Obama administration harshes California’s mellow, part II
posted at 9:33 am on March 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Jim Geraghty reminds us that all Barack Obama statements come with an expiration date, but we didn’t know that the policy extended to the Department of Justice. Just one week after Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would not pursue marijuana distributors operating within California state law, the DEA raided a San Francisco medicinal-marijuana operation in San Francisco (via Instapundit):
Federal agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco Wednesday, a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled that the Obama administration would not prosecute distributors of pot used for medicinal purposes that operate under sanction of state law.
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided Emmalyn’s California Cannabis Clinic at 1597 Howard St. in San Francisco’s South of Market district mid-afternoon.
They hauled out large plastic bins overflowing with marijuana plants and loaded several pickup trucks parked out front with grow lights and related equipment used to farm the plants indoors.
The dispensary had been operating with a temporary permit issued by the Department of Public Health.
“Based on our investigation, we believe there are not only violations of federal law, but state law as well,” DEA Special Agent in Charge Anthony Williams said in a prepared statement.
Hope and Change! Now, under Obama, the federal government can decide when state laws need to get enforced as well. Wouldn’t California be the better judge of alleged violations of its own laws? Why wouldn’t the DEA simply refer the matter to the California AG instead?
Small wonder, then, that the Tenth Amendment seems to be getting a new look by states:
Just as California under President Bush asserted itself on issues ranging from gun control to medical marijuana, a motley cohort of states – from South Carolina to New Hampshire, from Washington State to Oklahoma – are presenting a foil for President Obama’s national ambitions. And they’re laying the groundwork for a political standoff over the 10th Amendment, which cedes all power not granted to Washington to the people. …
•The Idaho House began considering Wednesday a law against introducing “vicious animals” into the state – a direct rebuttal of the federal wolf reintroduction program.
•Montana and Tennessee have introduced proposals to expand gun rights. Tennessee State Sen. Doug Jackson says his bill to ban proposed federal “microstamping” of ammunition could spark a movement. “The trampling on our rights to possess firearms is symbolic of a power grab by the federal government on a much larger scale,” said Senator Jackson, by phone from Nashville.
•Oklahoma and Georgia are both considering limits on stem cell research in response to Mr. Obama’s reversal of the federal stem cell ban. It’s the flip side of the Bush era when several Northeastern states allowed such research despite the federal ban.
The DEA should stick to enforcing federal law and stop concerning itself with state laws. The Obama administration needs to clarify — again — whether it will follow the Bush policy of aggressively pursuing marijuana distribution in California, so that the state can decide whether to challenge the federal government. The Obama administration keeps saying one thing and doing another, and if they keep it up, they will make the case themselves for a rebirth of Tenth Amendment passions in the states.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The DEA should stick to enforcing federal law and stop concerning itself with state laws.
Grafted on March 27, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Between confiscating their iPods, and snatching their weed, I can see a wave of disillusionment sweeping the youth of America.
Dude, where’s my obama?
keep the change on March 27, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Firstly,
cannabis is designed by nature to be eaten and smoking it is very bad for your lungs, heart and nervous system.
Secondly,
There is just such a medical grade product already being prescribed.
Beto Ochoa on March 27, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Reactionaries!
Saltysam on March 27, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I see the change, but not the hope
Vashta.Nerada on March 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Is Obama incompetent and in over his head?
Does Howdy Doody got wooden Balls man?
there it is on March 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM
I’ve been saying the government is in direct violation of the 10th Amendment for years. Nothing would make me happier than the states starting to call the Fed out on the hundreds if not thousands of violations we have endured.
Guardian on March 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM
The libs are extremely disappointed in Obambi’s offhand response to the pot question yesterday. They compare the legalization of pot to alcohol and cigarettes. I don’t get that argument. My experience is that potheads like to smoke all day long, not just after work like casual drinkers partake. Could you imagine a workforce full of people under the influence of weed? What the roads would be like? If you show up at work under the influence of alcohol, you’ll likely be fired. My guess is that if pot was legalized, most people wouldn’t even show up for work!
ctmom on March 27, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Wonder if the peanut gallery will be going after Obama like they did Bush. “Bush isn’t concentrating on the war on terror, he is going after sick people who use marijuana for a better life.”
MDWNJ on March 27, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Just as when there is a wild fire, fire fighters cut off the source to stop it. Just like Iran, we cut off supplies to make them stop their nuclear program. Well, fellow Americans, we need to step up and find a way to cut off what these baffoons in Washington need to ruin this Country. Cut off their power and, somehow, their money. They are walking all over us for their own ideology, which is dangerous. Any suggestions?
suzyk on March 27, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Me likey!
Frozen Tex on March 27, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Yes, it would be quite nice if the states took another look at the 10th, regardless of the political party of the president.
myrenovations on March 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Obama wants to be the opiate of the masses!
O-bong-a.
AubieJon on March 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM
The marijuana people are quite peculiar.
A new totalitarian could rise, enveloping the world in his grip.
Many would be frightful, many would be angry, but the marijuana tokers of the world would ask:
“Is he gonna’ legalize pootttt?”
blatantblue on March 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM
The burning question every day………..deliberate or incompetent?
sherry on March 27, 2009 at 9:45 AM
And a 15-minute-long, sleep-inducing, circumlocutory caveat, should anyone have the audacity to question his truthfulness or wisdom.
whitetop on March 27, 2009 at 9:45 AM
These journalist need to read the constitution, the 10th amendment says all rights not delegated to the federal government via the constitution, belong to the states first, then the people…until that stupid interpretation of the 14th amendment (Establishment clause).
WashJeff on March 27, 2009 at 9:46 AM
And they will not even notice it until after the fact. These are uninformed twits and don’t even know what they voted for.
thomasaur on March 27, 2009 at 9:46 AM
On the bright side, maybe they wouldn’t show up to vote.
sherry on March 27, 2009 at 9:47 AM
OT:
Siena NY-20 Poll
Murphy 47%
Tedisco 43%
artist on March 27, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Has anyone noticed that we are on the verge of a total economic collapse? We are being sold out to the global elite via a global currency. This is it folks, we stand on the precipice, we need to stand up now. This is a purposeful attempt by the Fed to bring down our economy to the level of other nations, then we will be integrated into the global currency.
Call your Congress critters.
True_King on March 27, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Little Billy Maher isn’t going to be happy about this one bit…
D2Boston on March 27, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Modern technology has already solved the “smoking” problem. It’s called a vaporizer, and allows the patient to inhale the vaporized marijuana without any adverse impact on the lungs.
As for the medical grade product, that’s no doubt like smoking a piece of rope.
Del Dolemonte on March 27, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Democrats saying one thing then doing the exact opposite: How is this news?!?!
DannoJyd on March 27, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Y’all keep saying that obama wants the powers of a dictator. Must expand that into wanting powers of a God. Woe to the foolish state or individual or business that does not ask “how high?” Don’t we all understand that it’s for our own good? Find myself wondering increasingly if these extreme patriarchal government tendencies he has apply to his personal relationships as well. Ever wonder about how little we all really know about him as a person, in spite of his books? Stuff slips through now and then when he’s caught off guard or gets angry, but who is this guy, really!!
jeanie on March 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Being of a simple mind I am really torn here. We post here about how two faced Team Chicago Jesus is over the mini-ha ha (pot) issue and the liberals would not be saying Sh*t with a mouth full of it if they were confiscating our guns!
Dire Straits on March 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Best
blatantblue on March 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM
I’m sorry but what I do in the privacy of my own home is MY business. This is where I disagree with both parties. Look at Mexico. You think all of the violence is because of Mexican drug users? Now they want to blame the drug wars to take away our guns. It has been bad, just like prohibition was bad.
Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.(And I mean just about everything you can do in your own home) We punish drunk drivers, we can punish those that abuse anything outside their home.
For the record I havent had anything stronger then a drink in years…
tottoritodd on March 27, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Careful with those plants! They’re sequestering CO2.
whitetop on March 27, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Cool that you’re so educated about cannabis. How much have you had today?
AubieJon on March 27, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Between confiscating their iPods, and snatching their weed, I can see a wave of disillusionment sweeping the youth of America.
Dude, where’s my obama?
keep the change on March 27, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Itchee Dryback on March 27, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Having just finished the dreary Dreams from My Father, I am pretty sure that not even Obama knows who he is.
myrenovations on March 27, 2009 at 10:00 AM
The reality of marijuana for medicinal purposes is, that it is used as a smoke screen to sell pot to the stoners not the terminally ill. Anyone who thinks otherwise might be interested in a real estate deal I have.
Tommy_G on March 27, 2009 at 10:04 AM
It’s probably just a matter of time until Obama suggests legalizing dope and prostitution so that they can be taxed to pay for all of his giveaways.
suburbanite on March 27, 2009 at 10:04 AM
You read that. I passed, I didn’t want to lose 80 IQ points.
MDWNJ on March 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM
The Obama administration is literally making up the rules and the law as they go along.
Everyone should be taking note and planning accordingly. What might you need in the future that they are presently promising they will not touch.
Hillary is already laying the groundwork, using the Mexican Situation, for a massive assault on gun rights. IT-IS-A-GIVEN!!!
Yoop on March 27, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Marijuana is obviously covered under the interstate commerce clause making the 10th amendment moot in this case….sheesh see how easy that was. /sarc
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 10:10 AM
“Wouldn’t California be the better judge of alleged violations of its own laws?”
Not to harsh your mellow, but the Feds were enforcing Federal law. As for the folks in San Francisco enforcing their own laws………you forget, the AG is Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Dude.
GarandFan on March 27, 2009 at 10:10 AM
It occurs to me that we’ll see an incident soon in which state law enforcement authorities confront – and possibly arrest – feds for enforcing a federal law which contradicts a state law.
flipflop on March 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Harshmellows…mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Patrick S on March 27, 2009 at 10:15 AM
An email acquaintance of mine, who was a huge Obama supporter during the election is dismayed with Obamanation already. His two big issues, in order, are a) marijuana legalization and b) End the War on Terror, bring the troops home. He’s really pissed because his two issues have been completely changed around from candidate Obama to President Obama.
I love saying “I told you so” to these boneheads.
RWLA on March 27, 2009 at 10:15 AM
If they are smoking on private property they should be left alone.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:16 AM
You can debate all you want whether pot should be illegal (I’m not convinced it should), but you can’t selectively decide when and where a law should be enforced while it’s on the books.
flipflop on March 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM
‘Don’t bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to Hussein’. He needs a new perspective. Do they/he still make “Brown Oswley?” (Lysergic Diethylamide) Wait, “Brown”…is that racist? A ‘tab’ of that will purge all of his “Saul Alinsky” teachings.
JoeySlippers on March 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM
rather than get into the libertarian debate on drugs or even in the 10th a. debate, let’s focus on another issue:
The DEA has guns, & all kinds of cool surveillance eqmt. why don’t they break up crack rings, seize heroin coming into US ports or just shoot drug smugglers. wouldn’t that be a better value for our money?
kelley in virginia on March 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Well gosh and golly gee, liberal busybodies in many regions are trying to make smoking cigarettes on one’s own property illegal.
Patrick S on March 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM
“I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though…” Barack Obama
Good for me, but not for thee.
SoonerMarine on March 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM
“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves,” -Ronaldus Maximus.
Akzed on March 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM
If they’re cooking up a batch of crack on their own property, should they be left alone?
Itchee Dryback on March 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM
The interstate commerce clause (which is THE single most abused part of the Constitution) CANNOT cover INTRAstate commerce. The Feds basically have no standing if the STATE is willing to, for example, to allow someone to produce marijuana personally for personal consumption INSIDE that state only.
The “drug war” represents the single biggest unconstitutional power grab in our history. Where is the Constitutional Amendment that gives the Feds SOLE authority with respect to drug prohibition? It doesn’t exist. Contrast that with how alcohol prohibition was enacted (Constitutional Amendment) and repealed (Constitutional Amendment).
It’s about time the states started asserting the 10th Amendment, whether it be Bush or Obambi trying to meddle in affairs they have no Constitutional standing in.
If the Feds want absolute total authority to regulate/prohibit drugs, or absolute total authority to do anything ELSE (such as universal health care) not granted it by the Constitution there exists a process by which it can get it: Amend.
wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Because Jerry Moonbat is our AG, remember? He is the one who decides which laws HE wants to enforce/not enforce. Voters be damned! The DEA’s reference to state law being violated is a fact. However, the place was raided because it violated Federal law. And since you’re not a California resident, why should you care?
Blake on March 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Liberals, Leftists and the ACLU using scare tactics and the race card?
Itchee Dryback on March 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I hate these threads. All of the libertarian whackos come out and start lecturing everyone on their own unique interpretations of the constitution. LOL
Blake on March 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Just more shredding of the constitution.
rbj on March 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Sounds like the DEA has a bone to pick with Obama.
AnninCA on March 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM
If the state can show that it represents an imminent threat.
In the case of weed, the state decided that it didn’t. There should be some burden on the fed to demonstrate the tangible interstate effects.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Just in case you missed it.
. /sarc
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 10:32 AM
There should be a greater protection for privacy which would create a higher barrier for law enforcement when people are engaged in acts on their own property.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Now more than ever California needs more tax payers.
Close down the pot shops and put these deadbeats to work.
elderberry on March 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Unless employees are involved the state shouldn’t have a role.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:38 AM
You mean like that “Privacy of the bedroom” thing that came out a couple of decades ago? The decision that sort of made all those sodomy laws on the books much less effective?
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM
I am a libertarian. I don’t use drugs nor would I if they were legalized.
In fact, I have no objections TO them being illegal.
However, unlike the “statist” wing of the conservative movement, which like the “statist” wing of the liberal movement has NO objection to trampling the Constitution as a means justified by their ends, I insist that it be done the correct and legal way.
If Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, so does drug prohibition. No such amendment exists, therefore Federal Drug Prohibition is illegal.
Also, just as the welfare state and “war on poverty” has had uncounted hundreds of billions (probably trillions) of dollars spent on it over the last several decades to no demonstrable benefit to the taxpayer, so has decades of drug prohibition.
Just as welfare encourages poverty, damages the family structure, and has created generations of single parent children and the deleterious effect that has had on our society, I believe that the “drug war” has created a criminal black market that has increased crime FAR beyond what it would have been had things been left alone to it’s natural course, or been sensibly regulated (as alcohol is).
Like most libertarian leaning conservatives I am a capitalist. The law of supply and demand is absolute and cannot be circumvented by artificial means. So long as people demand alcohol and drugs, there WILL be a supply of alcohol and drugs.
Artificial suppression of the demand by authoritarian means simply hands a lucrative, profitable market over to the criminal enterprise instead of the legitimate one. Fact of the matter is, so long as enough people want anything, be it legal or illegal, there WILL be a supply.
Frankly, I don’t care what someone consumes (or whom they decide to have sex with for that matter), so long as it doesn’t affect me. This THEM, not me being obligated to deal with the consequences of irresponsibility, be it drug addiction or AIDS.
Freedom dies when people aren’t free to be irresponsible, and obligated to TAKE responsibility.
wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Getting rid of alcohol and cable TV along with conscripting able-bodied individuals into public works programs would help balance the budget too, but would be a bad idea.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Sorry, but in Wicker SCOTUS ruled that the private production of wheat for self-consumption affected interstate commerce precisely because that production was withheald from insterstate commerce. I kid you not.
Akzed on March 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Clarification: You’re saying that people should be required to take responsibility for their own actions. Correct?
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Thank you for boring me with your personal beliefs. Do you prewrite it and just whip it out every time drugs are mentioned? LOL
Blake on March 27, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Which defies common sense. But this illustrates our problem (unelected, unaccountable black robe monarchs who can legislate dictatorially with impunity) and the solution (the need for GENERATIONS of strict “it says this so it must MEAN this” constructionist judges to undo the damage).
wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 10:46 AM
It can only bore you IF you read it. :-)
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM
It depends how intrusive one wants the government to be. The government could regulate sex acts, trans fat consumption, daily exercise or bushing and flossing. It could make people better according to some objective standard but infringe on individual liberty.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Microstamping of ammo is the new gun grab.
hogfat on March 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Absolutely, the states need to prevent the Democrat Party from imposing the sorts of economic and social policies that have made Michigan a complete basketcase.
If northerners want skyrocketing crime rates, double-digit unemployment, union thugs, felons voting and carrying guns rather than taxpayers, rigged elections, environmental nutcase job killers, legalized recreational drugs, high taxes and school free drug zones, by all means, go right ahead.
But they should not be permitted to pollute the south with their idiocy. All of the lefties who think the Democrats can lead you to utopia, head north and don’t stop.
NoDonkey on March 27, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Nothing new about that. Been going around for years.
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 11:01 AM
We had a rally in support of the 10th Amendment and for GA House Resolution 470 last Saturday in Atlanta.
Just A Grunt on March 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM
It’s the Interstate Commerce Act that’s the rub.
Scotch that and the 10th Amendment returns.
profitsbeard on March 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Realizing that this was an opening gambit, about how many would you estimate showed up? I’m trying to get an idea of how big the conservative/libertarian groundswell is and how fast it’s growing.
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 11:08 AM
AAARGH!!
The so called federal ban only applied to federal funds. So unless the states were using federal money to fund this research, they were not defying Bush on anything.
Why do allegedly intelligent people work so hard to get this program wrong?
MarkTheGreat on March 27, 2009 at 11:16 AM
The Fourteenth trumps the Tenth….every time!
unclesmrgol on March 27, 2009 at 11:22 AM
I love the people who think that if marijuana was legalized it would lead to a horde of zombies just sitting at home all day and not working. You do understand that private businesses would still be perfectly able to drug test and refuse to hire, and fire anyone who tested positive, right? And since when has that argument been used for any of the other things we have?
thphilli on March 27, 2009 at 11:24 AM
True. The “medical marijuana clinics” with their neon pot leafs in the window, their advertising billboards, and club cards make the medical marijuana movement a joke.
MayBee on March 27, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Next comes the re-education centers (concentration camps)
skatz51 on March 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Barry needed some weed dude! The San Fran growers was an easy source to supply ‘the one’ with his medicine.
Griz on March 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Snort!
Bob's Kid on March 27, 2009 at 11:44 AM
wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Well said. Thanks for that.
bridgetown on March 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM
The 10th Amendment, really?
So anything not specifically stated in the Constitution as a power for the Federal Government will be stripped from their control?
Cool. Public Education going back to the states then (unless someone can point out the Education Amendment)… heck half, maybe 2/3rds of the Federal Government’s spending is going to take a hit from this one.
Maybe Obama won’t run the country bankrupt once most of his spending is declared in violation of the 10th Amendment and Unconstitutional. Hey, a Libertarian can dream can’t he?
gekkobear on March 27, 2009 at 11:50 AM
How about we read it.Then follow and enforce it. Some things dont need to be interpreted.Unless you need someone to spell out what the government is limited to?
tottoritodd on March 27, 2009 at 11:53 AM
You mean moonbeam?
Do you have to ask?
Count to 10 on March 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I suspect it would be difficult to legally justify refuse to hire someone who was not under the influence at the time of application/testing, but tested positive for recent use.
As a parallel, you can be fired/not hired if you are demonstrably under the effect of alcohol during interview/work hours. I don’t think you can be refused employment for recent legal use, or if you drink off-duty.
I don’t think private firms will be able to withstand legal challenges if they have a policy against hiring people using legal substances.
cs89 on March 27, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Overbearing leftist anti-gun statist Attorney General raids hippie/commune dope growing homosexual community of their pot stash. Looks like a another beautiful…..
LIBERAL DILEMMA
Oh joy! Which side do we choose?
Sapwolf on March 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Yes.
Want to take drugs? The consequences are YOUR problem, not mine, and you have no moral right to confiscate my resources to deal with the outcome.
Want to share drug needles or bugger other men and end up with AIDS? The consequences are YOUR problem, not mine, and you have no moral right to confiscate my resources to deal with the outcome.
Both drug addiction and the contraction of AIDS are afflictions that are almost 100% the result of a BAD PERSONAL DECISION. You got yourself into it, get yourself OUT of it. All too often such irresponsibility is enabled by the government because it seeks to remove the suffering and adversity that naturally NEEDS to happen in order for there to be a desire to AVOID such behavior so as to not suffer the consequences.
This is much like the bailouts, which disrupt natural evolution of business… Make catastrophic business decisions, suffer catastrophic failure so that what you did serves as a lesson to others (and yourself) and the businesses who didn’t take unwarranted risks and engaged in bad behavior will be able to step in and prosper even more.
wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 12:09 PM
There are private (AND PUBLIC!) employers who are doing just that today… But with how vilified tobacco is smokers aren’t deemed worthy of equal protection under the law. Much like AIG executives, only more numerous.
wildcat84 on March 27, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Really?
Oldnuke on March 27, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Private companies have a lot of discretion when hiring and firing at-will employees. There are limitations involving members of “protected classes” (e.g., race, religion, age, gender, etc.). Smokers, drinkers and drug users aren’t protected classes.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I agree with letting the chips fall where they may. Currently, I’d rather that we didn’t spend the billions in tax money each year to prevent people from their own drug use. If they want to get high and possibly damage their own lives, so bet it.
dedalus on March 27, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Disband the DEA. Legalize everything.
Repeal all federal gun control laws.
Tell the G8 to go screw themselves on that copyright treaty crap.
Vote for The Reverend AG for president in 2012!
thereverendag on March 27, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I think the DEA’s position is that it only enforces federal laws w/r/t marijuana when there are also state-law violations, in order to respect state sovereignty.
daryl_herbert on March 27, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Especially if 10th Amendment Giant Sarah sends out a press release about the Feds overstepping. She can cc the ‘lost one’ and seal it with a wink.
Sapwolf on March 27, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Newsflash, CS Monitor: Gun ownership is protected under the Constitution; Marijuana isn’t.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Socratease on March 27, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Wildcat84, I’ve come a little late to the party. Read your libertarian manifesto posted at 10:40 a.m. Lets see how libertarian you really are. As a social con I am willing to respect your rights to do whatsoever you please with your own body provided you also are willing to take complete responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. No going to the teat of government to fleece my pocket to pay for rehabilitation or medical treatment for any abuse of your body. No excuses that I have an illness (addiction) and am not responsible for the harming of others as a consequence of your personal choices. If you are agreeable then I will grant that you are truly libertarian. If not, I have as much right to come to the table and petition government for a redress of grievances.
chemman on March 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Too easy… SF “clinics” are low hanging fruit.
liquidflorian on March 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Of course. How else can they protect their reputations as light workers?
tom on March 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »