DOJ said that as long as states set up comprehensive regulations governing marijuana, there would be no need for the federal government to step in, a decision that will save the Justice Department from having to use its limited resources on prosecuting individuals for growing or smoking marijuana.
"This memo appears to be sending the message to states regarding marijuana prohibition that is a recognition that a majority of the public and in some states majority of lawmakers no longer want to continue down the road of illegal cannabis, and would rather experiment with different regulatory schemes of license and retail sale of cannabis," Armantano said.

Richard Collins, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, said that the memo from the DOJ points out specifically that the federal government will only walk away from marijuana crimes in states where there is a solid regulatory system for the drug's growth and disemenation.
For other states to mimic the systems in Colorado and Washington, they will first have to get legalization laws on their ballots or in their state houses, which could post a challenge, he said.

While Colorado and Washington have not yet set up their regulatory systems, both states will likely sell licenses to farmers who want to grow marijuana as well as to manufacturing plants and retail sellers. The marijuana will also likely be taxed at each stage of its growth, processing, and sale.
"In both Colorado and Washington, legalization was done by citizens with no participation by elected representatives until they had to pass laws to comply with the initiative. In other initiative states I would expect such measures - I would expect a new one in California, for instance - and roughly half the states permit this and the rest don't.
"In the states that do have initiatives I expect efforts to get it on the ballot. The other half it will be much tougher. It's hard to get elected representatives to do this," Collins said.

Armantano is more optimistic about the spread of legalized pot. He compared the DOJ's announcement to the federal government's actions toward the end of alcohol prohibition in America a century ago, when states decided to stop following the federal ban on alcohol sales and the federal government said it would not step in and prosecute crimes.
"For first time we now have clear message from fed government saying they will not stand in way of states that wish to implement alternative regulatory schemes in lieu of federal prohibition," Armantano said.
He predicted that within the next one to three years, five or six other states may join Colorado and Washington in legalizing the drug, setting the stage for the rest of the country to follow.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, was disappointed with the Justice Department's decision, but said that he had already reached out to set up meetings to talk with leadership in the department and he was "open to discussion" about the benefits.
"I would tell you that certainly the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers oppose legalization," he said, "but that is not to say that we're not willing to have a conversation about it. It is, from our perspective, a gateway drug and opinions to the contrary don't have the weight of fact behind them."
"We want to talk to (the DOJ) about their thought process and ours and where the disconnect is," he said. "From our perspective the only fault with the status quo is that we aren't making a bigger dent and we'd like to make a bigger one."