DEA responds to legal weed

[Blaidd Drwg]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/dea-r ... colorado-a

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."

Drug War...lets roll

[Blaidd Drwg]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 67363.html

Bensinger added: "And there is a bigger danger that touches every one of us -- legalizing marijuana threatens public health and safety. In states that have legalized medical marijuana, drug driving arrests, accidents, and drug overdose deaths have skyrocketed. Drug treatment admissions are up and the number of teens using this gateway drug is up dramatically

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

[Batboy2/75]

The states can pass what ever they want, it won't do a hill of beans to change anything until the feds change.

I have never used cannabis and have no plans to, but voted Yes in WA state for only two reasons.

1-I want cannabis legal and see no reason for a plant to be criminalized.

2-I want the hippie dippie idiot supporters to have to wrestle with the concepts of States Rights and individual rights. Most of the dumb asses that support legal cannabis, are more than OK limiting other peoples rights; specifically my right to Bear Arms. I like pointing out, my right to bear arms is actually mentioned in the constitution, while their right to get high isn't. It leads to all sorts of mental confusion on their part.

[Blaidd Drwg]

I think on the ground, even the medical MJ has changed quite a bit on the field of play as far as public consciousness goes.

I had a hard time with our one because it raises a number of individual right issues vis a vis the DUI standard. Ultimately asserting our state's right to tell the WOD warriors to fuck off is positive, even if my particular chemical of choice wasn't in the mix.

It will be an interesting next couple months.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

med mj is legal, but fucked in Michigan

[buckethead]

I want the hippie dippie idiot supporters to have to wrestle with the concepts of States Rights and individual rights.

In what reasonable world would you consider 54.5% of the state of Colorado to be "hippie dippie"?

[Batboy2/75]

I want the hippie dippie idiot supporters to have to wrestle with the concepts of States Rights and individual rights.

In what reasonable world would you consider 54.5% of the state of Colorado to be "hippie dippie"?

All of them.

You want legal pot, change the Federal laws. Attack the cause of our problems, not the symptoms.

In this case, the Federal Gvt is regulating something best left to the States. However, it is well with the Federal Governments powers to regulate pot the way it does. It may not be wise policy, but it is 100% Constitutional.

The best solution in a national medical pot law that establish basic rules and regulations for medical pot and then leave it to the individual states to decide if they want medical pot. If the citizens of CO want to toke up, let them. if the citizens of Florida want to banned, let them. Seems like a decent compromise. If smoking pot is that important to you, move.

This is how state rights should work.

[snatch grip]

Not a whole lot of situations where deferring to state's rights is not the best option, IMO.

[Turdacious]

I think on the ground, even the medical MJ has changed quite a bit on the field of play as far as public consciousness goes.

I had a hard time with our one because it raises a number of individual right issues vis a vis the DUI standard. Ultimately asserting our state's right to tell the WOD warriors to fuck off is positive, even if my particular chemical of choice wasn't in the mix.

It will be an interesting next couple months.

They'd legalize it and tax it if they were serious about the debt.

[KingSchmaltzBagelHour]

[Batboy2/75]

I think on the ground, even the medical MJ has changed quite a bit on the field of play as far as public consciousness goes.

I had a hard time with our one because it raises a number of individual right issues vis a vis the DUI standard. Ultimately asserting our state's right to tell the WOD warriors to fuck off is positive, even if my particular chemical of choice wasn't in the mix.

It will be an interesting next couple months.

They'd legalize it and tax it if they were serious about the debt.

I can't wait for the lawsuits.

BTW-Doesn't taxing pot and accepting money, make the State of WA an accessory to a federal felony? It's no different than the local street gang allowing me sell drugs in their area, so long as I gave them a cut. If the local gang can be prosecuted for conspiracy to distribute and sell drugs, plus racketeering, why couldn't the state of WA.

If I was a pot dispensary that was being brought up on criminal charges, I would ask why my co-conspirator, the State of WA, wasn't being charged.

[Gene]

Our friends at the DEA probably figure that Marijuana legalization is a gateway to total Drug Legalization. That's a career breaker for a DEA agent.

[buckethead]

So Batboy's argument is the states are stupid for pressing for more state authority even though the state's should have that authority

[Sassenach]

I was really hoping this would be something the Obama administration would quietly let die; instead of doubling down on enforcement. I'm a fan of states giving the federal government the middle finger.

[KingSchmaltzBagelHour]

So Batboy's argument is the states are stupid for pressing for more state authority even though the state's should have that authority

[Batboy2/75]

So Batboy's argument is the states are stupid for pressing for more state authority even though the state's should have that authority

Nice strawman you're constructing.

They are stupid for enacting laws that are constitutionally preempted by Federal law. They are stupid for ignoring he rule of law. They are stupid and cowardly for not taking the fight to the federal level.

What other Constitutionally legal Federal laws do you want your state to ignore?

If only the States had some sort of Representation at the Federal level? You know, someone that is answerable to the state legislature and looks after the states rights. Ohh that's right, we jetisoned that quaint traditional around the same time we gutted our Constitutional Republic.

[buckethead]

Ok bats, I do see your point. However, maybe it's not how it's "supposed" to work, but I don't have a problem with states exerting as much pressure as they can on the Fed. If a federal judge strikes this down in 30 minutes then so be it. I see it as mass civil disobedience

[Batboy2/75]

Ok bats, I do see your point. However, maybe it's not how it's "supposed" to work, but I don't have a problem with states exerting as much pressure as they can on the Fed. If a federal judge strikes this down in 30 minutes then so be it. I see it as mass civil disobedience

That is why I said I voted for the measure. I' m just enjoying all the pot heads that are surprised the Feds are still shitting ion their parade. They have no clue how our Constitution works. It's nice to see them get kicked in the balls with it.

There is more at stake than pot. These pot heads have stumbled into a wonderfully teaching moment for all parties involved.

[Schlegel]

Even if states legalizing MJ makes no functional difference to enforcement, if we hit the point where a majority af states have done so, it will make it a lot easier for DC pols who propose changing the WOD.

[Turdacious]

Nineteen eighty-four was the year that Congress rewrote the civil forfeiture law to funnel drug money and "drug related" assets into the police agencies that seize them. This amendment offered law enforcement a new source of income, limited only by the energy police and prosecutors were willing to put into seizing assets. The number of forfeitures mushroomed: Between 1985 and 1991 the Justice Department collected more than $1.5 billion in illegal assets; in the next five years, it almost doubled this intake. By 1987 the Drug Enforcement Administration was more than earning its keep, with over $500 million worth of seizures exceeding its budget.

Local law enforcement benefited from a separate "equitable sharing" provision, which allows local police to federalize a forfeiture. This law gives police a way to circumvent their own state forfeiture laws, which often require police to share forfeited assets with school boards, libraries, drug education programs or the general fund. Instead, local police can conspire with the U.S. Justice Department to evade these requirements through paperwork: If a U.S. Attorney "adopts" the forfeiture, 80 percent of the assets are returned to the local police agency and 20 percent are deposited in the Justice Department's forfeiture fund. As of 1994 the Justice Department had transferred almost $1.4 billion in forfeited assets to state and local law-enforcement agencies. Some small-town police forces have enhanced their annual budgets by a factor of five or more through such drug-enforcement activities.

These financial benefits are essentially there for the taking, thanks to expansive laws from Congress and a green light from the Supreme Court. Since the forfeiture law extends to any property that "facilitated" a drug crime, it covers a potentially enormous class. Cars, bars, homes and restaurants have all been forfeited on grounds that they served as sites for drug deals, marijuana cultivation or other drug crimes. Are the bills in your wallet forfeitable? Probably, because an estimated 80 percent of U.S. paper currency has been contaminated by cocaine residue, which has been held sufficient by some courts to warrant forfeiture. Meanwhile, according to the Supreme Court, few constitutional safeguards apply to forfeiture cases, in which the seized property is deemed the defendant (as in United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan) and the defendant is presumed guilty. Owners who want to contest seizures must put up a bond, hire a lawyer and rebut the presumption of guilt with proof that the property is untainted by criminal activity. There is no constitutional requirement that the owner knew of any illegal activities, and forfeiture may occur even if the owner is charged and acquitted. In other words, if you are either related to a drug dealer or mistaken for one, you may find yourself legally dispossessed of your property without effective recourse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... idden.html

You have to limit the trough.