10 ms·

In California, It’s U.S. vs. State Over Marijuana

71 points by ghshephard 14y ago

ghshephard 14y ago
More prosecutorial shady behavior by the federal government. Here they are prosecuting someone who did everything above-board and in accordance with state law, after the president has made it clear that this type of prosecution should be low priority.
tsotha 14y ago
That argument was settled pretty decisively in 1864.
nestlequ1k 14y ago
Looking forward to another 4 more years of this "hope and change". For the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame Republicans for this one. If we can't trust Obama to take rational positions on such clear cut issues, who can we trust?
- r00fus 14y ago
  You knew the fix was in when he failed to clean out the US Atty's - as most presidents do on inauguration, and put a slate of good, competent replacements in place. So you have Bushite US Attys, and an AG (and President) who have been hostile to State sanctioned MJ.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Most of the USA and AUSA that I hate were actually appointed by Obama.
    - greenyoda 14y ago
      In fact, Carmen Ortiz, who prosecuted Aaron Swartz, was an Obama appointee (2009). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz
  - hachiya 14y ago
    The US Attorney prosecuting the case is Benjamin Wagner, appointed by Obama, as stated in the article.
- cloudwalking 14y ago
  While I agree that pot should be legal, I don't think this is a clear-cut issue. The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce Congress's laws. Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this. Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    For better or worse, he can change the law with an Executive Order that will last the rest of his term.
  - iandanforth 14y ago
    The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad. It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily outlaw substances within any and all states. This is why it required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. Given a traditional legal precedent and a strict-interpretation court the President has both the grounds to deem certain provisions of the law unconstitutional and the belief that that would be upheld by the court. Those are the only two tests he needs to pass to refuse to enforce a portion or all of the law. Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State... Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions: http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
    - jrs235 14y ago
      Correct. And if Congress members wish to "sign their retirement letters" by impeaching him over the matter, they have that check/tool in their pockets and at their disposal.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- betterunix 14y ago
  We can, however, blame Obamacare. To be clear, I do actually support universal health care. The Obama administration, however, made a deal with the pharmaceutical company to win their support for the law, one that involved increased crackdowns on medical marijuana and illegal drug imports, and various other moves that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.
blahedo 14y ago
As much as I support marijuana legalisation, I'm always puzzled at the righteous anger summoned against the federal government for prosecutions like this---how dare they, when the states have said it's legal! The problem is, that argument is an extremely shady one, with an extremely sketchy past. I currently live in a state (Virginia) where, faced with the Brown v Board ruling in the 60s, many counties just defunded their public schools entirely and funneled the money to "private" academies for white kids, with the state's blessing. The movement was called "Massive Resistance". Several other states across the South had other policies that were not permitted to stand when they conflicted with the federal government. Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of "when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Federalism is a shady argument? And Obama came in saying he wouldn't do exactly this? I don't see any reason to be to not be outraged about it.
- netcan 14y ago
  You can never completely separate the meta-argument about who should make rules & how from your feelings about the rules themselves. People's minds (unless specially trained and disciplined) just don't work like that.
- iandanforth 14y ago
  This is a very cynical viewpoint. It speaks well of people when they are surprised by indifference and slavish obedience to the letter of the law. It also speaks well of people when they are outraged by things they think are wrong. It's easy to call people who are surprised and outraged naive, but I would argue that without that naivete change is less likely to occur. Cynicism, in my experience, breeds apathy.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  The primary error in this line of thinking is to draw parallels between a racial issue and a drug issue. In the case of the racial issue, the federal government was acting on the behalf of a portion of its citizenry, and against the will of a smaller portion of citizens; in this case the federal government would find itself on the right side of history. In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history. Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own merits. That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue; rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the interests of some demographic group of victims.
rmc 14y ago
Maybe it's the EU citizen in me, but I just done understand how this is possible? Isn't it legal in that state? So how can you face jail time? It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of state law then? Can someone explain this like I'm 5?
- nessus42 14y ago
  Federal law overrides State law, just as State law overrides county law, which overrides city or town law. In this case, one would think the Federal government would have more important laws to enforce.
- chc 14y ago
  There are many legal systems that operate in any given area. The federal government has its laws, your state has its laws, and then your county and city have their say too. Very often these laws match pretty well (either the lower jurisdiction implements compatible laws or they just leave it up to the feds), but sometimes there is conflict. The state and federal line is the brightest, as prosecution of federal crimes goes through different channels than the prosecution of state-level crimes. There is some debate as to whether federal or state laws should take precedence here, though the argument is kind of academic, as it's obvious the federal government wins in real life. From a constitutional standpoint, there's a decent case for the state's laws superseding the federal, but I mean, the state can't really stop the feds from arresting people for breaking federal law.
- allerratio 14y ago
  Federal law breaks state law. It's the same in federal countries of the EU. In Germany for example there are several laws where federal law overrides state law. For example the [Constitution of Hesse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hesse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hesse) allows death sentences but is overruled by the German Constitution (the "Grundgesetz")
  - arethuza 14y ago
millstone 14y ago
The article refers to Davies's "seizing on what he saw as uncharted territory with a vast potential for profits." This is damning if true: California dispensaries are required to be non-profit. If Davies really did seek "large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana", as the prosecuting attorney alleges, then he is in violation of both state and federal law. If he did not seek such profits, then he may indeed be in compliance with state law.
- jimktrains2 14y ago
  Not really. IIRC he can pay himself a nice salary, he just needs to invest the rest of the revenue back into the business.
davidw 14y ago
Could we keep marijuana politics discussions elsewhere, please? This is one of those hotbutton issues that starts to dull the focus and quality of a site like this.
- josephlord 14y ago
  I think there probably are issues in this case that feel quite relevant here this week like federal prosecutorial discretion and the means by which plea bargains are achieved.
  - davidw 14y ago
    So because something is tangentially related to something else here, it's cool, right? Like since Aaron was Jewish, Israeli politics would fly too? I disagree and think that "7 degrees of hacker news" is a fun game but should not seriously be considered a serious or legitimate reason to include some or other article.
    - josephlord 14y ago
      I didn't say it was cool but that many people may have felt it was relevant for that reason. At times over the weekend the front page was 75% Aaron related so there are clearly large numbers of people with very strong feelings that his case is important. There is also a strong feeling that prosecutorial conduct was a significant factor in his death making this story potentially relevant. I haven't seen anyone suggesting Israeli politics was in any way related to his death. Personally I neither upvoted this story or downvoted your comment but the fact that this story is on the front page and your comment has been downvoted may indicate that others (shockingly) have different views to yourself and I remind you of the submissions/comments guidelines: > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
      - 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
caf 14y ago
You would hope that, if it's true that this business was compliant with letter and spirit of the State law, the California States Attorney would make a polite request to their Federal counterpart asking that the case be dropped as not in the public interest. If they don't, it seems like the State is hanging him out to dry.

71 points by ghshephard 14y ago

More prosecutorial shady behavior by the federal government. Here they are prosecuting someone who did everything above-board and in accordance with state law, after the president has made it clear that this type of prosecution should be low priority.

tsotha 14y ago

That argument was settled pretty decisively in 1864.

nestlequ1k 14y ago

Looking forward to another 4 more years of this "hope and change". For the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame Republicans for this one. If we can't trust Obama to take rational positions on such clear cut issues, who can we trust?

r00fus 14y ago
You knew the fix was in when he failed to clean out the US Atty's - as most presidents do on inauguration, and put a slate of good, competent replacements in place. So you have Bushite US Attys, and an AG (and President) who have been hostile to State sanctioned MJ.
- rdl 14y ago
  Most of the USA and AUSA that I hate were actually appointed by Obama.
  - greenyoda 14y ago
    In fact, Carmen Ortiz, who prosecuted Aaron Swartz, was an Obama appointee (2009). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz
- hachiya 14y ago
  The US Attorney prosecuting the case is Benjamin Wagner, appointed by Obama, as stated in the article.
cloudwalking 14y ago
While I agree that pot should be legal, I don't think this is a clear-cut issue. The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce Congress's laws. Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this. Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.
- rhizome 14y ago
  For better or worse, he can change the law with an Executive Order that will last the rest of his term.
- iandanforth 14y ago
  The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad. It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily outlaw substances within any and all states. This is why it required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. Given a traditional legal precedent and a strict-interpretation court the President has both the grounds to deem certain provisions of the law unconstitutional and the belief that that would be upheld by the court. Those are the only two tests he needs to pass to refuse to enforce a portion or all of the law. Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State... Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions: http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
  - jrs235 14y ago
    Correct. And if Congress members wish to "sign their retirement letters" by impeaching him over the matter, they have that check/tool in their pockets and at their disposal.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
betterunix 14y ago
We can, however, blame Obamacare. To be clear, I do actually support universal health care. The Obama administration, however, made a deal with the pharmaceutical company to win their support for the law, one that involved increased crackdowns on medical marijuana and illegal drug imports, and various other moves that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.

blahedo 14y ago

As much as I support marijuana legalisation, I'm always puzzled at the righteous anger summoned against the federal government for prosecutions like this---how dare they, when the states have said it's legal! The problem is, that argument is an extremely shady one, with an extremely sketchy past. I currently live in a state (Virginia) where, faced with the Brown v Board ruling in the 60s, many counties just defunded their public schools entirely and funneled the money to "private" academies for white kids, with the state's blessing. The movement was called "Massive Resistance". Several other states across the South had other policies that were not permitted to stand when they conflicted with the federal government. Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of "when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
Federalism is a shady argument? And Obama came in saying he wouldn't do exactly this? I don't see any reason to be to not be outraged about it.
netcan 14y ago
You can never completely separate the meta-argument about who should make rules & how from your feelings about the rules themselves. People's minds (unless specially trained and disciplined) just don't work like that.
iandanforth 14y ago
This is a very cynical viewpoint. It speaks well of people when they are surprised by indifference and slavish obedience to the letter of the law. It also speaks well of people when they are outraged by things they think are wrong. It's easy to call people who are surprised and outraged naive, but I would argue that without that naivete change is less likely to occur. Cynicism, in my experience, breeds apathy.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
The primary error in this line of thinking is to draw parallels between a racial issue and a drug issue. In the case of the racial issue, the federal government was acting on the behalf of a portion of its citizenry, and against the will of a smaller portion of citizens; in this case the federal government would find itself on the right side of history. In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history. Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own merits. That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue; rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the interests of some demographic group of victims.

rmc 14y ago

Maybe it's the EU citizen in me, but I just done understand how this is possible? Isn't it legal in that state? So how can you face jail time? It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of state law then? Can someone explain this like I'm 5?

nessus42 14y ago
Federal law overrides State law, just as State law overrides county law, which overrides city or town law. In this case, one would think the Federal government would have more important laws to enforce.
chc 14y ago
There are many legal systems that operate in any given area. The federal government has its laws, your state has its laws, and then your county and city have their say too. Very often these laws match pretty well (either the lower jurisdiction implements compatible laws or they just leave it up to the feds), but sometimes there is conflict. The state and federal line is the brightest, as prosecution of federal crimes goes through different channels than the prosecution of state-level crimes. There is some debate as to whether federal or state laws should take precedence here, though the argument is kind of academic, as it's obvious the federal government wins in real life. From a constitutional standpoint, there's a decent case for the state's laws superseding the federal, but I mean, the state can't really stop the feds from arresting people for breaking federal law.
allerratio 14y ago
Federal law breaks state law. It's the same in federal countries of the EU. In Germany for example there are several laws where federal law overrides state law. For example the [Constitution of Hesse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hesse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hesse) allows death sentences but is overruled by the German Constitution (the "Grundgesetz")
- arethuza 14y ago

millstone 14y ago

The article refers to Davies's "seizing on what he saw as uncharted territory with a vast potential for profits." This is damning if true: California dispensaries are required to be non-profit. If Davies really did seek "large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana", as the prosecuting attorney alleges, then he is in violation of both state and federal law. If he did not seek such profits, then he may indeed be in compliance with state law.

jimktrains2 14y ago
Not really. IIRC he can pay himself a nice salary, he just needs to invest the rest of the revenue back into the business.

davidw 14y ago

Could we keep marijuana politics discussions elsewhere, please? This is one of those hotbutton issues that starts to dull the focus and quality of a site like this.

josephlord 14y ago
I think there probably are issues in this case that feel quite relevant here this week like federal prosecutorial discretion and the means by which plea bargains are achieved.
- davidw 14y ago
  So because something is tangentially related to something else here, it's cool, right? Like since Aaron was Jewish, Israeli politics would fly too? I disagree and think that "7 degrees of hacker news" is a fun game but should not seriously be considered a serious or legitimate reason to include some or other article.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    I didn't say it was cool but that many people may have felt it was relevant for that reason. At times over the weekend the front page was 75% Aaron related so there are clearly large numbers of people with very strong feelings that his case is important. There is also a strong feeling that prosecutorial conduct was a significant factor in his death making this story potentially relevant. I haven't seen anyone suggesting Israeli politics was in any way related to his death. Personally I neither upvoted this story or downvoted your comment but the fact that this story is on the front page and your comment has been downvoted may indicate that others (shockingly) have different views to yourself and I remind you of the submissions/comments guidelines: > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
    - 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

caf 14y ago

You would hope that, if it's true that this business was compliant with letter and spirit of the State law, the California States Attorney would make a polite request to their Federal counterpart asking that the case be dropped as not in the public interest. If they don't, it seems like the State is hanging him out to dry.