Lawmakers urge DOJ to respect Wash., Colorado pot votes
SEATTLE (AP) - A group of lawmakers on Friday urged the Justice Department to respect recent votes in Colorado and Washington state allowing the recreational use of marijuana, and some introduced a bill to ensure that happens.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado said her bill would bar the federal government from blocking state marijuana laws. Several other lawmakers have signed on, including Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado.
"I voted against Amendment 64 and I strongly oppose the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters," Coffman said in a statement. "I feel obligated to support this legislation."
Voters this month made Washington and Colorado the first states to allow adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and to set up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores. Taxes could bring the states tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year, financial analysts say.
But marijuana remains illegal under federal law. States are not required to enforce the federal prohibition, meaning they can make marijuana crimes legal under state law, but whether they can set up licensing schemes to promote violations of federal law is another story.
Many constitutional lawyers don't think so: In general, state laws that "frustrate the purpose" of federal laws can be blocked.
But the DOJ hasn't said whether it plans to sue to block the licensing schemes from taking effect. Seventeen Democratic representatives signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Michele Leonhart urging the DOJ to let the states proceed with regulating pot and to refrain from prosecuting people who comply with the state laws.
"These states have chosen to move from a drug policy that spends millions of dollars turning ordinary Americans into criminals toward one that will tightly regulate the use of marijuana while raising tax revenue to support cash-strapped state and local governments," the letter said. "We believe this approach embraces the goals of existing federal marijuana law: to stop international trafficking, deter domestic organized criminal organizations, stop violence associated with the drug trade and protect children."
Proponents of the marijuana measures welcomed the letter and DeGette's legislation, which would amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that it shall not pre-empt state marijuana laws.
"It's fantastic to see congressional representatives move decisively to respect the will of the voters and facilitate the fundamental reformation of our marijuana laws at the state level," said Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for Washington's Initiative 502.
So far, no Washington lawmakers have signed onto DeGette's legislation.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado said her bill would bar the federal government from blocking state marijuana laws. Several other lawmakers have signed on, including Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado.
"I voted against Amendment 64 and I strongly oppose the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters," Coffman said in a statement. "I feel obligated to support this legislation."
Voters this month made Washington and Colorado the first states to allow adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and to set up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores. Taxes could bring the states tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year, financial analysts say.
But marijuana remains illegal under federal law. States are not required to enforce the federal prohibition, meaning they can make marijuana crimes legal under state law, but whether they can set up licensing schemes to promote violations of federal law is another story.
Many constitutional lawyers don't think so: In general, state laws that "frustrate the purpose" of federal laws can be blocked.
But the DOJ hasn't said whether it plans to sue to block the licensing schemes from taking effect. Seventeen Democratic representatives signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Michele Leonhart urging the DOJ to let the states proceed with regulating pot and to refrain from prosecuting people who comply with the state laws.
"These states have chosen to move from a drug policy that spends millions of dollars turning ordinary Americans into criminals toward one that will tightly regulate the use of marijuana while raising tax revenue to support cash-strapped state and local governments," the letter said. "We believe this approach embraces the goals of existing federal marijuana law: to stop international trafficking, deter domestic organized criminal organizations, stop violence associated with the drug trade and protect children."
Proponents of the marijuana measures welcomed the letter and DeGette's legislation, which would amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that it shall not pre-empt state marijuana laws.
"It's fantastic to see congressional representatives move decisively to respect the will of the voters and facilitate the fundamental reformation of our marijuana laws at the state level," said Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for Washington's Initiative 502.
So far, no Washington lawmakers have signed onto DeGette's legislation.
Mike Coffman's statement is refreshing. He is backing his constituents' wishes verses allowing
his own feeling to decide the issue. I wish that ALL politicians would so honor their constituents
wishes.
The People have spoken. Butt out.
The DOJ should take a backseat and just see how these legalization laws will affect these states. Call it an experiment to see if legalization would work country-wide.
All over a plant that has hundreds health benefits and uses. Shame on anyone who tries to make cannabis look bad, people need to do more research, like these Reps.Â
"So far, no Washington lawmakers have signed onto DeGette's legislation."
Â
Perhaps they are too busy getting stoned.
This comment has been deleted
You mean moot, not mute. For example, "It was a moot point to try to get the dog to speak because he was mute."
 @deadcandance Actually, I like these discussions. Mainly because I hope that those that are against this, will just maybe, do some actual research on this. If more people learn, then more eyes are opened.Â
 @deadcandance Too long people who smoke marijuana have been silenced, looked down on and pushed into a closet. Come on out and play... Ha! :D)
âThe illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.â â Â Carl Sagan quote on Marijuana
 @Funky-Munky I never knew Carl smoked........
 @Susabelle âHerb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction.â â Bob Marley
Â
âPenalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce [28g] of marijuana.â â Jimmy Carter
 @Funky-Munky  @Susabelle And yet he has. More dispensaries have been shutdown under Obama than Bush, and Obama left Bush's appointee to the DEA in place (Michele Leonhart).
 @Susabelle ~Barack Obama "I would absolutely never use the federal government to enforce the law of using marijuana"
 @Funky-Munky Love, Love, Love the Steve Martin quote!
 @Susabelle Not sure if he smoked but we all know Clinton did.....
Â
âI used to smoke marijuana. But I'll tell you something: I would only smoke it in the late evening. Oh, occasionally the early evening, but usually the late evening - or the mid-evening. Just the early evening, midevening and late evening. Occasionally, early afternoon, early midafternoon, or perhaps the late-midafternoon. Oh, sometimes the early-mid-late-early morning. . . . But never at dusk.â â Steve Martin
Â
 @Funky-Munky I always liked Jimmy......I had my suspicions he grew more than peanuts on that farm of his.
DOJ hasn't respected State Rights thus far, I doubt they will change their mind in this case.
 @GeorgeG. How about respecting "we the people" and our vote? How about legalizing instead of criticizing our vote? Yeah man.. :D)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HJqYChoQ25A
 @Funky-Munky Figures someone posts a Bob Marley song haha. Good song.Â
 @Funky-Munky My grandson had a Bob Marley onsie........LOL
 @Susabelle This is a decent song... kinda sets the mood... Ha! This is a different video I decided to post...
This comment has been deleted
 @Funky-Munky LOL You do dream big dont you?Â
 @Susabelle Just a little humor.... Little visual. Ha!
"A group of lawmakers on Friday urged the Justice Department to respect recent votes in Colorado and Washington state allowing the recreational use of marijuana, and some introduced a bill to ensure that happens." From the very people who disregard the will of the people in Washington everyday. Talk about the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.
 @Bianca First of all, this was presented by reps of CO not WA.  Second, Washington is not involved in this legislation yet. And Third, both our current governor and our governor elect have told the Feds they intend to respect the will of the people.......
Â
Unless you are referring to a past grievance?
 @Susabelle Her assessment has me puzzled.... Do you understand her?
 @Funky-Munky no, that is why I tried to list the points......not sure where she was going with that..... the information was not in the comment that I could find, nor in any recent articles related either......
Will this be another Federal Government catastrophe? Going against the vote of "we the people" and continue with hypocrisy, lies and totalitarian authority?
 @Funky-Munky I'm sure there is a lot of discussion on how to allow this and save face too, although, they should have thought of that years ago......too little, too late if you ask me.
 @Susabelle I will settle for them allowing legalization of marijuana for the twenty-one and over crowd. I also hope the law changes so one can cultivate up to a certain amount of plants in their home. Some argue how would the state make money then. I say they must apply for a license annually. Also many will still buy marijuana from stores for convenience, different strains and probably their ability to grow successfully would be hampered because of time involved doing it.
 @Funky-Munky People may grow themselves at first out of distrust of the system, but I think our innate laziness in our current culture will take hold and people will be buying just like they choose wine or tomatoes for that matter. We dont grow our own tomatoes..........well most of us dont and most of us dont make our own wine either, though we certainly could do so if we chose.
Where did Ted take this picture?
 @Komo Dragon His house... He he he chuckle...  :D)
Lawmakers in 4 states have announced their intent to seek legalization of Marijuana.Â
Â
âState representatives in Rhode Island and Maine will announce in a teleconference [today] their intentions to introduce marijuana legalization bills for debate next year. Lawmakers from Vermont and Massachusetts have also indicated they will submit similar bills for consideration next year.â [viaMMJ Business Daily]
Â
I think the federal government is waiting to see how many states jump on the bandwagon before making a decision.
 @Denise Harrington Once this goes through, the Feds are really going to have egg on their face. With more studies and more uncovering of just how unbiased the DEA has been, well, I'm surprised that the American people have not been in more of an uproar before now. Even if your position is against MJ itself........if you really look at what has been done over the years to keep this illegal, the misinformation and downright lies are astounding. Even when presented with sound evidence and recommendations from their own administrative judges.......the DEA has refused to acknowledge its misplaced labeling........They put off addressing it in the courts for years, time to come clean.
 @Susabelle The Feds came down hard on all drugs in the early 70's due to the increased drug use in the late 60's. Truth is I think the hippy culture scared them. Once they had taken the position against Marijuana they defended it vigorously even if that meant lying to the public. The governments own studies concluded that MJ was an effective treatment for many conditions, however they buried those studies and maintained the position that it was a dangerous drug.Â
I do not think the Feds will ever come clean. They will let prohibition go away quietly, perhaps in the way of waivers for the states allowing them to opt out of prohibition without the Feds themselves having to make any changes to the currently Federal position.
 @Susabelle  @Denise Harrington That's why it was made illegal in the first place, but at the time, 1937, it was so they could arrest Mexicans and blacks, and keep them out of the auto unions. Marijuana legislation was a tool for minority repression. In the 60's anti war protesters conveniently smoked pot, making it easy for Nixon to crush anti-war protest leaders.
Â
It's been used to discredit presidential candidates, job candidates, and it's why a black man in America has a better chance of going to jail than college. It always was about repression, but the propaganda for 70 years has convinced a largely sheepish population that it's about safety and health.
 @Susabelle  @Denise Harrington L.S.D tends to do that... Fun the first time... after that... Bad trips...
 @Denise Harrington When you really think about it though, in a way it did work. They labeled the entire movement as a bunch of drug crazed hippies effectively silencing their voice. Mainstream America at the time disassociated themselves from it out of fear, and dont get me wrong........there were a LOT of drug crazed hippies, but there were a lot of peaceful pot smoking activists too........they were silenced and grouped with the rest.....
 @Susabelle Arresting people for MJ did not work either LOLÂ
 @Denise Harrington absolutely. We do have Freedom of Speech in this country.......so THAT wasnt going to work......LOL
 @Susabelle I think the anti-establishment movement of the late 60's had a lot to do with it.Â
 @Denise Harrington I've had the same suspicion of the 60's and 70's movements. I figured it was easier to arrest the protesters for a drug violation than to arrest them for disagreeing with their government.
 @Denise Harrington sorry......biased the DEA has been..........
 @Susabelle Ahh! The old adage of saving face while losing your buns... I get it.
 @Funky-Munky But the public image that the DEA has portrayed has lumped all of it together in the war on drugs.........they have never come out and told them to stop everything but pot. I dont think they can divorce themselves from it now.
 @Susabelle I never thought marijuana was the issue in Latin America. Rather cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine were the exports. I always felt marijuana was largely overlooked south of the border because I witnessed first hand how it leaves the country and saw some of the local authorities receiving cash to overlook it.
 @Funky-Munky It might just be fear.........think of all the conversations they will have to have with Latin America, think about how hard they screamed about how bad this is, think about all the wasted money that was thrown at this. The people that have died in this war they are fighting. On our soil as well as our neighbors to the south. Think about how this makes them look in the International community, and their own people as well.... No one wants to admit to being wrong.......but when you are this wrong??? Wow........
 @Susabelle Totalitarian authority is their main goal. The DEA, FEDS and ATF etc.!
 @Funky-Munky I would agree with that assessment. I would also suggest smaller enterprise until the dust settles so to speak.
 @Susabelle I talked to the backers of my endeavor to cultivate for the state... Their reply was for me to get an MMC and then it would be more favorable to them. weird. I guess they wish for me to have as much legal standing as I can get.