Obama Won't Go After Marijuana Use In 2 States

[freeeewilly66]

http://newsok.com/obama-wont-go-afte...le/feed/475633

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the federal government won't go after recreational marijuana use in Washington state and Colorado, where voters have legalized it.

In a Barbara Walters interview airing Friday on ABC, Obama was asked whether he supports making pot legal.
"I wouldn't go that far," Obama replied. "But what I think is that, at this point, Washington and Colorado, you've seen the voters speak on this issue."
But the president said he won't pursue the issue in the two states where voters legalized the use of marijuana in the November elections. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
"... as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions," Obama said. "It does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law, that's legal."
Marijuana officially became legal in Washington state and Colorado this month.
The Justice Department hasn't targeted recreational marijuana users for decades. With limited resources, its focus has been to go after major drug traffickers instead.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department has said repeatedly in recent weeks that it is reviewing the legalization initiatives passed in Colorado and Washington state. The states have expressed concern that the federal government might sue over the issue. Department officials have said they are waiting to see what regulations the two states adopt to implement the initiatives.

[Sancho]

http://newsok.com/obama-wont-go-afte...le/feed/475633

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the federal government won't go after recreational marijuana use in Washington state and Colorado, where voters have legalized it.

In a Barbara Walters interview airing Friday on ABC, Obama was asked whether he supports making pot legal.
"I wouldn't go that far," Obama replied. "But what I think is that, at this point, Washington and Colorado, you've seen the voters speak on this issue."
But the president said he won't pursue the issue in the two states where voters legalized the use of marijuana in the November elections. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
"... as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions," Obama said. "It does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law, that's legal."
Marijuana officially became legal in Washington state and Colorado this month.
The Justice Department hasn't targeted recreational marijuana users for decades. With limited resources, its focus has been to go after major drug traffickers instead.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department has said repeatedly in recent weeks that it is reviewing the legalization initiatives passed in Colorado and Washington state. The states have expressed concern that the federal government might sue over the issue. Department officials have said they are waiting to see what regulations the two states adopt to implement the initiatives.

Obama wants to apply federal law to some states and not others. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? How about they just stop going after it at the federal level altogether?

What if he said "we wont prosecute anyone in Michigan who fails to file a federal income tax or pay any taxes, because you know I have talked to the people of Michigan and they have made it pretty clear that they dont want to file or pay taxes." ??? Problem?

[ltsooner]

It's almost a non-issue, on a federal level. Congress and the Executive will do nothing and a majority of the states will have similar laws in 10 years (my opinion). Those same states (give or take) will also recognize **** marriage.

[SoonerLibertarian]

Good news that he won't go after this.

Sancho that's always been the problem with federalism.

[freeeewilly66]

It's almost a non-issue, on a federal level. Congress and the Executive will do nothing and a majority of the states will have similar laws in 10 years (my opinion). Those same states (give or take) will also recognize **** marriage.

The Feds have been doing busts on medical marijuana dispensaries for a while now though.

[Sancho]

It's almost a non-issue, on a federal level. Congress and the Executive will do nothing and a majority of the states will have similar laws in 10 years (my opinion). Those same states (give or take) will also recognize **** marriage.

I still see it as a problem that the FBI or DEA will arrest, prosecute, and imprison you for doing something in one state while they let people in other states do it with impunity. Either prosecute them all or prosecute none. I know our freedom-hating Liberals on the board have no problem with it, but the idea of an Executive branch that picks favorites among the states and uses federal agencies to punish states that dont support its agenda, for instance, is a big big problem.

[ltsooner]

I still see it as a problem that the FBI or DEA will arrest, prosecute, and imprison you for doing something in one state while they let people in other states do it with impunity. Either prosecute them all or prosecute none. I know our freedom-hating Liberals on the board have no problem with it, but the idea of an Executive branch that picks favorites among the states and uses federal agencies to punish states that dont support its agenda, for instance, is a big big problem.

True, true and true ... the DEA and FBI may still go after the big dealers. But without an Executive who will make it a policy to enforce the federal possession laws for recreational (and medicinal) uses, and knowing that the U.S. Attorney will likely not bother to prosecute them, those agencies will also turn away from those cases.

I understand the feds have been cracking down on medicinal MJ places in California, but in Colorado they've had free reign.

[beelzeBob]

The Feds have been doing busts on medical marijuana dispensaries for a while now though.

This. I think he is lying through his teeth.

[HVSooner]

Read Obama's quote closer. He said they won't go after the recreational user, the guy/gal smoking pot. The Feds don't prosecute the recreational user in other states either, that is a crime that the state/local community prosecutes. He did not say anything about the dispensaries. I would be very nervous to own a retail pot store in Washington or Colorado.

[surus]

I still see it as a problem that the FBI or DEA will arrest, prosecute, and imprison you for doing something in one state while they let people in other states do it with impunity. Either prosecute them all or prosecute none. I know our freedom-hating Liberals on the board have no problem with it, but the idea of an Executive branch that picks favorites among the states and uses federal agencies to punish states that dont support its agenda, for instance, is a big big problem.

It does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law, that's legal."

so, are you saying you want the feds to do the jobs of the local and state law enforcement in these two states?

[87sooner]

Obama wants to apply federal law to some states and not others. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? How about they just stop going after it at the federal level altogether?

What if he said "we wont prosecute anyone in Michigan who fails to file a federal income tax or pay any taxes, because you know I have talked to the people of Michigan and they have made it pretty clear that they dont want to file or pay taxes." ??? Problem?

he's already talked to illegal immigrants and decided to stop going after them....

[Yatahaze]

"... as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions," Obama said. "It does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law, that's legal."

I find that interesting because he called out users specifically and makes no mention of Washington's plan to set up dispensaries. As pointed out already he's gone after medical pot dispensaries so it could be that's the plan - wait until dispensaries are set up and go after them.

And if anyone thinks the federal government currently worries about people possessing 1oz or less of pot then you're wrong. Feds go after traffickers and dealers. This isn't really a change from what is already happening in other states.

[pbc2003]

Others have pointed it out, but I think Obama purposely said users and didn't say anything about dispensaries. I think the Federal Gov. has cracked down on "legal" dispensaries more during Obama's presidency than any other. We'll see what happens.

[TIMB0B]

[TIMB0B]

[Sancho]

It does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law, that's legal."

so, are you saying you want the feds to do the jobs of the local and state law enforcement in these two states?

I am saying the Fed's policy should be no different in WA and CO as it is anywhere else.

[SpankyNek]

I don't think it is different...when's the last time the Feds went after recreational users?

[Aurora]

I would not put too much stock in the feds not going after these establishments and states, look at people in CA facing federal charges for running medicinal establishments (legal there) and the fed says **** you

[SoonerLibertarian]

I would not put too much stock in the feds not going after these establishments and states, look at people in CA facing federal charges for running medicinal establishments (legal there) and the fed says **** you

They say they won't go after users, but they haven't really said anything about going after establishments. In the end when you go after either dealers or any other dispensaries of drugs you are going after the users.

[Sancho]

I don't think it is different...when's the last time the Feds went after recreational users?

Valid point. I guess his phrasing of it rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, he said as though it were an option to treat states differently. As though that is something the president decides.

[zevogolf]

http://newsok.com/obama-wont-go-afte...le/feed/475633

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the federal government won't go after recreational marijuana use in Washington state and Colorado, where voters have legalized it.

In a Barbara Walters interview airing Friday on ABC, Obama was asked whether he supports making pot legal.
"I wouldn't go that far," Obama replied. "But what I think is that, at this point, Washington and Colorado, you've seen the voters speak on this issue."
But the president said he won't pursue the issue in the two states where voters legalized the use of marijuana in the November elections. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
"... as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions," Obama said. "It does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law, that's legal."
Marijuana officially became legal in Washington state and Colorado this month.
The Justice Department hasn't targeted recreational marijuana users for decades. With limited resources, its focus has been to go after major drug traffickers instead.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department has said repeatedly in recent weeks that it is reviewing the legalization initiatives passed in Colorado and Washington state. The states have expressed concern that the federal government might sue over the issue. Department officials have said they are waiting to see what regulations the two states adopt to implement the initiatives.

Does hat mean that if a states population votes to ban federal taxes the SOB will leave them not come after them????