Tags
Age Of Obama, Bob Troyer, Cory Gardner, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, obama, President Trump, Sally Yates
Dopers, Democrats, and even a few doper Republicans have emerged from a thick cloud of pot smoke, roused out of their munchy stupor by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement the executive branch of the federal government would actually enforce federal drug laws. The Washington Post, fellow travelers at least, reports:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday made it easier for U.S. prosecutors to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that had legalized the substance — drawing swift criticism from jurisdictions that have approved pot use and stirring confusion among entrepreneurs in the burgeoning billion-dollar industry.
Whether Sessions’s Justice Department actually busts dispensaries or others involved in state-approved pot production remains to be seen, but his decision to undo previous guidance and possibly put a federal crackdown on the table riled business people, legislators and civil liberties advocates across the country.
Though marijuana already was illegal under federal law, the Justice Department during the Obama administration had issued guidance — which Sessions revoked — discouraging enforcement of the law in states where it was legal.
Not quite. AG Sessions is merely adding another brick in the restoration of the rule of law wall, a wall all but dismantled during the Obama Administration. On supposes, however, that actually indicating the will to enforce rather than selectively ignore federal law might make “it easier” to enforce such laws. That such a bold and unusual initiative might rile “civil liberties advocates,” indicates an urgent need for basic civics education. After all, if one doesn’t have the right to smoke pot whenever and wherever one wishes, what other right truly matters? How can western civilization endure without such fundamental liberties?
Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) immediately demonstrated his knowledge of the Constitution and his unwavering support for the rule of law:
And in the best tradition of Sally Yates and The Resistance, Colorado’s U.S. Attorney, Bob Troyer, did likewise:
Thus do we see, gentle readers, some of the destruction wrought by the Obamites. There is no question that not every law, local, state and federal, is rigorously enforced. Law enforcers know legislators sometimes write laws just to “make a statement,” such as “we’re idiots!” There simply aren’t enough enforcers, and they must use their limited time and resources as effectively as possible. However, deciding on a national basis never to enforce an entire class of legitimately enacted and demonstrably public-safety related law doesn’t fall into the category of legitimate prioritization of enforcement resources, at least not for sane people.
After eight years of such anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law progressive politicization of justice, it would seem at least one Republican senator, and one of the small number of U.S. Attorneys have come to think enforcement of the law is not only optional, politicizing it is entirely appropriate, indeed, to be expected. Of course, Colorado has, since 2014, been shrouded in a thick haze of pot smoke, giving “Rocky Mountain High” a less ambiguous meaning. Thus one might expect this sort of effect from second hand exposure, or perhaps this is more a personal issue for those public officials? Perhaps Gardner and Troyer are not only never-Trumpers, but always-tokers? But let us move beyond such idle speculation to the promised civics primer.
Legislative (circa 2017): Our constitutional republic has three branches of government. Senator Gardner is a member of one half of the legislative branch. He, and his fellow legislators, are solely responsible for writing “laws.” In the House of Representative, if a majority approves a “bill,” say, a bill outlawing marijuana in the United States, it becomes a law. The same thing occurs in the Senate, but only with the approval of Democrats, regardless of how many Republicans vote for a bill. This is called “tradition,” and is a feature, not a bug, of the “greatest deliberative body in the world.” If you don’t believe it, gentle readers, ask the Republicans, who generally use that word and phrase to explain why they can’t pass laws even when they have a majority, and a Republican House and president. This is also called the “status quo,” which may be translated as “Democrats always rule, nyah, nyah, nyah!”
The point is, if Senator Gardner doesn’t like a given law, he and his colleagues, and only he and his colleagues, have the power to alter or repeal that law, unless of course, Democrats don’t want to.
Executive (circa 2016): Prior to the Age of Obama, it was the sole power and responsibility of the President of the United States, and those elected and appointed employees under his constitutional power, to faithfully uphold the laws passed by the Congress, the so-called “Legislative Branch.” This “Executive Branch” would include the Attorney general, the Department of Justice, and all federal agencies, including those with law enforcement powers and lots of guns, like the Department of Education and the Federal Bureau of Chicken Sexing. But during the Age of Obama, a new innovation was introduced: the President, using nothing but a pen and phone, could not only write laws, but repeal them, all the while doing absolutely nothing to actually remove them from the books! He also had no obligation to follow the Constitution, though he often claimed anyone trying to do that was actually destroying the Constitution, as well as clinging to God and guns, which was even worse, until Hillary Clinton pointed out they were deplorable too. This was an enormous leap forward for governmental efficiency, as members of the legislative branch no longer had to even pretend to do their jobs, though they routinely made a great deal of noise about what they weren’t doing but would if the president wasn’t such a poopy face who said mean things to them which kept them from doing their jobs. True, the House of Representatives had the power of the purse, but they dared not use that because Democrats would say mean things about them, and they wouldn’t get invited to parties anymore.
Judicial (circa 2017): This is a branch of somber people in black robes who “interpret” the law, which means “repeal or write any law we want, because Trump!” The function of this branch of government may also be interpreted to mean: “declaring anything President Trump does, says, thinks, or might possibly do at some point in the future is unconstitutional.” This should give judges a great deal more time to handle additional cases, but somehow, that never happens.
This has apparently confused Sen. Gardner, who as a Republican, should want judges to limit themselves to the role outlined in the Constitution. It seems, however, he’s still caught up in the glories and Chinese politburo efficiency of pen and phone government. Instead of doing his job he’s apparently decided not to let anyone else be a judge–or do any other federal job–until President Trump and Attorney General Sessions say they will never again do anything as rash as actually enforcing the laws the legislative branch has passed. For many years, Democrats controlled the entire federal government, yet never repealed the drug laws Gardner now abhors, but that doesn’t matter, because Trump!
So rather than do what legislators are supposed to do–actually do the work necessary to convince a sufficient number of Representatives and Senators to repeal federal drug laws; Democrats should like that–Senator Gardner is threatening to prevent President Trump from filling vital positions throughout the federal government, including replacing members of the DOJ and judiciary that ignore the Constitution. Sen. Gardner is actually threatening to prevent President Trump from fully restoring the rule of law, which not only would fully restore the constitutional powers of the Legislative Branch, but would also force them to honor their responsibilities…oh.
Never-Trump, Always-Toker indeed.
Reason #78433 that “Draining the Swamp” was never just about Democrats.
I have always said the people running the dispensaries and the growers are playing with old sweaty dynamite. The pot market has grown to a multi-billion dollar enterprise and big banks are now involved. And it’s all illegal. The feds could sweep in tomorrow and seize everything and the people running the show are looking at life in prison.
Congress has a duty before that happens to take a hard look at our drug laws. Personally I believe that prohibition doesn’t work, has never worked, and needs to stop. Make it all legal. The war on drugs has done nothing except bring about criminal gangs that make the kingpins of prohibition look like amateur hour.
I too agree that prohibition causes more problems than it solves. But I think it interesting that in 1919 Americans respected the Constitution enough to realize the Federal government did not have the power to regulate recreational drugs, and so passed an amendment to the Constitution to allow the Federal government to prohibit the use of recreational alcohol. Today the idea of a powerful Federal government is so ingrained that no one asks the simple question – if the Federal government didn’t have the power to regulate recreational drugs in 1917, what provision of the Constitution allows it to do so now?
To me the question of marijuana legalization is a mill pond compared to the ocean-sized question of how we get the Federal government back in its Constitutional box.
Dear Clark Carter:
My worry–one of many–is how we’d get politicians to write sufficient laws to counteract the consequences of fully legalized drugs? How to deter people from using such substances and driving, etc.?
We could have that conversation if we both lived in South Dakota, but my concern is that the Federal government has no business being involved in ordinary criminal activity such as declaring some substance contraband. If some states legalized and some states prohibited we could see which works, and then address the problem at the state level. There is no room for the Feds here.
As far as the wisdom of prohibition, our criminal system deals fairly well with crimes such as theft. If A steals B’s TV set, B complains to the government which investigates and hopefully catches and prosecutes Mr. A. If A sells B drugs, neither will complain so enforcement is much more difficult, which leads to curtailment of civil rights and a large, intrusive government. We cannot simultaneously protect citizens from bad decisions and have free citizens.
Dear Clark Carter:
Actually, I was born in SD and played police officer there as well. But I was referring to laws relating to driving while drugged, carrying serious penalties, that sort of thing.
And I was pointing out that the Federal government has no business in ordinary criminal prosecutions, whatever they may be. E.G. a law against crossing state lines with a substance is Constitutional whereas a law prosecuting a Coloradan who buys and sells in Colorado for being in the marijuana business would not be.
More importantly, I would like to thank you for not accusing me of being pro-drug or using an ad hominem attack. My brother was on the job in Baltimore for years and I grew up near NYC in the ’70s. I’ve seen the damage drugs can do and I hate it, but I think the present system of prohibition is doing more harm than good. Thank you for your great blog too and may you have many more years.
Dear Clark Carter:
No logic-less, ad hominem attacks allowed here. You’re very welcome, and thanks for taking the time to read this scruffy little blog.
Just to inject a personal anecdote – not that I’m recommending making policy only on the basis of my own experience – but in Washington State there are rules about where you establish a pot store – no closer than so many feet to a school, for example.
So in my neighborhood – Capitol Hill – there turns out to be one and only one specific corner in the middle of the local neighborhood market area – which is small to begin with – where the restriction are satisfied. No more than 100 feet in radius. And so, as soon as pot stores were “legal” 2 – count ’em, two – such stores immediately opened up across the street from each other.
And now, some months later, the entire local shopping area is ruined. Just full of stumbling intoxicated bums/riffraff/unwashed undesirables hanging around. Not just that corner. And the limited parking for the pharmacy across the street is now constantly full of cars with their engines running while one stoner goes across the street to buy dope. And traffic is up, and harassment on the street is up, and etc. etc.
My wife won’t even go there anymore. I imagine some of the “independent” stores, coffee shops, and so on, will be going out of business in the next year as “decent” (i.e., ordinary but well-off people who pay a great deal of money to live in the neighborhood) start avoiding them and their revenues decline.
The neighborhood of course can do nothing about it – state and city regulations. And I also imagine there’s a reasonable number of ordinary and well-off but idiotic people living here who actually support the “diversity” – and the pot stores too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6231161,-122.3127608,3a,88.7y,335.56h,79.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU8hPMHbiPSXJ6TwyD-DuFw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DU8hPMHbiPSXJ6TwyD-DuFw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D59.906853%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
David,
The google map seems to show a nice center of town type area. Based on your description, the pics must be older since it looks good. I would be very interested in seeing pics/video of the corner in its current state. Any chance you can post a pic or video?
The street view is a bit old. Uncle Ike’s is one of the shops – if you proceed a very short way up Republican (to the left) and then look to the left you’ll see the “Cannibis” shop which is actually the entire store there and to the right (covered with paper). Walgreens across the street from Uncle Ike’s. I just wanted to show the two stores smack across from each other.
I’ll see if I can figure out how to post a current video to link to.
Dear David-2:
Wait: you’re not suggesting people whose lives revolve around smoking pot are less than stellar, responsible citizens, are you? I mean, who are we to judge?
As said above, the solution is simple. Congress can make pot legal in the 50 states, simple as that. They won’t because then the members of congress will be “on the record” for making a stand and share responsibility for the results. Congressmen/women hate to be held responsible for anything.
Dear Bill Cook:
Ah! You’ve been paying attention. Of course, virtually everyone that patronizes this scruffy little blog falls into that category…