Marijuana Ballot Initiatives

Eric Holder Says DOJ Will Respond to Legal Pot in Colorado and Washington Any Day Now

|

Department of Justice

When asked this morning about legal pot in Colorado and Washington during the Q&A at the National Association of Attorneys General, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the audience, "I would say, and I mean this, that you'll hear soon." 

More of Holder's non-answer, courtesy of Politico's Josh Gerstein

"We're still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed," Holder said at a morning appearance, answering a question from Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. "I would say, and I mean this, that you'll hear soon."

"We are, I think, in our last stages of that review, and are trying to make a determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are. There are a whole variety of things that go into this determination," Holder said. "But the people in [Colorado] and Washington deserve that answer and we will have that, as I said, relatively soon."

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.

59 responses to “Eric Holder Says DOJ Will Respond to Legal Pot in Colorado and Washington Any Day Now

  1. “The source of my authority is my gaypornstasche.”

    1. It’s got to be something like that, because I can’t figure out how this guy is still in office.

      1. Look at those eyes. He’s seen things you people wouldn’t believe.

        1. I’m still waiting for the mustache to fly off like it does on the cop in the interrogation room in John Dies in the End. Of course, that would mean Dave would then rip Holder’s arm off…which sounds pretty good to me.

          1. Holder is the parasite, the mustache his helpless host.

            1. The humane thing would be to send in the military to separate the two.

              1. Holder has a Gillette on a dead-man’s switch.

      2. Constantly deflecting crap that might otherwise stick to the “Sainted Leader” is a near guarantee that you will remain in your position!

      3. I can’t figure out how this guy is still in office.

        Because he has something so terrible on Obama that even after F&F Obama couldn’t find a way to have him resign.

    2. That’s a pretty disrespectful thing to say about Eric Bagholder!

      (Which bag he’s holding I leave to you!)

      1. The bag is full of guns.

        1. Probably hurts to sit.

          1. I just shift The Love Gun over a bit.

  2. Here’s what the response should be:

    “These states have chosen to legalize this drug, so the federal government–which truthfully never had the authority to outlaw the use of drugs in the way we did–is backing off any and all prosecution in these states.”

    Unfortunately, the first eight words are probably the only ones that will be similar in the actual statement.

    1. Nah, even those eight are wrong. It will be more like “These states thought they had the ability to choose to legalize this drug…”

    2. No, the first 12. Followed by “is goiing to crack down ruthlessly,” or the PC equivalent thereof.

      1. Puppycide on a massive scale!

        Why not just bring back use of agent orange and carpet bomb those rogue states with it? For the children!

  3. “what our international obligations are.”

    Can’t legalize the weed. It would violate international treaties.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..otic_Drugs

    1. He means the UN drug treaty, which (under Article 46) the US can denounce, thus getting out from obligations which the voters of Oregon and Colorado have repudiated.

      http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf

      1. And which do you think is more likely?
        That they’ll denounce an international treaty, or use it as an excuse to ignore state law?

        I’m going to have to go with ‘b’.

        1. I’m going with a capital B

    2. International treaties can’t act as amendments to the Constitution.

      1. Anything can act as anything under this admin.

        If all else fails, it’s a penaltax!

        1. Anything can act as anything under ANY admin.

          FIFU

  4. “But the people in [Colorado] and Washington deserve that answer and we will have that, as I said, relatively soon.”

    Relatively soon? Relative to what? The speed at which wrongful convictions are overturned? Great, so in a few years then?

    1. You don’t understand, did you hear the way he said:

      I would say, and I mean this, that you’ll hear soon.

      He means it! Now every resident of CO and WA, who are would be smokers of that vile weed, are shaking in their boots, peeing their pants, hiding under rocks, for the fear of the wrath of their great masters in DC.

      No more needs to be said, the pure authoritah of the word of this great right hand of the messiah, is enough! There will be no more weed smoking out of those of those peons, that is guarantteed!

      1. I’m glad he clarified that he meant what he was saying. Otherwise, I might have thought he was lying.

  5. Translation:

    “Break out the lube and bend over”

    1. Lube? Don’t think so.

      1. Reach around?

  6. Kinda sorta OT: The New York Times published my letter to the editor about drug prohibition: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02…..ef=science

    1. Nice and succinct. Well done.

  7. Where is Dunphy to once again ensure us that the feds are going to back down on this?

    We know exactly what these gas bags are going to say. Something about how pot is still illegal under federal law and that is not going to change, and that even though they aren’t specifically going after individuals possessing small amounts of pot, that they can’t quarantee anyones safety, because this drug war is part of the war on terror, and public safety, and the wimins and childins, and blah blah blah.

    Just think up the most disgusting and deceitfully corrupt thing that you can imagine them spewing, and then make it 3 times as bad, you will be pretty close.

    1. STOP HOG CALLING FFS!

  8. They have just about got their straw buyers in place. Once they have everything ready, federal informants will buy dope in legal outlets in Colorado and Washington, drive directly to the nearest adjoining state and sell the dope to other federal informants.

    The feds will then go back and (with the tactical support of local and state law enforcement agencies) arrest everybody working in the targeted pot stores, seize and destroy the inventory, confiscate all financial assets and property, while the President, the Atty Holder, and Npolitano go on the teevee and sadly report to America that loosening the federal embargo on marijuana simply will not work. Later, they will announce the guilty pleas, and order will be restored.

    1. Yeah, that’s almost my expectation. They don’t care about end users much, but I guarantee you the first business in either state to open its doors and sell weed is getting raided by the feds. May not be immediately, but within 6 months. They are not going to let retail sales happen without a fight.

    2. Please support the cause, Holder and Obama, go full on retard over this, for all to see.

    3. P Brooks has outlined it precisely.

    4. Couldn’t they have done that for medpot?

      In either case, in Washington, there are no legal growers/sellers for funpot: that hasn’t been set up yet. I live here and smoke week, and the truth is, there’s no change. You still can’t buy it legally, you can’t smoke it publicly legally, and while you can have it at home and smoke it there, that’s been the case for years since local cops won’t enforce it and you know the feds aren’t coming to individual users’ homes.

      For Washington, whatever the feds do is largely symbolic only. It would be nice to buy from a funpot legal dispensary so that I don’t have to drive out somewhere, but if I want to buy from a dispensary it’s trivial to get a med license. And I’m not convinced that even if the feds backoff that the prices at a funpot dispensary are going to beat the grey market, so it may not even change where I buy.

  9. If those in power are serious about the poverty trap, they should be serious about not setting it up in the first place.

    Nice, Doctor.

  10. And, speaking of Fosdick, if you notice, he always says the noble public servants of the Great State of Washington “won’t go after users” in furtherance of federal attacks on marijuana. Growers and sellers, on the other hand…

    1. I don’t think the topic was being discussed to be fair to Dunphy. There are no legal growers, or sellers yet, so I say wait and let that happen first.

      I think they feds will try to keep that from happening in the first place.

      Dunphy thinks the feds are going to stand down period. To me, that means he doesn’t really grasp the mind set of those people. The WOD is a sacred cow to them, just like the war on terror is now. They aren’t letting it go easily.

      1. I don’t think the topic was being discussed to be fair to Dunphy.

        Sure it was. Repeatedly. Over and over again, the question was posed; “Why will the feds go easier on funpot than they do on medpot? Why won’t they go after growers/sellers/distributors of funpot just like they do medpot?”

        The answer was (I paraphrase): “Because they won’t.”

        1. Yeah, come to think of it, you are correct about that. And I said that after my initial comment, he thinks the feds will just stand down, period. Of course, they won’t, I don’t think anyone here other than Dunphy believes that.

  11. Negro please!
    No one hears the bullet drone with their name on it.

    1. Ask not for whom the drone flies…

  12. Growers and sellers, on the other hand…

    They’ll let the operations run long enough to accumulate cash before conducting their raids.
    Those DEA agents need new sports cars you know.

    1. Are you saying that saving the children, can wait?

  13. “what our international obligations are.”

    WTF does this have to do with states in the USA???

    1. We’re living in an international world age now, you barbarian.

      This pot could find it’s way to another country and hurt an innocent child, before we have a chance to take out that child with one of our drones. You must hate the children.

    2. I’m guessing the argument will be that when state laws conflict with international treaties, state laws lose.

      1. I’m guessing the argument will be that when state laws conflict with international treaties,

        It’ll be a little more complicated than that. The treaty likely obligates the federal government to outlaw pot, and doesn’t say a damn thing about states. If so, a state’s declining to outlaw pot and licensing its sale and use is probably not a treaty violation.

        It’ll come down to what, exactly, the feds are obligated to do by the treaty.

        But its all bullshit anyway. Holder and Obama are going to do whatever they want; the treaty nonsense is just eyewash.

  14. “I come to you as a friend, I come to you as an Elder of the Church, and you still refuse to stop! Now I got to come to you as the Law!”

  15. Well, I’m a bit more optimistic than a lot of people seem to be. Pot legalization is becoming pretty popular. I bet we see several other states pass legalization in the next few years. I think cannabis prohibition may finally be on the way out.

    But, there will still be plenty of war on drugs going on.

  16. Mr. Holder, a long time legal eagle type, understands the imprecision of the word “soon”. Methinks he means to mollify and delay.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.