Obama Administration Speaks Out on Marijuana Ballot Measures: Federal Raids Are Here to Stay

Marijuana policy reformers have been waiting for the Obama administration to acknowledge and respond to the ballot initiatives in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington that would legalize marijuana for recreational use. This weekend, CBS got them their answer: Nothing is going to change.

In his interview with 60 Minutes, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole (See Jacob Sullum on Cole's notorious medical marijuana memo) had this exchange with CBS' Steve Kroft:

James Cole: Our focus is really on keeping it away from children. Our focus is keeping it out of the hands of organized crime. Our focus is making sure that people aren't, through marijuana dispensaries, using it as a pretext to do large-scale interstate drug dealing. These are the areas where we're really trying to focus.

Steve Kroft: So the message is, if you're licensed in the state of Colorado and you follow the law, then you should be okay.

James Cole: Each case is going to rise and fall on its own unique facts. Any of that is still in violation of the Controlled Substances Act of the federal law. We're not interested in bothering people who are sick and are using it in the recommendation of a doctor. We are concerned with people who are using it as a pretext to become large-scale drug dealers.

You can tell from his questions that Kroft badly wants to believe the Obama administration is cool with Colorado having legal pot. He even segues into the Cole interview by saying that Boulder County DA Stan Garnett's reluctance to prosecute medical marijuana "is more or less the position of Justice Department in Washington."

But if Cole is not actually saying anything different than what he's said in the past, then the DOJ will continue to go after medical (and soon, perhaps, non-medical) marijuana dispensaries with large client lists, because these are what Cole is referring to when he says "large-scale drug dealers." Not cartels or drug rings, but dispensaries.

If history is any guide, we'll see more federal raids in Colorado and Washington if recreational marijuana is legalized, because we'll most definitely see more "large-scale drug dealing," AKA state-legal businesses selling to consumers in an open, state-legal market.

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.

  • ||

    Our focus is keeping it out of the hands of organized crime.

    The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one...

  • Orange Crayons||

    My thoughts exactly when I read that.

  • ||

    That was my first thought, but my second thought was "he knows exactly what he's saying and he's just a lying liar who lies".

  • RBS||

    Yes.

  • Paul.||

    To the left, people making money selling to consumers in an unregulated market == organized crime.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    My head nearly exploded. I went off on a five minute rant.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Steve Kroft: So the message is, if you're licensed in the state of Colorado and you follow the law, then you should be okay.

    Oh, Steve. If that's your take away, then you go ahead and start a licensed Colorado dispensory and see what happens. Apparently if you want an honest fuck you from the Administration as opposed to smoke, then you have to go to the deputy level bureaucrat with your questions.

  • Cyto||

    You cynically ignore the obviously implied parenthetical "(and operate your dispensory with less than 5 customers, using volunteer-only staff with no physical location and with no cash payments accepted. Oh, and no drugs. Drugs are bad, m'kay?)"

  • R C Dean||

    Our focus is really on keeping it away from children.

    Which supports no action against medpot that isn't also taken against pharmacists and Big Pharma.

    Our focus is keeping it out of the hands of organized crime.

    Which supports no action against medpot.

    Our focus is making sure that people aren't, through marijuana dispensaries, using it as a pretext to do large-scale interstate drug dealing.

    Which supports no action against medpot, other, perhaps, than monitoring inventory to be sure it is being dispensed exclusively through state-compliant channels.

    Any of that is still in violation of the Controlled Substances Act of the federal law.

    Meaning, of course, that it makes no difference if you are complying with Colorado law, we can and will come for you. And your dog.

  • Cyto||

    Obviously you are missing something here:

    Keep out of hands of organized crime. Medical marijuana dispensaries are by definition organized crime. Selling or even posessing pot is a federal crime. They are an organization. ipso facto dispensaries are organized crime, even when run pro-bono by abstinent nuns, only for hospice patients suffering from metastatic bone cancer in the last 2 weeks of life.

    Our focus is really on keeping it away from children. Medical MJ users have kids. They know people who have kids. Also, having dispensaries located in communities where kids live allows them to see the dispensary, opening a whole other can of worms. Can't possibly keep pot away from kids if dispensaries exist.

    Our focus is making sure that people aren't, through marijuana dispensaries, using it as a pretext to do large-scale interstate drug dealing.

    Remember, under Wickard any activity or inactivity in a market with potential interstate presence distorts that market. You don't actually have to buy or sell pot across state lines to do large-scale interstate drug dealing. Heck, by not buying pot right now you are by definition a part of the interstate drug market.

    Any of that is still in violation of the Controlled Substances Act of the federal law.

    Of course this clearly means "please ignore everything else I said. We are going to arrest anyone we can make a case against under federal law."

  • ||

    A federal law that violates the federal constitution is null and void from inception, not from the moment of successful challenge, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    If the federal law prohibiting marijuana growing/possession/use is unconstitutional (and it is, read the constitution, particularly the 10th amendment) then someone who is not breaking the law cannot be organized crime.

    But a group of federal officials trying to enforce a null and void law absolutely ARE organized crime. The U.S. Code (18USC241) calls it conspiracy against rights. Given that federal agents are armed, it's a capital crime.

    The Controlled Substances Act exists in a constitutional gray area so long as the drugs it prohibits are illegal in all states. The instant even one state legalizes any prohibited drug, that gray area vanishes.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Sounds like the FOCUS of someone high on crank.

  • MJGreen||

    The declaration I heard when I watched it is that they won't go after sick people. That is, they won't go after users, but this still leaves sellers, which is supposed to be the focus of the report.

  • NeonCat||

    Sellers, growers… if it spontaneously appears, nay, falls from the sky like manna did on the Israelites wandering the desert, then the sick may get their demon medicine, but only because the govt can't figure out how to throw a flashbang grenade into Heaven or shoot Jesus's dog.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    but only because the govt can't figure out how to throw a flashbang grenade into Heaven or shoot Jesus's dog.

    That sure as fuck wouldn't stop the government from spending trillions of dollars trying to figure it out.

  • ||

    I suddenly find myself sorely tempted to acquire large numbers of marijuana seeds, and charter an airplane. Drop seeds and fertilizer across large swaths of land.

    Manna from Heaven, eh? How's that for spontaneously appearing?

  • ||

    And this surprises who*?

    * Other than moronic TEAM BLUE sycophants who still somehow believe Obama isn't just another corrupt, power-hungry scumbag politician, that is.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, no, Obama is better on drugs.

  • ||

    He said he was, didn't he? What do you want, actual actions instead of words? Look, the Republicans won't let him order his Justice Dept. to stop this.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, I meant he's better when taking drugs.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Just ask the Choom Gang.

  • Paul.||

    CHOOM GANG! EVERYONE ON THE FLOOR!

    *six weeks later*

    Judge: Did the officers properly identify themselves as the Choom Gang?

  • Bobarian||

    When he's on drugs or I'm on drugs?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Both.

  • ||

    You;'d have to be on drugs to believe anything Obama says.

    He promised transparency during his first campaign. The only transparency he has delivered is the transparency of his lies.

  • ||

    I've lost track of the amount of time I've heard that excuse and it just infuriates me--the poor widdle President who was going to make all these sweeping progressive changes is also totally powerless when it comes to executive branch policies that he has total control over and people who serve entirely at his pleasure.

  • ||

    "moronic TEAM BLUE sycophants"

    You mean like Steve Kroft?

    Notice that not once does he call out Cole for saying one thing and doing something completely different for the last four years.

  • ||

    I mean like Steve Kroft.

  • ||

    molon labe, feds!!!

  • R C Dean||

    Tough talk from a future participant in multi-agency drug task force operations.

  • ||

    um, no. i can state unequivocally that if marijuana is legalized in my state, that i will never team up with the feds to thwart the will of the people of WA. i took an oath, and that oath is binding. some of us live by moral code, RC. mine is that i swore an oath . i've never violated an oath in my life

    and btw, my EVIL POLICE UNION has already discussed this. we already came to a resolution that if legalized mj passes, there will be no cooperation in STATE COMPLIANT cases with the feds.

    yea, unions!

    oaths matter to some of us. if you've taken one, i hope you take it equally seriously.

    rule of law matters too. both dictate my actions - state law trumps for state officers.

  • R C Dean||

    I look forward to the articles on WA state police engaging in passive resistance to federal law enforcement. Really, I would love to see that. Surprise me.

    You realize, of course, that this:

    there will be no cooperation in STATE COMPLIANT cases with the feds.

    Is basically eyewash, that any business can be accused of violating some state law or other. I seem to recall CA dispensaries being rolled, with the alleged state violation being a suspicion that they weren't filing their sales taxes appropriately.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure the union will renege if/when the feds offer shiny toys that go boom and/or a share of the stolen forfeited assets.

    And when they do I'm sure Dunphy will go back to his "union policy" fallback position when he is in violation of his stated "principles".

  • ||

    again, i live by an oath i swore and some of us respect oaths and rule of law. some clearly do not

    again, i state unequivocally, i will not assist the feds in any case that is state compliant. because for me, a state sworn officer, state law trumps federal law. i have never done so in my 20+ yr career, and i aint starting now.

    i know my police chief, and i am confident he will be equally stalwart. and our union has already taken a position (yea, union)

    of course, i suggest you haven't READ WA's initiative. i have. it's pretty clear when a case will be state compliant

    you cynics are always the same. and often, if not usually wrong. just like with obama cynics (amerikkkkka will never elect a black man) or RKBA which has been liberalizing DESPITE the naysayers, legalized medical mj is coming. it's unstoppable and we are at the cusp now. the feds KNOW it, and they are sputtering hot air.

    when and if WA legalizes it, people in WA will smoke with impunity. the feds don't have the resources to go after individual possession cases, and they won't

  • sarcasmic||

    the feds don't have the resources to go after individual possession cases, and they won't

    I understand that. No one is saying otherwise.

    We're talking about the DEA raiding people who grow and sell who have assets worth stealing.

  • ||

    and i am saying AGAIN, i swore and oath and that's where my allegiance lies. most people here don't live by an oath and have no allegiances. i do . integrity is everything. i won't violate my oath. it's not going to happen.

    and i am confident my coworkers feel the same way (the vast majority). heck, most of the guys i work with smoked mj in college, etc. and could not give a flying fuck about MJ. if it passes we are fine with it.

  • Cyto||

    I believe you. I also believe that it will be fairly easy to form an inter-agency drug task force with its own chain of command.

  • ||

    and i believe it's fairly easy for me NOT to join such task force.

    btw, they don't assign people to such task forces. you have to apply. i won't apply, needless to say

  • Invisible Finger||

    Didn't you swear an oath in Mass. too?

  • ||

    yes. and i never violated same oath.

  • Cavpitalist||

    I'm sure the union will renege if/when the feds offer shiny toys that go boom and/or a share of the stolen forfeited assets.

    And when they do I'm sure Dunphy will go back to his "union policy" fallback position when he is in violation of his stated "principles".

    Where did you get your screen name?

  • ||

    dunphy is an homage to a person who writes for NRO under the nom de plume "dunphy".

  • ||

    the law largely refers to individuals not businesses, rc. have you read it?

  • R C Dean||

    You're talking about Initiative 502? The one with a whole section on licensing and regulation of producers, processors, and retailers? That specifically provides for licensing of corporations, partnerships, etc. so long as they are formed under Washington law?

    That one?

  • ||

    yes. and from a patrol angle, i'll be dealing with end users.

    again, i will NOT violate my oath

  • R C Dean||

    So, you agree that the law doesn't rfer largely to individuals and not businesses.

    That it in fact envisions licensing precisely the kinds of businesses that the feds have been raiding with the enthusiastic assistance of the locals in California?

    However, as a patrol officer, you don't expect to be directly involved with the inevitable raids on those businesses?

    Just trying to be clear on where the goalposts are, here.

  • ||

    there are no goalposts. i realize for some of you this is just about arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to verbally joust.

    for OTHERS, this is real life. you spout opinion about things like use of force, arrest, deadly force etc. these are real life everyday decisions for me. it's not verbal jousting. for you, it is. for me, it's the real world. 502, for ME is largely about individual use, since i am working patrol, i won't be dealing with those facilities that are distributing.

    and i will this one more time - i will not go against the will of the people of WA. they are who i swore an oath to. i am not a federal officer.

    these are verbal games to you. it's a chance to (i get this impression from a lot of reasonoids) step out of your 'i was picked on and now i have a chance to pick back' position after years of being the outcast in high school, etc.

    for me, it's simply how i live. and i live by a code of ethics and i swore an oath and i am not violating it. period

  • Chris Mallory||

    Screw passive resistance. We need to see the local SWAT teams protecting citizens from the Feebs.

  • sarcasmic||

    We need to see the local SWAT teams protecting citizens from the Feebs.

    Hmmmm. What would happen if a medical mj facility called the police during a DEA raid?

    Would the state and local police tell the feds "Sorry, but these people are operating within state law. You're under arrest for breaking and entering, assault, animal abuse, destruction of property, theft..."?

    I wouldn't hold my breath.

  • ||

    have you READ the law, sarcasmic.

    regardless, i can only tell you what I WILL DO- i will protect state law.

    i suggest my agency will adhere to state law as well. i know my police chief has already made such utterances and my union has already come to a resolution

    you can wank all you want, as cynics are wont to do, about how awful things are, and about how awful they will be.

    and history will prove you wrong

    but history is still in the process of making itself. we haven't even PASSED 502 yet.

  • Brandon Magoon||

    The people at Mount Carmel DID call the police when the ATF tried to murder them. The police didn't lift a finger to help them. Nor did the police do anything several weeks later when the FBI finished them off.

  • ||

    the feds aren't going to go after citizens. the law, which most people here cleaerly haven't read, refers mostly to individuals smoking MJ in the privacy of their homes. doing same, and being in possession of same will be legal, if the initiative passes. and local cops will respect that.

    furthermore, the feds will not be raiding joe and jane smith's houses, the literally SCORES OF THOUSANDS that will be using legal mj. they don't have the resources. they may go after dispensaries. they won't go after end users.

  • sarcasmic||

    they won't go after end users.

    So far you are the only person who said or implied that they would.

  • ||

    and as a patrol officer, that's who i am going to be dealing with 99% of the time. i am saying what *i* will do. and what i have always done. i have never violated any sworn oath, and i have never sided with the feds against state law.

    and i will never do so. i didn't sign up for the DEA. i signed up for my agency, and we enforce STATE law.

    the will of the people is sacrosanct and supreme. if the people pass 502, it is THE LAW and we are sworn to enforce it

    period

    the feds are just spouting. the last gasps. they know damn well local cops are going to enforce state law, not federal law. they are alone and they know it. read between the lines. it's all a bunch of posturing

  • Andrew S.||

    Dunphy, I actually do believe that you, personally, would not take part in such a raid.

    What I don't believe is that your chief or the union will back you up, or that either would, in the end, encourage or permit officers not to go along, especially if there's a threat by the feds or the state (those federally-funded toys mean a lot!), or if it's offered a carrot by the feds in the form of a share of forefeiture proceeds.

  • ||

    i appreciate that, but i know my police chief and my union.

  • ||

    @Andrew:

    It is the duty of a police officer, just like it is the duty of a soldier, to refuse an illegal order.

    Just following orders does not shield such an individual from the consequences of committing a crime just because they were told to commit it.

  • R C Dean||

    the law, which most people here cleaerly haven't read, refers mostly to individuals smoking MJ in the privacy of their homes.

    This is simply wrong. The law provides for the state liquor control board to license marijuana producers, processors, and retailers, and allows them to engage in commerce in marijuana so long as they comply with the new law and regulations.

    http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elec.....s/i502.pdf

  • ||

    yes, that is correct. there are elements that refer to the aggregate stuff. my bad. my point, which i am trying to make is that as a patrol officer, it's the stuff regarding individual users i will deal with

    but that is correct. it PRIMARILY deals with individuals, but it does address the producers, etc. it's just from a patrol angle WE don't deal with that stuff almost always

    i apologize. you are correct.

  • R C Dean||

    the feds aren't going to go after citizens.

    If they arrest anyone, won't they be arresting "citizens"?

    the law, which most people here cleaerly haven't read, refers mostly to individuals smoking MJ in the privacy of their homes.

    As noted above, this is flat wrong.

  • ||

    yes, and i apologize for that.

    it's the aspect *i* will be dealing with, in patrol, but the law addresses the other aspects as well.

    my bad

  • sarcasmic||

    cool story, bro

  • ||

    One thing you may want to consider Dunphy, is whether a state police officer can make an arrest for a federal crime.

    Under the 9th, 10th and 21st amendments, the authority to prohibit or legalize any intoxicant lies solely with the states.

    18USC241 makes it a felony for 2 or more public officials (such as a police officer or federal agent) to conspire to violate any right granted by any law (statutory or constitutional) to any citizen. If they do it armed (threat of dangerous weapon) the maximum punishment is execution or life without parole.

    If you see someone about to enforce a federal law that violates both state law in an area reserved to the states, and the U.S. constitution, can you arrest them?

  • ||

    officers wrestle with armed murder suspect, trying to kill them

    officers win.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VEgbpbpG90

  • Killazontherun||

    It is a pity. Just when he turned over a new leaf and started to use his skill set for something productive.

  • shamalam||

    That was about 600 pounds of cop on that guy. I am surprised he was able to fire a shot.

  • Paul.||

    We're not interested in bothering people who are sick and are using it in the recommendation of a doctor. We are concerned with people who are using it as a pretext to become large-scale drug dealers.

    Y'see, because your healthcare belongs to us, so if it's in a healthcare context, we're not going to bother you aside from demanding it be regulated in the same dispiriting way we regulate everything else healthcare. But we don't want people having fun with it. Fun is a four-letter word for us. Fun isn't healthcare, healthcare isn't fun.

  • Paul.||

    AKA state-legal businesses selling to consumers in an open, state-legal market.

    Putting Marijuana aside, we know how much government likes businesses selling to consumers in open, state-legal markets. They love open, state-legal markets.

  • A Serious Man||

    Obama was going to end the war on medical marijuana, but then he got high.

  • Duncan20903||

    Now that's just plain funny.

  • shamalam||

    Riggs,

    The link to the Cole memo in Sullum's article is broken. I would like to read it. If it's not too much trouble, could you include a working link to Cole's memo here?

  • John||

    Our focus is really on keeping it away from children. Our focus is keeping it out of the hands of organized crime. Our focus is making sure that people aren't, through marijuana dispensaries, using it as a pretext to do large-scale interstate drug dealing. These are the areas where we're really trying to focus.

    If that were your focus, you would be legalizing it. Clearly you don't care if adults use it provided they are not members of organized crime, whatever that is. So why not legalize it? Last I looked not many bars served kids and the mafia didn't make money bootlegging anymore.

  • Killazontherun||

    I like where this is going:

    Hedge Fund Has Seized Argentine Navy Ship for Nonpayment of Bonds

    http://www.economicpolicyjourn.....-navy.html

  • John||

    If they are so pathetic that they would let him do it, good for him. How long before the Chinese seize Air Force One for unpaid debts?

  • Killazontherun||

    I wonder if we stop taking their calls, they'll harass Canada and Mexico to remind us of our debt obligations before they send in the repo team.

  • John||

    They will call the UK looking for our current address or wondering if we had moved back into the basement.

  • Killazontherun||

    An agency once called me about a neighbor of mine, and I asked the person, 'If I do this thing for you, you will be in my debt. Do you really want that?'

  • NeonCat||

    So if the Brits had just lent enough to Argentina, they could have repo'd the fleet and secured the Falklands in one fell swoop?

  • Killazontherun||

    As badly managed as that country is, that ain't in realm of fantasy conjecture.

  • Yar||

    I watched this last night, and just re-read the transcript. 60 Minutes was bent over backwards trying to make the feds position seem like benign neglect. The worst they could offer was the prof who noted that it was difficult for dispensaries to conduct banking.

    There was no mention whatsoever of DEA raids in other states, despite the fact that over 800 such raids have taken place in California just this year.

    Extremely shoddy journalism, or just an unwillingness to make the current administration look like bad guys? You decide.

  • R C Dean||

    Swap out ", or just an" with "due to", and I think you'll have it.

  • John||

    Something tells me the raided clinics will suddenly get a much more sympathetic hearing from 60 minutes and the rest of the MSM just after January 20th of next year.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    omething tells me the raided clinics will suddenly get a much more sympathetic hearing from 60 minutes and the rest of the MSM just after January 20th of next year.
    reply to this

    "Put Journalists Back to Work: Vote Republican!"

    Unfortunately, the ONLY substantive difference between a Romney administration and an Obama one is the media coverage depicting just how bad Romney is, which currently is, and will continue to be, nil were Obama to be re-elected.

    Personally, we should amend the Constitution so that presidents can only serve 1 term. It's cruel to force the American people to listen to a douche like Obama, (or any president, really, for 8 fucking years.

  • Paul.||

    Extremely shoddy journalism, or just an unwillingness to make the current administration look like bad guys?

    Both. They're unwilling to make the current administration look like bad guys, so they don't care, look at or dig into the important stories which gets you the shoddy journalism angle.

  • ||

    exactly. it's where media bias is most manifest. in the stories they choose, how they frame, etc.

    the extent to which obama has both lied, and gone against the will of the people of numerous states is a story that holds no traction with his fellow travelers in the media.

  • Yar||

    Sorry, my snark did not come through. I think that failing present info about enforement in other states was propaganda by omission and very likely intentional. For the program that arguably invented gotcha journalism, 60 Minutes' failure mention the 800 California raids (or better yet, ask Cole about them), cannot be chalked up to mere incompetence.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I'm waiting for some ballsy governor to defend the state's medical marijuana laws against federal overreach, (thinly) justified by the Controlled Substances Act.

    I may as well wait to shit a pure gold nugget.

  • ||

    yea. our pussy democratic governor rolled over for them like the democratic lapdog that she is.

    fucking scum

  • Paul.||

    You don't get a job with the 2012 Obama administration by going against the narrative.

  • ||

    like that scumbag cop-o-crat kerlikowske.

    exactly the kind of sychophant piece of garbage the people of seattle would end up with as a police chief.

  • Robert||

    If any state really wanted to make this go, they'd use the loophole in the federal CSA that says officers enforcing a state or local law on controlled substances are exempt from having to register for manufacture, possession, dispensing, or distribution. And that state would have the police -- uniformed police -- sell marijuana to those entitled to buy it, and not to those not entitled to do so.

  • ||

    Oh that would be hilarious.

  • CE||

    And yet he'll be wondering on November 7th why his young supporters didn't turn out and vote for him like they did 4 years ago....

  • sarcasmic||

    I wonder if this may have something to do with it.

    http://thehayride.com/2012/09/.....dium=email

  • Killazontherun||

    Makes me nostalgic for those golden years of black and white television way back in ought and eight.

  • Paul.||

    It appears that young supporters still support him. His young supporters in 2008 are now young adult supporters for 2012-- they may be more wobbly because age and experience have (hopefully) taught them that when a politician's mouth is moving, it's lying.

  • Chmee||

    What ever happened to the 10th Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Aren't the individual States laws supposed to suprecede Federal Law unlesss the States (and the People of those States) voluntarily give up that right? Oh,sorry. I was thinking that we still have a Rule of Law.

    As to "large scale drug dealers", well, a sitting duck is an easier target to go after than one who's constantly on the move,isn't it, and also easier to go after since the moving duck will shoot back. Literally.

  • ||

    Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241 of the U.S. Code:

    "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

    SWAT teams wear masks. A false arrest is a form of kidnapping. Federal and state police are armed and trigger-happy.

    Washington state has a very broad citizen's arrest authority. Perfect storm incoming in 3... 2... 1...

  • Andrew S.||

    Man, you right wing haters just don't understand. Once our incredible President no longer has to be worried about being re-elected and can no longer be targeted by those evil Republican teabagger terrorists, the United States will become a social liberal utopia! We're going to end all our involvement in the Middle East, we're going to legalize drugs, legalize gay marriage! Obama promised! He wouldn't lie, would he?

    And if you don't agree with me, you're obviously just a right wing racist hater who can be easily ignored.

  • shamalam||

    You probably won't be surprised that I hear this basic argument from LOTS of brain washed left-wingers.

  • Andrew S.||

    I've heard it as well. That's where I got it from?

  • wingnutx||

    Harold and Kumar would never lie to me!

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Between the WOD, civil liberties and foreign policy, there is so much material for GJ to go after Obama... Romney can't say anything because he would basically do the same thing.

    Fuck

  • ||

    i think romney is way more likely to respect state authoritah than obama, who has proven he has no respect for same

  • Robert||

    Coincidentally while searching for something unrelated, yesterday in Google News newspaper scan archives I found an editorial from a newspaper in Wash. state (or maybe it was Wisc.) in 1932 saying that it was good that the local police were cooperating with the feds in enforcing liquor laws even though the state and local gov'ts had repealed their prohib'ns, because to not cooperate with Uncle Sam would set a bad precedent.

  • Juergen||

    So now we know the real criminals, the FEDS, either they can't read or they are under the plot:

    THE REPORT. CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
    ISBN 9781902848204.

    Denial of cannabis by Prohibition ‘law’ premeditatedly inflicts suffering, blindness, and, in many instances, death. Those who maintain any use of life-saving cannabis to be "illegal" should be regarded and treated as perpetrators of the gravest of crimes, and deemed unfit to hold any public office in a democratic society.

    Die Verweigerung von Cannabis durch das Prohibitions-Gesetz verursacht vorsätzlich Leiden, Blindheit und fuehrt in vielen Fällen zum Tod. Diejenigen, die das Verbot der Verwendung von lebensrettenden Cannabis als "illegal" zu halten betrachten, sollten behandelt werden wie ein Täter des schwersten Verbrechens und als ungeeignet angesehen werden ein öffentliches Amt in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft zu fuehren.

  • ||

    Under Washington, a citizen who witnesses a felony or breach of the peace can make a citizen's arrest. State law does not distinguish between federal or state felonies.

    18USC241 establishes that it is a crime for any 2+ public officials to use their authority to violate any lawful right. Punishment is 10 years in prison, a felony by any standard.

    The only thing that allowed Congress to enact prohibition in the 1920s was the 18th amendment. Without it, prohibition would have been unconstitutional. Prior to the 18th, the feds had exactly the same amount of federal supremacy over states that they do today. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th.

    Both federal and Washington laws recognize that resisting a lawful arrest is a crime, resisting a lawful arrest with violence justifies use violence in return, and that self-defense is lawful. Washington law makes NO distinction between resisting a lawful arrest by police or citizens.

    If any Washington citizen sees a group of feds about to violate the constitution and 18USC241 in the state of Washington, that citizen can arrest the entire group. Resisting arrest is a felony under federal law and a breach of the peace under state law. If the feds kill the arresting citizen, it's murder. If the citizen kills the resisting feds in self-defense (more likely a group of citizens as few people have Rambo-like skills) no crime would be committed by the citizen(s).

    Can anyone say Constitutional Crisis?

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