On Jeff Sessions, Congress, and marijuana law
I’m basically with National Review on this:
Under Article II, the executive is obliged to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and, under federal law, marijuana remains prohibited. Using prosecutorial discretion as a smokescreen for nullification is not our definition of “faithful,” however misguided the legislature’s will might be.
Cory Gardner, a Republican senator from Colorado, had harsh words for Sessions. “With no prior notice to Congress,” Gardner griped, “the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in [Colorado] and other states.” This critique rings hollow. It was Congress that established this law, and it is Congress that must repeal it. Indeed, if anyone is “trampling,” it is the legislature of which Gardner is a part. We have long argued that the prohibition of weed is a fool’s game, and we have long urged that it be ended. We have held to this view through a host of administrations, and we hold to this view today. Nevertheless, we believe also that the Constitution must be strictly obeyed, and that congressional inaction presents no magic veto power to the executive. This, put simply, is not Jeff Sessions’s call.
Like it or not, the marijuana horse has left the barn long long ago (that’s a pretty bad metaphor, but you know what I mean). The ban at this point is something akin to Prohibition: it’s just not working, although I actually wish it was, because I think both practices cause a certain amount of destructive behavior (alcohol even worse than marijuana). I believe at this point it should be left to the states, and that the feds should stay out of it, but that must be done by an act of Congress.
All the potent new strains of pot can now be found on eBay, although eBay does remove the listings when they are discovered. My point is the people are moving away from this prohibition, just as they did when alcohol was prohibited. Time to legalize the weed and regulate it. It’s just stupid to keep going down this path.
The SEEDS can be fond on eBay. Sorry if I sent anyone on an online search! 🙂
It’s carbon-based. It’s reactive. Huff, puff, hallucinatory carcinogen.
That said, we need to control progressive medical costs, abort the national medical insurance schemes, implement education reform, and allow people their Choice.
n.n.,
I also think we need a campaign to educate young people about its dangers. Young frequent users don’t concentrate on school and may end up schizophrenic.
I don’t know what WTF Sessions is doing, so we basically gave the democrats the AL seat so Sessions can recuse himself from his god given duty of protecting the president who hired him from political witch hunts to violate state rights and prosecute stoners to push all the stoners to the side of the democrats in the next election cycle. Prosecute Obama for illegally spying on political opponents and fellow americans with government resources
expat Says:
January 5th, 2018 at 4:11 pm
n.n.,
I also think we need a campaign to educate young people about its dangers. Young frequent users don’t concentrate on school and may end up schizophrenic.
**
I agree with expat about education (and not just young people, but adults and the adults still masquerading as youth).
However, we should look at the effectiveness of education about alcohol and smoking before declaring this a panacea; it is at most one weapon in the arsenal against usage of all three.
I personally support legalization, with the same kind of “controls” as on the other two substances, while advocating complete abstention from all three.
The point is that we are only now having the discussion about research and ethics that we should have had 60+ years ago, when it was short-circuited by Federal legislation.
Funny that the Left (and others) really really support States Rights here, but want national rules on abortion and guns.
But it doesn’t make them wrong about MJ; it makes them wrong on the other two.
Her in the state of Washington we have a state attorney general who is spending what seems like all his time suing the Trump administration over a number of issues. And now he is not happy about the marijuana issue with the DOJ.
Interestingly enough he had a different opinion on the same issue two short years ago.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/860694/hypocrisy-of-wa-ag-ferguson
Perfect illustration of the left and their selective outrage.
Lately I have had the idea (though I imagined it’s been thought of before) that it would be really nice if we could have an official code of I don’t know ethics or morals or something that would have no legal force, but would satisfy the public urge to moralize through legislation (“there ought to be a law”). Maybe make a supermajority required to criminalize anything, but a bare majority to put it in the official moral code.
Markets work. There has never been an item – from alcohol during prohibition, to marijuana and other drugs now – that has been stopped by an embargo. There is gun crime in the UK – which is an island, that outlawed guns.
Markets work. You want to destroy a market you have to convince people to not purchase the good.
Embargoes only serve to fund organized crime. And just like in the 1920s, that organization has spread into police forces and other parts of the government.
And then there is the idea of individual liberty. You don’t like alcohol. Fine. Don’t drink any. (I’m sitting here with a nice single-malt Scotch)
If you read some of the early Executive Orders & Memos, Trump was giving the new Secretaries orders to review their departments and evaluate staffing levels, budgets, regulations. One point I remember seeing was that activities were to be checked back to an originating legislation. If the link did not exist, they were supposed to fix the problem by proposing to get rid of the regulations as well as kick the issue back to Congress.
I suspect that while Sessions may want to continue the fight against drugs by using the asset seizure process, the fact that he reversed policies enacted by the Obama Administration, he will force Congress to correct some things. At least I can hope that Congress takes action. I took action by calling my senator to start changing laws.
I hope that on the state level, there are laws dealing with both driving under the influence of alcohol AND drugs. Maybe MADD can change their name to MADDD (Mothers against Drunk and Drugged Driving).
The solution to the drug enforcement imbroglio is for Congress to rescind the laws directing and executing the war on drugs. Perhaps Sessions is simply saying he will enforce the laws as written (and as required by his job title), as a prod for Congress to get off its collective ass and do its job.
Obumble thought he could change law simply by declaring it changed. That’s not how any of this works. All he could do was change enforcement and that itself crossed the line in ” a Nation of laws”.
I cannot see much difference between “prosecutorial discretion” and “arbitary arrest” except that the former phrase sounds generous.
Caedmon Says:
January 6th, 2018 at 3:26 am
I cannot see much difference between “prosecutorial discretion” and “arbitrary arrest” except that the former phrase sounds generous.
* * *
Indeed.
The difference, though, is in who makes the decision to penalize criminal activity or not: a DA or a LEO.
Part of the problem is that Obama decided to take on the role properly belonging to local prosecutors, and then push it all the way down to the level of the cop on the street.
It wasn’t within his authority to do either.
Griffin Says:
January 5th, 2018 at 5:27 pm
Her in the state of Washington we have a state attorney general who is spending what seems like all his time suing the Trump administration over a number of issues. And now he is not happy about the marijuana issue with the DOJ.
Interestingly enough he had a different opinion on the same issue two short years ago.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/860694/hypocrisy-of-wa-ag-ferguson
Perfect illustration of the left and their selective outrage.
* *
I was catching up with a comment on another thread just before reading this, and it is a perfect example of what I was looking at over there.
http://neoneocon.com/2018/01/05/never-trumpers-never-trumping/#comment-2348057
Griffin Says:
January 5th, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Aesopfan,
Just remembered where I saw it. It was a commenter at Ann Althouse called Fen.
It’s Fen’s Law.
***
…states that “The left believes none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.”
Liz Says:
January 5th, 2018 at 7:33 pm
…
One point I remember seeing was that activities were to be checked back to an originating legislation. If the link did not exist, they were supposed to fix the problem by proposing to get rid of the regulations as well as kick the issue back to Congress.
* * *
For this one directive, we should be eternally grateful to President Trump even if there weren’t all those other things to thank him for.
This ought to be an on-going responsibility of every Cabinet Department and government agency.
Think of much time and money would we save in court cases alone if every regulation had to cite chapter and verse of the appropriate legislation and explain how that authorizes what they want to do (which is what a judge eventually does anyway).
If these were “normal” times, I could get behind this effort. But they aren’t normal times: there is massive corruption in the government at the highest levels, and Sessions won’t lift a finger to stop it.
This is all about priorities, and Sessions’ are screwed up.
@Caedmon:I cannot see much difference between “prosecutorial discretion” and “arbitary arrest” except that the former phrase sounds generous.
Huge difference. The first one acknowledges the reality that law enforcement is constrained by time and resources that that priorities are set by the executive. One cannot punish every violation of every law regardless of the nature of the crime or its circumstances, so someone will have to pick and choose. The second one is “law schmaw”.
A concrete example: “discretion” is pulling over only those speeders going more than 15 mph over, or only those in school zones, or setting up speed traps. “Arbitrary” is pulling over and ticketing people regardless of whether they are speeding, or indeed driving. The absence of discretion would be pulling over and ticketing all speeders everywhere, which could never actually be done.