Users should not be targeted in states that legalized pot: Obama - Polidicks

[quote] [thumb]http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20121214&t=2&i=684620905&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBRE8BD147300[/thumb] [b](Reuters) - President Barack Obama says federal authorities should not target recreational marijuana use in two Western states that voted to make it legal, given limited government resources and growing public acceptance of the controlled substance.[/b] Obama's first comments on the issue come weeks after Washington state and Colorado voters supported legalizing cannabis last month in ballot measures that stand in direct opposition of federal law. "It does not make sense from a prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that's legal," he told ABC News in part of an interview released on Friday. "At this point (in) Washington and Colorado, you've seen the voters speak on this issue. And, as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions," Obama said. Marijuana remains an illegal drug under U.S. federal law, but Washington and Colorado on November 6 became the first states in the nation to make it legal for individuals to possess up to an ounce of marijuana for private use. The Department of Justice has maintained that pot remains a federally controlled substance, and states have been looking for guidance from federal authorities on how they will handle the conflict with state laws. Obama's comments do not mean that Justice Department officials have completed their review of the Colorado and Washington laws, a department spokeswoman said on Friday. Asked whether Drug Enforcement Administration agents were arresting people for possessing pot in Colorado and Washington, spokeswoman Dawn Dearden said that the "DEA's focus has always been to disrupt and dismantle large-scale drug trafficking organization - not to arrest individual users." Medical use of marijuana is legal in 18 U.S. states. But federal officials have still continued to crack down on some providers in those states. DOJ TO RESPOND 'RELATIVELY QUICKLY' Obama called the situation "a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law." He told ABC that "what we're going to need to have is a conversation about" how to reconcile federal and state laws, and that he has asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to examine the issue. Holder has said the Justice Department is still considering its options but will act "relatively soon," possibly with a month. "I think we will come up with a policy that will be respective of federal law but also will make sure we are effective in our fight against crime that truly has an impact on the American people," he said after a speech in Boston on Tuesday. He is scheduled to speak later on Friday at an event in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Congress is also expected to weigh in soon. Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy has said he plans to hold a hearing soon after the next Congress convenes in January and called Obama's comments Friday "common sense." "In a time of tight budget constraints, I want law enforcement to focus on violent crime," the Vermont Democrat said in a statement. "But now that we have a gap between federal and state laws on marijuana, we need more information and a wider discussion about where our priorities should be." In a separate letter to the Office of National Drug Control Policy on Thursday, Leahy said lawmakers could reconcile that gap, but they need to know how the Obama administration plans to proceed. For example, Congress could amend the federal law to allow small amounts of marijuana in states where it is legal. Several advocacy groups that back looser marijuana laws welcomed Obama's comments, even though it remains unclear how his administration will act. Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance said he is still worried Holder will act before considering the views of lawmakers and others. The president's comments are "definitely a tentative step forward," said Nadelmann, whose advocacy group backs U.S. drug policy reform. "It suggests that he's keeping his options open to be a little more forward on this." Still, Obama told ABC that he would not go so far as to say pot should be legalized altogether. There are also concerns about drug use in children and violence, the father of two told ABC, according to its website. Obama himself admitted to regularly smoking pot in high school in his 1995 memoir, "Dreams of My Father," but has expressed regret. "I want to discourage drug use," he told ABC. [/quote] [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/us-usa-marijuana-obama-idUSBRE8BD0Q720121214]Source[/url]

+1 State Rights?

nice, getting there anyway

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38832394]+1 State Rights?[/QUOTE] No. He didn't say that businesses would be fine. Just users. It's not like anyone expects the feds to bust users anyways. At least the way he said things gives you an impression that later he could do the right thing.

Good to see some positive news, today.

[quote] "It does not make sense from a [B]prioritization point of view[/B] for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that's legal," he told ABC News in part of an interview released on Friday.[/quote] Called it [QUOTE=Starpluck;38805408] I'm 99% sure he will tell the DOJ and the DEA to "[B]deprioritize[/B]" marijuana enforcement which is codespeak for it 'allow it' but just in less explicit terms.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38832394]+1 State Rights?[/QUOTE] Eh, states rights aren't the hot shit people like to believe them to be They're great if you're a straight white male though

[QUOTE=Jund;38832494]Eh, states rights aren't the hot shit people like to believe them to be They're great if you're a straight white male though[/QUOTE] Only straight white males smoke weed?

[QUOTE=Jund;38832494]Eh, states rights aren't the hot shit people like to believe them to be They're great if you're a straight white male though[/QUOTE] Well, it depends on the state and the situation really. It's just that straight white males use state's rights as justification when it leads to something they want. They are all against state's rights when it does not benefit them though.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38832519]Only straight white males smoke weed?[/QUOTE] No, I'm just saying "state rights" usually aren't much better than federal influence People who have hard-ons for them tend to conveniently forget the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;38832437]No. He didn't say that businesses would be fine. Just users. It's not like anyone expects the feds to bust users anyways. At least the way he said things gives you an impression that later he could do the right thing.[/QUOTE] Bit of a grey area loophole going on there though. If businesses aren't allowed to function and people aren't allowed to have more than an ounce, then where is anyone getting their hypothetical ounce from? Obviously anyone who grows it is going to grow more than just a couple plants, and usually have an output harvest of over an ounce.

[QUOTE=gnome;38832735]Bit of a grey area loophole going on there though. If businesses aren't allowed to function and people aren't allowed to have more than an ounce, then where is anyone getting their hypothetical ounce from? [B]Obviously anyone who grows it is going to grow more than just a couple plants, and usually have an output harvest of over an ounce.[/B][/QUOTE] Not so obvious. It's perfectly plausible to grow only one plant with a small harvest. In reality, I doubt anyone would do so little, but it's plausible and so therefore lawful to pursue those who grow more than an ounce. It's kinda retarded. Plus, those who have more than an ounce can always "dispose" of the excess. Preferably by fire :v:

avatar is so distracting

[QUOTE=spawny;38833064]avatar is so distracting[/QUOTE] Mine? It's a "turtle" :v:

[QUOTE=RichyZ;38832770]im p sure the poster meant that states rights were cool in that they let you smoke weed, not restrict the civil liberties of minorities[/QUOTE] Federal ruling takes precedence over State laws so if the federal government allows them to do what they want in regards to weed then it really isn't a matter of State rights being the winner [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] It's more of the federal government letting the state government letting you smoke weed

[QUOTE=Jund;38833130]Federal ruling takes precedence over State laws so if the federal government allows them to do what they want in regards to weed then it really isn't a matter of State rights being the winner [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] It's more of the federal government letting the state government letting you smoke weed[/QUOTE] Under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to drug laws. Under the fact that the most well known substance in the world, alcohol, was banned by the federal government [I]by a constitutional amendment[/I], the federal government at least at one point in the previous century acknowledged the fact that they couldn't simply override states in matters of substance use however they want other than amending the constitution so that they could.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38833199]Under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to drug laws. Under the fact that the most well known substance in the world, alcohol, was banned by the federal government [I]by a constitutional amendment[/I], the federal government at least at one point in the previous century acknowledged the fact that they couldn't simply override states in matters of substance use however they want other than amending the constitution so that they could.[/QUOTE] Yes, it was a constitutional amendment, which means they didn't step over their bounds of power It was repealed because of public sentiment, not because the States got mad Ultimately the federal government is garry, any small victories you may believe to have won is only because it let you do so

[QUOTE=Jund;38833321]Yes, it was a constitutional amendment, which means they didn't step over their bounds of power It was repealed because of public sentiment, not because the States got mad Ultimately the federal government is garry, any small victories you may believe to have won is only because it let you do so[/QUOTE] I never said it was repealed because the states got mad. I'm saying the states had no say in the prohibition of alcohol because the federal government legally gave itself the power to prohibit it via constitutional amendment. There is no constitutional amendment to prohibit other substances such as weed, and therefore it is perfectly within the rights of the states to set up laws banning or allowing them.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38833363]I never said it was repealed because the states got mad. I'm saying the states had no say in the prohibition of alcohol because the federal government legally gave itself the power to prohibit it via constitutional amendment.[/quote] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38833199]Under the fact that the most well known substance in the world, alcohol, was banned by the federal government [I]by a constitutional amendment[/I], the federal government at least at one point in the previous century acknowledged the fact that they couldn't simply override states in matters of substance use however they want other than amending the constitution so that they could.[/QUOTE] So could they or couldn't they? [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38833363]There is no constitutional amendment to prohibit other substances such as weed, and therefore it is perfectly within the rights of the states to set up laws banning or allowing them.[/QUOTE] Federal legislation regarding drugs don't only rely on constitutional amendments (CSA)

[QUOTE=Jund;38833496]So could they or couldn't they?[/quote] Who couldn't what? The states get mad or the feds ban drugs? [QUOTE=Jund;38833496]Federal legislation regarding drugs don't only rely on constitutional amendments (CSA)[/QUOTE] They should because they have no other power on the matter otherwise.

Now if only they'd drop the fucking drug war rhetoric worldwide and admit that some people use some drugs (the majority , in fact!) with no negative outcome. Progress in this area is so slow it isn't even funny. I guess they don't wanna excuse all the ones they put in jail already for non-violent drug offences.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38833528]Who couldn't what? The states get mad or the feds ban drugs?[/quote] I don't understand what you're saying because you are only stating facts and not going anywhere with them Yes the federal government repealed the 18th amendment, but that had nothing to do with overstepping State rights, nor have they acknowledged that they can't do so if they feel like it [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38833528]They should because they have no other power on the matter otherwise.[/QUOTE] They don't, and that only serves to prove my point [QUOTE=Jund;38833321] Ultimately the federal government is garry, any small victories you may believe to have won is only because it let you do so[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jund;38833573]I don't understand what you're saying because you are only stating facts and not going anywhere with them Yes the federal government repealed the 18th amendment, but that had nothing to do with overstepping State rights, nor have they acknowledged that they can't do so if they feel like it[/quote] What I'm saying is, prohibiting alcohol was done right and legal. Since there is no constitutional amendment banning weed, there is no federal justification for them to go after users of such. By banning alcohol by constitutional amendment, the federal government acknowledged the fact that they can't go banning anything they want without state approval - which is done by amending the constitution. [QUOTE=Jund;38833573]They don't, and that only serves to prove my point[/QUOTE] The US federal government is not an autocratic man who may ban anyone because it's his forums. Or using your analogy, an autocratic legislature that may ban whatever they want because "it's their land" (or whatever justification you're using).

an article breaking down the interview [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-nadelmann/obama-legalizing-marijuana_b_2300728.html[/url] [quote]The fourth, and most substantive, comment was the following: "This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law," Obama said. "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?" [B]What stands out here are the words about the "need to have... a conversation" and the fact that he is framing the conflict between federal and state law as a question to be resolved as opposed to one in which it is simply assumed that federal marijuana prohibition trumps all.[/B][/quote] he seems to be more willing to talk about it rather than shut it down, which is good. [quote]The third was when Obama told Walters he does not -- "at this point" -- support widespread legalization of marijuana. [B]The caveat "at this point" sounds a lot like how he responded to questions about legalizing gay marriage - until he finally decided it was time to publicly support it.[/B] Obama cited shifting public opinion and essentially made clear that this is not an issue on which he wants to provide leadership so long as public opinion is split and Congress unlikely to do anything constructive.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38833675]What I'm saying is, prohibiting alcohol was done right and legal. Since there is no constitutional amendment banning weed, there is no federal justification for them to go after users of such. By banning alcohol by constitutional amendment, the federal government acknowledged the fact that they can't go banning anything they want without state approval - which is done by amending the constitution. The US federal government is not an autocratic man who may ban anyone because it's his forums. Or using your analogy, an autocratic legislature that may ban whatever they want because "it's their land" (or whatever justification you're using).[/QUOTE] Source on such an acknowledgement? It seems like it's merely your assumption Also [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban]AWB[/url], but I could list more

Think of the Fed like this. You've got two countries ruled by the same government (The Federal Government), in one country (Say, Laramidia) they like booze, drugs and guns, but in the other (Appalachia) they like the exact opposite and if the Fed bans one or all of those things then it affects everybody, so while the Appalachians are happy the Laramidians are not. Course if you leave it up to the states then the Appalachians can pass legislation to ban those things and the Laramidians can keep them, with the Federal government acting as a buffer between the two so Laramidia can't bully Appalachia or vice versa. If you live in Laramidia and don't like their lifestyle then leave, this also applies to Appalachia. I personally went through this sort of transition when I left California and moved to Idaho and it was well worth it. If you want to be concerned about the rights of minorities then that's what the Fed should be there for. There is no such thing as a right to lynch somebody regardless of who they are because that in itself is taking rights and freedoms away from the person being lynched. Passing a law allowing the use of marijuana would be granting new rights while taking nothing away.

I know what the fed and state governments are and what they do You don't need to put it in layman's terms, it's a tad insulting [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38834721]If you live in Laramidia and don't like their lifestyle then leave, this also applies to Appalachia.[/QUOTE] "Don't like it, leave" is a horrible way of thinking [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] Guess it shouldn't surprise me too much because it's that kind of thinking that led to the over-glorification of State rights anyway

Worse than forcing the views of one state upon another? That would be like me coming into your home and taking your supply of bacon because I think bacon is evil and you shouldn't have it. Maybe you like your bacon, and you certainly aren't hurting anyone with it and I live all the way in another county so why should I be allowed to bully you around like that just because you like having bacon? (Note I actually do like bacon as it's quite tasty and great with some baked potatoes, another advantage to living in Idaho.)

[QUOTE=Jund;38834913]"Don't like it, leave" is a horrible way of thinking[/QUOTE] Well that is one of the reasons we have states in the first place. People who think alike can live in one place and get things accomplished and not have to worry about others disagreeing with them. But if you have a very different view and refuse to leave then all your really doing is slowing down the political process, when you could go somewhere else and help those who agree with you instead of harassing those who disagree with you.

fuck yessss Obama handing over the blunt to the states