Justin Amash

Dana Rohrabacher Introduces (and Justin Amash Cosponsors) the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act


Gage Skidmore

Hours after his Republican colleagues in the House called for Pres. Obama to crack down on legal marijuana in Colorado and Washington, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cali.) introduced H.R. 1523, a bill that would immunize from federal prosecution "individual marijuana consumers [as well as] medical and non-medical marijuana businesses operating in states in which they are legal," according to a Marijuana Policy Project announcement. 

"This bipartisan bill represents a common-sense approach that establishes federal government respect for all states' marijuana laws," MPP quotes Rohrabacher as saying. "It does so by keeping the federal government out of the business of criminalizing marijuana activities in states that don't want it to be criminal."

The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act is co-sponsored by Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI), Don Young (R-AK), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Jared Polis (D-CO). 

NEXT: Three Soldiers from Chad Killed in Mali Suicide Blast

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.

  1. Don Young, huh? Blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

    1. Well, as far as I can tell, everyone in Alaska smokes pot.

      1. Yeah, I’m sure that’s the reason.

  2. the “Respect State Marijuana Laws Act”

    Because what we need are more new laws to convince us the other laws are really lawfully lawful and full of law. And god, and the bible.

    The level of stupid seems particularly high this Friday. Is it me, or is it North Korea? I blame North Korea. They’re pumping the air full of stupid and its infecting everyone.

    1. Did you read what the law in question does? I have a hard time understanding your objection to it– it’s a restriction on the power of Executive Branch federal prosecutors to go after people who are following state law with regards to marijuana.

      1. “Its a law that gets people to follow the law”

        Yeah, I get it.

        I didn’t say it was a bad thing. I said it was fucking stupid such a thing should have to exist.

        1. The Legislative Branch needs to set rules for the Executive. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to have the US Code, I think.

          1. So, its Federal Enforcement of Federalism

            Seems legit

            1. Of all the types of laws that the Legislative Branch can pass, oversight and reining in of the Executive Branch is surely among the worthiest.

              1. John Thacker| 4.12.13 @ 3:30PM |#
                Of all the types of laws that the Legislative Branch can pass, oversight and reining in of the Executive Branch is surely among the worthiest

                … sigh.

                I’m sure it will be as executive-restraining as FISA, or other feel-good laws ignored in Washington.

                1. ..sigh.

                  FISA is perfectly followed, not ignored at all. It’s just stupid and toothless as written and amended. This is the case with all feel-good laws (the one that would actually cause issues are amended or repealed, like what’s happening with the STOCK Act this week.)

                  They’re very precise about making sure that they follow the letter of law, while ignoring its purpose and justification. While certainly the hypothetical election of an Executive Branch that would follow the spirit of the law would be a best solution, that’s even less reasonable than trying to get the Legislative Branch to perform oversight and to spell out in excruciating detail what the Executive is to do.

                  But feel free to keep on being an enemy of liberty there.

                  1. “”But feel free to keep on being an enemy of liberty there””


                    dude. forgive me if I have a low opinion of politicians making laws telling other people to respect the law. I’m not sure that qualifies as me pulling a Benedict Arnold.

    2. It’s stupid that it is necessary, but the law itself seems like a good idea. Repealing all federal drug laws would be a lot better, but that seems unlikely.

      Also, nice Mr. Show reference.

      1. “Zeb| 4.12.13 @ 2:49PM |#

        It’s stupid that it is necessary”

        for some reason it makes me think of fat people who get stomach-staples

        Just stop fucking eating, fatty.

        Making federal laws to ensure that the head lawyers follow the state laws already in law just seems to me to be a cycle of lawyers justifying their existence. me BARF

  3. I favor according to marijuana users all the freedoms that alcohol users have, insofar as all the restrictions also apply. After all, the regulation of alcohol usage has evolved over 75+ years and in the several states, independent since prohibition, of federal intrusion. I believe the two strongest regulations should be those prohibiting driving under its influence and providing it to minors. Do we as yet have a means to test drivers? Have we a set of laws to adequately enforce these two provisions? There are more questions to be answered, but let booze be our guide (at least its control history)

    1. I’d prefer it be treated like booze pre-prohibition, but I’ll take any improvement over what we have now, I guess.

    2. How about we actually do some real research first? Not being a pot smoker, I have absolutely no idea how much pot inhibits driving skills.

      I’ve seen studies where the participants had to drink 5 shots of whiskey before being as much of a hazard as someone who’s been up for 20 hours. As far as I know, there is no test for tired drivers either.

      1. Marijuana, unlike sedatives like alchohol and opiates, does not impair motor function. It won’t cause you to lose balance or stumble. Nor does it retard reaction times.

        Basically driving on marijuana is like driving on aspirin, or caffeine.

      2. I have absolutely no idea how much pot inhibits driving skills.

        if you count driving much slower than you think you’re going as “inhibits,” then yes, pot inhibits. Otherwise, I don’t know of anyone weaving all over the place after smoking like drunks do.

        1. Driving under the influence of marijuana causes the normally 3 hours long drive from PorcFest back to Boston to take 5 hours.

        2. Yeah, not being aware of what you’re doing is pretty inhibited. And driving too slow for conditions is dangerous. This is not a good hill to die on.

  4. I think the real danger here, is that if the feds take a more hands off approach to MJ, kids might get high and play Bioshock, a game so dangerous, that it should not even be allowed a discussion on Libertarian websites.

    1. *stands an begins to applaud*


    2. We must think of the children.

    3. I try to restrain myself, but after seeing this mentioned in every fucking thread, I feel a need to point out that video games are lame and a complete waste of time and everyone who plays video games is an irredeemable dork.

      1. I try to restrain myself, but after seeing this mentioned in every fucking thread, I feel a need to point out that video games are is lame and a complete waste of time and everyone who plays video games blogs is an irredeemable dork.

        1. GODDAMMIT!

          *blogging is lame*


      2. I’m sure you think that watching grown men kick a ball around is fucking awesome though.

        1. No, not really.

          And I’m not all that serious. I just never have been into video games much and it puzzles me how people find time to devote to the enormous games that are popular nowadays. And it’s funny to me how defensive people get about it.

          I’m sure I do plenty of stupid crap that is a waste of time too. Like what I’m doing right now, for example.

          1. Listen up here now, Zebudiah. We gamers sit around all day shooting the hell out of imaginary enemies, with imaginary guns. Don’t mess with us!


  6. They should have called this the Respect All Pot Enactments act.

    1. *golf clap*

  7. Am I the only one who remembers that reefer sales fund radical Islamic terrorism? Maybe not initial capital outlays but definitely continuing operating expenses.

    1. They pulled those pretty fast. Maybe too many people noticed that it was much more of an argument against prohibition than against drug use.

  8. well at least a couple congresscritters have a fucking dash of sense about them.

  9. Nice to see Rohrabacher do something libertarian for a change (this being the guy who was friends with Sam Konkin and is quoted at the beginning of Machinery of Freedom as ‘West Coast Libertarian Troubadour’).

  10. Sometimes man you jsut have to throw your hands up in the air.


  11. Rohrabacher? Are there two Rohrabachers (R) in congress? Where did this come from?

  12. a bill that would immunize from federal prosecution

    Hmm, but it doesn’t say anything about stopping them from getting injunctions or restraining orders against the businesses, or from seizing their assets.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.