HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Colorado Governor Serious...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:36 AM

Colorado Governor Seriously Doubts The Feds Will Let The State Legalize Pot

http://www.businessinsider.com/hickenlooper-asks-feds-about-pot-2012-11



Colorado's governor plans to ask the feds today just how they plan to respond to voters' decision to let the states' citizens smoke weed if they want to.

Governor John Hickenlooper is trying to set up a call with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to chat about the state's new marijuana law, the Denver Post reported.

The governor, who opposed the law, predictably isn't that optimistic about getting the Justice Department on board with the measure.
"My sense is that it is unlikely the federal government is going to allow states one by one ot unilaterally decriminalize marijuana," Hickenlooper said, according to the Post.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hickenlooper-asks-feds-about-pot-2012-11#ixzz2BdrXmH1e

19 replies, 1214 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:47 AM

1. Lowhanging fruit is Eric Holder's mainstay.

If he can't keep busting pot smokers, he might actually have to go after the scumbags that have committed war crimes in our name and crashed our economy. Un-fucking-thinkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:53 AM

2. It will be litigated, and the feds will lose.

Because they don't have a leg to stand on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:01 AM

3. Did someone dust-off the 10th Amendment ? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:29 AM

6. I doubt it will come to that.

The states need the money, and there is plenty of money to be made.

The science contradicts the entire prohibitionist position on the subject.

Clearly, the share of the voting public that is hung up on kicking hippies is dying off, we have generational change, and the politicians will deal with it or be "left behind".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:32 AM

7. We'll see if the Obama/Holder position changes now that Obama no longer has to run for president. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:47 AM

11. That's a good question.

I don't expect Obama will ever touch the subject, for reasons both obvious and impolitic to discuss. I can see Holder moving on in the second term, and who would replace him could tell you a lot.

I expect in the end it will be Congress that "fixes" it, bottom up, not top down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:57 AM

12. Holder wants to stay

So the Prez will have to ask him to resign. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt he will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:55 AM

14. Well, if Pres. is attached to him, I don't expect he's going anywhere.

He just won in a landslide, I expect he'll choose whom he likes to work with 2nd term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:52 PM

16. That seems to be in question: "Holder suggests he may resign"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014296541

I don't take that at face value, but I do think it depends on what The President wants, not what Holder wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:13 PM

17. I have never believed that Holder was acting

on his own initiative. There's nothing about him that suggests the loose cannon. I have no proof, but I'd wager he's been following the Presidents wishes with regard to Wall Street and marijuana clinics. But we have no way of knowing. This administration is a black hole as concerns information about its inner workings. By this point in the Bush administration, Woodward was working on his 3rd book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:37 PM

19. I agree.

Obama is neither a careless or an inattentive man, as has been evident on many occasions now. One of Holder's functions is to be a sort of lightning rod, a job he has done quite well, but may well be sick of.

The agenda in the second term may change quite a bit though, I'm waiting to see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:09 AM

4. If the Gov Remains a Prohibitionist

then he will use the Most conservative interpretation of laws that he can to Quash the People's Will-with Holder's help.

How was Alcohol Prohibition ended again?
End Cannabis Prohibition.

Fact: A majority of people across the country now want this and we can save as much as $75 B annually.

Additionally, It seems folks are sick and tired of seeing their friends and family go to jail/sucked into the system to allow for the PIC to Flourish/Profit. It is Not about Public Safety-It's about Corp Revenue.

I'm thinking diverting those funds into Education, Research---for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:32 AM

8. The very fact that the pot sales will fund education is the key to passing Amendment 64.

 

Education money is SORELY needed, and the pot taxes will take care of it.

Hick needs to ignore the Feds, permanently. In fact, he should be extremely hostile to the DoJ and John Walsh (Colorado's federal U.S. Attorney).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:03 PM

15. You are correct n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:15 AM

5. Let's see, states' rights allow them to reject Obama care, but

the fed can override states' rights on marijuana? Do I have that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:33 AM

9. Did they call

the Feds when they made medical marijuana legal there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:33 AM

10. What a lousy governor that Hickenlooper is!

His people spoke. He should back them up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:00 AM

13. "Jefferson & Madisonís 1798 efforts to nullify unconstitutional laws still alive!"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:20 PM

18. I'd like this to be tested under the current Supreme Court

Medicinal marijuana lost the last time 6 to 3 with the liberals mostly siding with the Feds and surprisingly Thomas and Rehnquist siding with the state.

Here's my general feeling about this. Having a federal drug control policy makes sense on a lot of levels. I would much rather have the FDA regulating drugs than having each state do it themselves. That said, I'm not sure that it ought to be within the Feds' purview if we're talking about non-interstate commerce and small amounts.

If someone has a 40 acre pot farm and is shipping it all over the country, yea I think the feds should have the authority to shut them down even though I think it's a stupid for pot to be illegal. But the Colorado law only allows you to grow 6 plants and possess up to an ounce. I think that when you're talking about quantities of any drug that small, the states ought to be able to determine the criminal penalties or there lack of.

Put more simply, I think it's within the federal government's authority to prevent the emergence a large scale interstate legalized pot industry in the United States if that's what the law says. But on a small scale and particularly confined to one state, I think the 10th amendment would come into play here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread