This won't last. Sessions has got to realize he is on the wrong side of history on this one.

I don't know. This is going to excite Trump's base, especially evangelicals who support shutting down legal marijuana. Meanwhile it's a low-priority issue for a lot of other voters. I doubt many people will be voting Dem because of this when they would have otherwise voted Republican. Not a single red state, other than Alaska, has legal marijuana. The wildcard is whether or not this will anger enough people who don't typically vote to go to the polls in 2018.

I don't know. This is going to excite Trump's base, especially evangelicals who support shutting down legal marijuana. Meanwhile it's a low-priority issue for a lot of other voters. I doubt many people will be voting Dem because of this when they would have otherwise voted Republican. Not a single red state, other than Alaska, has legal marijuana. The wildcard is whether or not this will anger enough people who don't typically vote to go to the polls in 2018.
Well yes and no. Colorado has a GOP senator as does Maine. Apparently Sen. Gardner(R-CO) has some pretty strong feelings on this issue as well as feelings on being lied to by the Confederate elf.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-sen-gardner-torches-sessions-pot-crackdown-162956937.html
The Colorado lawmaker said Sessions had personally promised him prior to his confirmation that he would not take steps to tighten enforcement of federal pot laws.

“I’m prepared to hold every Justice Department nominee until Jeff Sessions lives up to what he told me, lives up to his commitment,” Gardner said. A “hold” is a senatorial threat, frequently invoked to gain leverage over the executive branch, to filibuster nominees.

“Jeff Sessions told me this wouldn’t be a priority. Jeff Sessions told me the policy would not be reversed, and today Jeff Sessions went back on his word,” the senator said.

Gardner said Sessions made the assurances in “a call specifically set up because I would not release my vote [to confirm him as attorney general] until I got an answer.”

I don't know. This is going to excite Trump's base, especially evangelicals who support shutting down legal marijuana. Meanwhile it's a low-priority issue for a lot of other voters. I doubt many people will be voting Dem because of this when they would have otherwise voted Republican. Not a single red state, other than Alaska, has legal marijuana. The wildcard is whether or not this will anger enough people who don't typically vote to go to the polls in 2018.

The majority of American's support legal marijuana, many Republicans even support it in some capacity, Trump has even said previously he thinks it may need to be legal, and at minimum said he was going to keep the status quo. This is a last grasp, I wish we'd hurry up and legalize it federally, or at minimum unclassify and decriminalize it.

The justice dept should enforce the federal law as that is their job (not to make policy). That said congress should remove the federal government from this issue. (I am fine with it being a job requirement for any company) this should be a state issue period.

The justice department should not enforce barbaric laws.

Well yes and no. Colorado has a GOP senator as does Maine. Apparently Sen. Gardner(R-CO) has some pretty strong feelings on this issue as well as feelings on being lied to by the Confederate elf....

Gardner should *never* have believed anything the slimeball said - painting with a broad brush here, but almost everybody in any kind of position of power in the Trump administration is a liar and scumbag.

I seriously hope that the people in the legalized states take to the streets, and put up a massive protest, resistance, whatever to this absolutely idiotic decision. Marijuana needs to be reclassified and the DOJ needs to keep their absolutely archaic thinking out of it.

I am so tired of rich old white backwards-thinking racist men running almost everything political in this country, it's just sickening what we may be facing in the future as a result of this administration.

It looks like the legalization movement is about to be shut down and buried.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/jeff-sessions-cole-memo/index.html

Not that it matters in Oklahoma since this state was likely still decades away (from full legalization that is) but it looks like the experiment might be over.

Did that amendment in some bill not get renewed to deny money to the Feds for enforcing federal law against marijuana in states where rec and/or med marijuana was legalized?

I don't know. This is going to excite Trump's base, especially evangelicals who support shutting down legal marijuana. Meanwhile it's a low-priority issue for a lot of other voters. I doubt many people will be voting Dem because of this when they would have otherwise voted Republican. Not a single red state, other than Alaska, has legal marijuana. The wildcard is whether or not this will anger enough people who don't typically vote to go to the polls in 2018.
That it's a low priority with a lot of people is true. If it wasn't for a handful of people making it a high priority to keep a tent open night and day to collect signatures at the corner of NW Highway and Lake Hefner Park for as long as they did, there would be no medical marijuana being voted upon in June. It was a good thing that Oklahoma CIty Police allowed that tent to violate night time park curfew as long as it did.

Evangelicals seem more concerned about abortion and homosexuality than marijuana.

I can't get too upset that the person who is the top law enforcement officer in the country actually intends to enforce a federal law. What needs to happen is for marijuana to be reclassified as a schedule 2 drug, or removed from the schedules altogether. The latter could be done through Congress and the former could be done by the administration. In fact, if a president claims to want to leave it to the states, you'd think they'd have done just they, rather than issuing a memo that directed law officials to ignore the law...

I can't get too upset that the person who is the top law enforcement officer in the country actually intends to enforce a federal law. What needs to happen is for marijuana to be reclassified as a schedule 2 drug, or removed from the schedules altogether. The latter could be done through Congress and the former could be done by the administration. In fact, if a president claims to want to leave it to the states, you'd think they'd have done just they, rather than issuing a memo that directed law officials to ignore the law...

I was really hoping Obama would have done this during his lame-duck phase, especially since it was already well known by then that the incoming Trump administration would likely want to crack down on legal marijuana. Of course, Trump could have reversed the decision, but he would it would be more controversial and he couldn't use the excuse "well we are just going to enforce the law."

I can't get too upset that the person who is the top law enforcement officer in the country actually intends to enforce a federal law. What needs to happen is for marijuana to be reclassified as a schedule 2 drug, or removed from the schedules altogether. The latter could be done through Congress and the former could be done by the administration. In fact, if a president claims to want to leave it to the states, you'd think they'd have done just they, rather than issuing a memo that directed law officials to ignore the law...
100%. This is an issue that has been looming in the background from the moment the Obama administration issued the hands-off policy. Reclassification is the only thing that will provide clarity. Unfortunately that would require cooperation in Washington, which is in short supply. Until then, everyone who consumes "legally" is breaking federal law.

Appears that OK will decide this issue at the primary election in June!

http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/OKGOV-1d075f0

NOW GET EVERYBODY YOU KNOW ON BOARD!

The Colorado Attorney General doesn't seem to feel there will be any significant changes to law enforcement in Colorado. He feels that the announcement today was more just the repeal of Obamas policy with intent to address the issue further with real legislation. I dont think Trump has any great desire to shut down the industry.

The justice department should not enforce barbaric laws.

Plu Pan,
So, would you like the DOJ to make the decisions as to which federal laws they want to enforce? That's a lot of power that personally I couldn't live with. I don't vote on the DOJ folks, but I do vote on members of congress. Congress should make those decisions and they should re-categorize marijuana. And quick, before I kick the bucket.
C. T.

Plu Pan,
So, would you like the DOJ to make the decisions as to which federal laws they want to enforce? That's a lot of power that personally I couldn't live with. I don't vote on the DOJ folks, but I do vote on members of congress. Congress should make those decisions and they should re-categorize marijuana. And quick, before I kick the bucket.
C. T.
I know and I can see where you're coming. If we have laws, we should enforce them. I can certainly agree. There are just gray areas, imo, on this issue. Weed is one of them. We allow tobacco and alcohol which are so dangerous, yet weed is illegal. I don't know. I just feel like disobedience is warranted here.

What if a state voted to allow opium dens, or eliminate FDA controls on prescription drugs? It's easy when it's something you support.

Plu Pan,
So, would you like the DOJ to make the decisions as to which federal laws they want to enforce? That's a lot of power that personally I couldn't live with. I don't vote on the DOJ folks, but I do vote on members of congress. Congress should make those decisions and they should re-categorize marijuana. And quick, before I kick the bucket.
C. T.

nm

What if a state voted to allow opium dens, or eliminate FDA controls on prescription drugs? It's easy when it's something you support.

Kind of hard to deal in what ifs on a topic like states' rights, but if the majority of a state's population voted to allow opium dens, I'd say let them have opium dens. Then again, I'm in favor of ending the war on all drugs. The death toll from alcohol and tobacco related deaths makes it hard to argue against drugs while supporting keeping alcohol and tobacco legal and readily available to the general public. I'm not trying to start a political debate here, just saying that when the people (not the legislature) make their voices known on a subject, they at least deserve to be listened to, especially when they are voting on something that does not infringe on the rights of others who might oppose. You don't want to smoke opium? Don't do it. You want to take only FDA-approved drugs? Have at it. You want to grow and smoke weed? Knock yourself out. You're against homosexuals getting married? Don't marry someone of your gender.

My household will be 2 yes votes.

Kind of hard to deal in what ifs on a topic like states' rights, but if the majority of a state's population voted to allow opium dens, I'd say let them have opium dens. Then again, I'm in favor of ending the war on all drugs. The death toll from alcohol and tobacco related deaths makes it hard to argue against drugs while supporting keeping alcohol and tobacco legal and readily available to the general public. I'm not trying to start a political debate here, just saying that when the people (not the legislature) make their voices known on a subject, they at least deserve to be listened to, especially when they are voting on something that does not infringe on the rights of others who might oppose. You don't want to smoke opium? Don't do it. You want to take only FDA-approved drugs? Have at it. You want to grow and smoke weed? Knock yourself out. You're against homosexuals getting married? Don't marry someone of your gender.

So if states can override federal laws does that include thigs like minimum wages, worker safety, discrimination, et Al? I'm getting lost in this libertarian paradise you're enspousing. Why have federal laws at all at this point?

Libertarian paradise? By saying I am in favor of ending the war on drugs and am in favor of marriage rights for all citizens?

OK.

The point is, states can't just unilaterally ignore federal laws. It's great if it's something you enspouse but what if it's not? You can't build a solid industry in a cloud of uncertainty. It's why marijuana is primarily a cash based industry since banks won't work with them, and they don't get the typical business deductions. This needs to be done top down.

Plu Pan,
So, would you like the DOJ to make the decisions as to which federal laws they want to enforce? ....


Hmmm, hate to break it to you, but they already do. It's called the power of discretion.

The point is, states can't just unilaterally ignore federal laws. It's great if it's something you enspouse but what if it's not? You can't build a solid industry in a cloud of uncertainty. It's why marijuana is primarily a cash based industry since banks won't work with them, and they don't get the typical business deductions. This needs to be done top down.

I responded to your original question of opium dens and FDA restrictions. When you didn't like my answer you kept adding other issues. If you want to talk about marijuana laws, let's talk about that. Minimum wage, worker safety, discrimination, etc. are subjects for another thread. And I never said we shouldn't have any federal laws at all. Maybe you'd rather have the federal government make all the laws for the states. In that case, why have state legislature at all?

If you are saying states can ignore certain federal laws, then yes, you're basically saying federal laws are meaningless and we shouldn't have them.

I know and I can see where you're coming. If we have laws, we should enforce them. I can certainly agree. There are just gray areas, imo, on this issue. Weed is one of them. We allow tobacco and alcohol which are so dangerous, yet weed is illegal. I don't know. I just feel like disobedience is warranted here.

Classifying marijuana the same as waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more dangerous drugs (nobody has ever died of a marijuana overdose, nobody, ever) was done as a racist thing a long time ago, and is considered by many to be an unjust law, which a huge amount of people (entire states full of people, for instance, and yes, I know not everybody in those states voted for legalization) think deserves disobedience, agreed. It has needed reclassification for years, if not decades, but the completely stupid and wrong "Reefer Madness" way of thinking is still the way most of the rich old racist white men in DC think, and cops would lose out on so much civil forfeiture assets that they seize, that it's hard to bring straight (ha) thinking to the table to reclassify it. Our prison system and country would be *so* much better off with reclassified marijuana...

And as far as states legalizing opium dens and eliminating FDA controls on prescription drugs - not even close to the same thing.

If you are saying states can ignore certain federal laws, then yes, you're basically saying federal laws are meaningless and we shouldn't have them.

Specific unjust federal laws should be ignored, but that's not the same thing as saying all federal laws are meaningless, it's not an all-or-nothing scenario.

The bottom line is that marijuana has an image problem and for conservatives, image is everything. Think about the Marlboro Man. He represents the ideal of what a "true American" is. Riding his horse off into the sunset smoking a cigarette, etc. Think about all the older white protagonists in movies from the 1950s through the 1980s. What were they all doing? Smoking tobacco. We know the health risks and dangers of cigarette smoking yet conservatives are typically staunch defenders of the tobacco industry. Cigarette smoking is seen as a quintessential American male thing to do. I saw a blog recently where somebody was lamenting that the days when real men smoked cigarettes instead of sipping fruity cocktails were gone. Alcohol is a bit muddier especially in heavily-Baptist states like Oklahoma and Arkansas and states like Mormon Utah that still have prohibition-era liquor laws on the books. Yet, there is a place for moderate drinking and even younger evangelicals are backing away from teetotalism. Also, most Americans are well aware of the kind of failure alcohol prohibition was so there isn't a real push to ban alcohol.

Marijuana on the other hand draws up images of hippies, Cheech & Chong, Harold & Kumar, Snoop Dogg, etc...all stuff conservatives despise. It doesn't have the positive associations with American culture that alcohol and tobacco do. Most of your reactionary-type conservatives base their positions only on emotion. They hear marijuana = dangerous drug = angers God = for losers = should be illegal and don't give it any further thought. They'll try to parrot whatever prohibitionist argument they last heard on Sean Hannity's show or at church or D.A.R.E. but getting them to re-evaluate their position on the issue might as well be sending a man to Mars.

This is also why the idea of medical marijuana is such a hard sell to reactionary conservatives. They can't think of marijuana as anything other than the image I described above. They view it as a stepping stone or cover for recreational use. Meanwhile, their pastors and Big Pharma are both re-enforcing that belief so they remain against it.

Specific unjust federal laws should be ignored, but that's not the same thing as saying all federal laws are meaningless, it's not an all-or-nothing scenario.

The precedent bothers me though. I understand prosecutorial discreation, but a published policy of allowing states to ignore federal laws?

Also, on your other post, are marijuana laws a racists thing, or a cultural thing? I always had the impression that they were implimented to fight the counter culture movement of the 60s. Sonny Barger's (founder of the Hell's Angels) autobio goes into it a bit, and between that other other things I've read up on it, that's always been my impression. I never percieved marijuana as a minority drug, although this was all before my time

The best place to go would be what the driving force behind prohibition pontificated on this issue.
https://www.cannabis.info/en/blog/harry-j-anslinger-15-ridiculous-quotes-about-marihuana

Here are 5 of the 15 quotes cited.
1.

Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.​

2.

Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.​

3.

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.​​

4.

You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother.​

5.

Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.

I hope the Trump administration makes it a priority to enforce the federal prohibitions against marijuana to the full extent of the law. A full blitzkrieg of federal agents invading the 'legal' states arresting and prosecuting all those involved in buying and selling this plant and it's derivatives. No half measures. Lock'em up and throw away the key. Make an example out of those states who have no respect for federal law by pulling their federal funding for roads, people and whatever else. Come on Trump show them who's boss. I'd absolutely love for that to happen.

The best place to go would be what the driving force behind prohibition pontificated on this issue.
https://www.cannabis.info/en/blog/harry-j-anslinger-15-ridiculous-quotes-about-marihuana

Here are 5 of the 15 quotes cited.
1.

Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.​

2.

Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.​

3.

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.​​

4.

You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother.​

5.

Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.

Crazy, but that was the thinking back then and I would assume there are still some folks that believe that garbage. It just boggles my mind that people actually believed that stuff. Some of the idiots should be put in a room and forced to breath smoke til high.

Hopefully all the supporters will get out and vote in June. This needs to pass because I know for a fact that it does indeed help people whereas some of the narcotics that are pushed only makes things worse for some.

I hope the Trump administration makes it a priority to enforce the federal prohibitions against marijuana to the full extent of the law. A full blitzkrieg of federal agents invading the 'legal' states arresting and prosecuting all those involved in buying and selling this plant and it's derivatives. No half measures. Lock'em up and throw away the key. Make an example out of those states who have no respect for federal law by pulling their federal funding for roads, people and whatever else. Come on Trump show them who's boss. I'd absolutely love for that to happen.


I think that would be the absolute best thing that could happen. Lets urge them enforce the law and get things going. Then we can sit back and set the clock for the day it will be legal nationwide and I don't think that would be a long wait.

I think that would be the absolute best thing that could happen. Lets urge them enforce the law and get things going. Then we can sit back and set the clock for the day it will be legal nationwide and I don't think that would be a long wait.

That's actually what Oklahoma did to finally repeal alcohol prohibition in 1959, two and a half decades after most of the nation had settled the issue. The saying was "they will vote dry as long as they can stagger to the polls."

That's actually what Oklahoma did to finally repeal alcohol prohibition in 1959, two and a half decades after most of the nation had settled the issue. The saying was "they will vote dry as long as they can stagger to the polls."

But this isn't 1959

The bottom line is that marijuana has an image problem and for conservatives, image is everything. Think about the Marlboro Man. He represents the ideal of what a "true American" is. Riding his horse off into the sunset smoking a cigarette, etc. Think about all the older white protagonists in movies from the 1950s through the 1980s. What were they all doing? Smoking tobacco. We know the health risks and dangers of cigarette smoking yet conservatives are typically staunch defenders of the tobacco industry. Cigarette smoking is seen as a quintessential American male thing to do. I saw a blog recently where somebody was lamenting that the days when real men smoked cigarettes instead of sipping fruity cocktails were gone. Alcohol is a bit muddier especially in heavily-Baptist states like Oklahoma and Arkansas and states like Mormon Utah that still have prohibition-era liquor laws on the books. Yet, there is a place for moderate drinking and even younger evangelicals are backing away from teetotalism. Also, most Americans are well aware of the kind of failure alcohol prohibition was so there isn't a real push to ban alcohol.

Marijuana on the other hand draws up images of hippies, Cheech & Chong, Harold & Kumar, Snoop Dogg, etc...all stuff conservatives despise. It doesn't have the positive associations with American culture that alcohol and tobacco do. Most of your reactionary-type conservatives base their positions only on emotion. They hear marijuana = dangerous drug = angers God = for losers = should be illegal and don't give it any further thought. They'll try to parrot whatever prohibitionist argument they last heard on Sean Hannity's show or at church or D.A.R.E. but getting them to re-evaluate their position on the issue might as well be sending a man to Mars.

This is also why the idea of medical marijuana is such a hard sell to reactionary conservatives. They can't think of marijuana as anything other than the image I described above. They view it as a stepping stone or cover for recreational use. Meanwhile, their pastors and Big Pharma are both re-enforcing that belief so they remain against it.

I hope most of your points made are out of date or will be. In October, Oklahoma alcohol laws will be much more like other states. But still won't be able to buy liquor in drug stores, like in Las Vegas.

I think most of the religious and conservative opposition will come from people and their family members, who are well blessed to be in very good health all their lives. It puts them in the position of being totally unable to relate to or have empathy for chronically ill people needing medical marijuana, who can't say the same.

Or people who fear the consequences of legalization on lives and families.

Or people who fear the consequences of legalization on lives and families.

I would say fear and not rational thought is what drove the forces of prohibition in the first place. See #1410. Rational thought based on research from Nixon's commission all the way up to and including what is going on in the 26 states that have medical and or recreational use would dispel this. Then again you are always going to have a segment of the population that are "flat earthers".

And I agree it's fear driven. I just don't want to dismiss folks as uncaring or cruel because they have these fears. Just like some people are healthy and haven't experienced pain, there are lots of folks who haven't had thier own or a loved ones life destroyed by drugs, alcohol, or gambling.

Or people who fear the consequences of legalization on lives and families.

I think people are worried about it becoming more socially acceptable. Reactionary social conservatives are all about preserving and enforcing cultural norms and conformism. Marijuana is counter-cultural and therefore is a threat to their grip on control.

There may be some of that but I think it's oversimplication to try to put a single cause behind opposition. There are sane reasons for people to oppose this, just like they might oppose increased availability of alcohol. And they're not based on politics or religion, but on thier own life experiences.

And I agree it's fear driven. I just don't want to dismiss folks as uncaring or cruel because they have these fears. Just like some people are healthy and haven't experienced pain, there are lots of folks who haven't had thier own or a loved ones life destroyed by drugs, alcohol, or gambling.
I can agree with that perspective. However there are countless people serving serious time with those families destroyed by irrational fears to protect people from themselves. How many people have had their elder relatives financially ruined by unscrupulous religious hucksters on tv? However there is no serious movement to prohibit religious charlatans from promising salvation if they would send 50 to the minister. I would venture to say far more individuals and their loved ones have been ruined by prohibition than people predisposed to compulsive behavior being helped by prohibition. When I was in high school in the late 1960's we had a group of recovering heroin addicts come to the school and attempt to link mj usage with heroin addiction. All claimed to have started with mj. The question was then asked if had they started with beer did they feel they would have become alcoholics favoring liquor. All answered in the affirmative.

Sounds like a bunch of states rights racists up in here... :Smiley122

Opinions and understandings of things change over time. Laws are always lagging behind. Really it should be this way. And yes, they should enforce the laws we have. In reality, doing so will likely just push the matter to the forefront sooner than doing a turn a blind eye approach.

Opinions and understandings of things change over time. Laws are always lagging behind. Really it should be this way. And yes, they should enforce the laws we have. In reality, doing so will likely just push the matter to the forefront sooner than doing a turn a blind eye approach.

You may be right here.

"The American people will vote dry as long as they are able to stagger to the polls." -Will Rogers

I hope the Trump administration makes it a priority to enforce the federal prohibitions against marijuana to the full extent of the law. A full blitzkrieg of federal agents invading the 'legal' states arresting and prosecuting all those involved in buying and selling this plant and it's derivatives. No half measures. Lock'em up and throw away the key. Make an example out of those states who have no respect for federal law by pulling their federal funding for roads, people and whatever else. Come on Trump show them who's boss. I'd absolutely love for that to happen.

In your opinion, what would the benefit of an action like this be?

I know and I can see where you're coming. If we have laws, we should enforce them. I can certainly agree. There are just gray areas, imo, on this issue. Weed is one of them. We allow tobacco and alcohol which are so dangerous, yet weed is illegal. I don't know. I just feel like disobedience is warranted here.

PluPan,
I won't get crazy with whatifs, just think what our country could be like if the DOJ could pick and choose which laws they wanted to support. It would destroy our check and balance system of government. I want the people I elect to write the laws, the president to sign (or veto) them, and the DOJ to enforce them unless the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional! It's really simple. As far as "disobedience", that's something the people do (and sometimes states), not the DOJ.
C. T.

So if states can override federal laws does that include thigs like minimum wages, worker safety, discrimination, et Al? I'm getting lost in this libertarian paradise you're enspousing. Why have federal laws at all at this point?

I heard the mayor of Berkeley screaming about how it was a states rights issue. I found it ironic to hear a leftist taking on that arguement - especially considering he is a supporter of those who want to stamp out free speech.

Hmmm, hate to break it to you, but they already do. It's called the power of discretion.

BBatesokc,
I disagree. The DOJ and all of their employees commit to supporting the constitution and the only discretion comes from the executive branch which can be overturned by the Judicial branch (supreme court). Just because they "already do" doesn't make it right or legal.
C. T.

Specific unjust federal laws should be ignored, but that's not the same thing as saying all federal laws are meaningless, it's not an all-or-nothing scenario.

TheTravellers,
In response to your previous two posts, civil forfeiture assets are relatively new (80's, maybe 70's). And you can say "it's not an all-or-nothing scenario all you want, but if you allow a sub-branch of the government to decide what laws it wants to enforce you can throw our checks and balances system out the window.
C. T.

BBatesokc,
I disagree. The DOJ and all of their employees commit to supporting the constitution and the only discretion comes from the executive branch which can be overturned by the Judicial branch (supreme court). Just because they "already do" doesn't make it right or legal.
C. T.

You can disagree, but, you'd be wrong. The DOJ exercises their power of discretion every day. Just like any other entity with the power to prosecute (or not prosecute).

You can disagree, but, you'd be wrong. The DOJ exercises their power of discretion every day. Just like any other entity with the power to prosecute (or not prosecute).


Isn't there a difference between the DOJ using discrection on a case by case basis vs a top down memo ordering folks not to enforce a law at a state level?

You can disagree, but, you'd be wrong. The DOJ exercises their power of discretion every day. Just like any other entity with the power to prosecute (or not prosecute).

I've heard of a DA tell somebody who claimed to be using marijuana for medical purposes that he would not have been charged had he been able to provide written proof of his need for medical marijuana from a doctor.

Isn't there a difference between the DOJ using discrection on a case by case basis vs a top down memo ordering folks not to enforce a law at a state level?

Discretion is discretion. It can be applied specifically and/or broadly.

Discretion is discretion. It can be applied specifically and/or broadly.

I don't think it should be applied as policy. It's a dangerous precedent and at the least leads to uncertainty.

I don't think it should be applied as policy. It's a dangerous precedent and at the least leads to uncertainty.

As much as I believe they should use discretion for legal pot, I can't say I disagree with you here.

As much as I believe they should use discretion for legal pot, I can't say I disagree with you here.

Like I mentioned above, I think similar to prohibition policies, this type of tactic will ultimately lead to a more swift and permanent resolve.

If it wasn't for a handful of people making it a high priority

I see what you did there.

You can disagree, but, you'd be wrong. The DOJ exercises their power of discretion every day. Just like any other entity with the power to prosecute (or not prosecute).

BBatesokc,
No, I'm not wrong, our laws require the DOJ to defend the constitution and enforce all laws of the United States. I didn't say they didn't use discretion but it is against the law. Show me where it says they can pick and choose the laws they enforce and then I will agree that "I am wrong". I'm not even saying you are wrong, the DOJ has not enforced several laws, what I am saying is that it's not the way things are supposed to work.
C. T.

Has there been any recent polling done on state question 778?

One of my hardcore evangelical friends stated this the other day when it was in the news and we were discussing the issue: "If god put this plant on earth, he must have had a reason". He is younger though, I'd assume the 60+ age group will vote no pretty heavily but there are a lot of younger conservatives who I think will vote yes on it.

BBatesokc,
No, I'm not wrong, our laws require the DOJ to defend the constitution and enforce all laws of the United States. I didn't say they didn't use discretion but it is against the law. Show me where it says they can pick and choose the laws they enforce and then I will agree that "I am wrong". I'm not even saying you are wrong, the DOJ has not enforced several laws, what I am saying is that it's not the way things are supposed to work.
C. T.

You are living in an unrealistic world if you truly believe discretion is not supposed to be a part of our judicial system. That or you have not been apart (as in behind the scenes) to many criminal cases (city, state, federal).

You are also being naive if you think it must be written into law that the DOJ can use discretion for it to actually exist.

You even admit the DOJ has not enforced several laws - HELLO - that's called exercising discretion. But thank you for making my point.