More prosecutorial shady behavior by the federal government. Here they are prosecuting someone who did everything above-board and in accordance with state law, after the president has made it clear that this type of prosecution should be low priority.
Looking forward to another 4 more years of this "hope and change".
For the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame Republicans for this one. If we can't trust Obama to take rational positions on such clear cut issues, who can we trust?
You knew the fix was in when he failed to clean out the US Atty's - as most presidents do on inauguration, and put a slate of good, competent replacements in place.
So you have Bushite US Attys, and an AG (and President) who have been hostile to State sanctioned MJ.
While I agree that pot should be legal, I don't think this is a clear-cut issue.
The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce Congress's laws.
Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this.
Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.
The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad. It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily outlaw substances within any and all states. This is why it required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. Given a traditional legal precedent and a strict-interpretation court the President has both the grounds to deem certain provisions of the law unconstitutional and the belief that that would be upheld by the court. Those are the only two tests he needs to pass to refuse to enforce a portion or all of the law.
Correct. And if Congress members wish to "sign their retirement letters" by impeaching him over the matter, they have that check/tool in their pockets and at their disposal.
But if Obama claims the law prohibiting drugs is unconstitutionally broad and shouldn't be enforced, he couldn't justify prosecuting the Mexican drug cartels for selling drugs either. And I don't think he wants to go that far toward drug legalization, given what his position has been on this subject so far (he's waged the "war on drugs" as actively as his predecessors have).
Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this.
...except when he decides not to defend a law[1] that he claims is unconstitutional.
If you think the President is a robotic extension of Congressional will and obliged to enforce all laws as written, they you have failed to grasp the fundamental principle of divided government. As a matter of very explicit design, executive discretion is the primary check on wayward legislative power.
To be clear, I do actually support universal health care. The Obama administration, however, made a deal with the pharmaceutical company to win their support for the law, one that involved increased crackdowns on medical marijuana and illegal drug imports, and various other moves that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.
As much as I support marijuana legalisation, I'm always puzzled at the righteous anger summoned against the federal government for prosecutions like this---how dare they, when the states have said it's legal! The problem is, that argument is an extremely shady one, with an extremely sketchy past. I currently live in a state (Virginia) where, faced with the Brown v Board ruling in the 60s, many counties just defunded their public schools entirely and funneled the money to "private" academies for white kids, with the state's blessing. The movement was called "Massive Resistance". Several other states across the South had other policies that were not permitted to stand when they conflicted with the federal government.
Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of "when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.
You can never completely separate the meta-argument about who should make rules & how from your feelings about the rules themselves. People's minds (unless specially trained and disciplined) just don't work like that.
It speaks well of people when they are surprised by indifference and slavish obedience to the letter of the law. It also speaks well of people when they are outraged by things they think are wrong.
It's easy to call people who are surprised and outraged naive, but I would argue that without that naivete change is less likely to occur. Cynicism, in my experience, breeds apathy.
The primary error in this line of thinking is to draw parallels between a racial issue and a drug issue. In the case of the racial issue, the federal government was acting on the behalf of a portion of its citizenry, and against the will of a smaller portion of citizens; in this case the federal government would find itself on the right side of history.
In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history.
Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own merits.
That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue; rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the interests of some demographic group of victims.
The Federal government has no right to criminalize intrastate medical marijuana operations. Their constitutional argument is that it falls under their power to 'regulate interstate commerce'. Even if the flowers never leave California. Weak. [0]
On top of that, marijuana is incorrectly scheduled as having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment" [1], which is like spitting in our faces and telling us it's raining.
The current state of the law aside, I think there is only one justification for federal involvement in states business.
That is if states violate fundamental rights of their people (Even the I would rather propose to cut them loose than to stage an intervention.)
Enforcement of victimless crimes is something that congress should not have the power to mandate and the executive branch should not be allowed to do.
Maybe it's the EU citizen in me, but I just done understand how this is possible? Isn't it legal in that state? So how can you face jail time?
It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of state law then?
There are many legal systems that operate in any given area. The federal government has its laws, your state has its laws, and then your county and city have their say too. Very often these laws match pretty well (either the lower jurisdiction implements compatible laws or they just leave it up to the feds), but sometimes there is conflict.
The state and federal line is the brightest, as prosecution of federal crimes goes through different channels than the prosecution of state-level crimes.
There is some debate as to whether federal or state laws should take precedence here, though the argument is kind of academic, as it's obvious the federal government wins in real life. From a constitutional standpoint, there's a decent case for the state's laws superseding the federal, but I mean, the state can't really stop the feds from arresting people for breaking federal law.
Federal law breaks state law.
It's the same in federal countries of the EU.
In Germany for example there are several laws where federal law overrides state law.
For example the [Constitution of Hesse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hesse) allows death sentences but is overruled by the German Constitution (the "Grundgesetz")
Even the UK (or at least parts of it) has this structure - where I am we have Scots laws, then UK laws then EU laws. Appeals can go from local courts to the UK Supreme Court and to the EU European Court of Justice.
I hate to say it, but there are more levels of law than that :-(
(1) The council can introduce bylaws which cover a single area (eg. a park).
(2) All sorts of national organizations have their own bylaws (eg. the railways, canals).
(3) You can even have "laws" affecting individual houses (they are called "covenants"). eg. my house has a binding covenant that stops me from keeping chickens.
BTW the EU isn't really a law maker as such. Our contract with being in the EU means that we implement the EU directives, but in theory we could refuse -- the EU would fine us and/or kick us out if we did this.
"BTW the EU isn't really a law maker as such. Our contract with being in the EU means that we implement the EU directives, but in theory we could refuse -- the EU would fine us and/or kick us out if we did this."
Incorrect. Directives do exist, and they are transcribed by members into national law. However, Regulations have immediate effect across all member states, no transposition required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
Also, there is no mechanism in the current treaties to throw out a member from the EU - all members must agree for a member to leave the EU.
Fines do exist for non-enforcement of EU law though.
I didn't want to use the European union in my example because it get's even more complicated with it. (e.g. directives that have to be implemented as laws by its members)
EU is not a great example, since there are no EU laws per se, it's countries that have to implement EU directives. additionally there is no EU jails or criminal justice system.
The article refers to Davies's "seizing on what he saw as uncharted territory with a vast potential for profits." This is damning if true: California dispensaries are required to be non-profit.
If Davies really did seek "large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana", as the prosecuting attorney alleges, then he is in violation of both state and federal law. If he did not seek such profits, then he may indeed be in compliance with state law.
Could we keep marijuana politics discussions elsewhere, please? This is one of those hotbutton issues that starts to dull the focus and quality of a site like this.
I think there probably are issues in this case that feel quite relevant here this week like federal prosecutorial discretion and the means by which plea bargains are achieved.
So because something is tangentially related to something else here, it's cool, right? Like since Aaron was Jewish, Israeli politics would fly too?
I disagree and think that "7 degrees of hacker news" is a fun game but should not seriously be considered a serious or legitimate reason to include some or other article.
I didn't say it was cool but that many people may have felt it was relevant for that reason. At times over the weekend the front page was 75% Aaron related so there are clearly large numbers of people with very strong feelings that his case is important. There is also a strong feeling that prosecutorial conduct was a significant factor in his death making this story potentially relevant. I haven't seen anyone suggesting Israeli politics was in any way related to his death.
Personally I neither upvoted this story or downvoted your comment but the fact that this story is on the front page and your comment has been downvoted may indicate that others (shockingly) have different views to yourself and I remind you of the submissions/comments guidelines:
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
My guess is that those upvoting the article and downvoting me are people for whom the issue is very important. Similar people might vote for articles about gay rights, euthanasia, immigration, and so on and so forth. They're all very important topics - probably more important than most of what we discuss here, if you think about it. That's what makes them so good at getting 'airplay'. Keeping them out has to be a conscious decision and effort.
There's nothing about this article that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." and it might well be considered a "classic flamewar topic", although I suspect mostly a one-sided flamewar here. Still though, it's a charged, political subject.
If no one calls out stuff that's off-topic, it's going to continue to be propagated.
You would hope that, if it's true that this business was compliant with letter and spirit of the State law, the California States Attorney would make a polite request to their Federal counterpart asking that the case be dropped as not in the public interest. If they don't, it seems like the State is hanging him out to dry.
47 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadFor the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame Republicans for this one. If we can't trust Obama to take rational positions on such clear cut issues, who can we trust?
So you have Bushite US Attys, and an AG (and President) who have been hostile to State sanctioned MJ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz
The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce Congress's laws.
Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this.
Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.
Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State...
Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions: http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
...except when he decides not to defend a law[1] that he claims is unconstitutional.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
To be clear, I do actually support universal health care. The Obama administration, however, made a deal with the pharmaceutical company to win their support for the law, one that involved increased crackdowns on medical marijuana and illegal drug imports, and various other moves that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.
Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of "when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.
It speaks well of people when they are surprised by indifference and slavish obedience to the letter of the law. It also speaks well of people when they are outraged by things they think are wrong.
It's easy to call people who are surprised and outraged naive, but I would argue that without that naivete change is less likely to occur. Cynicism, in my experience, breeds apathy.
In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history.
Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own merits.
That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue; rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the interests of some demographic group of victims.
On top of that, marijuana is incorrectly scheduled as having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment" [1], which is like spitting in our faces and telling us it's raining.
[0] https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=interstate+commerce+me...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of state law then?
Can someone explain this like I'm 5?
In this case, one would think the Federal government would have more important laws to enforce.
The state and federal line is the brightest, as prosecution of federal crimes goes through different channels than the prosecution of state-level crimes.
There is some debate as to whether federal or state laws should take precedence here, though the argument is kind of academic, as it's obvious the federal government wins in real life. From a constitutional standpoint, there's a decent case for the state's laws superseding the federal, but I mean, the state can't really stop the feds from arresting people for breaking federal law.
(1) The council can introduce bylaws which cover a single area (eg. a park).
(2) All sorts of national organizations have their own bylaws (eg. the railways, canals).
(3) You can even have "laws" affecting individual houses (they are called "covenants"). eg. my house has a binding covenant that stops me from keeping chickens.
BTW the EU isn't really a law maker as such. Our contract with being in the EU means that we implement the EU directives, but in theory we could refuse -- the EU would fine us and/or kick us out if we did this.
Incorrect. Directives do exist, and they are transcribed by members into national law. However, Regulations have immediate effect across all member states, no transposition required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
Also, there is no mechanism in the current treaties to throw out a member from the EU - all members must agree for a member to leave the EU.
Fines do exist for non-enforcement of EU law though.
It went all the way up to European level, and there they overturned German law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
If Davies really did seek "large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana", as the prosecuting attorney alleges, then he is in violation of both state and federal law. If he did not seek such profits, then he may indeed be in compliance with state law.
I disagree and think that "7 degrees of hacker news" is a fun game but should not seriously be considered a serious or legitimate reason to include some or other article.
Personally I neither upvoted this story or downvoted your comment but the fact that this story is on the front page and your comment has been downvoted may indicate that others (shockingly) have different views to yourself and I remind you of the submissions/comments guidelines:
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
There's nothing about this article that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." and it might well be considered a "classic flamewar topic", although I suspect mostly a one-sided flamewar here. Still though, it's a charged, political subject.
If no one calls out stuff that's off-topic, it's going to continue to be propagated.