• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

US Justice Department won't oppose state laws for cannabis regulation

Migrated topic.
Vodsel

Vodsel

Rising Star
Senior Member
OG Pioneer
Senior member
Source: USDOJ
Publication Date: August 29, 2013

US Federal Government will not oppose the state laws regulating medicinal and recreational use of cannabis, as long as these laws do not contravene the new priorities announced in federal policies for possession and traffic of cannabis (see source link for the memo).

The new policies underline the need to forbid cannabis sale to minors, to avoid its acquisition by drug traffickers, and to prevent legal cannabis being distributed in states where its sale is not allowed.

For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department’s guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time.
Click to expand...
 
What are the 8 guidelines? i haven't seen them all listed anywhere.

I too am tapering. Impossible to do dream work if i smoke at night.

I was in washington recently, crazy. Everyone i met had a grow op. Old men sitting around talking about how many lights they had going, expansion, hydro vs soil ect. The whole while smoking all sorts. One guy had 34 strains in his collection (mothers)
 
armbarsalot said:
What are the 8 guidelines? i haven't seen them all listed anywhere.
Click to expand...
In the memo you can find linked in the source. Here for quicker access (PDF).

Basically,

1. No selling to minors,
2. Preventing revenue from going to criminal enterprise,
3. No diversion of marijuana to states where it's illegal,
4. No use of marijuana legal activity to cover trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activities,
5. Prevent violence and use of firearms in cultivation and distribution,
6. Prevent drug driving and "exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences"
7. Prevent cultivation in public lands,
8. No possession or use in federal property.
 
I don't live in Colorado or Washington.

My state will not decide to go legal, because we lack ballot initiatives; I feel I am being denied my rights as a person/citizen.

We don't pay the police to kick in people's doors and rip apart families for alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine- each of which have killed more people than Cannabis and/or Cannabis concentrates.

Occasions seem really rare that we force adults into drug courts due to alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.
 

Attachments

  • Guidance+Regarding+Marijuana+Enforcement+Memorandum+for+All+US+Attorneys+August+29%2C+2013.pdf
    525.9 KB · Views: 0
Sorry to resurrect an older thread but this seemed nice to connect with a comment on the more recent DEA raids on Colorado's legal cannabis dispensaries.
Lots of news accounts exist. This is just one.
www.denverpost.com

Feds raid Denver-area marijuana dispensaries, grow operations, 2 homes

Feds raid Denver-area marijuana dispensaries, grow operations, 2 homes
www.denverpost.com www.denverpost.com
Anticipate similar things to continue.

I personally agree with Jonathan Ott that cannabis does not need to be legalized and that in many ways the notion of legalization is a tactical error, or at least that is true in a commonlaw system like the USA where the action of legalization grants power to the government that it is not due.
At no point in the Consitution was Congress given the power to illegalize drugs or to grant us their approval of drugs, those actions are taken on by themselves. Compelling interest is supposed to be demonstrated prior to taking away rights and liberties from the public.
Maybe I'm splitting some hairs here but Cannabis is a plant and from its earliest beginnings was always legal outside of a few intervals of time when humans made it illegal - such as is the case now. Congress certainly had the ability to make it illegal but at no point did they actually demonstrate that they had the right to deprive people of it and this not so subtle point should be called out.
The law needs to be repealed as it is the law and earlier actions of Congress that needs to be judged in error and corrected. To become once again legal Cannabis does not require being legalized, it just requires the prohibition to be overturned.
The word Repeal seems like a far better choice to bring into our vocabularies than Legalize. At least in the USA. In countries which do not have commonlaw legal systems this is all likely to be irrelevant.

Just my two cents' worth anyway.
 
^ and a great pair of cents.

lots of thoughtful people in my country ask for decriminalisation instead of legalization. Although I am okay with legal market regulation if need be, as long as no one tells me what I can grow or not for personal use.
 
Back
Top Bottom