Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alex3917 | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised more people apparently don't find this to be important. It reminds me of the day the EU formed, warranting all of a two paragraph blurb somewhere in the back of the NYT. Or when the first successful manned commercial launch happened as part of the X-Prize, and all of zero people in a certain ivy league engineering school program had heard about it the next day. As general life advice, I think there's a certain value in cultivating the ability to recognize big events when they happen.

View on HN

It isn't the outcome a lot of people wanted. Many people wanted the feds to throw a hissy-fit so that Colorado and Washington could successfully defend themselves against the Feds and set some sort of good precedent.

If the Feds just keep turning a blind eye, then really we still remain in limbo as the status remains merely a matter of (subject to dramatic change) policy.

On the other hand, if the Feds just keep turning a blind eye, that might provide the time needed to accrue evidence and sway public opinion enough to legalize at the federal level.

On yet another hand, as someone who doesn't smoke marijuana but thinks it should be legal, I'm more interested and clarifying the precedent so there's a better, more concrete understanding of how our state democracies relate to the federal democracy.

> clarifying the precedent so there's a better, more concrete understanding of how our state democracies relate to the federal democracy

I think that's been a somewhat fuzzy, ongoing debate all the way back to the beginning, so I'm not really holding out too much hope on it being clearer any time soon.

the feds only have power from the states, so that's pretty clear. What isn't clear is what the states will do about the federal government over-reaching like with obamacare.

The Feds can pull their "commerce clause" card and do whatever they want.

That's a domain I'd really rather not travel lightly, as in recent years the government (courts, Justice department) have decided that Some Things are just fine which I felt were not so cool. I'd really rather not get them to decide on a states-rights issue, if we can instead find a way to make it legal federally, as the penalty (to states) of losing sounds high.

That's a big risk. If it's not done by 2016, and a conservative or someone interested in playing the "drug war" card gets into office, we could see a totally new Justice Department filing cases against all of these (and whatever new) States.

Yeah. Now, when even people like my religious-right father living in a red-state supports legalization, is a good time to do it. That sort of support could dissolve in the future if the Feds go back to being "the good guys" to people like him after an administration change (instead of "those evil states-rights hating guys"), or if there is another strong push on the morality of drugs (something that is damn-near impossible to reason with, you just have to wear it down over time).

A Democrat administration fighting and losing this battle is the best chance it has and we don't want to miss this window.

Of course, where there's risk, there's money to be made...

A law that isn't currently enforced is a dangerous one. What would happen if all cops started pulling over anyone driving +5 over the speed limit?

People would dislike cops (even) more, slow down while driving, and municipalities would suddenly have an increase in revenue.

The state gets addicted to the revenue, people spend more time looking at their speedometers instead of the road, and the limits keep going down (instead of becoming more realistic) because the 'think of the children' crowd is just as powerful as ever. Source: Melbourne, Australia

Unfortunately, this administration has a history of broken promises when it comes to respecting state medical marijuana laws. They have always given themselves ample loopholes in any guidance so that they can justify desired prosecutions.

This.

I was corrected a while ago on a different site that the Obama administration has been very two-faced about progressive MJ laws. I don't know if a lot of people are aware of that, I certainly wasn't.

Yeah, knowing Obama's track record they'll start prosecuting at some point once the targets get fat enough.

They even said as much in the announcement:

> The size and profitability of marijuana businesses will still be a factor prosecutors can consider, but there also must be additional illegal activities for prosecutors to take action.

With enough scrutiny (which we know the Feds have the capacity for), it's trivial to find some regulation that a particular business is violating. And as soon as they have their justification, they'll come down on suppliers and vendors like a ton of bricks, using both the official violation and the federal Controlled Substances Act in the prosecution.

Overall, this announcement is a good sign that they're losing the war on public opinion, and I don't suspect they'll crack down unilaterally. I think they're going after a strategy of containment; disincentivizing the experiment from spreading, as well as preventing bales of cannabis from flowing across state lines (which, in fairness, will certainly happen).

My view is, we have to wait for after the 2014 elections to see which way he will go. Sadly, changing the number of or length of terms a President can serve won't affect this situation of being bound up by upcoming elections as each side uses them to great effect.

This administration just has a history of broken promises.

War, marijuana, spying, etc.

Even if they keep their word, that word is as good as the next AG /President. The law didn't change, they just decided not to enforce certain laws. In theory it should be a disturbing trend since we're a "nation of laws"

There's nothing to stop the next administration from challenging it. This is the biggest problem in my mind. I'm happy that things are moving in a direction I agree with but I view the patchwork of state and municipal legislation as sub-optimal and largely a work in progress.

Sates could raise a defense of laches, which is a legal doctrine that basically says 'you had your chance and let it pass.' Although the rules regarding timeliness of litigation are fuzzy, courts take a dim view of attempts to 'turn the clock back' if people have had time to get used to the new situation.

So a state passes a law that the Federal government or some group of citizens dislike and a lawsuit rapidly ensues, that's a fair enough controversy and it may even be possible to have the law held up by injunction. But going back to challenge a law that has been around for a while is not so easy. Other factors include whether the challenge is coming from above or below (it's easier for a powerful body like the federal government to marshal the resources to sue, so there is less excuse for a delay in doing so) and whether the aim of the lawsuit is to expand or constrict freedoms (in general, expansion is viewed with greater favor).

IANAL, and no citations will be forthcoming for general remarks, since exceptions certainly exist.

>There's nothing to stop the next administration from challenging it.

The current administration hasn't shown to be all that friendly to marijuana laws, so it could be a blessing in disguise.

Exactly. The whole notion of relying on someone else's good graces to not be considered a criminal by your own government is completely absurd. Especially an individual(s) who supports whatever position they think will get them (re-)elected.

It's not important enough, but it's a start. They're not backing down on a federal level, just keeping out of the states that have legalized it.

When California and enough other states finally legalize it they'll finally have to face the facts.

So in order to get marijuana rescheduled, there is a broad consensus that at least medical needs to be legal in 26 states. (To either get the Supreme Court to review the issue or force action by congress.)

Right now most state officials want to legalize it in their states, but they are afraid because of the conflict between state and federal laws. This is especially true since the government has not until now said that they would not prosecute government employees for administering state programs. This has dissuaded a lot of state reps from voting for reform who otherwise would. This issue is completely gone as of today, so you're going to see support at the state level going from around 40 percent to around 60 percent overnight. It's impossible of overstate how huge this is.

I clearly slept through my government class. Where does the 26 states requirement come from?

> Where does the 26 states requirement come from?

A fantasy that the United States is an association of state governments ruled by majority vote of the states?

My concern is that the federal gov't will do what they do with alcohol laws (legal drinking age, blood alcohol limits) which is "if you don't tow the federal line, you lose your highway funds".

Nothing get politicians to flip faster than money.

I agree.

By the way, any idea why they are doing it now? Are they planning to tax it later?

> Are they planning to tax it later?

Depends on who "they" are.

If you're talking about the Federal government, I don't see them giving up on the War on Drugs(tm) any time soon.

I'm not sure about how Colorado is operating, but the setup in Washington includes pretty steep taxes and quite a bit of regulation.

To my knowledge of Colorado, there is a 15% state excise tax that will be channeled to schools, and a 10% state tax that will go back to regulation. There may also be city taxes; Denver was to vote on a 5% tax a little while ago.

What might be the down side of having roughly as available as tobacco, with similarly harsh levels of taxation?

The people who have supplied the war on drugs stop getting paid.

And for a lot of people the rich don't like (the blacks, latinos, the underclasses) there's one less way to put them in jail and/or pressure them.

IMHO, racism and prejudice are a drop of water in the ocean that is peoples' drive to make money and justify/secure their careers.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

> If you're talking about the Federal government, I don't see them giving up on the War on Drugs(tm) any time soon.

They're obligated by treaty to keep cannabis illegal

Relaxation of US cannabis laws 'violates UN drug conventions' http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/relaxation-ca...

Aren't they also obligated by tons of treaties not to spy on UN countries?

No, the INCB claims they are obligated to keep cannabis illegal, but they're not necessarily competent to decide on that issue. In particular, according to the 1988 Convention, the parties are only required to do so "in conformity with the fundamental provisions of their respective domestic legislative systems", which it might be argued a federal prohibition isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com