3 ms·

"He's charged with the faithful execution of the laws, not their interpretation." In practice, though, the executive can pick and choose enforcement priorities

"He's charged with the faithful execution of the laws, not their interpretation." In practice, though, the executive can pick and choose enforcement priorities. Case in point: the DEA ramped up the effort against medical marijuana in California after the Obama administration made a deal with the pharmaceutical lobby, to win support for the Affordable Care Act. Within two years, the Obama administration's DEA had raided more medical marijuana dispensaries than the previous administration had in all eight years. Virginia recently overturned its law that forbade unmarried opposite-sex couples from living together. Nobody had been prosecuted under that law in many years (at least not as far as anyone knows), and only one person had been threatened with prosecution. The police in Virginia certainly know that unmarried couples are living together and having sex with each other; they just have other laws they are busy enforcing. The idea that the law must be enforced without any exceptions or leniency is the sort of far-right, law-and-order thinking that has turned America into the world leader in imprisonment.

anigbrowl 14y ago
Do please cite evidence for this claim about the Affordable Care Act. I've been a long-time advocate for MMJ and have lobbied for it in front of county lawmakers, and I don't find this very credible. Also, your claim implicitly assumes that the number of dispensaries was static, when it was anything but. Your misrepresenting my position on law enforcement; I pointed out a critical logical flaw in the OP, which is the idea that the rule of lenity applies to law enforcement. It is a specifically judicial concept.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "Do please cite evidence for this claim about the Affordable Care Act. I've been a long-time advocate for MMJ and have lobbied for it in front of county lawmakers, and I don't find this very credible" Is the combination of the administration's dealings with the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying group, PhRMA, and the fact that during the same period of time that those deals were being made the administration became more aggressive on marijuana raids, count? https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-obamas-deal-with-industry-on-health-care.html?pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-revea... http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer/singlepage Unfortunately, the extent of the administration's deal-making with the pharmaceutical lobby remains undisclosed. Why the public has not been given access to their emails is anyone's guess (I suspect most people would guess the same thing). Maybe in a few decades, when the full details of this administration's activities become public knowledge (assuming such things even happen), we can figure out if the simplest answer -- that the administration attacked marijuana in a quid-pro-quo with PhRMA -- is indeed the correct answer. "Also, your claim implicitly assumes that the number of dispensaries was static, when it was anything but." Are you actually claiming that nearly overnight, the number of medical marijuana dispensaries increased by more than a factor of four? That somehow, the number of suppliers in California simple increased by pure coincidence in 2009? This administration has been one of the most aggressively anti-drug-law-reform administrations in the history of the war on drugs. The President has publicly (and falsely) stated that it is up to Congress to legalize marijuana. He falsely claimed that he would suspend raids once he ejected Bush administration holdovers from top DEA positions, only to appoint Bush administration holdovers to those positions and increase the number of raids.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    No. That's a post hoc fallacy, or as it is commonly referred to around here: 'correlation does not prove causation.' And yes, the number of dispensaries did shoot up in a relatively short period. Los Angeles in particular turned into a free-for-all, with estimates of up to 1000 operating in LA county at one point, much to the chagrin of the NorCal MMJ community that has been pushing for legalization. Indeed, all the legal and industry advisers at Oakland's Oaksterdam University (of which I am a graduate) predicted in advance that the LA dispensary gold rush was on a collision course with the LA county authorities, which is exactly what happened. And while the feds conducted investigations up here in Norther California, it's worth bearing in mind that they didn't actually shut anything down - Oaksterdam university is still taking students, major dispensaries like Harborside remain open and so on. If you look at the record of small dispensaries shut down in Northern California (where I live and pay more attention) you'll see that in almost every case it involved weapons charges or non-payment of taxes. This administration has been one of the most aggressively anti-drug-law-reform administrations in the history of the war on drugs. Yeah, just look at the abolition of the crack sentencing disparity. The President has publicly (and falsely) stated that it is up to Congress to legalize marijuana. This is correct. The President can direct the surgeon general to reconsider a drug's scheduling, but a great many substances (including marijuana) are explicitly proscribed in federal legislation. Clearly you have an axe to grind, but I suggest you grind it a little more carefully.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Do please cite evidence for this claim about the Affordable Care Act. I've been a long-time advocate for MMJ and have lobbied for it in front of county lawmakers, and I don't find this very credible. Also, your claim implicitly assumes that the number of dispensaries was static, when it was anything but. Your misrepresenting my position on law enforcement; I pointed out a critical logical flaw in the OP, which is the idea that the rule of lenity applies to law enforcement. It is a specifically judicial concept.

betterunix 14y ago
"Do please cite evidence for this claim about the Affordable Care Act. I've been a long-time advocate for MMJ and have lobbied for it in front of county lawmakers, and I don't find this very credible" Is the combination of the administration's dealings with the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying group, PhRMA, and the fact that during the same period of time that those deals were being made the administration became more aggressive on marijuana raids, count? https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-obamas-deal-with-industry-on-health-care.html?pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-revea... http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer/singlepage Unfortunately, the extent of the administration's deal-making with the pharmaceutical lobby remains undisclosed. Why the public has not been given access to their emails is anyone's guess (I suspect most people would guess the same thing). Maybe in a few decades, when the full details of this administration's activities become public knowledge (assuming such things even happen), we can figure out if the simplest answer -- that the administration attacked marijuana in a quid-pro-quo with PhRMA -- is indeed the correct answer. "Also, your claim implicitly assumes that the number of dispensaries was static, when it was anything but." Are you actually claiming that nearly overnight, the number of medical marijuana dispensaries increased by more than a factor of four? That somehow, the number of suppliers in California simple increased by pure coincidence in 2009? This administration has been one of the most aggressively anti-drug-law-reform administrations in the history of the war on drugs. The President has publicly (and falsely) stated that it is up to Congress to legalize marijuana. He falsely claimed that he would suspend raids once he ejected Bush administration holdovers from top DEA positions, only to appoint Bush administration holdovers to those positions and increase the number of raids.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  No. That's a post hoc fallacy, or as it is commonly referred to around here: 'correlation does not prove causation.' And yes, the number of dispensaries did shoot up in a relatively short period. Los Angeles in particular turned into a free-for-all, with estimates of up to 1000 operating in LA county at one point, much to the chagrin of the NorCal MMJ community that has been pushing for legalization. Indeed, all the legal and industry advisers at Oakland's Oaksterdam University (of which I am a graduate) predicted in advance that the LA dispensary gold rush was on a collision course with the LA county authorities, which is exactly what happened. And while the feds conducted investigations up here in Norther California, it's worth bearing in mind that they didn't actually shut anything down - Oaksterdam university is still taking students, major dispensaries like Harborside remain open and so on. If you look at the record of small dispensaries shut down in Northern California (where I live and pay more attention) you'll see that in almost every case it involved weapons charges or non-payment of taxes. This administration has been one of the most aggressively anti-drug-law-reform administrations in the history of the war on drugs. Yeah, just look at the abolition of the crack sentencing disparity. The President has publicly (and falsely) stated that it is up to Congress to legalize marijuana. This is correct. The President can direct the surgeon general to reconsider a drug's scheduling, but a great many substances (including marijuana) are explicitly proscribed in federal legislation. Clearly you have an axe to grind, but I suggest you grind it a little more carefully.