You Can't Say That on TV: U.S. Attorney Promises to Target Medical Marijuana Advertising

The Obama administration isn't just cracking down on individuals and organizations that sell medical marijuana. It's now threatening to go after publishers and broadcasters that run ads for pot dispensaries in a state where medical marijuana is legal. 

Federal prosecutors are preparing to target newspapers, radio stations and other media outlets that advertise medical marijuana dispensaries in California, another escalation in the Obama administration's newly invigorated war against the state's pot industry.

This month, U.S. attorneys representing four districts in California announced that the government would single out landlords and property owners who rent buildings or land where dispensaries sell or cultivators grow marijuana. Now, newspapers and other media outlets could be next.

U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy, whose district includes Imperial and San Diego counties, said marijuana advertising is the next area she's "going to be moving onto as part of the enforcement efforts in Southern California." Duffy said she could not speak for the three other U.S. attorneys covering the state, but noted their efforts have been coordinated so far.

"I'm not just seeing print advertising," Duffy said in an interview with California Watch and KQED. "I'm actually hearing radio and seeing TV advertising. It's gone mainstream. Not only is it inappropriate – one has to wonder what kind of message we're sending to our children – it's against the law."

Of course, she means that it's against federal law. California voters approved the legalization of medical marijuana in 1996. The difference ought to matter; in 2008, President Obama promised that when it came to medical marijuana, he wouldn't interfere with local legalization. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he said. But as Senior Editor Jacob Sullum noted this morning, four U.S. attorneys in California announced last week that they would be stepping up enforcement against the state's medical pot distributors. 

Duffy has apparently taken that as a license to go after publishers as well:

Duffy said she believes the law gives her the right to prosecute newspaper publishers or TV station owners. 

"If I own a newspaper ... or I own a TV station, and I'm going to take in your money to place these ads, I'm the person who is placing these ads," Duffy said. "I am willing to read (the law) expansively and if a court wants to more narrowly define it, that would be up to the court."

Why the sudden burst of enforcement action? Has someone been hurt by the advertising, or by the dispensaries that buy ad space? Later in the article, Duffy allows that the law that legalized medical marijuana had "good intentions." But those good intensions, she tells California Watch, "have almost completely been taken over by people who are trying to use that permission law to get rich, to distribute marijuana and traffic drugs to people who aren't sick, to our youth and to people who are using drugs on a recreational basis." As Sullum noted, the focus on profit would seem to suggest that the recent crackdown won't apply to the state's many non-profit dispensaries. But that seems unlikely (at best) since although many of the state's pot clubs claim nonprofit status, federal prosecutors, according to the San Jose Mercury News, have "disputed that assertion, leaving unclear which outfits they might consider legitimate." What's most telling about Duffy's laundry list of non-horrors, though, is that altough she decries pot-seller profits and sales to recreational users, she doesn't even attempt to describe any actual harm caused by either. Perhaps that's because there is none. 

Read Jacob Sullum's October 2011 cover story on how President Obama turned out to be just another drug warrior

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I would just like to point out i am getting a "NO on I-1183" ad here at Reason.com.

    Should i be happy you guys are getting money form these scum bags or sad that they are advertising here?

  • ||

    FYI I-1183 is an initiative to close down state run liquor stores and allow it to be sold in regular stores in Washington State.

  • Fluffy||

    Click on them.

    Reason make-y da money

    Ass-a-holas lose-ah da money

  • Nipplemancer||

    adblock dude. i haven't seen an ad on this site or any other in a few years.

  • R||

    Some sights are getting around it by making it so that you HAVE to be able to see the ads for their service to work. It fucking sucks.

  • Ted S.||

    I surf reason with only cached images set to show, and no Flash. Site still runs like molasses thanks to the anti-social social networking shit that hogs all the memory.

    What I hate are the sites that put up an ad over the page that you have to click a link to get rid of. They're worse when the "close" link is only an image.

  • Amakudari||

    As you said, it's all the social networking shit. Each of those "buttons" is actually an internal frame, that is, its own website, complete with stylesheets, scripts and media.

    You can use one of the many great extensions that block those generally, and I apologize for plugging my own work, but it is relevant: I made a Chrome extension awhile back that does that and some other stuff.

  • Nipplemancer||

    I haven't run into this problem. I also run NoScript, which may be why.

  • R||

    Probably; the sites that do it -- usually file upload and video streaming sites -- are generally using JavaScript to run the services.

  • PantsFan||

    You Can't Do That on Television?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F44bLc6t7-I

  • Gimlet||

    Who is left that the Obama administration hasn't fucked over?

  • The Administration||

    No one. We treat The Left like our own children.

  • ||

    Well, there is that swanky, well-to-do crowd at Mah-thahs Vin-yahd.

  • ||

    Anyone who has any Black Dog paraphernalia on their person or car should be avoided like the plague.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I had to Google the Black Dog reference. Retard preppie/nautical shit. God how I fucking hate New England.

  • ||

    You fail to understand the subtleties of why one should avoid such people, but--and I'm sure you'll hate this too--you sort of need to be from New England to get it.

  • Barth||

    D'ahhhhh,I heard that!

  • nicole||

    That is indisputably true. However, I must admit that when I went to the Black Dog for the first time I was very surprised at the deliciousness of my sandwich. It was not actually a sucky place to eat.

  • ||

    I've heard that, but I do the full avoid on that place. As soon as I got off the ferry, I wanted to get past it because of all the dopes that crowd up there immediately.

  • Tman||

    I worked at the BD for two years when I lived on the Vinyahd. The cult-like following that has developed along with that trend-affirming lab sticker is annoying as hell, but it's still a great restaurant with some amazing food.

    Smoked Bluefish pate......mmmm......

  • Rich||

    "I'm not just seeing print advertising," Duffy said .... "I'm actually hearing radio and seeing TV advertising. It's gone mainstream. Not only is it inappropriate – one has to wonder what kind of message we're sending to our children – it's against the law."

    What could we *possibly* do to rectify this message to our children?

  • Ted S.||

    You can't care about the children unless you care about the rule of law. I don't wish to bequeath them a society governed by arbitrary laws.

    The US Attorneys seem not to care about the rule of law.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Medical marihuana is fine until someone makes a buck off of it.

  • First Amendment||

    Say what??!

  • Commerce Clause||

    I'm so damn malleable, even US Attys. can use me at will.

  • cynical||

    You really need to go, regardless of the consequences to interstate trade.

  • Fluffy||

    Can we unambiguously say that Obama lied about this issue now?

    That skinny bitch is a fucking no-good liar.

  • ||

    Like ObamneyCare didn't tip you off?

  • BakedPenguin||

    "We have to arrest people to see if we're not violating state law."

  • ||

    What promises did he keep, exactly? Not counting the ones he privately made to his backers, that is.

  • ||

    Repeal of DADT.

    Every other one that could be considered "kept" is precarious at best.

  • Geotpf||

    http://www.politifact.com/trut...../obameter/

    The Obameter Scorecard

    Promise Kept 148
    Compromise 44
    Promise Broken 51
    Stalled 69
    In the Works 194
    Not yet rated 2

  • Geotpf||

    Here's Page 1 of 8 of the "Promise Kept" list...

    Promise Kept rulings on the The Obameter


    Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes

    Will extend aspects of the Bush tax cuts such as child credit expansions and changes to marriage bonuses and penalties.

    >> More


    Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes

    "Will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies. The Fund will have a peer-review selection and award process based on the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund, a state-level initiative that has awarded over $125 million to Michigan businesses with the most innovative proposals to create new products and new jobs in the state."

    >> More


    Increase minority access to capital

    "Strengthen Small Business Administration programs that provide capital to minority-owned businesses, support outreach programs that help minority business owners apply for loans, and work to encourage the growth and capacity of minority firms."

    >> More


    Require economic justification for tax changes


    Adopt the economic substance doctrine, a policy that states that tax changes must have significant economic justification, as a federal law.

    >> More


    Implement "Women Owned Business" contracting program

    "Will implement the Women Owned Business contracting program that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, but has yet to be implemented by the Bush Administration." The program seeks to get more women-owned businesses to compete for federal contracts.

    >> More


    Change standards for determining broadband access


    Will direct the Federal Communications Commission to "provide an accurate map of broadband availability using a true definition of broadband instead of the current 200 kbs standard and an assessment of obstacles to fuller broadband penetration."

    >> More


    Establish a credit card bill of rights

    The credit card bill of rights would "ban unilateral changes ... apply interest rate increases only to future debt ... prohibit interest on fees ... prohibit 'universal defaults' (whereby a credit card raises its rates because the consumer was late paying a different creditor ... require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments."

    >> More


    Expand loan programs for small businesses

    Expand "the Small Business Administration's loan and micro-loan programs which provide start-up and long-term financing that small firms cannot receive through normal channels."

    >> More


    Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes

    Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)

    >> More


    Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch

    Extend and index the temporary fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax that was passed in 2007

    >> More


    Close the "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug plan


    "Barack Obama wants to close the 'doughnut hole' in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program that limits benefits for seniors with more than $2,250 but less than $5,100 in annual drug costs. Approximately 4 million seniors hit the doughnut hole in 2006, paying full price for drugs while also paying drug plan premiums."

    >> More


    Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program

    Expand "the Senior Corps program, which connects individuals over the age of 55 to local volunteer opportunities, and work to provide additional security, including assistance with retirement and family-related costs, to seniors who participate in public service."

    >> More


    Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions


    Require insurance companies "to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans, regardless of their health status or history, can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums."

    >> More


    Give tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums


    "Income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it."

    >> More


    Require large employers to contribute to a national health plan


    "Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement."

    >> More


    Require children to have health insurance coverage

    "Require that all children have health care coverage. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans."

    >> More


    Expand eligibility for Medicaid


    "Expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function."

    >> More


    Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)

    "Expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function."

    >> More


    Require health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care


    "Require health plans to disclose the percentage of premiums that actually goes to paying for patient care as opposed to administrative costs."

    >> More


    Establish an independent health institute to provide accurate and objective information


    "Establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness to provide accurate and objective information."

    >> More

    Page 1 of 8 next

    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....mise-kept/

  • PantsFan||

    WALL OF TEXT

  • Coeus||

    So if it involved increased government intrusion into the market, he did it, and if it didn't, he let it slide? That might explain the perception that many of us have that he lied about all of it. The only ones we remembered were the ones where he promised to stop fucking us quite so hard.

  • Coeus||

    Further, that site is a joke. Medical mariajuana isn't listed in the promise broken, and 2/3 of the things listed in the stalled section have already been oughtright rejected by the administration (end warrantless wiretaps and government transparency being so obvious that, even ignoring the rest of the bullshit, should bring serious doubts as to the site's objectivity).

  • Promised Michelle....||

    ....and the girls a lavish, taxpayer funded lifestyle:

    KEPT.

  • juris imprudent||

    ...she doesn't even attempt to describe any actual harm caused by either.

    U.S. attorneys aren't policy makers. Your gripe starts and stops at Obama (and Holder). Ok, and a very stupid Congress too.

  • Fluffy||

    She openly states that she wants to make new law.

    You set out to make new law, I am going to blame YOU if I don't like that new law.

  • juris imprudent||

    And Holder jerked her leash, right? Got her attention and redirected her priorities?

  • ||

    Am I the only one that caught the irony of the station's call letters? K-QED?

  • db||

    Just like WQED pittsburgh...everything they say is proven...because it's in the name.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Don't forget the supreme court. Raich could have been a turning point.

  • juris imprudent||

    Raich never had any chance of winning. SCotUS knows damn well that commerce clause jurisprudence is a house of cards - you can't just pull one out without likely toppling the whole thing. The surprising thing about Raich was that it wasn't 8-1 (Thomas figured to be the one).

  • The Audience||

    "SCotUS"

    Stop doing that camelcase crap, it makes you look like an asshole.

  • Fire Tiger||

    I am willing to read (the law) expansively and if a court wants to more narrowly define it, that would be up to the court.
    Translation, I know I have qualified immunity and can get away with anything I chose to do, even if I know it has no chance in hell of standing up in court.

  • T||

    I would not shed a tear if somebody jerked around by this bitch revoked her qualified immunity with extreme prejudice.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    My hope is that during a "Bonfire to burn all the ebil pot we took from ebil pot growers" media event, Duffy accidentally falls into a bonfire.

  • AdvocateReason||

    This two part plan is the only action the citizens of the US need to take to end federal marijuana prohibition:
    1) EVERYONE that sees these links sign up at both sites and weigh in on the debate
    - http://pvox.co/CdiFqY
    - http://wh.gov/gDQ
    2) Propagate those two links and ensure that everyone that sees them go to both those sites.

    Too many people are blaming the President for enforcing the federal marijuana prohibitio­n. Contact Congress (the LEGISLATIVE branch [that's the important one when it comes to law]) via the first link. Contact Obama (the EXECUTIVE branch [until Obama vetos a passed H.R. 2306 it's on Congress - but tell Obama anyway]) via the second link. It really is THAT easy. Participate in democracy!

  • cynical||

    Yes, but you forget the third step: pay them more than they're getting from Big Pharma and the drug cartels.

  • ||

    The only contact that counts is the vote you cast against the congressional Drug Warrior by choosing one of his or her opponents who is pledged to repeal the Controlled Substances Act and end the Drug War. That's the easiest thing of all, if we have the will to do it.

  • Obama||

    ^^THIS^^

    It's Bush's my Justice Dept is cracking down on not only dispensaries but now speech.

    It's not my fault, it's those racist TPers. Pass my "pot bill".

  • Max||

    Off topic, but has anybody gotten to the bottom of Ron Paul's faulty fake eyebrow? Was it defective glue? Is he suing the fake eyebrow manufacturer?Is the manufacture of fake eyebrows regulated?

  • Max||

    Arf! Arf! Arf!

  • ||

    !YELP, YELP, ARF, SNAP, NIP! grrrrr.

  • Joe M||

    What's most telling about Duffy's laundry list of non-horrors, though, is that altough she decries pot-seller profits and sales to recreational users, she doesn't even attempt to describe any actual harm caused by either. Perhaps that's because there is none.

    No, it's because DRUGS R BAD MKAY. QED

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    "I'm not just seeing print advertising," Duffy said in an interview with California Watch and KQED. "I'm actually hearing radio and seeing TV advertising. It's gone mainstream. Not only is it inappropriate – one has to wonder what kind of message we're sending to our children – it's against the law."

    Well fuck U.S. Attorney Duffy right in her ear. One, who the fuck is she to decide what advertising is appropriate? I can decide for myself what is or not appropriate. Two, instead of "wondering" what the message being sent to our children is, here is the explicit message, "If you are legally of age, and desire marijuana, you may purchase it at this establishment." Much like beer advertising, tennis shoe ads, or car insurance ads, it's pretty simple. She needs to keep the fallacy of "think of the children" out of her argument. Three, she's only an attorney. It's not her place to decide what is or is not against the law, that's why we have a court system and judges of the law. And d.) Fuck her in her other ear!

  • ||

    Wow, she may get hearing AIDS from all that aural copulation.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Heh heh heh. That's a very funny.

  • That's phone "sex", right?||

  • jtuf||

    I think I'll send a letter to CA dispensaries and offer to advertise their services on my website.

  • ||

    "I am willing to read (the law) expansively and if a court wants to more narrowly define it, that would be up to the court."

    "I receive a handsome government salary to pursue my insane obsessions and impose my moral code on you; I also have a large legal staff at my disposal which costs me nothing. I will reduce you to penury if you attempt to fight me."

  • Are we for or against a State?||

    Are libertarians for or against a State? A non-contradictory position would really help debating that wily WI.

  • rectal's papa||

    And if that billy goat don't pull, Papa's gonna buy you a cart and bull.

  • Are we for or against a State?||

    Next question: are Reason libertarians for or against non-contradiction?

  • ||

    99% AGAINST RETARDS LIKE YOU

    YOU ARE THE 1%

  • Libertarian Answers||

    Do libertarians have answers?
    No.

    Do the Libertarians have any chance?
    No.

    What is libertarianism?
    No telling.

    LOL

  • rectal's papa||

    And if that dog named Rover won't bark. Papa's gonna to buy you a horse and cart.

  • rather||

    WTF JERKOFF, that isn't me

  • Colin||

    And still, the potheads who remember to vote on Election Day will vote overwhelmingly for Obama, no questions asked.

  • Stoner Logic||

    Of course, man. I mean, shit, Peter Tosh was black. He understood the mystical kali weed, man. And Obama, well he's black too. So, you know he understands the kali weed too. Hey, do you got your lighter on you?

  • Geotpf||

    Like anything would be different under a Republican President. Note that Paul and Johnson have no chance at winning the nomination (libertarians are vastly outnumbered amoungst Republican primary voters). Also note that no third party candidate has a chance at winning the election. General elections in this country are a binary choice, ladies and germs.

  • Tman||

    What would be different is that at least the Republican president wouldn't be lying about his position on Medical MJ.

    Obama flat out lied to his supporters about it. And he's arguably worse in terms of enforcement than Bush -who never said he would back off Medical MJ in the first place.

  • ||

    Geotpf is the perfect example of a TEAM BLUE retard making excuses for Obama. Perfect.

    This, folks, is what we're dealing with. Partisan hackery, bullshit, and stupidity. And both sides outnumber us vastly.

  • Libertarian Answers||

    Are libertarians for or against a State? A non-contradictory position would really help debating that wily Geotpf.

    Do libertarians have answers?
    No.

    Do the Libertarians have any chance?
    No.

    What is libertarianism?
    No telling. (But we are victimized by evil doers.)

    LOL

  • db||

    Normally not answering the trolls, but since it's not Thursday:

    1. Your refusal to consider liertarian answers to questions your ideology has failed for decades or centuries to correctly answer is not our problem other than the effect of your willful ignorance on public policies that affect us.

    2. Only because of your willful ignorance do libertarians struggle so mightily through the statist miasma.

    3. Unlike other *ahem* currently dominant philosophies, libertarians have taken great pains to define their underlying principles, and adhere to them. The dominant political structure, on the other hand, is an amorphous sludge of shifting currents and dimly glimpsed goals that all act in the service of the principle of concentration of power in the hands of those most corrupt, the ones who will do anything to acquire it.

  • Fletch||

    Your refusal to consider liertarian answers

    Refusal? LOL Libertarians refuse to answer the most basic of questions.

    the statist miasma

    If you support the agricultural city-STATE (Civilization) miasma, then you're a Statist. It's that simple.

    libertarians have taken great pains to define their underlying principles, and adhere to them

    Obviously NOT.

    Libertarianism is an amorphous sludge of shifting currents and dimly glimpsed goals.

    Can't even decide if we need government, or not.

  • Amakudari||

    Like anything would be different under a Republican President.

    No.

    But what if voters refused to vote for someone who didn't support their demands? That would probably have a shit-ton more influence than being an idiot who merely votes for "the lesser evil."

  • Capitalists Hate Drugies||

    terence mckenna - capitalism vs. democracy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97cGGxdi1BQ

  • Capitalists Hate Drugs||

    Psychedelics and Anti-Capitalism, December 23, 2002
    by Thomas M. Seay (Palo Alto, California USA)

    We, instead, should use psychedelics as a means of breaking free of the capitalist mindset, envisioning other possible socio-economic systems...

    http://www.amazon.com/Breaking.....0767907434

  • ola||

    "I am willing to read (the law) expansively...."

    Well there you have it!

  • War on Drugs||

    Wag that dog!

  • Geotpf||

    Since MJ is illegal on the Federal level, MJ needs to be legalized on the Federal level. The state laws never properly legalized anything, IMHO.

  • BigT||

    Au contrair, the fed laws are unconstitutional, and should be ignored.

  • nicole||

    Is this shit being reported in the "mainstream media"? Outside California? I just, you know, for all the shit that burns me up, and there is a lot, if I had to decide on a single worst thing about the state right now, it would have to be the War on Drugs. It is quite simply devastating; there is no other way to put it and the horror seems to escape so many people...and of course, I never expected Obama to be better on the issue, but I didn't expect his administration to actually be materially worse. And I want to know why all the asshole liberals I'm Facebook friends with and follow on Twitter aren't flipping their shit about this.

  • White Liberal Guilt Logic||

    Of course we should be upset. I mean, shit, I listened to Peter Tosh when I was in college. He understood the benefits of marijuana. And President Obama has even admitted smoking it too. So, you know he understands the pros and cons of marijuana. The problem is the Repugnicants won't let him change the status quo. Hey, did you watch last nights episode of Parks and Recreation?

  • Libertarian Answers||

    all the asshole liberals

    Are libertarians for or against a State?

    A non-contradictory position would really help with educating all the asshole liberals.

  • nicole||

    I am an anarchist.

  • We Need Government||

    Nicole, look below.

    We need government.

    Government is medicine.

    Libertarianism is about the dosage of medicine. The medicine being government.

    Now open wide.

    LOL

  • ||

    Libertarians believe that State is best, which governs least. Government is a "necessary evil." It has proven necessary, as a matter of history, but as its essence is force, it is inherently evil, and must be minimized.

    Since we are talking about drugs here, let me remind you that the difference between a beneficial drug and a nasty poison is almost always dosage. Libertarians have realized that the megadoses of government we keep consuming are killing the body politic. They want to see our consumption fall to a salutary level. We have a long way to go.

  • Government is MEDICINE?||

    How can an "inherently evil" "necessary evil" be a "beneficial drug?"

    That hardly describes medicine, but, basically, you're saying:

    GOVERNMENT IS MEDICINE.

    Open wide, James, and take it good and hard.

    How's that working out for you now?

  • The Doctor is IN||

    I think we'll up the dosage.

  • The Doctor is IN||

    Da Gummit MEDICINE "has proven necessary."

    Now ben dover. Yep, you need medicine there too. It's just a necessary evil. , but you can take da dosage.

  • Goverment is PROVEN NECESSARY||

    For what has government proven necessary?

  • ||

    It's like they don't even know how to spell first amendment. Maybe I don't either.

  • juris imprudent||

    BOSS: You got your mind right now Joshua, don't you?

  • squishua||

    California BART stations have posters advertizing one of the medical mj clinics. I did a double-take, but they really are there and have been for a few weeks now.

  • Goverment is MEDICINE or not?||

    Need a dose?

    It has proven necessary, as a matter of history..." ~James Anderson Merritt, True Libertarian

  • ||

    I can't help noticing that as Fast and Furious is more exposed, this effort becomes more intense. My sense is that as F&F looks more and more egregious, the administration is trying to look more and more law and order. But - a cynic would say it's almost like they're doing everything they can to support the Mexican drug cartels. If we can't give 'em guns, let's get rid of their competition.

  • Stupidly Happy||

    They should go after all pharmaceutical companies too. Look at all of the drugs they advertise. It's fun to describe to a 6 year old what erectile dysfunction is. That is truly criminal.

  • ||

    Of course, she means that it's against federal law.

    Any act of congress that usurps a power not granted by the constitution is not a law at all. It took an amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no constitutional authority for any federal power over cannabis, or any other drug, for that matter.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Of course, she means that it's against federal law.

    Any act of congress that usurps a power not granted by the constitution is not a law at all. It took an amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no constitutional authority for any federal power over cannabis, or any other drug, for that matter.

    -jcr

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement