Holder says no more federal medical marijuana raids

February 27th, 2009, 12:53 pm · 13 Comments · posted by by Alan Bock, Register editorial writer

He didn’t sound very enthusiastic about it which might not be amazing considering his record as something of a mindless drug warrior when he was US Attorney for DC in the ’90s, but US Atty. Gen. Eric Holder affirmed Wednesday, in response to a question, that his department will keep Obama’s campaign promise and stop medical marijuana raids in California and other states with medical marijuana laws. That was the second time in a week an administration spokesman had affirmed that the raids will stop. “The president’s my boss” is less than gung-ho, but I’ll take it.

The raids conducted just after the inauguration seem to have been the last hurrah of Bush holdovers who figured poicy might change and this was the last chance to demonstrate their commitment to persecuting patients in the name of an unconstitutional (my view, but I’m not sure I’d trust a current court to adjudicate it) law. Now we need to pat attention to whom Obama appoints to head the DEA. His “drug czar,” Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowseke, looks a lot less worse than any of the Bushies. Perhaps the best signal would be a willingness to revisit keeping marijuana on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, which the science and any common-sense understanding of the law as written would seem to dictate.

Share this post:

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

About this blog

Orange Punch bloggers write from a particular libertarian point of view. We’re dedicated to advancing human freedom and believe that the primary role of government is to defend Americans’ liberties. We seek a smaller, more limited government, expanded and freer trade at home and abroad, open markets and secure property rights. We believe in the power and goodwill of the individual; that he or she will aspire to a better tomorrow for themselves, for their family and for the community. We would hope for people to exercise integrity and self-responsibility along the way. The bloggers are Alan Bock, Brian Calle and Mark Landsbaum. The genesis of this particular brand of libertarianism is R.C. Hoiles, founder, Freedom Communications, Inc., parent company of the Orange County Register.

rlh says:

February 27, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Hey Mr. Bock, let’s take what wins we can get on this - reversing the accreted (sp?) weight of the anti-marijuana establishment will take a while

What’s your constitutional argument, by the way?

ocobserver says:

February 27, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Suddenly with the economic crisis and several states (to include Ca) on the verge of bankrupcy you will see many politicians get off their moral high horse and vote to legalize and tax pot. But it will certainly PO all those solid bible toting righteous citizens who have been financing the importation of pot for all these years into America. Now they will have to find another source of income. If they legalize pot there’s a good chance down the road that they’ll criminalize tobacco to open up a brand new market for those disenfranchised financiers and wondrous enforcement opportunities for the judicial system. ha. And I don’t know if you understand how the system works. The drug czar doesn’t tell the cops what to do. DEA brings in billions in asset forfeitures for the government. It’s sort of like the tail wagging the dog. The moneychangers in congress need that money and the last one’s they want to PO are the worker bees bringing in the honey. DEA is probably one of the only government agencies that earns it’s keep. Don’t bite the hand that feeds ya. If DEA still wanted to raid state licensed marijuana stores my guess is that it would continue unabated. But I don’t think they really care. The ones who are are the ones who are going to be locked out of the residual income source.

by Alan Bock, Register editorial writer says:

February 28, 2009 at 12:18 am

I agree, rlh, I’ll take whatever teeny bit of progress we can get.

The constitutional argument is that the constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to impose outright prohibition of a drug or herb. Not one of the enumerated powers in Art. 1, Sec. 8. They had to pass a constitutional amendment to do alcohol prohibition. They still knew it in the 1930s, when Harry Anslinger and the prohibitionist bureaucrats were casting about for something else to do. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1934 was not outright prohibition but a tax so high nobody would think of paying it — and the requirement to get a license to grow. During WW II when the Japanese took the Philippines and cut off the source of manila hemp (from a different plant) they eliminated the tax and actually made a film encouraging farmers to grow Hemp for Victory. (Bush I’s life was probably saved by a parachute strap made from hemp, though some might view that as an argument for prohibition.)

By 1970, however, when Nixon decided to get “serious” about the War on Drugs and they did the Controlled Substances Act, quaint notions about constitutionality just didn’t come up any more. I rather doubt a modern court would agree with my interpretation — the General Welfare clause covers all manner of sins — but I think it’s pretty valid.

February 28, 2009 at 8:31 am

At least Barry knows something about the topic. According to his autobiography he is somewhat of an expert on the use of marijuana. I guess that sort of blows away the theory that marijuana use demotivates personal ambition and leads to a life of zombieism. They were going to prosecute Michael Phelps based on photo of him sucking on a bong. So what would prevent them from prosecuting Barry for his criminal admissions in an autobiograpy? Statute of limitations? ha.

February 28, 2009 at 11:17 am

My post was deleted. Are we practicing censorship on this editorial blog that is supposed to be a staunch defender and protector of ‘free speech’?

Here, I’ll say it again the best that I can remember:

At least Barry knows of what he speaks. According to his own autobiography he smoked pot on a regular basis in his younger years. Funny they would target Michael Phelps for prosecution for a mere photo depicting him sucking on a bong, yet hardly mention Barry’s criminal confessions of drug use in his own autobiography. And he rose to be our president. Why is that? See, that’s the stuff editorialists don’t want you people to think about.

There. Now watch this post get held up for screening and then deleted like the last one. When a newpaper starts deleting posts because the blogmaster editorialist disagrees with them we’re all in big trouble. But I already knew that a long, long time ago.

February 28, 2009 at 1:45 pm

An interesting srgument, Mr. Bock, and one i obviously haven’t had much chance to examine. Your caveat about the General Welfare clause is a big one - glad you recognize it - and I’d add that power under the Commerce Clause also impinges here, I think.

Your argument strikes me as one that would sweep a hell of a lot of other Federal health and safety regulations out along with the prohibition on marijuana - which I’m sure would delight you, but which therefore to me makes it a loser as a practical matter. Peanut Company of America is too near in time and mind for an argument like yours, with its inevtable implications for the entire food and drug enforcement mechnism, to stand much chance.

openminded2008 says:

February 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Make marijuana legal and tax it and sell it just like booze and cigarettes this should have been done 20 years ago. Think of all the wasted money and people that have been arrested and their lives ruined because of a criminal records for Pot.

February 28, 2009 at 9:34 pm

Not just the money, openminded. think of all the people who have died over that stupid weed in the underground turf wars throughout the years. many more than who died in vietnam. there’s no question about that. and all over a silly weed that grows wild in Nebraska. duh?

March 2, 2009 at 2:03 pm

So sad, rlh. The purpose of the commerce clause was to make sure states didn’t try to micromanage commerce so that the whole country would be a free trade zone, and it worked pretty well for a long time — until it was interpreted to the effect that Congress can micromanage commerce if there’s even a hint of an ancillary effect on interstate commerce — see the original decision back in the ’30s about the farmer who grew extra wheat to feed his family and the medical marijuana decision that said marijuana grown by patients and their friends entirely inside California “impacted” interstate commerce even though it was illicit commerce. No limits to the power, which is not exactly original intent.

March 2, 2009 at 2:08 pm

And, rlh, you’re right about the psychological/emotional impact of the peanut imbroglio, but how logical is it to argue that those who failed to protect us with their virtually unlimited power to inspect need to be given more power? Which is what will happen, of course, and will happen the next time a federal regulatory agency — SEC anyone? — fails. The only solution is to give the incompetents more power. Hardly imaginative, and suggesting an amazing faith/credulity in coercive power.

March 2, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Well, a lot there, and not a lot of time to respond. First, your lament for the supposed misuse of the Commerce Clause leaves out the original Commerce Clause case, Gibbons v. Ogden ,which was pretty darn broad. The Court under the Fields philosophy in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century certainly backed off that breadth a lot, but you can hardly claim the New Deal; broader interpretations of the Clause were unprecedented. In fact a strong argument can be made that the newer interpretations of that clause only go back to the closest thing we have to original intent - the opinions of the Marshall court.

As for regulation, I don;t buy into the dichotomy of more v. less regulation. There needs to be some regulation, the qwuation is whether it’s the right regulation - well enforced (as oppsoed to empty verbiage) and well tailored to the area in question. The peanut problems didn’t arise from over or under regulation, but from incompetent admintration of regulation, by a political party and philosophy that was so iminical to the very idea of regulation that it allowed the entire system to go criminally slack. Smae with the financial markets and the SEC. The old line about how republicans run claiming government doesn’t work and when elected set about proving it holds true here.

I think we can all agree that some overarching federal food safety regime is necessary to keep us from ,well, getting poisoned, for example. The trick is to craft that regime so that it protects public safety without smothering the private system. The balance is tricky, and constantly shifting, but we saw it tip badly to the shrug and wink side of the seesaw recently. And now people are dead. The same, to me applies to the financial system. The answer isn’t necessarily more regulation but right regulation. I have no problem throwing out a lot of our regul;atory structure if we can replace it with one that works for its intended purposes and keeps the markets healthy. We’veo perated too long in an either/or mentality that forces us to takes sides in a way that’s not realistic. Those who want free markets don’t want people to die, or the martkets to collapse; and those favoring regulations aren;t all socialists or commies.

IronBalls says:

March 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm

I always find it interesting when people advocate marijuana be legalized so it can be regulated by (and a a source of revenue for) the state or federal governments. So, how about legalizing it but not regulating or taxing it? Make it legal to grow and legal to use for adults. Not a perfect idea but I don’t think government involvement would be of benefit to anyone but the government itself.

Andrew Yu-Jen Wang says:

March 7, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.

George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

Many people know what Bush did.

And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

Bush was absolute evil.

Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

Bush is a psychological prisoner.

Bush has a lot to worry about.

Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
_____________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

Orange County Register