DEA Responds to Legal Weed in Colorado and Washington: "Enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged"

Despite the passage of ballot initiatives in Washington and Colorado legalizing recreational marijuana, "the Drug Enforcement Administration’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged," a DEA spokesperson told Reason this morning.

"In enacting  the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department of Justice is reviewing the ballot initiatives and we have no additional comment at this time."

The DOJ released a similarly opaque response to reporter CJ Ciaramella of the Washington Free Beacon. "The Department's enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged.  In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. We are reviewing the ballot initiatives and have no additional comment at this time."

While there's "no comment at this time," Deputy Attorney General James Cole hinted last month at what the Obama administration's response might be.

"Each case is going to rise and fall on its own unique facts," Cole said in a 60 Minutes interview. "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."

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, an opponent of Amendment 64, had this to say late last night: “The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will. This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don’t break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly.”

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.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    And without dealers they get their marijuana where?

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    It's a plant. It grows of its own accord, just as long as a DEA plane doesn't spot it during a regular fly-over, and call DEA agents to break into the house, shoot everything that moves, destroy the plants along with the lives and property of the people in whose yard it is growing, then repair to the bar to suck down beers and brag about their prowess, before going home to beat their wives.

  • Metazoan||

    That is one of the most concise explanations of standard drug war operations that I've ever read.

  • Another David||

    In fairness to the men and women of law enforcement, many of them are not married.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Yes, but they can still beat their ex-wives, just so they don't lose their edge.

  • strat||

    I guess the dog counts as "something that moves." You're right, he didn't miss anything.

  • MrGuy||

    Best. DEA comment. Ever.

  • RightNut||

    Maybe I'm out of the loop, but Goldfish?

  • robc||

    Goldfish crackers.

  • robc||

  • sasob||

    What - they quit making Animal Crackers?

  • sarcasmic||

    Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I thought those were for little kids? Do heshers like them too or something?

  • Thomas O.||

    As in Pepperidge Farm.

  • ||

    And I'm sure that WA voted overwhelmingly for Obamny.

    And of course, no information about third party votes from the WA MSM.

  • ||

    We're not interested in bothering people who are sick and are using it in the recommendation of a doctor.

    If so, why don't you recommend that Congress take it off Schedule I? Asshole.

    That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don’t break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly.

    Asshole.

  • sarcasmic||

    I predict the DEA will take this to the Supremes, and win.

    Supremacy Clause, bitches!

  • John||

    Fuck yeah they will. I think it is cute and all to watch these states try to legalize pot. But they really are kidding themselves if they think the DOJ is ever going to back off.

  • Matrix||

    Well, the states can simply refuse to give any law enforcement resources to help the feds crack down on pot.

  • John||

    The Feds are like the honey badger. They don't give a fuck. They will use ICE or CBP agents if they have to.

  • sarcasmic||

    Then the feds will threaten to cut off federal funding, while promising all kinds of shiny military toys if they go along.

    They'll go along.

  • Thomas O.||

    The counter most certainly would be "And marijuana prohibition is explicitly found WHERE in the Constitution?..."

  • sarcasmic||

    The "fuck you, that's why" clause.

  • R C Dean||

    In all seriousness, its in the Commerce Clause (according to SCOTUS).

    Yea, verily, even pot that you grow and burn on your own land, without even using anything that was ever in interstate commerce, is subject to the Commerce Clause.

  • ||

    Wickard looms large. Sigh.

  • Juice||

    And it's little cousin, Raich.

  • np||

    From my understanding, the application of the commerce clause in cases where the targeted things themselves didn't move interstate boils down to availability or instrumentality.

    Availability as in the Wickard and Raich cases where it could potentially affect supply and demand outside the state (consumers outside can simply travel to the state); but they usually pull out the instrumentality card when they feel can't sufficiently justify the former.

    It's where instruments or the tools and goods used in producing the targeted item involves interstate commerce. This later rationale has been applied to a range of things from obscenity to hate crimes

  • In Time Of War||

    Well, someone would have to loan the court a copy of the Constitution, first.

  • MrGuy||

    Zing

  • Just thinkin aloud||

    The same place that permits the Federal Reserve, since mj is the only commodity which is common enough and easy enough to duplicate that it could become a competing currency. Wouldn't want power in the hands of the people when it can all be concentrated into the hands of a few who have a license to steal!

  • Hyperion||

    They can't win this one, sarc, even if the supreme court overrules the legalization.

    The cat is already out of the bag and there is no putting it back in. They will just need to focus more attention on other drugs, and invent new ones, because they just lost this battle.

    It will get very ugly and that will only hasten and seal the loss for the feds.

    This is the biggest win for freedom in maybe all of my lifetime. And I don't smoke weed.

  • sarcasmic||

    They can't win this one, sarc, even if the supreme court overrules the legalization.

    Yeah they can. Might makes right, and they are the last word in violence. They will win, even if it means killing people.

    The Drug War is a religion, and the feds will fight to the death for their faith.

  • Hyperion||

    They will kill people, but they won't win. It's over, they just don't know it. Even if they spent 100% of all revenue of the tax payers to fight this, they will still lose.

  • sarcasmic||

    The only way they will lose is through organized violent resistance, which ain't gonna happen.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What are they going to do? Put ALL of their resources into these two states? Or even just Colorado? It ain't gonna happen. They're trying to damn the tide with Kleenex.

  • sarcasmic||

    They're going to continue as if the law was never passed, and no one will do a damn thing about it.

  • ||

    Washington state law doesn't distinguish between state and federal law when considering whether citizen's arrest is lawful.

    Under Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241 of the U.S. Code it's a crime punishable by 10 years in prison for any two or more public officials to use their official authority to deny any citizen any right. Ten years in prison is a felony by any standard.

    The People of Washington State passed an Initiative legalizing marijuana. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant drug prohibition authority to the feds, so this presents a problem. The 9th and 10th Amendments say any governmental authority not granted to the feds is solely in the hands of The People or the states. The 21st amendment gave the feds the authority to regulate interstate commerce in restricted substances but repealed the authority granted by the 18th. Since the 18th was the only thing giving Congress the authority to override the 9th and 10th amendments to prohibit a substance within a state, this is also a problem for the feds.

    Under 18USC241, a group of federal agents attempting to enforce federal law in violation of the 9th, 10th and 21st amendments would be subject to citizen's arrest by any citizen who happened across them. Resisting a lawful arrest is a crime, even for federal agents. If someone is resisting lawful arrest using deadly force, killing them is not murder. Self-defense is not a crime, after all.

  • ||

    Stupid 1500 character limits...

    The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that an unconstitutional law is null and void from inception, not from the moment of successful constitutional challenge.

    The Supremacy Clause does not apply to any law that is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, since it was null and void from the moment of inception.

    As long as a given drug is illegal in all 50 states, any of that drug being present must be a violation of the law. This permits federal drug laws to exist in a constitutional gray area. But as soon as a drug isn't illegal in any one state, that gray area evaporates. The feds do have authority to control inter-state commerce and inter-national commerce. But they don't have authority over commerce that only occurs entirely within a state.

  • sarcasmic||

    But they don't have authority over commerce that only occurs entirely within a state.

    Tell that to Wickard.

  • sarcasmic||

    But they don't have authority over commerce that only occurs entirely within a state.

    Tell that to Wickard.

  • Juice||

    21st amendment? You'd have to argue that marijuana is an "intoxicating liquor." Maybe if you're talking about hash oil or something.

  • Jesse James Dean||

    On paper, this all sounds good and legit, but unless you got an angry mob on your side (or some state or local police), you aren't going to just walk up to a group of feds in the middle of a raid and place them under citizen's arrest. They will put you on the ground and arrest you first. Unless you have a gun, in which case you will get blown away and they agent who shot you will get paid leave pending investigation, then eventually be exonerated.

  • John Thacker||

    They will lose if these state votes cause other states, and federal politicians, to try to make changes.

    Marijuana outpolled the presidential candidates, I believe. It did in Colorado.

  • mdmeyer||

    Don't be so sure, the feds apparently aren't:

    "Northern California pot growers bomb a car and a bus, then take over Shasta Dam in a bid to free an imprisoned comrade. It sounds like the plot to a very cheesy Grade-B thriller, but it was actually the premise for a day-long terrorist attack drill conducted by 20 state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies Wednesday."
    http://stopthedrugwar.org/chro.....ce_conduct

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    They are still waiting for Steiner's Panzers to counterattack and save the day.

  • THIS SUX||

    lol'd @ Der Undertang reference.

  • Thomas O.||

    Then they run the risk of garnering a martial-law police-state image. With a state the size of Colorado, if enough local/state officers refuse to defy the will of the people, you'd have to have hordes of armed federal officers descend upon the state conducting door-to-door searches... and that would look pretty ominous. I don't think that's what any elected official wants, especially if they want to stay afloat in 2014.

  • mdmeyer||

    Anyone who doubts that the cat is outta the bag, back out this image, then check out any clearing you like in a several-mile radius:
    http://tinyurl.com/akxwb5v

    This is Trinity; the Humboldt sheriffs this year released a couple dozen photos of huge greenhouse operations, virtually none of which have been busted.

    As the states ease off their cannabis enforcement, the feds are really going to have their work cut out for them.

  • ||

    In 1919. Congress needed a constitutional amendment (the 18th) then to pass the Volstead Act. The amendment that made nationwide prohibition of a manufactured substance constitutional was repealed ten years later, with the 21st amendment, which explicitly returned the authority to decide on matters of prohibition to the states.

    Every bit of Federal supremacy that exists today, also existed in 1919. They had the Supremacy Clause. They had the 14th amendment. They could not ban alcohol without ratifying the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment is dead.

    As long as marijuana was illegal in all 50 states, the feds could justify a federal law banning it, since it could not legally enter the country without passing through federal jurisdiction. But under the 10th and 21st amendments, it's really up to the states whether it's illegal in a state. And in this sort of thing, state law has supremacy over federal, because the feds are specifically prohibited by their own constitution from getting involved.

  • Juice||

    1919 and 1934 both came before Wickard v. Filburn and certainly well before Raich v. Gonzales. IOW, the constitution was different back then.

  • Pi Guy||

    Maybe SCOTUS will finally find a way to overturn Wickard vs. Filburn.

    HAH! I crack myself up!

  • Hyperion||

    This is going to be the biggest debacle of all time, well at least since the last prohibition.

    The problem is this. We have the folks in CO and WA that now believe, and rightfully so, in my humble opinion, that they have the right to legally possess and use cannabis at their leisure. There was a legal vote and they won.

    Then you have the DEA who are convinced of just the opposite. This is going to get very ugly for the federal government. They will make sure of it themselves. There is a coming shit storm on the horizen and I hope all of the shit ultimately winds up all over the face of the DEA.

  • sasob||

    They always had the right - they just didn't have a government that recognized and protected that right instead of violating it.

  • John||

    I think there is just going to be a bunch of Colorado and Washington residents in federal prison. The feds really don't give a shit.

  • Hyperion||

    It isn't that simple, John. We are now going to have an all out war between the feds and 2 states, and the citizens of those states. More than 50% of the residents of those states are on the side of these laws. WTF are they going to do, arrest everyone? They will try, and they will fall into a big pile of shit face first. They are going to create a lot of new Libertarians is what they are going to do.

  • John||

    They are going to create a lot of new Libertarians is what they are going to do.

    Who no longer can vote because they are felons. I hope you are right. But I can't see how. The feds are unstoppable assholes.

  • Hyperion||

    The feds are unstoppable assholes

    Only we both know that isn't quite true. They are unstoppable until they run out of money. And they are on a fast track to do just that, and sooner rather than later.

  • sarcasmic||

    They won't run out of money as long as they can print it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't think Zimbabwean America is going to be too good at intercepting drugs.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who said anything about intercepting drugs?

    Zimbabwean America will loot every citizen that is even suspected of being involved with drugs.

  • NeonCat||

    Zimbabwean America will loot every citizen that is even suspected of being involved with drugs.

    FTFY

  • Chris Mallory||

    The states have measures to restore voting rights to felons. We had a ex congressman who was convicted of a Federal felony, committed while a congressman, on the ballot yesterday for a state race. He had his rights to vote and hold public office restored by the governor. The Constitution leaves voting qualifications to the states.

  • THIS SUX||

    label an innocent man an outlaw and he might start acting like one, Johnny Cakes.

  • Jesse James Dean||

    radical libertarians don't need to vote to effect the change they want. All they gotta do is educate and participate in black and gray market activities. Therefore, being a felon is inconsequential.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ore than 50% of the residents of those states are on the side of these laws.

    To be accurate, that's 50% of the people who voted.

  • ||

    I'm guessing that stoners were less likely to show up at the polls than the rest of the population.

  • ||

    I used to think that having the Feds flex their muscles would be a good thing, because it would bring further attention to the Federal/State gap.

    But yet 2 years of DEA prosecutions in CA have led to...just about nothing.

  • The Hammer||

    2 years of DEA Prosecutions in CA have led to legalization in WA and CO. Not our fault Californians are such statist pussies to the core.

  • cthorm||

    We'll be seeing a lot more headcheese pictures like Sullum's from yesterday before the Feds give up. Only they'll look more like Colorado residents.

  • Thomas O.||

    The fact is that the Feds has to rely on mostly state and local law enforcement to maintain the WOD. We're hoping that CO & WA has the balls to tell their police forces to stand down... and in effect, making Federal enforcement of drug policy in these states like using a flyswatter on a grizzly bear. And if the FBI even tries to flood the states with agents, they run the risk of exacerbating their "police state" reputation.

  • John||

    If it is illegal for Arizona to enforce federal immigration laws, why isn't it equally illegal for Colorado and Washington to enforce federal drug laws?

  • sarcasmic||

    Liberals can play the victim card for immigrants and gain sympathy.

    Not so for druggies. They're not even human. Fuck 'em.

  • Another David||

    It's illegal for Arizona to enforce federal immigration laws *unless they're working with the feds.* INS has no interest in blessing every shakedown of a brown person for leaving the house without papers, but the DEA will gladly sign off on a local SWAT team's seven-house raid over a plant.

  • pmains||

    Ding ding ding. The sad part about SB1070 was that it was almost never talked about in context of the federal 287(g) program (among others), which allows local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. Virtually all of the arguments on both sides were emotional rather than rational. So, we never got a debate about how to reform the process for issuing MOUs/MOAs and other issues that prevented local and state law enforcement from participating in these federal programs while simultaneously abiding by federal civil rights protections.

  • Hyperion||

    There is no good correlation there, John. What I have been trying to say, I don't think you get it. More than 50% of the population of these states support this, and I don't think people are just goning to lie down and say oh well, when the feds start busting up the houses of their neighbors and shooting people who were not even doing anything illegal.

  • sarcasmic||

    and I don't think people are just goning to lie down and say oh well

    What are they going to do? Organized revolt? Over pot? Really?

  • Hyperion||

    There could most definitely be civil disobedience over this. I don't think it will get quite that far, but the tension will be very high when the feds finally back down.

    Where this is going is that they will try to create prohibition through Obamacare, over every single aspect of our lives. That is what the law was intended to do.

  • sarcasmic||

    Civil disobedience don't mean shit, and the feds will not back down.

    I do agree about Obamacare though. Once health care is completely socialized, that can be used as an excuse to regulate everything from what you eat to who you fuck.

  • THIS SUX||

    The seeds of the American Revolution were planted over paper stamps.

  • COdan||

    I voted for this. I'd say yes. The Governor should call out the national guard to keep the feds from enforcing their laws on non-consenting citizens. The federal government needs to be put back in its place and stop its overreach of power.It has to start some where. Colorado is as good a place as any.

  • ||

    The Guard will be federalized.

  • CollinDow||

    "I disagree with what you say, but I shall fight to the death for your right to say it."

    I don't like pot. I think it's dumb, and pointless.
    But, I'll fight for stoner's right to use it...because it doesn't hurt me if they do.

  • Skyhawk||

    Same here. Never tried it. But MY money is taken against my will to pay for the WOD, and until militarized police SWAT teams stop raiding houses, in many cases the wrong houses, nobody (and no pet) is safe from the violence and erosion of Constitutional protections that comes with it.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Those are some nice federal highway funds you got there. Be a shame if something happened to them. What? You'll work with us to enforce federal law? That's what we thought."

  • ||

    I would l love to see a governor grow some balls and say, "Oh, you're taking away our highway funds? Fine, then we'll stop collecting the 26 cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline."

  • R C Dean||

    We're hoping that CO & WA has the balls to tell their police forces to stand down

    CA cops are still enthusiastically shutting down dispensaries. Why should CO and WA cops be any different?

  • sarcasmic||

    Dunphy said he took an oath! An oath I tell you! An oath!

  • SKR||

    CA cops are working at the behest of local governments, at least in LA.

  • mdmeyer||

    In some CA locales the cops have the moral support of the voting population in viewing medical marijuana as fraudulent de facto legalization.

    In WA and CO the law cannot be seen as duplicitous in the way that has been so devastating in CA, since neither depends on a medical rationale--they're explicitly about recreational use.

    I do think that will make a difference in LE approaches.

  • R C Dean||

    In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance.

    Did Congress put pot on Schedule I, or is that an administrative/regulatory/executive decision?

    Supremacy Clause, bitches!

    Shouldn't apply. Just because the feds outlaw something, doesn't mean the states have to.

  • sarcasmic||

    The states can't enact laws that directly conflict with federal law, right?

  • T||

    But the state can make it not criminal and not do anything about it. If every weed possession case had to go to federal court, do you think we'd be busting a whole lot of people for POM?

  • sarcasmic||

    If there is property to steal, yes.

  • R C Dean||

    The states can't enact laws that directly conflict with federal law, right?

    That's right. But being silent on a topic is not a conflict. If the Feds outlaw X, and the states don't, there's no conflict.

    You might be able to come up with a conflict on the licensing of retailers, but that would be something of a stretch. Its notable that the feds haven't tried that argument yet on medpot, but that may be because they haven't had to.

  • sarcasmic||

    You might be able to come up with a conflict on the licensing of retailers

    That's what I was thinking. How can states license activity that is prohibited by the federal government?

  • 0x90||

    "Did Congress put pot on Schedule I, or is that an administrative/regulatory/executive decision?"

    See 21 U.S.C. §812 (c)(c)(10).

  • John Thacker||

    Administrative/regulatory/executive decision that pot has no redeeming qualities.

  • Randian||

    "In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance.

    And you continue to concur with that decision even though it is entirely within your purview, Executive Branch, to do something about it.

    ohwaitsorry

    *WOOOO OBAMA WON NOW I CAN GET AN ABORTION*

  • John||

    Go back to my post on the morning links about the suburban moms who just gave Obama the White House. They would have a cow if they thought the President was going to let their little snowflakes get access to the evil weed. The feds are going to continue to crush these efforts.

  • AuH2O||

    Is it fair to say that the most important demographic now is suburban women? They won it for Clinton, Bush, and now Obama.

  • R C Dean||

    Seems to be. Its Oprah's country now, you're just living in it.

  • Randian||

    So, how does this all work in implementation, exactly?

    Can I just smoke a J in the middle of the streets of Denver today? Like, right in front of the police station?

  • Matrix||

    Well, I'd wait to see when the law goes into effect before testing your theory. But, by all means, test it out and tell us how it goes.

  • John||

    You could and they couldn't arrest you unless a fed did it. The problem is not going to be for the average weed smoker. It will be for the poor bastards who set up medical clinics and try to actually do some good. Those guys are going to end up in federal prison.

  • B.P.||

    There are already medical marijauna dispensaries operating openly all over Denver. You'd be surprised how many 20-somethings have bad backs.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm pretty sure that public display, like drinking in public, remains a crime.

  • The Hammer||

    Generally, you were ok smoking a J in the middle of the streets in Denver before. As long as you had the decency to be white.

  • Matrix||

    If Dunphy is around, I hope he responds. In WA if the Feds request assistance from local law enforcement to execute a raid on a MJ dispensary, can the sheriff or local chief refuse to cooperate and refuse to give resources to aid the feds? Also, since it is legal by state law, are they compelled by the state NOT to render aid to the feds in these situations?

  • Hyperion||

    He was posting about it on an earlier thread, from late yesterday. I wanted to ask him the same question, but there was no longer any activity in that thread.

    Dunphy is of the same opinion as I am that this will stand, but probably not for the same reasons at all. I believe that he thinks the cops in WA will just not cooperate with the feds. I don't see it as being that simple at all. It's going to be a complete clusterfuck and the feds are going to wind up looking very bad and they will lose this fight.

  • ||

    we have ALREADY in medical MJ cases (my agency) refused to help the feds in certain ways they have requested, granted somewhat informally. this went way back to an incident several years ago. details are NOT forthcoming, but suffice it to say we told the feds to pound sand vis a vis a medical MJ case.

    hyperion has it right. the feds DO care about PR and they are totally going to be on the losing side of SOCCER MOMS and shit and they know it if they push this issue . they are going to pimp and preen and posture and spout crap, but they are quietly going to let these initiatives stand. they will try to find some dispensaries that *are* breaking *other* laws and go after them. that's a given.

    my facebook etc. is lighting up. patrol cops etc. expressing their support for this initiative and that we are sick and tired of responding to petty bullshit marijuana calls, that are usually some nosy neighbor.

    sure, some cops are bemoaning the loss of "fishing" PC, but remember - this is WA. we ALREADY cannot search motor vehicles incident to arrest, etc. we have a strong right to privacy. unlike almost every other state

    in brief, YES the sheriff or locals CAN refuse to assist the feds, and they (imo) probably will if the violation is not clear cut. there WILL be violations OF STATE LAW with some dispensaries, that's a given, fwiw.

  • ||

    the feds almost never ask for our aid. we have a few officers assigned to federal task forces (bank robbery, fugitive, and drugs mostly) and the cops working drug details are probably going to abstain from any fed raids that run contrary to state law.

    that's my prediction.

    sheriffs are elected officials. i do not see sheriffs assisting the feds in a raid that clearly runs contrary to state law in this case. it would be awful PR.

    my county has a newly elected sheriff who won this election by quite a margin. im confident the LAST thing he is going to do is piss off his electorate by going after MJ dispensaries or assisting the feds in doing so.

    so, in brief, my opinion is that the feds are MOSTLY posturing, and in the cases where they do raid dispensaries, they are going to see little ot no local cop assistance.

    that's my PREDICTION. even the feds are not completely tone deaf and they risk some serious bad PR here.

  • Skyhawk||

    Bullshit.
    99% of cops get a hard-on when they get to put on their Rambo costumes and fire up their surplus urban assault vehicle, without giving any thought to what they are actually 'enforcing'.
    You may be an exception, Dunphy, but you are in the minority.
    Many of the raids in California have been carried out by and/or with the help of state and local police.
    And, in not one of those raids has any local/state police agency intervened to protect the rights of those who are being raided, despite being 100% compliant with state law.
    Not once. Meaning never.
    Even though a California citizen's rights are violated by an armed home invasion of federal agents, not once has a California local or state police agency protected
    a California citizens rights against a federal raid.
    I predict neither you, nor any CO or WA
    cop would fulfill their oath and protect one of your citizens against a raid by the feds.

  • Hyperion||

    let their little snowflakes get access to the evil weed

    You mean the ones that they didn't kill themselves before they were even born?

    Yep, don't let little snowflake get hold of any evil herbs, now that I didn't decide to just kill them myself. Some great logic in that thinking.

  • NeonCat||

    If logic were involved in the electorate's decision, do you REALLY believe we'd have the (mis)government we currently have?

  • Thomas O.||

    Hopefully emotion doesn't override logic with these moms and they see that MJ is still prohibited to those under 21.

    I have two kids - one 8, one 2 - and when the time comes, I do intend on warning them about the dangers of drug use, and that they're better off not using them. But as soon as they turn 18, if they want to experiment with MJ, that's their business... and I hope they're cautious and informed enough to do so in careful moderation.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Where are shrike and Tony to let us know that now that Obama's safely reelected, he'll change his War on Drugs policy?

  • Hyperion||

    Even Shrike and Tony are not that stupid. They will just remain silent on that, or say something dumb, like well Romney would do the same.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Even Shrike and Tony are not that stupid.

    Oh dear....

  • John||

    They have surprisingly little to say this morning.

  • Hyperion||

    That's because there is no newly elected boogeyman who is going to steal their gayness.

    Really, when you think about it, it is all going as planned for us Ls. The GOP know they are going to have to back off on these social issues. No party is going to run on banning abortion or against gay marriage. So what does that leave the Dems? Free shit. And we are running out of money for more free shit.

    So, now we will be able to actually force campaigns to focus on more important things, like the WOD and the foreign wars.

  • ||

    This. The GOP needs to rebrand or die. Stay out of peoples bedrooms, their urine, their jockstraps, their bank accounts, their phones. What they are doing now is clearly not working.

  • Randian||

    In short, read this Michael Tanner article.

  • John Thacker||

    I do not believe abortion will go away as an issue. The other things will.

    Even though even overturning Roe v. Wade / Casey v. Planned Parenthood wouldn't actually "ban abortion."

  • Jackwhite||

    Large scale drug dealers?? You mean like liquor and tobacco stores?

  • ||

    the feds can posture all they want. it;s all they got left. even in their quotes, they concede they aint going after end users

    "We are concerned with people who are using it as a pretext to become large-scale drug dealers."

    johnny and sally soccer spouses smoking a doobie pursuant to WA law are fine.

    we won, they lost and they know it

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Hickenlooper, an opponent of Amendment 64, had this to say late last night: “The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will. This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through.

    The foot-dragging will commence immediately!

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Hypothetical: all 50 states legalise marijuana completely. Will Eric Holder's DOJ continue to solemnly declare its duty to enforce the CSA?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • Randian||

    Would have been repealed or rescheduled before then.

  • ||

    exactly. there will be a point of critical mass, and that will prompt the feds. they will be on the losing side of history FOR A WHILE. it always happens that way. but eventually, the rescheduling will commence. in some way that allows them to think they are saving face.

  • sarcasmic||

    That would involve the federal government admitting that they were wrong.

    Won't happen.

    Ever.

  • ||

    rubbish. again, you will be on the wrong side of history. it's happened before (see, for example, prohibition. see, for example, slavery). it will happen again

    the tide has simply turned. MJ legalization precedent has been set. this is no different from what we have seen over the last few decades vis a vis RKBA. an expansion of rights. it's going to continue

  • sarcasmic||

    Slavery took a war, and alcohol prohibition ended in part because it was recognized that it caused more problems than it solved. Not to mention the public acceptance factor that marijuana does not have.
    How many people die each year from gang related violence fueled by the drug trade? And the answer is always more more more.

    It ain't going to change on the federal level. If anything, this will be cause to give the DEA more funding.

  • ||

    ill grant you. poor analogies on my part.

    either way, we don't have to wank about what will happen, we can wait to see what DOES happen. imo, the tide is turning and we are going to see MORE legalization not less over the course of the next dozen years.

  • R C Dean||

    Alcohol prohibition ended for a few reasons that pot doesn't enjoy (yet):

    (1) The gubmint needed the money (again) from taxing alcohol.

    (2) A bootlegger went public on how he supplied basically everyone in Congress with booze.

    (3) It was universally and (pretty)openly used, and the rise of organized crime to service the black market was recent enough that everyone could make the connection.

  • Hyperion||

    Yep, but it will be a lost cause long before all 50 states legalize.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What they are doing now is clearly not working.

    Which is why they'll say, "WE'RE JUST NOT HITTING IT HARD ENOUGH!" and nominate Newt Kwan Yew next time around (because it's HIS TURN).

  • JSebastian||

    The Federal Governmeo has no authority to regulate plants. Where in Article I Section 8 does that power appear?

    The Federal Government is abusive, evil, and should be overthrown or dissolved, whichever is most expedient to the People.

  • ||

    the county that seattle is in is king county. in this election, we got a newly elected sheriff (urquhart) who won 57 to 42.

    my prediction is that THE LAST THING a newly elected sheriff is going to do is piss off his electorate by going against the will of the people and the will of the people is - to LET PEOPLE SMOKE MJ IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR HOMES WITHOUT POLICE/NEIGHBOR interference.

    this guy came up from the ranks. he ran against a more cop-o-cratty opponent who was a former head of another PD (kent) and was appointed by the outgoing sheriff (who took a job with the state and appointed her underling).

    iow, this is very much a 'will of the people' and a 'patrol officer over bureaucrat" election result. and my PREDICTION - he makes a statement saying that he respects the will of the people vis a vis mj and that his officers/deputies will act pursuant to this initiative, which means respecting the rights of people to smoke MJ in their homes. my prediction.

  • sarcasmic||

    People can't smoke in their homes without it first being grown, distributed, and sold.

    Are you saying that law enforcement won't go after growers, distributors and sellers? (especially those with lots of property to steal)

  • ||

    i am saying that imo the county sheriff and his deputies will NOT go after those who are acting pursuant to this state initiative. this initiative outlines a process where MJ can be legally (under state law) distributed and taxed. my prediction is that he (urquhart) and his deputies will respect those who act pursuant to same

  • sarcasmic||

    I'll take that as a yes.

  • cdh3021||

    I really don't see the federal government putting very much effort into busting people for possession of an ounce of weed.

  • John Thacker||

    Probably not. They'll go after any dealers or commercial shops, though.

  • R C Dean||

    Oh, sure. I doubt anyone has really said any different. The point being, that they will, and they will find local LEOs willing to join in (just as they have in CA) based on spurious alleged violations of other laws.

    Now, maybe the "wink-and-nod" nature of medpot is at the root of local LEOs and feds pursuing retailers and growers, and they won't bother with full-on legalization, but I kind of doubt it. I hope to be proven wrong.

  • R C Dean||

    Basically, I'm predicting that full legalization will get the same reaction from law enforcement that partial legalization via medpot got. Why wouldn't it?

  • ||

    i'd say about 1/3 of my facebook friends are cops. i am going to go out on a limb and say that makes me unique amongst the posters here. i also have never seen an unwillingness on their part to speak their mind in facebook. frankly, i've seen people post some shit that amazes me about their bosses, etc. stuff that you would think they wouldn't post out of of being fired or at least retaliation. iow, these are not people who fear to speak their mind.

    and in regards to legalized MJ, i am seeing little to no negative comments amongst the cops. mostly support, and a few people are like "i think this is a dumb decision, but whatever. i've got better things to do with my time than MJ enforcement".

    that's it. granted, my cadre of LE friends may not be representative of LEO's as whole. maybe they trend more libertarian, but still. the point is i am not seeing opposition, and trust me when these guys oppose stuff, they state it emphatically. i think what;s going to be remarkable about legalization is how UNeventful it's acceptance is. within a year or two, people will look back and be "can you believe it used to be illegal?"

  • tj4174@gmail.com||

    DEA dosent want people to become large scale drug dealers,,well if the DEA has a brain you know people are going to go to colorado or washington just so they can enjoy it on a vacation or buy some,, dont be stupid..thats why the government has to legalize in more states or all states,,to stop spending more money on marijuana prohibition,,just like where i live we didnt have a liquor store in our city ,town,or county,we had to drive to the next town to buy liquor,,but now we have voted and passed to have liquor stores in town, after 40 years,,times are hard and sometimes people have to do things ,that some other people may not want to do,, but thats life and thats freedom.. then you wonder why we are in debt trillions of dollars,, stop trying to be our mommies and daddies,,telling us what to eat, drink,, or whatever this is our life..plenty of people grow tobacco,, and they dont make cigarettes,,and some people make liquor (moonshine) but most people just go to the store and buy it,,but it really doesnt matter cause its like this it goes into the economy anyway ,,people make money they spend it,, on cars, tv's,appliances, or whatever and this is the reason our economy is falling,,whether people want to believe it or not DRUG MONEY was what was keeping our economy alive and you in a job !!when you take that away you have these people stealing your shit that you worked for ,,and then we have to pay for the same thieves to go to jail,,now what kind of justice is that!!!

  • ||

    Deceiving
    Every
    American is what they have been attempting and rather successful at from the very beginning.

  • Rawrface||

    Weed will be legal everywhere soon! I can't wait and I was happy to read this. [evil smile]
    Well, if you can't smoke the illegal, then I'd like to point out that I run a legal highs review site. We are HONEST and DETAILED. We'll tell you where to get it too!
    Check us out, we even have pages on not getting busted!
    Ace @ uIntoxicate.com
    http://uintoxicate.com/

  • Rawrface||

    I think it's time we just legalize Marijuana everywhere. Stop living in fear and start thinking about how great the future will be! LEGALIZE IT!

    If you live in a state where Marijuana isn't legal yet and still want the same type of highs, I suggest checking out uIntoxicate.com. It has amazingly detailed legal highs reviews and where to get them without getting ripped off!

    CHECK IT: http://uintoxicate.com/

  • Rawrface||

    I think it's time we start legalizing Marijuana everywhere. Stop living in fear and start thinking about how great the future will be! LEGALIZE IT!

    If you live in a state where Marijuana isn't legal yet and still want the same type of highs, I suggest checking out uIntoxicate.com. It has amazingly detailed legal highs reviews and where to get them without getting ripped off!

    CHECK IT: http://uintoxicate.com/

  • Rawrface||

    I think it's time we start legalizing Marijuana everywhere. Stop living in fear and start thinking about how great the future will be! LEGALIZE IT!

    Why don't we just start legalizing it everywhere? Why are so many people still stuck in this FEAR stage...? Stop worrying, start hoping. LEGALIZE IT!

    If you live in a state where Marijuana isn't legal yet and still want the same type of highs, I suggest checking out uIntoxicate.com. It has amazingly detailed legal highs reviews and where to get them without getting ripped off!
    Also! I'm starting up a new forum dedicated to my fellows stoners. Come on over and join the high conversations! We're quite new, but VERY welcoming.

    CHECK IT: http://uintoxicate.com/
    STONER FORUMS: http://www.stonersofthestates.com/forum/

  • sohbet||

    very super blogos thanks admin sohbet & sohbet odaları

  • kombi servisi||

    Weed will be legal everywhere soon! I can't wait and I was happy to read this. [evil smile] klima servisi
    Well, if you can't smoke the illegal, then I'd like to point out that I run a legal highs review site. We are HONEST and DETAILED. We'll tell you where to get it too!
    Check us out, we even have pages on not getting busted! arçelik klima servisi

  • kombi servisi||

    I think it's time vestel klima servisi we start legalizing Marijuana everywhere. Stop living in demirdöküm kombi servisi fear and start thinking about how great the future will be! LEGALIZE IT!

  • kombi servisi||

    and in regards to legalized MJ, vaillant kombi servisi i am seeing little to no negative comments amongst the cops. mostly support, and a few people are like "i think this is vaillant kombi servisi a dumb decision, but whatever. i've got better things to do with my time than MJ enforcement".

  • kombi servisi||

    exactly. there will be a point kombi servisi
    of critical mass, and that will prompt the feds. they will be on the losing side of history FOR A WHILE. beylikdüzü kombi servisi
    it always happens that way. but eventually, the rescheduling will commence. in some way that allows them to think they are saving face.

  • kombi servisi||

    Also! I'm starting up kadıköy kombi servisi
    a new forum dedicated to my fellows stoners. Come on webmaster forumları
    over and join the high conversations! We're quite new, but VERY welcoming.

  • sohbet||

    I really love coming here to have a very good blog sohbet odaları

  • Make money online||

    I support this one. Thanks for this wonderful information about Marijuana, and i guess that we should do same too. We should never let this law get our Kids to start smoking marijuana.

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