It’s taken months, but they’ve finally done something praiseworthy, and never let it be said that I don’t give credit where it’s due:
the US Department of Justice finally applied some brains to the medical marijuana issue [AP | Politico]. They’re going to stop prosecuting sick people who are complying with their states’ laws, and use those resources for real problems instead. Yes, those laws do get abused by doctors who hand out free passes. On the other hand, they also get used to sensible benefit by terminally ill people, and how mean and stupid can you be to prosecute them? So, at last we have 2 synapses and a neuron wired up in DoJ. They still reserve the right to go after people who are using those laws as a cover for large-scale trafficking or other serious illegal activities. Which is also smart.
Not that it’s worth all the other damage being done to the nation and our national security, and it doesn’t go far enough, as Joe notes. I just hope that the policy will continue under whatever administration is in charge in 2013.
I’ll throw out two common observations. First, that any law that is widely disobeyed breeds disrespect for law in general (where did this phrase come from? It doesn’t appear to be Thomas Aquinas though he seems to have first discussed it). Second, we’re on our third US president in a row who has admitted to using marijuana.
Could this be part of a strategy to provide a new cash crop for tax-starved states, without appearing to endorse “vice?”
It was pretty tepid, but I guess a victory in the War on Some Drugs – however small and easily overturned – is better than nothing. Maybe I should take the optimist’s view and think of it as the opening of the Kuhnian “paradigm shift” that will eventually finish the job…
As a citizen, I don’t think mind altering drugs should be uncontrolled.
As a federalist (note the small “f”), the federal government has no standing to interfere with the decision of a state on its internal matters regarding this.
*any critiques that use Jim Crow to justify federal interference within states can take residence in the critic’s fourth point of contact*
“As a federalist (note the small “f”), the federal government has no standing to interfere with the decision of a state on its internal matters regarding this.”
So how do you feel about the next state over legalizing opium production? Or do you think you can round up a whole bunch of those supermarket check-stand rubber bars, line them up along the border, and that will keep the problem out? Bit of a slippery slope argument there but to a greater extent than you’d imagine the Federal government keeps the states from shooting at each other every day.
It’s interesting that this comes after some advances in anti-nausea drugs that make one of the main uses of medical marijuana obsolete.
I’ll bet I’m one of very few Rand Readers who can legitimately claim to have been a member of NORML. However, that’s an acronym for “National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws”, not “National Organization for the Selective Enforcement of Existing Laws by a Lawless Administration Done for Political Expediency” — I think that would be NOSEELLADPE, which I can’t even pronounce.
BBB
I’ve got a weird feeling that this bunch isn’t going to extend themselves very much to strengthen Federalism.