HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Justice to Wash. state: P...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:01 PM

Justice to Wash. state: Pot still illegal under federal law

Source: Washington Post

On the eve of marijuana becoming legal in Washington state, the Justice Department warned that the possession, growing or use of the drug remains illegal under federal law.

“Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on Dec. 6 in Washington state, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law,” said a statement issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle on Wednesday evening.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-to-wash-state-pot-still-illegal-under-federal-law/2012/12/05/c7e87204-3f33-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html?wprss=rss_world



Idiots....

37 replies, 4067 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
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice to Wash. state: Pot still illegal under federal law (Original post)
defacto7 Dec 2012 OP
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #1
defacto7 Dec 2012 #4
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #9
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2012 #21
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #22
neoconn Dec 2012 #13
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2012 #20
bemildred Dec 2012 #24
grantcart Dec 2012 #33
Vinnie From Indy Dec 2012 #2
robinlynne Dec 2012 #3
defacto7 Dec 2012 #5
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #6
SoapBox Dec 2012 #8
Angleae Dec 2012 #11
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #31
Angleae Dec 2012 #32
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #34
Angleae Dec 2012 #36
SoapBox Dec 2012 #7
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #10
hockeynut57 Dec 2012 #12
sofa king Dec 2012 #23
jbp23 Dec 2012 #14
John2 Dec 2012 #16
hrvatska Dec 2012 #17
John2 Dec 2012 #19
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #25
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #28
Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #35
uncle ray Dec 2012 #15
DiverDave Dec 2012 #18
slackmaster Dec 2012 #26
oNobodyo Dec 2012 #27
MFM008 Dec 2012 #29
rachel1 Dec 2012 #30
union_maid Dec 2012 #37

Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:05 PM

1. Don't bring it on to federal property.



The statement warned that it is against federal law to bring any amount of marijuana onto federal property, including national parks and forests.




Thanks for the thread, defacto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:22 PM

4. I was wondering why that statement sort of "hung" out there.

First they say it's illegal period. Then they add a slight ambiguity by warning that it is against federal law to bring any amount of marijuana onto federal property. The second statement is redundant, or they are opening a crack. I'm not sure what their intent was in making a firm statement ambiguous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:41 PM

9. I believe

many in the federal government want to evolve our cannabis policy to a logical, sane and just status.

However there are holdovers and people of power with financial stakes tied to this most destructive policy, so the feds are walking a high wire but at some point the walk must come to an end.

I do hope they recognize the sheer counterproductive, dysfunctional insanity behind our draconian "War on drug" policies and put our nation on a corrected, enlightened, progressive course posthaste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:44 AM

21. its going to happen state by state and not at the Federal level

once there are enough states that legalize, the Feds at some point will decide to take the consent of the governed into account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:08 AM

22. That will be

when the high wire walking act that I was referring to comes to an end.

The other possibility although I believe the odds to be longer is for a hardcore crackdown by the federal government and reversal of the gains made over the past few years but I believe the momentum is clearly on the side of legalization.

The people; thanks in large part to the growing power and influence of the Internet are become more aware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:33 AM

13. I think the statement was saying

to stay the hell away from (Federal property, including all federal buildings, national parks and forests, military installations, and courthouses) with your bags of pot......


They can't arrest everybody......But they can and will arrest you if you enter their holy land....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neoconn (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:40 AM

20. actually they could bust a marijuana medical marijuana dispensary or a grower

whether its on Federal land or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:18 PM

24. I think the implication is that federal law will still be enforced on federal property.

But I have a feeling they won't spend a lot of time looking for it, you'll get detained for something else and charged with possession too.

And you can draw from that the conclusion that they won't try to enforce it elsewhere, but I wouldn't bet the farm on that.

The legal entanglements one gets into by arresting under federal law a state officer for activities he/she is mandated to do by state law are wonderful to contemplate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:28 AM

33. also don't bring it across the border.


Personal use will be confiscated and destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:07 PM

2. Put up or shutup!

The state of WA has spoken!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:20 PM

3. I wish the Justice Department were warning that election theft is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:25 PM

5. hear, hear, to that!

What's more important, a stupid unfounded rant against MJ or our constitutional right to vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:25 PM

6. Does the federal government REALLY want to go bankrupt

pursuing small-time recreational and medical cannabis users??? SERIOUSLY?

I say bring it on. WE are bigger than them, and we are morally in the right. And they know it. They are bullies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:40 PM

8. Ditto! AND...we vote! Stand in the way of a new, common sense approach

and we will VOTE your freak'n ass out!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:06 AM

11. It's the sellers they'll go after.

Since you have to have a license to sell cannabis in WA, the feds will actually have an easy job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:37 PM

31. Not if licensees do an all cash business. It's not illegal under federal law to possess a WA

dealer's license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:40 PM

32. Just possessing such a license is "probable cause" for a federal search warrant

That license means that you intend to sell illegal narcotics (as far as the feds are concerned)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:17 PM

34. If everyone in the state had a dealer's license regardless of whether or not

they ever intended to deal, it could prove exceedingly costly for the feds to pursue each and every one of them in hopes of finding an ACTUAL dealer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:28 AM

36. True, but how many people will actually apply for a license considering they probably won't be free.

It will end up being like the MMJ dispensaries in San Francisco. All they have to do is find MJ on the premesis/person (any amount).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:39 PM

7. Blah, Blah, Blah...

Hey Feds and Batshit Crazy Anti-Pot types...shut the fuck up...STOP wasting our valuable (AND hard earned) tax dollars on the stupid "war on drugs" bullshit.

MOVE on!

Go arrest the Puke and Bagger types that are robbing us BLIND on Wall Street!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:00 AM

10. Yea, well, war crimes are still illegal under federal law. Bank fraud is still illegal.

 

Voting fraud is as well.

And violating civil rights by using unnecessary and excessive force by the police is still illegal under federal law.
(As just one example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021932608 )

Yet, the DOJ doesn't seem to have any serious interest in those crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:17 AM

12. and now the billable hours begin

anyone care to guess how much it'll cost to take this all the way thru the courts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hockeynut57 (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:10 PM

23. Do I include the cost of potato chips in my guess?

It will be an "administrative expense" for one side.

Seriously, though, I'm having trouble imagining scenarios in which untested legal avenues can be cited or used to kick a case up to the higher courts. None of this is particularly new; the vast majority of legal precedent has already been decided in favor of The Man, and The Man doesn't want this to happen now, so they're not going to help.

On the other hand, the marijuana advocates will have creativity on their side, which is exactly what they need to find a legal approach that can shift the legal landscape in their favor.

But it will be costly in potato chips and other convenience store items. Tens of millions in billable hours, at the end of its eight-to-ten year run--if they can grow the legs in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:48 AM

14. WA State Should Call the Feds Bluff

 

All Washington state has to do is not enforce marijuana laws as constituted in their new law. If the feds want to enforce minor drug offenses and other marijuana related "crimes" let them just don't cooperate. Without the state cooperating the feds will have nowhere to put those being arrested for marijuana related offenses. Without the help of the state the feds would be overwhelmed, they would not have enough manpower, nowhere to put offenders, it would just be too much work for the feds without the help of the state. Pretty soon federal courts would be over burdened, federal prisons even more over crowded,and the DEA would be over worked. It would teach the feds a lesson that if a state stands up to them and refuses to participate in enforcing a law that the state says is legal under state law the feds would be overwhelmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jbp23 (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:28 AM

16. I actually

 

think the wrong target is the Justice Department. The target should be Congress and those that made the plant a level one drug. The best way to take them on is through the Courts when people think a law should be unConstitutional. The State of Washington and Colorado should challenge Congress in the Federal Courts and make the Justice Department prove Congress decision on marijuana. If they can't prove the plant is as dangerous as Congress claims, then the Policy is bad. Just put your experts against Congresses experts. I got a feeling religious extremists had something to do with it again and their science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jbp23 (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:20 AM

17. The feds won't go after users

If the feds decide to act it won't be by arresting thousands and thousands or users. It will be by going after producers and retailers. And yes, the DEA has the resources to arrest enough growers in WA and charge them with serious offences to have a real chilling effect. Not having any legal growers or retailers in the state because of a fear of long federal sentences could put a real damper on things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrvatska (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:27 AM

19. That is

 

why I say challenge the Constitutionality of the law Congress made. The evidence for making the plant illegal appears weak to me. There is more scientific evidence now proving it. The plant was made illegal in 1930 and it looks like politics had a lot to do with it. The politicians that made it illegal, didn't have the evidence or research, to prove their claims. Now there is better research, even showing marijuana is good for some diseases like glaucoma. You do not use level one drugs, which are narcotics to cure diseases. That research did not exist in 1930. If the evidence can be shown flimsy, then the argument can be turned around on infringement of rights. I think a lot of people, specifically young people have become informed about the truth and that is why they don't believe the Government. A lot of these people probably are secretly using it too. This is similar to the prohibition of alcohol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrvatska (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:26 PM

25. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrvatska (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:24 PM

28. If that's the case, more users will grow their own.

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Welcome to D.U. hrvatska.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrvatska (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:43 PM

35. That's basically what they've done in California to Medical Marijuana growers and retailers

They also sent letters to anyone who owns commercial property and rents to a marijuana retailer threatening to confiscate their property. That alone shut down almost every pot dispensery in my county, which is in northern California. They also swore in two Sheriff's Deputies in my county as Federal DEA agents without identifying which two they are. So now whenever you are dealing with a local Deputy, you are potentially dealing with a Federal agent.

I would like to see some governor post the National Guard at marijuana stores and force the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:56 AM

15. my reading between the lines concludes they're not going to do a damn thing about it.

yeah, you still gotta watch what you do in national parks, federal buildings, etc. but the feds don't seem all that interested in sanctioning WA and CO, nor picking up their slack in enforcement, for now at least. if the federal gov't was going to take serious action, this statement would have contained exactly what it is they plan on doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:43 AM

18. BIG business runs the white house

if they go after WA. and CO., it's proof.

Now hide THAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:31 PM

26. This the result of an extensive analysis of the federal statutes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:04 PM

27. Some clarification...

Firstly, it's not congress that determines the legality or illegality of any particular substance, it's the "scheduling" and this is where big business puts their lobbying money. It's the FDA that makes the recommendations to the DHHS that makes recommendations to the Attorney General which in turn directs the DEA.

"The primary role for FDA under the CSA is to provide the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) with our scientific and medical evaluation of drugs. FDA's consultative role stems from the provisions of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (Act) of 1970. Pub. L. 91-512 (October 27, 1970). Such a role is consistent with FDA's mission of public health protection. Under the Act, the Secretary of DHHS is charged with evaluating certain medical and scientific factors and making recommendations to the Attorney General as to whether the substance under review should be managed as a controlled substance, or removed from control, and the appropriate level of control. Title II of the Act, now fully incorporated into the CSA, establishes the factors and findings determinative for control. The factors set forth under 21 U.S.C. § 811 allow the Attorney General and, by delegation, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to schedule a drug if she finds that the drug has a potential for abuse. The Attorney General also must take into account whether the drug has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and the extent to which the use of the drug may lead to physical or psychological dependence."

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115087.htm

Secondly, Colorado had a medical marijuana dispensary system setup prior to this new law and unlike California where the feds did meddle there were clear laws regulating it. Also, another difference in California was that there were local officials complaining to the feds and that triggered the meddling.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly. Putting similiar measures on the ballot in other states in 2014 and 2016 will all but assure the fed following suit but special effort should be made to avoid the mistakes that California and Oregon made in their attempts at legalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:45 PM

29. puff puff blah blah blah

smoke em if you got em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:01 PM

30. The prison-industrial complex just can't allow people to smoke pot

otherwise a significant portion of their income would be reduced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:39 AM

37. I think it's the treaties

The federal government, and a lot of foreign governments have a lot of adjusting to do. I really don't understand all the ins and outs, but issues ranging from drug enforcement treaties made all over the globe, and with special attention to cartels in Mexico, make it very complicated for the feds to just shrug off changes in the law and leave it to the states. They're going to have to work on figuring all this out. Legalizing weed state by state is probably just a first, but very important step in a long process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread