Calif. Gov. Brown: DOJ, Obama should 'respect' state marijuana laws

[kpete]

Source: The Hill

Calif. Gov. Brown: DOJ, Obama should 'respect' state marijuana laws
By Zack Colman - 11/11/12 10:12 AM ET

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said the federal government should let recently passed marijuana legalization laws stand in Colorado and Washington.

“It’s time for the Justice Department to recognize the sovereignty of the states,” Brown said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “I believe the president and the Department of Justice ought to respect the will of these states.”



Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana for recreational use through ballot measures last week.
But marijuana is still outlawed at the federal level, which likely foretells a legal battle over implementing the state laws.

Read more: http://thehill.com/video/policy-areas/267241-calif-gov-brown-feds-should-respect-state-marijuana-laws

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That's my governor!

Jerry is no hypocrite.

[bhikkhu]

2. I hope so...this is one thing that couldn't be done well before the election

without seeing Obama tarred and feathered as the "drug lord" candidate, which would play too easily to existing racial stereotypes.

The easy thing would be to end federal enforcement on marijuana, as there are such a well-voted on variety of adequate state laws, and this would also free up a great deal of DEA manpower to go after the really deadly stuff.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. I completely agree with you on all points.

When Reid and the Democrats in the senate change the filibuster rule, they need to push forward to legalize marijuana. Although I have never had the pleasure of using the stuff (my only vice is worse - cigarettes that are, for some strange reason, legal), it's a harmless plant and it has many, many benefits.

On the other hand, hearing from my group of young people, they don't want it legalized in CA because it would cost too much. Currently, it's inexpensive to get, but should it be legalized, it would double in price at minimum, and they don't want that. So it's kind of a dilemma.

[msongs]

20. grow your own solves that issue - government drug dealers no better than cartel ones nt

[BlueCaliDem]

21. It's still not legalized in CA - and that includes growing your own. eom

[Socal31]

36. Anyone who cares to do a little research can obtain the necessary license to grow.

I was forced to call the local Sheriff on a tenant because they had visible plants on their side-yard, and they didn't do anything. They said that most times with a small-scale grow, the occupants have a license, so it is a waste of time to obtain a warrant.

Also, Ahhhnold made personal MJ less than a misdemeanor before leaving office.

It is basically legal around me....

[Xithras]

49. Not legalized, but decriminalized.

Possession of up to one ounce of cannabis in California was decriminalized and reduced to Infraction status in 2010. Legally, it now has the same status as a parking ticket...you can't be arrested for it, there is no trial or judge, you can't be sentenced to any jail time or probation for it, and it won't appear on your criminal record. Like a traffic ticket, you CAN be slapped with a $100 fine, but even that is rare (DA's won't pursue it if you object, so the police rarely bother).

[Ecumenist]

44. OH BS, if it becomes legal it will be legal to GROW your own, if that's your thing and CHEAPER

because it's not controlled by cartels. Alcohol during Prohibition was ALOT MORE EXPENSIVE beacause of the difficulty related to transporting it and delivering it.

[Panasonic]

3. Thank you Governor Brown.

For respecting states rights - from a Coloradan who's looking forward the day that everyone can smoke cannabis (and he can do it anyway since he has the red card)

[musiclawyer]

4. Like I have been saying

If the Feds act it ends in federal court and they lose big not based on tenth amendment. Rather science !

[coalition_unwilling]

5. Said the governor who allowed Oakland police to violate civil rights of

his constituents repeatedly (Occupy Oakland) with nary a word spoken.

Jerry Brown: what a putz.

[Towlie]

6. Sorry, but even a pothead like Towlie shouldn't buy that argument.

"Sovereignty of the states" that trumps federal law is a notorious conservative position and it's wrong. We are One Nation, not 50 nations, especially when it comes to human rights issues.

Maybe pot ought to be legalized, but if so then it should be legalized at the federal level. This position is a dangerously slippery slope that could lead to draconian laws in the "red" states.

His heart may be in the right place but that argument sucks.

[Z_California]

8. And we have a winner

What Towlie said.

[slackmaster]

9. Yes, and as long as people keep re-electing the same clowns to Congress...

...it won't happen.

[hughee99]

11. +1000

[Ter]

12. So then repeal the 10th Amendment

By your argument, we don't need it.

[Towlie]

29. Here's a recent and relevant Supreme Court ruling concerning the Tenth Amendment:

In my opinion the Tenth Amendment is so short and vague that it's hard to tell what it's supposed to mean. I'm not saying that I agree with the following Supreme Court decision, or even that it makes any sense, but if you agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is and is not Constitutional then this appears to invalidate your Constitution-based protest:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commerce_clause

... the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.

Remember, I didn't bring up the Constitution; you did. I only stated how I think things ought to be.

[byeya]

33. The Tenth Amendment confirms that federal legislation must be authorized by an enumerated power

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. We are 50 states. Just check out the alcohol laws.

There is a wide variety of approaches.

As for "draconian laws" in the red states, that's what we have now. Colorado and Washington are leading the way to a new paradigm.

Pot should be legalized at the federal level, but that's not going to happen until more states lead the way.

[TeamPooka]

28. Yes the states have different laws but Booze is legal on a federal level.

apples meet oranges.

[Occulus]

31. If an Amendment was required for both alcohol prohibition and its repeal,

why was it never again, for any other substance?

[Moonwalk]

24. You are right that sovereignty of the states should not trump federal law, however...

...there are viable arguments for when and where federal law should trump states law. Which is to say, States DO have the right to create certain laws that the feds cannot or should not interfere with.

In most cases, it's agree that the federal law trumps when it comes to making sure U.S. citizens are safe and are not having their rights, as U.S. citizens, infringed upon (hence the argument that the states cannot restrict public places to people of one color or religion, etc.). Neither of these requirements are met by something like marijuana. What danger does marijuana pose to U.S. citizens (as compared to, say, firearms?). What rights does using it take away from any citizen?

A state can have laws against alcohol and the Feds won't interfere, lose ones or strict ones. So why interfere with marijuana? In what way is the state deciding on its use different from the state deciding on the use of alcohol?

[rhett o rick]

25. I agree. But the DOJ could/should respect the will of the states and

reduce the priority of marijuana persecution.

[struggle4progress]

37. +

thank you

[progressoid]

39. Tell that to the President.

He's publicly stated that he supports each state deciding marriage equality.

[heaven05]

7. I

Last edited Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

hope the DOJ and POTUS make it clear that there are more important priorities like economy, wars, taxes, tax returns, hidden cayman and swiss accounts rather than someone smoking a joint in their living room relishing mittshits defeat.

[Coyotl]

19. Better places to spend money than on incarceration and fat profits and pensions for prison industry

[Lionessa]

10. Really it would be best if he'd just follow their lead and legalize it nationwide.

[StrictlyRockers]

13. Go Jerry!

yes!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. It's one thing for the federal government to step in to free citizens from state law,..

...and it's quite another for them to step in to jail citizens.

[nlkennedy]

16. Some Dem Govs have guts..

Remember how brash Cuomo was about legalizing gay marriage?

Governor Hickenlooper and Gov Brown are showing some spine here...

It may take 4 years to legalize at fed level, but it's starting to look possible.

If President Obama doesnt believe in it, then he doesnt believe in it. Who knows, he might get bored after the midterms...

[Le Taz Hot]

18. NOW he speaks out?

Well, better late than never, I suppose but he's been deafeningly silent while the feds raided hundreds of legal California dispensaries. AND he VETOED the Hemp Legalization Act that was passed by the California legislature for a third time.

[nbsmom]

34. He has to govern the whole state

If he'd taken a stand on legal pot before the elections, he might have threatened the passage of 30 (and perhaps, to a lesser extent Prop. 34, although he had a lower profile on that issue). It makes sense: he was saving all of his political capital to achieve that end. With that prop safely passed, and two other states voting for decriminalization of non-medical pot, he's now able to pivot to this other issue. IIRC, he used to go on KPFA (the Pacifica radio station) and KFOG (more mainstream radio) quite frequently and hold forth on decriminalization (before he ran for Governor in 2010).

"The big lock-up is about drugs. Here's the real scam. The drug war is one of the games to get more convictions and prisoners."
Jerry Brown on Crime Control, We the People Radio Network archives, October/November 1995.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. None of this is even remotely true.

The fact is that Jerry Brown has always been a good Party Boy and the DNC told him to stand down and that's what he did. He remained silent while thousands of MM patients watched as legal dispensary after legal dispensary was raided and closed down. He could have met with Obama. This state gave Obama 55 electoral college votes. Twice. You think Obama would refuse to return a phone call from the governor of the most populace state? He could have held a press conference and voiced his objections but nope. He remained silent. I find it amusing that NOW he's claiming "state's rights" just as long as it's in some other state.

Additionally, the Hemp Legalization only involved four counties and they volunteered for it. That included four RED counties. His 2 Republican predecessors vetoed it as well. There was NO reason for him to veto it. None. Legal hemp could have helped this state's fiscal woes tremendously and CA could have once again led the way on this very vital issue. But, again, the Party Bosses ordered him to veto it and that's what he did. Jerry Brown is all politician and if anyone believes differently then they've not done their homework.

[madrchsod]

22. state`s rights!...state`s rights!...state`s rights...!

[judesedit]

23. The reason pot is illegal is it was cutting into the profits of petroleum and lumber/newspaper/Hears

Check out the history. Don't go by me, but hemp makes much better, more durable products than many sources used today. It makes better fuel and better paper. You can make clothes, rope, and on and on. But then the oil companies won't get richer. Hearst is now dead, and his paper probably is, too, but paper is still made out of wood, when it is not necessary. Look at Haiti. Cutting down all of their trees to make charcoal for cooking, heating. Other options haven't been as cheap...and they're broke. I'll bet you could make a brick for cooking or heating from hemp cheaply and it could save their country.

[TeamPooka]

27. Pot and Hemp can save the world!

[TeamPooka]

26. Prohibition is a failed public polcy...again. It needs to fixed at the Federal level.....

Because the states rights argument will be used against us with abortion issues etc.
I don't want to be able to smoke pot in CA while a guy in Alabama gets to tell a black woman she can't use his public restroom.

[kestrel91316]

30. IMHO federal law should only apply to cannabis transported across state lines.

When I was in school and learned a tiny bit about civics, that's what we learned about the feds' ability to regulate commerce.

IMHO they need to BUTT OUT of what we do with cannabis within our individual states.

[libdem4life]

32. Sister lives in a dry county in Arkansas and has to go to the next county for wine.

That's County. Go figure.

[Canuckistanian]

35. Why has this never gone to court?

Honestly, Americans settle EVERYTHING in courts it seems.

Why hasn't there been a challenge?

[randome]

42. It's already settled law. Federal law trumps state law.

[Comrade Grumpy]

46. Fine. Let the feds enforce state level pot laws. Good luck with that, DEA.

The states have no obligation to enforce federal law; that's the feds' job.

The states have no obligation to make or keep marijuana illegal.

If the feds want to keep fighting the reefer wars, they can do it by themselves.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. It has gone to court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[sarcasmo]

38. The right Attorney General will allow this to happen.

[NorthCarolina]

40. Since he cracks down on Medical Marijuana usage, odds are he will not view

recreational use as more sacrosanct.

[randome]

43. A lot of state and local authorities REQUESTED the help of federal authorities.

So it's not as clear as Gov. Brown wants to make it out to be.

[Comrade Grumpy]

45. Yes, the recalcitrant ones who don't want to obey the state law.

I encourage their constituents to vote them out of office.

[Kingofalldems]

47. Kick and Rec