Jump to content

Dea Attorney Claims Feds Will Reschedule Marijuana This August 1.


medmanmike

Recommended Posts

  Apparently, Congress has denied funds for any federal enforcement against medicinal use.

 

 

It only protects the State... Actually if you go back to when this was being proposed for passage, you will see me explaining right here on this forum that it doesn't do anything to protect you. It merely protects the State employees who implement said program basically. Didn't need no memo for that, I just read the law they passed. ;-)

 

 

Section 538: Federal Government Clarifies Spending on Cannabis Prosecution in Legal States

 

https://www.cannabisreports.com/news/2015/08/24/section-538-federal-government-clarifies-spending-on-cannabis-prosecution-in-legal-states/

 

 

On December 16th, 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Appropriations Act of 2015, which allocates funds for the federal government through the end of September 2015. Many cannabis activists were thrilled when this act was signed because it appeared that the federal government was cutting funds for federal agencies who were prosecuting cannabis operations in states where it is legal.

 

In a memo written in February 2015, but only recently released publicly, the Department of Justice explains that this interpretation of Section 538 is far more lenient than what was intended, and that federal funds can be used to prosecute cannabis organizations and individuals, even if they are fully compliant with their state’s laws of operation.

 

Section 538 Does Not Protect Individuals or Private Entities

 

The DOJ memo states that Section 538, which appeared to bar federal funds from being used to pursue cannabis in states where it is legal, only applies to the state, and not to individuals. From the memo: “The [DOJ’s] position is that Section 538 does not bar it from using funds to enforce the Controlled Substances Act‘s criminal prohibitions or to take civil enforcement and forfeiture actions against private individuals or entities consistent with the Department’s guidance regarding marijuana enforcement.”

In an overview from Above the Law, Hilary Bricken condenses the memo into simple points:

  

  • Section 538 applies to states, not to individuals.
  • Section 538 prohibits federal spending for civil challenges to states implementing a legal medical marijuana system, but it does not apply to individuals or business entities even if those individuals or entities comply with state law.
  • Section 538 does not prohibit the DOJ from enforcing the federal Controlled Substances Act against individuals and business entities even in states with legalized medical marijuana regimes and if Congress had intended that outcome, it would have explicitly said so somewhere in Section 538.
  • The legislative history of Section 538 is “sparse,” and though a couple of Congressional representatives opined that Section 538 would prevent enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act in states with legal medical marijuana, those statements are “not sufficiently authoritative to overcome the best reading of the text.”
  • Section 538 does not explicitly repeal the federal Controlled Substances Act and there is no proof Congress intended such a repeal.
  • Section 538 is an appropriations provision, not a criminal statute, and the Rule of Lenity therefore does not apply 

 

 

Essentially, Section 538 only protects the states as they implement laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical cannabis. Section 538 does not grant protections to individuals, even if they are compliant with their state’s medical cannabis laws. The DOJ can still use funds to prosecute individuals or business organizations that are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

 

 

Prosecuted Under the Controlled Substances Act

 

 

Individuals who are currently being prosecuted under the CSA have unsuccessfully filed motions challenging the departments use of funds. Unfortunately, the federal government is holding strong to their interpretation, claiming that Section 538 does not apply to the criminal prosecution or forfeiture actions against individuals that are in violation of the criminal terms of the CSA.

 

The Appropriations Act of 2015 is valid through September 30th, 2015, at which time Section 538 can be adjusted to further support compliant individuals, or to give more power to the DOJ as they investigate and prosecute individuals. Either way, Section 538 is a perfect representation of the federal government blatantly ignoring the rights of individuals within states that have voted for medical cannabis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree, it looks like Sessions and the Dept of Justice will be able to do what they want to in regards to medical and recreational marijuana. Thanks for this info!

 

What do you guys think of the possibility of some type of judicial review action being taken on the DEA's decision not to reschedule marijuana. The federal court decision I mentioned in my first post says:

 

The CSA provides for a process by which parties aggrieved by a final decision of
the Attorney General may appeal the decision. Under the CSA:

All final determinations, findings, and conclusions of the Attorney
General under this subchapter shall be final and conclusive
decisions of the matters involved, except that any person aggrieved
by a final decision of the Attorney General may obtain review of
the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia or for the circuit in which his principal place of business
is located upon petition filed with the court and delivered to the
Attorney General within thirty days after notice of the decision.
Findings of fact by the Attorney General, if supported by
substantial
 evidence, shall be conclusive.

 

 

 

May be we could get up a petition to Human Rights Watch and the ACLU requesting they take action in behalf of the 87% of the public who want medical marijuana available as stated in CBS News video below.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse my frankness but he sounds like a stupid asss. Just ignorant to the bone. No clue. 

 

I realize its possible that Trump could just be feigning support for marijuana, while giving his Attorney General the power to wage war against it in order to protect the interests of big Pharma and other big businesses. Being the vast majority of Americans support medical marijuana and recreational marijuana, it would not be wise for him to speak outright against it.

Edited by william7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize its possible that Trump could just be feigning support for marijuana, while giving his Attorney General the power to wage war against it in order to protect the interests of big Pharma and other big businesses. Being the vast majority of Americans support medical marijuana and recreational marijuana, it would be not be wise for him to speak outright against it.

Did you listen to it? He's an ignoranus. "It's effecting people's brain power"  If what he said doesn't insult you then you are not a cannabis person. Donald trump always sounds like he got his 'brain power' from reading tabloids in the check out lane. He must have missed out on so much real life experience to be so clueless on so many important issues. And to support that kind of ignorance just makes me wonder how Americans got so collectively stupid to be deceived by such an ignorant person. Crooked is one thing you can use, but mind numbing ignorance is just so embarrassing and useless. I really should have helped more of the ignorant kids in school. I didn't realize back then that their vote would matter. Help a dumb person every day so we can get the heck out of this morass of ignorance please. It's like a sickness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you listen to it? He's an ignoranus. "It's effecting people's brain power"  If what he said doesn't insult you then you are not a cannabis person. Donald trump always sounds like he got his 'brain power' from reading tabloids in the check out lane. He must have missed out on so much real life experience to be so clueless on so many important issues. And to support that kind of ignorance just makes me wonder how Americans got so collectively stupid to be deceived by such an ignorant person. Crooked is one thing you can use, but mind numbing ignorance is just so embarrassing and useless. I really should have helped more of the ignorant kids in school. I didn't realize back then that their vote would matter. Help a dumb person every day so we can get the heck out of this morass of ignorance please. It's like a sickness.

 

I supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein with small donations and my vote. I'm just hoping Donald Trump will do the right thing for those who need cannabis as medicine. It seems to me it would be in his best interest to give the American people what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is less about what Trump will do; more about what the Republican Congress does.

 

But, couldn't Trump override his Attorney General with an Executive Order protecting medical marijuana and recreational marijuana? From the way I see it, the public has a very strong constitutional right to marijuana as medicine. The United States Declaration of Independence says citizens have a right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I read a very strong right to adequate medicine being a commonsense part of that.

 

Below is another interesting You Tube video.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrQxcaTnN-0

Edited by william7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The order doesn't pass Constitutional muster.  Same as Obama overstepping his immigration order. 

 

It is the Administrations DUTY to effectuate, implement, uphold and enforce the laws and the Constitution.

 

The Drug laws are Constitutional and must be enforced. 

 

So, as Obama did, he basically recommended medical marijuana to be a "lowest enforcement and prosecutorial priority".  That is of course up to the individual federal prosecutors. Thus why we seen uneven enforcement across the country on medical marijuana there. 

 

Now sure, there are "few' things a President can do to help move the process along.  But overwhelmingly, it is up to and has always been up to the Congress.  Marijuana generally has had about 10-15% Republican support in Congress on a good day(such as passing that appropriations bill forbidding funding to prosecute States for MMj).  That is support from elected republicans. They typically only support marijuana at about 2-4% of elected republican representatives.  Now sure, the Republican electorate has climbed to about 35% amongst 'conservatives'.  But that means NOTHING when it comes to the people that matter, the elected Congress.

 

So,... with republican support by elected officials at about 10-15% on medical marihuana, how ya think that is going to work out regardless of what Trump wants?

 

That's the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add, Elected congressional republicans(notice I am very specific there- I don't want republican voters to get their fee fee's hurt) have almost unanimously voted down protections for individual patients year after year after year. They only agreed to protect the states employees basically, and even then, only like 15% of congressional republicans agree which gave the democrats JUST enough votes to pass even that minor protection for state employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the Administrations DUTY to effectuate, implement, uphold and enforce the laws and the Constitution.

 

The Drug laws are Constitutional and must be enforced. 

 

 

I believe marijuana prohibition is clearly unconstitutional and no rational argument for its being constitutional can be made. It's doubly unconstitutional when it comes to prohibiting medicinal use. Government should actually be promoting its use as medicine - especially where it has taken out a patent way back in October 2003 recognizing its great medicinal value and safety as has been done. See Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants, at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507.

Edited by william7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I of course philosophically agree.

 

But, I don't know how to put this nicely,... it doesn't matter what you or I think.  It is Constitutional according to the Supreme court.  So either we have to elect Presidents that appoint justices to the Supreme Court that are willing to strike down the entire drug war as unconstitutional, or, we need to get the Congress to end the drug war and legalize cannabis. 

 

 Both are hills to climb.  I think Congress is the only real answer.  Change the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats old news mal. the fed court said DOJ is prohibited from prosecuting patients , caregivers, dispensary employees and owners that are within state laws.

 

keep up with 2016 news, mal

http://time.com/4455098/medical-marijuana-justice-department-courts/

 

I just read much of the case. If Congress continues to vote to deny funds for prosecuting medical marijuana, Attorney General Sessions shouldn't be able to take action in that regard from what I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So either we have to elect Presidents that appoint justices to the Supreme Court that are willing to strike down the entire drug war as unconstitutional,

 

OOPS We totally facked up on that score. How long does the average SC Justice serve? Longer than any of us can wait. So we pass the torch and all the responsibility we sherked onto our future generations. Not something to be proud of. I have always like to get the job done myself, do the hard work so the future will be brighter. That is how we as humans are supposed to roll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read much of the case. If Congress continues to vote to deny funds for prosecuting medical marijuana, Attorney General Sessions shouldn't be able to take action in that regard from what I read.

You see, this will go to the Supreme Court, The Deciders. And we ruined our chances there by letting Trump win. This is like Monte Python where the knight that has his arms and legs cut off thinks he's going to win some sort of fight against a whole knight. It's ludicrous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  It is Constitutional according to the Supreme court.  So either we have to elect Presidents that appoint justices to the Supreme Court that are willing to strike down the entire drug war as unconstitutional, or, we need to get the Congress to end the drug war and legalize cannabis. 

 

But what if President Trump finds that the overall war on drugs is constitutional, but finds that the war on marijuana as medicine is clearly unconstitutional and must be immediately stopped. Trump could find that Congress and Big Pharma are in cahoots to either block or slow down the use of marijuana as medicine contrary to the democratic will of the  majority of the people who desire it. Couldn't Trump even demand funding for programs promoting and educating the public to use marijuana as medicine in light of a current public health crisis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if President Trump finds that the overall war on drugs is constitutional, but finds that the war on marijuana as medicine is clearly unconstitutional and must be immediately stopped. Trump could find that Congress and Big Pharma are in cahoots to either block or slow down the use of marijuana as medicine contrary to the democratic will of the  majority of the people who desire it. Couldn't Trump even demand funding for programs promoting and educating the public to use marijuana as medicine in light of a current public health crisis?

Excuse my frankness but Donald trump doesn't even think that deeply. He's going to leave this part of his job to others.

 

Your only hope is to line yourself up with some trickle down from someone like me who votes against their wealth and has a heart enough to help others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had the grand opportunity of a lifetime with Scalia dying. Many among us pisssed it away because they didn't like HRC. You are going to have to live with your choice . One of the things you will have to live with is losing some personal freedoms. Thinking up ridiculous ideas around that major f up fall very flat and just make you look like you are out of touch with reality. When Donald won, Cannabis lost big time. And a whole lot of other personal freedoms were lost too, but that's not for this web site. Here we mourn our ladies loss. And teach the younguns the story they will tell the next generations about how bad voting for Trump was for our personal freedoms of choice.  

Edited by Restorium2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse my frankness but Donald trump doesn't even think that deeply. He's going to leave this part of his job to others.

 

Your only hope is to line yourself up with some trickle down from someone like me who votes against their wealth and has a heart enough to help others. 

 

May be he'll decide it's in his political interest to give the public what it wants and needs. Of course, a large percentage of the public wanted to see Hillary Clinton in jail and the Clinton foundation dissolved, but Trump quickly backtracked on that promise. I realize he could make a turn around in thinking on medical marijuana too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...