Obama: "Doesn't make sense...to focus on recreational drug users"

[GreenMeters]

Obama signaling a hands-off approach to States that legalize recreational marijuana use?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...ority-drug-war/story?id=17946783#.UMs0LqU1fQN

Would like to see a stronger statement, certainly, but hopefully this is a topic, like marriage equality, that Obama is 'evolving' on in the right direction... quickly.

 

[rudder]

It will be a slow painful process. I am sure obama sees the lure of tax revenues coming from legal marijuana use... but all that will be offset by all the CCA employees who will be out of work.

 

[tydas]

My question though, does a colorado/ wash DEA office even need permission to go out and nab someone? unless they are specifically told to stand down?

 

[chucky2]

Doesn't make sense to combat illegal invasion, doesn't make sense to combat people breaking the law...why would people bother to follow laws then? Sounds like the Fed needs to get out of the law business if they're not going to enforce what they bother to put out. Pretty bad message to send.

 

[etrigan420]

My question though, does a colorado/ wash DEA office even need permission to go out and nab someone? unless they are specifically told to stand down?

Well, the DEA offices are still Federal, so they don't need "permission" from state agencies.

As I understand it, the main concern is regarding how state/local LEO's are supposed to treat requests for assistance from federal agencies in enforcing federal drug laws.

You start denying federal authorites assistance, and you risk being denied federal dollars.

SIDE NOTE: Didn't President Obama say pretty much the same thing with regards to medicinal facilities in California, which the DEA then cracked down on? I don't know if I'm remembering that right...

 

[Genx87]

I was just about to post this. Well done Obama! Now lets hope he sticks to his word and doesnt increase enforcement like he did in California.

 

[dank69]

Doesn't make sense to combat illegal invasion, doesn't make sense to combat people breaking the law...why would people bother to follow laws then? Sounds like the Fed needs to get out of the law business if they're not going to enforce what they bother to put out. Pretty bad message to send.

Cry more. Archaic drug laws are going the way of the GOP dinosaur.

 

[GreenMeters]

SIDE NOTE: Didn't President Obama say pretty much the same thing with regards to medicinal facilities in California, which the DEA then cracked down on? I don't know if I'm remembering that right...

I've seen that explained as going after medical marijuana dispensaries--in states where only MM, not recreational use, is allowed--that were selling to people without MM cards, or facilitating the second-hand sale from those with MM cards to those without, or that had ties to organized crime. But I haven't seen that definitively sourced, so it may be spin.

 

[piasabird]

The problem with the illegal invasion is it also brings an invasion of gangs and guns killing everyone in their path. The drugs are just one part of the equation.

 

[chucky2]

Cry more. Archaic drug laws are going the way of the GOP dinosaur.

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. I'm all for MJ being legalized at the Fed level, and then having each state set their level of control. My point is, there's laws on the books. Those laws exist to be followed. Don't feel the need for them to be followed? Change the laws. Same thing as dealing with the illegal invaders. What they're doing now is just p*ssying around the issue, something I don't feel the Fed should even be engaging in - it sets a really bad precedent.

Chuck

 

[Darwin333]

Obama signaling a hands-off approach to States that legalize recreational marijuana use?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...ority-drug-war/story?id=17946783#.UMs0LqU1fQN

Would like to see a stronger statement, certainly, but hopefully this is a topic, like marriage equality, that Obama is 'evolving' on in the right direction... quickly.

But he fucks with people (or specifically those that sell to) who use it for medical reasons as recommended by their doctors more than the so called "conservative" president Bush.

 

[Olikan]

Doesn't make sense to combat illegal invasion, doesn't make sense to combat people breaking the law...why would people bother to follow laws then? Sounds like the Fed needs to get out of the law business if they're not going to enforce what they bother to put out. Pretty bad message to send.

fighting something socially accepted, is like punching ourselfs on the face when we whant to drink water

 

[peonyu]

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. I'm all for MJ being legalized at the Fed level, and then having each state set their level of control. My point is, there's laws on the books. Those laws exist to be followed. Don't feel the need for them to be followed? Change the laws. Same thing as dealing with the illegal invaders. What they're doing now is just p*ssying around the issue, something I don't feel the Fed should even be engaging in - it sets a really bad precedent.

Chuck

They are not invaders in Obama's eyes, they are simply future voters for the DNC who are not documented yet.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

My point is, there's laws on the books. Those laws exist to be followed. Don't feel the need for them to be followed? Change the laws.

You mean like voters in Washington and Colorado did? Or did you think that Federal law was going to change before any states started moving in that direction?

 

[IGBT]

the feds won't enforce border violations. Give em time. Soon they will forget drug laws too. The dopers will dance in the streets..if they can stand up.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. I'm all for MJ being legalized at the Fed level, and then having each state set their level of control. My point is, there's laws on the books. Those laws exist to be followed. Don't feel the need for them to be followed? Change the laws. Same thing as dealing with the illegal invaders. What they're doing now is just p*ssying around the issue, something I don't feel the Fed should even be engaging in - it sets a really bad precedent.

Chuck

I wouldn't be so puritanical about it, there's plenty of laws on the books that are ignored directly, it's one of the ways the executive branch checks the other two branches.

The reality is the Feds don't have the resources to go after small time drug users/distributors, and instead go after the big fish, so the game will pretty much be business as usual.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Recreational vs commercial.You want to have a half dozen plants in your backyard fine.

Just do not go selling anything to someone.

Commercial places that are selling become the target; they are not recreational use.

 

[airdata]

Good on Obama..

But, didn't he say similar things in 2008 and then there's been all sorts of raids and indictments in California?

All of the adults in the room know that Marijuana should be legal. It's only illegal because lobbyists keep it illegal. Any and all negitive statements toward pot can equally be used toward alcohol and tobacco which are widely celebrated drugs in our country.

 

[waggy]

SIDE NOTE: Didn't President Obama say pretty much the same thing with regards to medicinal facilities in California, which the DEA then cracked down on? I don't know if I'm remembering that right...

this is my question.

 

[Ausm]

Recreational vs commercial.You want to have a half dozen plants in your backyard fine.

Just do not go selling anything to someone.

Commercial places that are selling become the target; they are not recreational use.

I think a half dozen plants wouldn't cut it.

 

[Jaskalas]

The President now has the power to decide which laws are enforced?

No law exists unless he approves it?

I'd argue that this is not for him to decide, no matter how correct he is on the issue.

 

[Darwin333]

The President now has the power to decide which laws are enforced?

No law exists unless he approves it?

I'd argue that this is not for him to decide, no matter how correct he is on the issue.

It is for him to decide since he is basically the "boss" of the justice department, FBI, DEA, etc... He can tell them which crimes to spend more resources on and which to spend less resources on at will. I am not sure if he can legally "force" them to do that but he sure as hell can replace the head of the department with someone who will do what the president wants.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Recreational vs commercial.You want to have a half dozen plants in your backyard fine.

Just do not go selling anything to someone.

Commercial places that are selling become the target; they are not recreational use.

I think a half dozen plants wouldn't cut it.

That was the limit put in place in Co.

Washington does not have a plant limit; but a quantity limit based on substance form.

 

[Fern]

I think a half dozen plants wouldn't cut it.

You need to learn how to grow better plants.

--------------------

I'm not sure Obama's remarks mean that much. The feds already don't go after users for possession. It's not worth it for them so they don't bother. Also, the penalties for simple possession are quite low, as they are applied anyway.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

They are not invaders in Obama's eyes, they are simply future voters for the DNC who are not documented yet.

Exactly. And same for the Reps. Both parties are complicit in their treason and greed.

You mean like voters in Washington and Colorado did? Or did you think that Federal law was going to change before any states started moving in that direction?

It can change before or after, but if it's a Fed law, then I expect the Fed to be actively enforcing it, or, removing it from the books. I'm fine with States deciding to legalize it. But if we're going to play the 'Fed law trumps State law listen to the all knowing Fed' game, then if MJ is still illegal Federally, I expect the POTUS to be enforcing those Fed laws. The POTUS is not a dictator, he shouldn't be picking and choosing what laws we'll be following.

I wouldn't be so puritanical about it, there's plenty of laws on the books that are ignored directly, it's one of the ways the executive branch checks the other two branches.

IMO that's not a check, that's a willful dereliction of duty. If we wanted a dictator, we'd have worked toward that system of governence - we haven't.

The reality is the Feds don't have the resources to go after small time drug users/distributors, and instead go after the big fish, so the game will pretty much be business as usual.

Then the reality is the Feds need to up their resources to enforce these laws, or, get rid of these laws. The People wanted these laws, they've got them. Either The People should fund the implementation of what they wanted, or, The People need to send messages to their Politicians in sufficient numbers that the Politicians change the laws.

What prevents the next POTUS from simply deciding that he/she doesn't like some other law, and instruct resources to be overly aggressive or lackadaiscal in their enforcement? This is not how our legal or political system should be working...

Chuck