Thoughts? Opinions? I've thought of this possibility since the Obama administration said that they were not going to challenge legalization in Colorado and Washington. Who's to say that the next president won't send the DEA after the legal states? I could see it happening if a republican other than Rand Paul got elected, especially Mitt Romney if he ends up running. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6186574 All The Progress Made On Marijuana Legalization Could Vanish With A New President Matt Ferner Posted: 11/19/14 06:14 PM ET Updated: 11/19/14 11:59 PM ET The movement to end marijuana prohibition has made significant progress recently, but it could all be undone when the next president takes office in 2017. Harvard economist Jeff Miron, a vocal supporter of marijuana policy reform, highlighted the precarious nature of state marijuana laws in a Wednesday op-ed for CNN on why Congress needs to act now on federal marijuana policy. "Despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured," Miron wrote. "Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law." With marijuana legalization supported by a majority of Americans, and with states continuing to pass legalization laws -- about a dozen more may do so by 2016 -- it seems unlikely that the federal government would push back against the popular movement. But it's not impossible. That's because the regulation of marijuana -- as seen in programs currently in place in Colorado and Washington state, as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon, Alaska and Washington, D.C. -- remains illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana have only been able to do so because of federal guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations. That guidance could be reversed when a new administration enters the White House. “Both Miron's analysis and conclusion are spot on," Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post. "The federal government needs to end the failed prohibition of marijuana by rescheduling or removing it from the list of controlled substances. Too many lives are ruined and futures cut short by these outdated and wasteful policies.†Blumenauer is just one of a number of lawmakers from both parties who have worked toward that end. About a dozen bills were introduced in 2013, several by Blumenauer himself, aimed at limiting the federal government's ability to interfere with states' legal marijuana programs. Last year, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, which would direct the U.S. Attorney General to issue an order that removes marijuana in any form from all schedules of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. If passed, Polis' measure would effectively end the federal government's prohibition of marijuana. And while Congress has failed to pass any of those bills, attitudes are still changing rapidly on marijuana policy. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said he remains cautiously optimistic about marijuana legalization being here to stay, despite Congress' tendency to move slowly on controversial social issues like this. "It's all political," Nadelmann told HuffPost in an email. "Of course it's possible that the next president could decide to crack down on the states that have legalized marijuana but that prospect becomes ever less likely with every passing day." "Diverse sectors of society are developing a stake in marijuana remaining legal," he continued. "Taxpayers and tax collectors enjoy the revenue. Cost cutters appreciate the savings from no longer arresting so many people for marijuana. Unions welcome the new legal jobs. Businessmen, including many who vote Republican, relish the actual and potential profits." In a similar vein, Blumenauer himself has predicted that before the end of the decade, the federal government will legalize weed. Federal authorities have already allowed Colorado's and Washington's historic marijuana laws to take effect, and earlier this year, President Barack Obama signed the 2014 farm bill, which legalized industrial hemp production for research purposes in the states that permit it. The first hemp crops in U.S. soil in decades are already growing. Moreover, in May, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed bipartisan measures aimed at limiting Drug Enforcement Administration crackdowns on state-legal medical marijuana shops, and at preventing the agency from interfering in states' legal hemp programs. Even in gridlocked Washington, the Democratic White House and the Republican-heavy Congress have been able to see eye-to-eye over how criminal justice and drug policy reform will be implemented in the next two years. So what do some of the likely 2016 presidential candidates say about marijuana? On the Republican side, according to HuffPost's Pollster model, the front-runners are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Paul has been supportive of D.C.'s new recreational marijuana law, and he's also introduced legislation aimed at protecting state-legal medical marijuana operations from federal intervention. Huckabee, meanwhile, is opposed to both medical and recreational marijuana, and Bush came out against Florida's recent medical marijuana bill. At the same time, Bush has made generally supportive comments about keeping the federal government out of state marijuana laws. On the Democratic side, the current front-runners are former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). While Clinton hasn't offered a full-throated endorsement of marijuana legalization, she has left the door open, saying she supports medical marijuana "for people who are in extreme medical conditions." She's also said she wants to "wait and see" how recreational pot works out in Colorado and Washington state. Biden has called legalization a "mistake" in the past, but he's also said that cracking down on marijuana users is a "waste of our resources." Warren has offered some support for medical marijuana legalization, but is opposed to recreational legalization. "For 77 years, the United States has outlawed marijuana, with tragic repercussions and unintended consequences," Miron wrote Wednesday. "The public and their state governments are on track to rectify this terrible policy. Here's hoping Congress catches up." Read Miron's entire editorial here.
Mitt Romney needs to F off big time. I do feel like this is an issue. When Ronald Reagan took over office from Jimmy Carter, there were harsher laws implemented towards controlled substances.
Yeah I've read about that. So it would be like history is repeating itself if the new president was to crack down. I really hope that doesn't happen! We've come so much further in policy reform now than we did back when carter was president!
Mitt implied during an interview on the campaign in 2012 that legalization wouldn't come up during this term and he wanted to talk about "important topics" I'll remember that if Mitt runs this time, and make sure everyone knows that he is clearly out of touch...cuz guess what, legalization hit the white house desk during this term, and its...kinda important... \\o/ Huckabee thinks hes gonna be the next "hillbilly in the white house" but the fact is, hes a joke...Honestly I would vote for Hillary but thats primarily cuz I know that the causes she and I disagree on are things she would have no real greater impact on as president...
If a president repealed all of the progress that happened, trust a lot of people would be protesting and blowing shit up. Basically, I don't think anyone would be that stupid to do that especially if it's in the stage where many states are now legal/medical/decriminalized.
Guys I don't think you're quite aware of what's going on RIGHT NOW: Oklahoma and Nebraska are taking ALL legal weed to the Supreme Court (edit: they're really only focusing on recreational pot but the decision WILL affect all legal weed!) who will have NO CHOICE but to overturn ALL LEGAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION AND CULTIVATION because THAT IS THE LAW! You do realize that legal marijuana distribution and cultivation in the US IS NOT ACTUALLY LEGAL AT ALL, WHATSOEVER right? So says a 2005 court case, as stated in OP's original post. All it takes to destroy legal marijuana forever until rescheduling/descheduling on the CSA is a nationally-affected high court decision and quite honestly, I can't believe this all took over 15 years to start happening! There is one thing the courts CANNOT do, however, and that is stop states from legalizing the POSSESSION of marijuana. That is a state's absolute right I believe according to attorneys here in California who deal in our medical marijuana law Proposition 215 and the accompanying Senate Bill 420 which legalized dispensaries amongst doing some other things (SB**420**????! oh yeah, we have a very cool politician somewhere here LOL!!!!!).
So basically unless Congress wants to deschedule marijuana our only hope if the SCOTUS invalidates distribution and cultivation is that states have the right to legalize the *black market* marijuana trade! Imagine that... Ain't gonna happen cause we all know drug dealers are universally rapist, pedophile, Satan-worshipping, childhood-addiction-creating monsters from the bottom of the 9 pits of Hell and that truly NOTHING is more evil and scandalous than selling drugs. Sorry to break from sarcasm here but my BOTTOM-FUCKING-LINE(TM) position on that one is that the distribution of a drug CANNOT be any worse than the consumption of said drug/s. Edit: Sorry for posting two posts in a row but honestly my moderator friends don't you think it's important to keep up with the reading? As in, it's not a good idea to edit in new information into somewhat old posts as people have already read them and likely will miss the update. Amirite? I do, I want to point out, try to minimize that, as you can clearly see from all the edits in these two posts (and yes, this is a separate one from where this post's started two paragraphs up...).
I saw an interview from him back in 2012 and he said that he believes marijuana is bad and is a gateway drug and leads into the drug lifestyle, so he said that he was going to fight against pot tooth and nail if he got elected, so it wouldn't be good if he became president
Yeah, I'm always trying to find the latest news on this lawsuit and lots of articles said that it would have an impact on other medical or recreational states if they rule in favor of Oklahoma and Nebraska. I just hope the Supreme Court doesn't rule in their favor and that Colorado puts up a good fight in court.
It'd be hilarious if it backfired and the supreme court ruled marijuana being illegal as unconstitutional.
Speaking of ruling marijuana prohibition unconstitutional there is ANOTHER court case going through the federal courts that will quite potentially lead to at least legal medical marijuana on the federal level! Arguments are being made virtually as we type. Edit: I don't have precise info for you but the case involves a man who was distributing medical marijuana and the judge has granted his motion to challenge the illegality of marijuana on the basis of some kind of constitutionally involved incorrect scheduling on the Controlled Substances Act. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that marijuana isn't as dangerous as heroin and has medical value.
You are very much correct that being anti-pot to the point of disrupting or invalidating the progress that's been made is becoming more and more of a political liability every day. Republicans are waking up to the marijuana majority. They agreed to defund the DEA for medical raids and perhaps in another 50 years or so they will warm up to recreational use as well because when you view it from the angle of harm reduction in regards to the damage alcohol causes on society it's pretty hard to argue against recreational legalization. ESPECIALLY when you consider that their only real point against it is DUI and the research holds quite firmly that when legal weed becomes available people tend to drink less alcohol and, despite potentially driving under the influence of pot (and we're talking about drunk drivers here so you better believe they're driving stoned too!), there is a statistically significant decline in fatal DUI incidents. Oh, and we also have data from Colorado that it's not armageddon on the freeways or in ANY OTHER SERNSE and whatnot like the daft idiot police told us it would be.
He/she can certainly try to prohibit it, but it's already at the point where millions of people throughout the country already support it. We have legal states now selling weed, does the federal government really think they can stop this? It's NOT gonna happen. Legalization is happening. It will just take a little more time for all the dominoes to fall into place. Once all the brain dead politicians who think weed is bad die off, the younger generation will step in and sort this out. Just a matter of time!
The Feds can't force state's LEO to enforce federal law. So if the Federal government wants to swoop into all of the states with medical/recreational markets, they have to use their own resources. This bunch of keystone cops can't even deal with border and transportation security, cartels and organized crime, and all of the other real problems that they face. They won't get any help from our do-nothing congress either. Fuck 'em. And if it's a big worry, grow your own.
A prez can't just repeal state law, but what he can do is step up enforcement of federal prohibition which apparently overrides state law (which is unconstitutional, federal law overriding state law on this matter)
Technically pot isn't legal federally, so i don't see how a new president could affect it that much. Legal marijuana has made too much progress, I doubt it'll be stopped
I think the main problem is that no matter what President Obama personally thinks, he doesn't want the only thing he is remembered for to be "it was the first black President who legalized pot!!" No Politician or President wants to be seen as pro-pot. They want to keep the illusion going that they are perfect church going, respectable family men. Most of the guys in charge are older, have been anti-pot for decades, and they might even believe the anti-pot BS - they've been hearing it and repeating it for their whole lives. There also has been lots of money made from prosecuting marijuana use - policing, seizing property, lawyers fees, and jailing. Political donations influence policy more than hippy protesters.