white house
Attorney General Eric Holder provides Update and further Confusion on Medical Marijuana
In the wake of the recent federal raids that have shaken the medical marijuana industry, many have been expecting legal answers. Will the raids continue in California? Does this signal a shift in President Obama’s medical marijuana policy? Analysts were sure that either the president or attorney general would be engaging America directly and explaining what can be construed as a change in policy.
Unfortunately, Attorney General Eric Holder only added to the confusion in a recent session of the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO), concerned over rumors of upcoming raids in his state, tried to get Mr. Holder to clarify the White House’s stance on medical cannabis. Holder stated that those who comply with state marijuana laws “should not be an enforcement priority.” He also went on to say “If in fact people are not using the policy decision that we have made to use marijuana in a way that’s not consistent with the state statute, we will not use our limited resources in that way.” For advocates this may sound like the worst is behind them but these statements do not seem very different than Mr. Holder’s 2009 statements, which certainly did not protect against federal raids.
While there is no legal clarity presented to the public with Holder’s statements, like most legally savvy individuals who appear regularly in the media, all statements seem to have an escape clause. The attorney general makes sure to use terms like “priority” and “limited resources”. Both of these terms seem flexible and subject to change. Additionally, previous statements of this nature did nothing in preventing California federal raids. The White House seems to want everyone to know that they do not want to step on state law. Such an accusation during an election year may not serve the Obama administration well. Of course, it only makes the water more murky as we ask why are federal agents raiding establishments who are in compliance with state law, especially a state law that does not agree with federal law? Is it not true that this whole issue stems from Federal law outweighing state law? But November 2012 is not far away so such double speak is to be expected.
The recent session of the House Judiciary Committee could have provided answers, but this administration seems to thrive under a confused legal situation. With a chance to reclassify marijuana as a schedule II drug and put an end to the guessing game, our government instead opted to sit on the fence and keep everyone on their toes. Mr. Holder may get his chance to see his statements at work. If they respect state law so much we will see if they move forward with the proposed raids in Colorado. Colorado has the tightest and most regulated medical marijuana program, so respecting state law in this case may be to just simply walk away.
Whitened House Responds to Online Petition
Several days ago the Federal government setup online applications for people to provide any problem they wanted addressed through the Whitened House. Applications with 5,000 or even more votes received an answer. Marijuana reform brought with more than 75,000 votes. The Whitened House, however, did respond and indicated they’d no aim of legalizing marijuana. Clearly it was not the solution supporters were seeking but it’s unlikely their vigor will dissipate. Individuals who signed the petition were seeking legalisation of marijuana but for the authorities to prevent disturbing condition laws and regulations. Among other conditions also receiving enough votes would be a “fair tax” policy and getting rid of “In God We Trust” from your currency, each of which the Whitened House indicated they weren’t in support of.