Cannabis

[ctchandler]

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.

[mugofbeer]

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.

[ctchandler]

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.

[ctchandler]

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]

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).

[jerrywall]

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?

[Bunty]

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.

[BBatesokc]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Eric]

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.

[hoya]

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

I see what you did there.

[ctchandler]

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.

[SSEiYah]

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]

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.

[BBatesokc]

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 have a problem with that statement as far as outlining their discretion in a formal written policy. But, I also don't have a problem when the DOJ does it. It's clear that that policy is subjective and reversible at any time. So, it doesn't really mean much going forward.

But I think it also shows that laws are subject to interpretation and societal norms. A written policy of discretion on certain topics simply acknowledges this while the powers that be figure out what they are going to do on a more permanent basis.

Had states not ignored the federal law and moved forward, then obviously we certainly wouldn't have states with legalized marijuana sales. Like I've said before, I'm a big fan of civil disobedience and individuals or states ignoring the law if they are willing to deal with the consequences. Our history is littered with the positive effects of such actions.

[TheTravellers]

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.

Discretion is embedded in every aspect of our justice system, starting from when the cop decides whether or not to turn his lights on and go after the red-light-runner to the plea deals being cut to when the final gavel falls in the courtroom (or the equivalent of those scenarios), whether it be local, city, county, state, or federal. If there was no discretion and all laws were enforced, our entire society would grind to a halt in probably less than a day.

[jerrywall]

Is a blanket statement from the AG giving individuals discretion, or is it removing it and declaring a federal policy that a law won't be enforced at all? Fine with prosecutors looking at a specific case and using discretion but that's different than declaring as a blanket rule a law won't be enforced in certain states.

[Bunty]

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.

I think most of the hard core opposition as well as hard core support will be the 60 plus age group. I tend to doubt younger people like from the late teens through the 20s will care enough to vote for it one way or the other in good numbers.

[jerrywall]

I think most of the hard core opposition as well as hard core support will be the 60 plus age group. I tend to doubt younger people like from the late teens through the 20s will care enough to vote for it one way or the other in good numbers.

Apathy is the biggest enemy to this passing.

[bchris02]

I think most of the hard core opposition as well as hard core support will be the 60 plus age group. I tend to doubt younger people like from the late teens through the 20s will care enough to vote for it one way or the other in good numbers.

Especially given that its going to be in June and not on the November ballot. I am certain the reason why it was moved up to June is that the powers that be think it will be less likely to pass.

[BBatesokc]

Is a blanket statement from the AG giving individuals discretion, or is it removing it and declaring a federal policy that a law won't be enforced at all? Fine with prosecutors looking at a specific case and using discretion but that's different than declaring as a blanket rule a law won't be enforced in certain states.

I get where you are going. But I also take into account the implications of policy versus law. These policies of turning a blind eye can be rescinded at any time and without warning. That would cause chaos - in this case I'd be for it as I think it would result in actual changes in the federal law. Individuals and businesses that decide to invest millions (billions) into this federally illegal industry know the risk they are taking. I also see the benefit of the federal gov't taking a 'lets wait and see approach.' If legalization proves to be disastrous then the federal gov't will step up enforcement. If legalization seems to work and be overwhelmingly popular, then I see changes in the federal law. I personally prefer this 'wait and see' approach as opposed to a knee jerk reaction either way.

[barrettd]

Especially given that its going to be in June and not on the November ballot. I am certain the reason why it was moved up to June is that the powers that be think it will be less likely to pass.

Sounds like they (Fallin) were more concerned about a large Democrat turnout in the general election and thereby winning back the Governor's office. I agree with jerry, though. I hope people get out and vote on this measure, in particular.

[pw405]

Sounds like they (Fallin) were more concerned about a large Democrat turnout in the general election and thereby winning back the Governor's office. I agree with jerry, though. I hope people get out and vote on this measure, in particular.

Spread the word! Contact old friends, relatives, anybody!! With this happening in a primary of a non general election year, every vote will count! I would hate to lose this by a few hundred votes! I can promise you this - anybody who has ever known me is going to be absolutely sick of hearing me talk about it until voting day. Make sure young folks register!!

[Bunty]

Especially given that its going to be in June and not on the November ballot. I am certain the reason why it was moved up to June is that the powers that be think it will be less likely to pass.

I think Republicans also were afraid that too many people wanting to vote YES for medical marijuana in November would more likely vote for Democrats then.