IDS Editorial

A muddled drug decision

POSTED AT 10:01 PM ON Oct. 26, 2009 | PRINT | Email | SHARE | COMMENTS (3)

The Obama Justice Department issued a memo Oct. 19 that discourages federal attorneys from prosecuting patients and providers for use or provision of medical marijuana if their actions are within state law.

This decision, like most of those made by federal administrations on drug policy, raises more questions than it answers.

The most worrisome question the decision raises is why President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder consider it prudent policy in any case to advise federal attorneys not to enforce federal laws that take precedence over state laws, regardless of the particular laws involved.

One would think that two accomplished lawyers would be familiar with Article VI of the Constitution, which asserts the supremacy of federal laws in all cases.

As a way of putting this decision into perspective, imagine the reaction to a future administration’s decision not to prosecute owners of military-grade weapons in a state that legalized such possession, in violation of federal law. Negative? We’d venture to bet on it.

A related issue created by this memo is the precarious legal position in which it puts doctors and their patients in the 14 states where some form of medical marijuana is legal.

Because the memo does not rule out the possibility that federal prosecutors may resume prosecuting offenses of the federal law at any time, these people are in an even worse position to understand what they can and cannot do under the law.

They have gone from knowingly violating federal laws while complying with state laws and being mindful of the threat of prosecution to knowingly complying with state laws while being uncertain of whether the federal government even considers their activity criminal any longer.

Also disconcerting is the political aspect of this move.

By merely curtailing enforcement of federal drug laws instead of changing them, the president has added fuel to the fire of skepticism that increasingly disputes his claim that his administration marks a departure from the “politics of the past.”

This is because such a move allows him to placate advocates of legalization by pointing to a softening of the federal stance on marijuana while leaving the door open to resuming tough enforcement in case doing so becomes politically popular.
This obvious evasion of taking a principled, firm stance calls into question his commitment to changing Washington’s culture in general.

If the Obama administration’s objective is to make medical marijuana legal, it should do so through the proper legal channels (the legislative process comes to mind). The rule of law and our federal system are ill-served by half-measures like this memo.

PRINT | Email | SHARE | COMMENTS (3)





Name: *
Email: *
E-mail address will not be published.
Comments:
Verify image: Security Text
  *
 
 
All Comments  (2)

Posted by john at 11:21 PM on Nov 02, 2009 | Report this comment

President Obama is not willing to expend the political capital or effort necessary to see medical marijuana legalized on a federal level. Rather he is being quite pragmatic on the issue, reducing federal interference in what should be, according to the tenth amendment, a states' rights issue. Ironically conservatives such as yourself once championed the cause of states' rights and advocated against the involvement of the federal government into those areas not specifically outlined in the constitution. Your analogy of possession of marijuana with possession of a military grade weapon is a poor one. Under federal law I can legally go out and buy a .50 cal sniper rifle right now. However federal law prohibits the possession of substance which has never caused a fatality in its history. Go figure.

Posted by Concerned Parent at 2:8 PM on Oct 27, 2009 | Report this comment

Every law enforcement entity, whether it's the President or the dog catcher, has to decide which enforcement activities take priority. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says that States have the right to decide many matters for themselves; President Obama is advising his prosecutorial staff to not bring Federal intrusion into an area in which several States have taken action. The Constitution provides for a balance of powers, such that Congress makes laws, but the Executive branch enforces them (or determines to NOT enforce them) and the Courts adjudicate on them (and may find them invalid). The Constitutional framework is such that any one branch may effectively nullify the effort by the other two branches if one of those branches seeks to undermine the liberty of the American people. Even a jury may nullify a law by refusing to convict a person who is clearly in violation of the (nullified) law. It is a GOOD thing that our Constitution provides that constraints on our liberty may only be effected by the unanimous action of all three branches and by juries; any one of them may break the chain of tyranny. The President is acting well within his authority in this matter. If a citizen believes that laws need changing, the Congress is one place to start that process. Any of us can express our views to our Congressperson and Senators at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml and http://www.senate.gov/ , or simply write a letter of appreciation to the President at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/


Email

Your Name: *
Your Email: *  
To Email: *  
Subject: IDSnews.com | A muddled drug decision
Comments:
Verify image: Security Text



*