In California, It’s U.S. vs. State Over Marijuana
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
For the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame Republicans for this one. If we can't trust Obama to take rational positions on such clear cut issues, who can we trust?
So you have Bushite US Attys, and an AG (and President) who have been hostile to State sanctioned MJ.
The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce Congress's laws.
Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this.
Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.
Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State...
Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions: http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
...except when he decides not to defend a law[1] that he claims is unconstitutional.
To be clear, I do actually support universal health care. The Obama administration, however, made a deal with the pharmaceutical company to win their support for the law, one that involved increased crackdowns on medical marijuana and illegal drug imports, and various other moves that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.
Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of "when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.
It speaks well of people when they are surprised by indifference and slavish obedience to the letter of the law. It also speaks well of people when they are outraged by things they think are wrong.
It's easy to call people who are surprised and outraged naive, but I would argue that without that naivete change is less likely to occur. Cynicism, in my experience, breeds apathy.
In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history.
Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own merits.
That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue; rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the interests of some demographic group of victims.
On top of that, marijuana is incorrectly scheduled as having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment" [1], which is like spitting in our faces and telling us it's raining.
[0] https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=interstate+commerce+me...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
If Davies really did seek "large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana", as the prosecuting attorney alleges, then he is in violation of both state and federal law. If he did not seek such profits, then he may indeed be in compliance with state law.
It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of state law then?
Can someone explain this like I'm 5?
In this case, one would think the Federal government would have more important laws to enforce.
The state and federal line is the brightest, as prosecution of federal crimes goes through different channels than the prosecution of state-level crimes.
There is some debate as to whether federal or state laws should take precedence here, though the argument is kind of academic, as it's obvious the federal government wins in real life. From a constitutional standpoint, there's a decent case for the state's laws superseding the federal, but I mean, the state can't really stop the feds from arresting people for breaking federal law.
(1) The council can introduce bylaws which cover a single area (eg. a park).
(2) All sorts of national organizations have their own bylaws (eg. the railways, canals).
(3) You can even have "laws" affecting individual houses (they are called "covenants"). eg. my house has a binding covenant that stops me from keeping chickens.
BTW the EU isn't really a law maker as such. Our contract with being in the EU means that we implement the EU directives, but in theory we could refuse -- the EU would fine us and/or kick us out if we did this.
Incorrect. Directives do exist, and they are transcribed by members into national law. However, Regulations have immediate effect across all member states, no transposition required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
Also, there is no mechanism in the current treaties to throw out a member from the EU - all members must agree for a member to leave the EU.
Fines do exist for non-enforcement of EU law though.
It went all the way up to European level, and there they overturned German law.
I disagree and think that "7 degrees of hacker news" is a fun game but should not seriously be considered a serious or legitimate reason to include some or other article.
Personally I neither upvoted this story or downvoted your comment but the fact that this story is on the front page and your comment has been downvoted may indicate that others (shockingly) have different views to yourself and I remind you of the submissions/comments guidelines:
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
There's nothing about this article that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." and it might well be considered a "classic flamewar topic", although I suspect mostly a one-sided flamewar here. Still though, it's a charged, political subject.
If no one calls out stuff that's off-topic, it's going to continue to be propagated.