Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

‘Outrageous’: Former DEA Heads Lambaste Obama Admin, Urge Feds to Sue States to Stop Marijuana Legalization

Mar. 5, 2013 7:05am Billy Hallowell

CHICAGO (AP) — Eight former Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs say the federal government needs to act now or it might lose the chance to nullify Colorado and Washington’s laws legalizing recreational marijuana use.

The onetime DEA heads are issuing joint statements Tuesday saying the Obama administration has reacted too slowly and should immediately sue to force the states to rescind the legislation.

The Associated Press received an advance copy of the statement Monday.

One of the former DEA administrators, Peter Bensinger, told the AP that the more time goes by, the harder it’ll be to stop the two states. Marijuana is illegal under federal law.

Bensinger, who lives in the Chicago area, said not acting forthrightly to sue the states might create “a domino effect” in which other states follow suit.

Former DEA Heads Urge Obama Admin to Sue States to Stop Marijuana Legalization

Photo Credit: AP

“My fear is that the Justice Department will do what they are doing now: do nothing and say nothing,” said Bensinger. “If they don’t act now, these laws will be fully implemented in a matter of months.”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a meeting of state attorneys general last week that he is still reviewing the laws but that his review is winding down. Asked Monday for a comment on the criticism from the former DEA administrators, Holder spokeswoman Allison Price would only say, “The Department of Justice is in the process of reviewing those initiatives.”

The department’s review has been under way since shortly after last fall’s elections. It could sue to block the states from issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, on the grounds that doing so conflicts with federal drug law. Alternatively, Holder could decide not to mount a court challenge.

The ex-DEA heads are issuing the statements though the Florida-based Save Our Society from Drugs, a national group lobbying against legalization. One of the group’s spokesmen is based in Chicago.

Photo Credit: AP

The former DEA administrators are Bensinger, John Bartels, Robert Bonner, Thomas Constantine, Asa Hutchinson, John Lawn, Donnie Marshall and Francis Mullen. They served for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Holder is scheduled to appear Wednesday before a U.S. Senate judiciary committee hearing. The former DEA chiefs want senators to question Holder on the legalization issue.

Advocates of legalization have welcomed Colorado and Washington’s new laws, arguing that criminalizing drugs creates serious though unintended social problems. The ex-DEA heads say they disagree with that view.

After votes last fall, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize marijuana’s recreational use – putting federal authorities in a quandary over how, or whether, to respond.

Washington state officials responsible for creating a regulated marijuana system have said they are moving forward with a timetable of issuing producer licenses by August.

Bensinger – who served as DEA administrator under Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan – said the supremacy of federal law over state law when it comes to drug laws isn’t in doubt.

“This is a no brainer,” he said. “It is outrageous that a lawsuit hasn’t been filed in federal court yet.”

–

Other Stories From Billy Hallowell:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (92)

Ceefour
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:53pm
Don’t worry,the reduction in force will come about through attrition not pink slips…….

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Spotman
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 1:48pm
I agree with efforts to the legalization of pot. I’ve been a consumer since the mid 70s and I still love God, Corps and country. While most users are law abiding, pay their taxes, and have no problem in keeping smoking pot in it’s place, there will be exceptions who can’t tolerate getting high. or the other end of the bell curve and aren’t responsible in it’s use. The same can be said about alcohol users, most people can use alcohol responsibly, but some folks can’t.
Legalize it…easing the over crowded prison system and ending the costly “War on Drugs”. Legalization also takes away the insentive of the illegal drug market, which would reduce crime.
Tax it….generating envough revenue to blow a hole in the Federal deficit, if not, eliminate it, making our economy stronger, creating a whole new industry, reducing unemplyment, and providing control and regulation.
So, what’s the problem?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- cgnick
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 3:43pm
  Well said SPOTMAN, well said.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:44pm
  SPOTMAN, “Tax it…”
  
  Why should it be taxed?! More evidence that the only difference between conservatives and liberals is almost nil. They both want to control a bigger government.
  
  Taxes are about control. You can bet that if pot was made legal for consumption people would not be permitted to grow their own. For “safety” and “health” reasons the gubment, both state and federal would quickly make it illegal to grow it so that you would have to buy it – with outrageously high taxes – only from licensed sellers, a la state liquor stores.
  
  Do not tax it and take the taxes off of liquor too is the battle cry for true lovers of liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- dmerwin
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:10pm
  The financial arguments ARE a no brainer. Free up prison cells for violent felons. Taxes will help the economy. A legal system of distribution will eliminate the criminal element who do not stop with pot, and will take a chunk of Mexican cartel money which diminishes them. It will create American jobs which will be tax payers. The current system does not encourage MJ distributors to file income taxes, if you know what I mean. Washington got it wrong for not allowing individuals to cultivate for themselves, can Washingtonians grow tomatoes or brew their own beer? A legal system will eliminate the black market system because of free market economy principles. Lastly, the moral question; does anyone think Alcohol or Tobacco cause less harm to a person’s health or societies’ health than Marijuana?
  
  Report this comment
- Wolverinesndn
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:16pm
  Ill tell you what’s the problem. If the government taxes it, it will just give them more money to send to other countries that hate us. That would just be another tax we would have to pay. Then the police officers would not only have to put up with drunk drivers they would have to put up with drink and stoned drivers. I understand marijuana is not really as bad as alcohol in a lot of ways but legalizing one evil is bad enough. In my opinion alcohol abusers need to be dealt with swiftly and harshly not slapped on the wrist, same with dopers.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolverinesndn
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:35pm
  They are so many other things we could do as a country to fix things around here other than legalizing pot or any other drug. Alcohol is bad enough. It’s not real hard or complicated.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 5:37pm
  Wolverine, ” In my opinion alcohol abusers need to be dealt with swiftly and harshly not slapped on the wrist, same with dopers.”
  
  Spoken like a true Clover. Define “alcohol abusers”. And what business is it of yours what someone does with their own body?
  
  Report this comment
degenhardtke
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:48pm
Screw The Fed!!!

Power to the states…

Legalize before demonizing our youth

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:04pm
  This is absolutely a State’s rights issue. The fed gubment has no more authority to ban drugs than it did alcohol without an amendment to the constitution.
  
  This also applies to many more issues too numerous to list here.
  
  Report this comment
U4eeeahhh
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:56am
Legalize – Tax – Enjoy.
Finally it’s time for the Cannabis Decade.

Drugs laws were racist at their inception, have been unequally applied to racial groups throughout their history and have had no positive effect and have been most useful in suppression of black urban males. I am 61 and have been a cannabis consumer for 45 years as of this July but because I’m white, educated and affluent I have never had any law enforcement encounters regarding my lifetime of illegal drug consumption. People of color have very different experiences.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- stevew95
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:36pm
  Right now the IRS has won tax court cases on this in California. The dope shops can not deduct any of their expenses for federal tax purposes, since it is illegal under federal law. This means that 100% of their sales are subject to federal income tax. No deductions for the purchases of the product, rent, salaries, health care, nothing. Why would the federal government stop it, it is a win /win for them. Income is reported and taxes are higher than the customers.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:58pm
  U4, “People of color have very different experiences.”
  
  You are not educated, you are indoctrinated with the usual “it is all Whitey’s fault” nonsense.
  
  People of color have different experiences because of when, where, and how they use drugs. And also what they do while on drugs.
  
  Blacks do not get busted more than Whites for the same offenses; it is not the drug taking that gets blacks in trouble, it is their behavior while high that gets them in trouble.
  
  Now it is certainly true that blacks get in more trouble for selling drugs than Whites because of the way the rigged “war on drugs” scam is set up. Legalizing all drugs will stop the flow of blacks into the prison industrial complex. Legalize drugs and release all non-violent drug prisoners now.
  
  Report this comment
- mainetex
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:38am
  Yes, everything is racist to U4. You say your educated Where did you go to school? Ridgemont High? U4 knows the date of his first usage, like its some big deal. What a putz.
  
  Report this comment
Arbroath7
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:39am
The Choom Gang marches onward.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
gobluebuckeye
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:47am
State Rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
battles
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:55am
I am not for any drug use, but these eight former DEA chiefs seem to be shrilling for their former colleagues job security. The war on drugs would probably never have taken place if mothers had stayed at home to raise their children. Another damning cause of children running to drugs and continuing to use them into adulthood is the no fault divorce. I have seen several children and young people go through their family breaking up and it was devastating for all of them. Marriage was never to be just another one night stand, but was to be entered into for life.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
uffda
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:36am
Marijuana is a noxious weed. When you inhale noxious material into your lungs damage occurs. All smokers have COPD. I realize the USA has undergone a transformation to a dumb downed society where being stoned and stupid is a way of life for much of the population. I have heard the “pot isn’t harmful” meme for 5 decades. If that is the case then why not allow your doctors or nurses to be stoned while caring for patients, pilots to fly stoned, 5 year olds to toke, etc? But ..but alcohol…exactly….you smoke pot to get high ..you drink to get a buzz. Both cross the blood brain barrier. And when you are impaired you make unwise decisions which can kill innocents. I wonder if CO and WA are ready for the civil lawsuits.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:47am
  Your ability to think clearly and critically is simply not present. The US has traditionally been a country, unlike yours, which treasures PERSONAL LIBERTY. You are free to do things which are dangerous to your physical well being if you like as long as you do not put others in danger. It’s called freedom with limitations. We have freedom of speech yet it is illegal for you to scream FIRE in a crowded room. It’s called common sense you idjit. You may like your government wiping your arse from cradle to grave but many of us here in the US certainly do not. We prefer to be treated as adults and held accountable for our own choices and actions. If you don’t like the freedoms we enjoy here in the US you are free to leave.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:52am
  Your ability to think clearly and critically is simply not present. The US has traditionally been a country, unlike yours, which treasures PERSONAL LIBERTY. You are free to do things which are dangerous to your physical well being if you like as long as you do not put others in danger. It’s called freedom with limitations. We have freedom of speech yet it is illegal for you to scream FIRE in a crowded room. It’s called common sense you idjit. You may like your government wiping your arse from cradle to grave but many of us here in the US certainly do not. We prefer to be treated as adults and held accountable for our own choices and actions. If you don’t like the freedoms we enjoy here in the US you are free to leave. If you aren’t here then you are also free to NOT come visit. Freedom! Don’t you just love it? I sure do.
  
  Report this comment
- TiocFaidhArLa
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:06am
  UFFA It’s called being intoxicated at work! Who IS allowed to be intoxicated while performing there duties? No one. Just because you can legally drink or take medical opiates does not mean you will be doing them 24/7 or at work, that is just silly.
  
  Report this comment
- JRook
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 2:09pm
  Ok Einstein no one is saying people should smoke pot on the job anymore than the same people should be drinking on the job. Weak weak argument which the average 5 th. grader could debunk. The real point here is that you can’t pick and choose based on your own beliefs when states or rather citizen rights should prevail. The federal government should be restricted to the functions and powers it was given within the constitution. For example, as Ron Paul points out it is National Defense, not world cop or agent of corporate interests. For the purpose of National Defense we could slash the bloated defense budget by half. No that would be a good first step to actually getting our deficit under control and stop the wealth transfer from the middle class to large corporations and their wealthy investors which occurs through federal spending on defense, infrastructure, IT and prescription drugs.
  
  Report this comment
Crow hunter
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:26am
I’ve been buying it illegally for over 20 years and will continue to do so even if it’s decriminalized…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:42am
  Then you are a fool. Once it’s legal the price of weed will drop through the floor. It will put the current illegal dealers either out of business or they become legal sellers. This has all happened before.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:12pm
  SEARCHER619, “Once it’s legal the price of weed will drop through the floor. It will put the current illegal dealers either out of business or they become legal sellers.”
  
  Somewhat true – the COST of producing and distributing pot will drop dramatically, but the price will still be very high if not higher when all the gubments, local, state, and especially federal put taxes on it.
  
  Report this comment
- dmerwin
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 8:15pm
  That is why legalization and not decriminalization is the answer. The free market will lower the price to you even with taxes as the rate you pay now includes the “overhead” of criminal penalties for your distributor and grower. Not a financial wizard are you?
  
  Report this comment
Sargeking
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:23am
Thanks to the jobless Obama Economy the biggest Lib states have no new tax revenues and many are losing residents and viable business to other, more friendly states (Texas and Florida). The paradigm is following the older state lottery path. One state adopts a lottery and the money pours into their budget coffers. Some pundits may liken this to a “domino affect”. There’s no way the Lib states can pass-up the big money. With the continued damage to the American and global economies by the Obama Regime, legal “Pot” may soon blanket at least 16 big electoral states.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
searcher619
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:23am
what for? State laws which conflict with Federal law are null and void. It’s in the constitution. more people really should read it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:39pm
  Oddly, I don’t recall there having been an Amendment to our Constitution granting the Federal government the power to regulate these substances. You know, like they passed in order to instate the Prohibition of alcohol?
  
  If they needed an Amendment in order to prohibit alcohol, why would we not have needed an Amendment to prohibit weed?
  
  Even the idea that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution invalidates laws made by individual States, or protections afforded citizens of individual States against Federal infringement, is ridiculous.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:42pm
  SEARCH, “State laws which conflict with Federal law are null and void. It’s in the constitution. more people really should read it.”
  
  I have read it and I do not see your claim to Federal supremacy over the States except for the enumerated powers given by the States to the Federal gubment. Indeed, the Ninth and Tenth amendments are very clear as to the limits of the Feds and the supremacy of the States in matters not specifically delegated to the Fed gubment. Drug/alcohol prohibition is clearly not a delegated Federal power.
  
  Report this comment
- njoelhickson
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 5:38am
  Wrong Searcher. Federal law trumps State law only when it is in pursuance of the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
blazingaway
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:16am
I could care less about drugs, the war on drugs and all the enforcement idiots we have to pay for to fail, fail and fail at the war on drugs … Just let these people use drugs and kill themselves and allow the rest of use to protect ourselves from them with leather force and the problem will resolve itself over time when people have seen the suffering and hopelessness and death of drug users. Stop legislating morality and our loss of freedom

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:32am
  The phrase is “I COULDN’T care less”
  
  Anyway, the fact that Federal law trumps state law is the issue here. If you are going to abide by the constitution, which is the law of the land, then states need to enforce the laws their representatives voted for. I’m all for legalizing of drugs but it MUST be done the right and legal way.
  
  Report this comment
ultraright
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:12am
This Administration wants immorality and chaos, it fits their purpose and Marxist plan. They prosecute Arizona for upholding the law and then turn a blind eye to the immoral promotion of drugs. This statement is coming from someone who used to use. It seems that on ever turn they take pleasure in breaking down the very foundations of a just society.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TiocFaidhArLa
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:09am
  ULTRA they prosecuted us Arizonans for making medical marijuana legal too, which we did. We are exercising our rights, how is smoking marijuana degrading our society? Examples?
  
  Report this comment
- ultraright
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:00am
  TIO, I believe that the use of such substances is degrading to any individual. It does not promote the ideal or point toward moral betterment, in fact it promotes just the opposite. When individuals use, the aggregate effect is societal decline. Do we want evidence,? then let us open our eyes, Wisdom cries her proofs all around. TIO, I do believe that governance should bloom from local authorities who are responsible to local voters and not to reside so heavily in an insulated and bloated Federal bully.
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:40pm
  So, UltraRight, you’re a progressive.
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:09am
Who cares what these statist a holes think? We’re talking about people who enjoy getting dressed up in battle gear and molesting civilians and confiscating their property. All of them are Nazi’s.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:36am
  You’re a fool. Have you ever bothered to read the constitution. It clearly states Federal law is supreme and supersedes any local and state laws which contradict those laws. You know why it does? Because FEDERAL laws are voted on by representatives of each state. They all agree to follow those laws since they are voting on them. If you truly support the constitution then then MUST uphold the supremacy clause and force those states who wish to legalize drugs to do so first at the FEDERAL level which means putting it to a congressional vote then getting it past the senate. It’s pretty clear that you either don’t give a damn about the rule of law and the constitution or are completely ignorant of what the constitution says on matters like these.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:50am
  ” If you truly support the constitution then then MUST uphold the supremacy clause and force those states who wish to legalize drugs to do so first at the FEDERAL level which means putting it to a congressional vote then getting it past the senate. ”
  
  Where does it “state” it? Alcohol was never “legalized” by the federal government. Why did the federal government need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol? ( Ratified by the states :o )
  
  Report this comment
- Sargeking
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:00am
  We know full well that the Libs are all about hate and anger. You’re either an infiltrator Lib or a pothead. Perhaps, both.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:01am
  Resme:
  
  Please tell me you aren’t this ignorant. Fact is weed is illegal to posses and sell under FEDERAL law. This means regardless of what laws states pass in any attempt to legalize weed, as long as it is illegal at the FEDERAL level it is illegal nation wide. PLUS all law enforcement and judges are duty bound to enforce the law of the land. The law of the land CLEARLY states the following:
  
  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
  
  For the illiterate allow me to translate. This is saying any LAWS PASSED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL in accordance with the constitution, supersede any and all laws at the state and local level which contradict federal laws. There is no trickery here. It’s written in simple English the common person can understand.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:08am
  again, Why did the federal government need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol?
  
  Report this comment
- TiocFaidhArLa
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:13am
  SEARCHER so you would be ok with a FEDERAL law banning firearms, and promoting gay marrige, because it is Federal? Or the FEDERAL law that suspends Habeus Corpus? One that says you can be detained without trial, and assassinated?
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:33am
  resme:
  
  Where does it “state” it? Alcohol was never “legalized” by the federal government. Why did the federal government need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol? ( Ratified by the states :o )
  
  You aren’t making any sense. Why did the government feel the need to add the Civil Rights amendments when the constitution already guaranteed those same rights for EVERYONE regardless of ethnic background, religion, or sex? Why was there a fight over the ERA? You aren’t making any sort of clear argument here.
  
  Anyway, you have failed to demonstrate how Federal law does not supersede State and local law.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:40am
  Ugh. “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”
  
  “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states”
  
  “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
  
  ““It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….” ~ Federalist #33
  
  So, How is banning alcohol/weed without a constitutional amendment pursuant to the constitution?
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:43am
  @TiocFaidhArLa
  
  “SEARCHER so you would be ok with a FEDERAL law banning firearms, and promoting gay marrige, because it is Federal? Or the FEDERAL law that suspends Habeus Corpus? One that says you can be detained without trial, and assassinated?”
  
  Let me address your points one at a time:
  
  1. Would be okay with a FEDERAL law banning firearms
  A: The federal government CAN’T ban firearms thanks to the 2nd amendment. Congress, meaning all those men and women WE vote to represent us, would have to pass an amendment to the constitution to allow it. That’s NOT likely to happen.
  
  2. Would be okay with a FEDERAL law promoting gay marriage?
  A: It’s not any of the government’s business how consenting ADULTS choose to run their private lives. I feel government should either treat all adult unions the same or simply stop rewarding any of them. Gay marriage isn’t an issue in my mind. How does 2 men or 2 women deciding to marry have ANY impact on my life or the lives of those I care for? It doesn’t. So I don’t care they do and neither should you.
  
  3. Or the FEDERAL law that suspends Habeus Corpus?
  A: that is in clear violation of the constitution. It’s up to the Supremes to rule it invalid and/or all voters to force their representatives to get rid of that law. If your elected representatives do not listen to you then get rid of them and elect some that will.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:50am
  And just so we are clear here. I support the legalization and regulation of all drugs. It makes no sense that weed is illegal given no one has ever died from smoking too much weed. Then we have Alcohol which is directly responsible for thousands of deaths annually is perfectly legal. Then we have tobacco which is addicting AND is harder to kick than many hard drugs yet it’s legal. Drug prohibition makes zero sense. You can’t protect people from themselves. We need to allow people the freedom to decide for themselves if want to use them or not and hold them accountable for anything they do under the influence as we do with alcohol. It’s hypocritical for people to claim they don’t want the government telling how to live their lives then turn around and support any sort of drug prohibition.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:53am
  And just so we are clear here. I support the legalization and regulation of all drugs. It makes no sense that weed is illegal given no one has ever died from smoking too much weed. YET we have Alcohol which is directly responsible for thousands of deaths annually is perfectly legal. Then we have tobacco which is addicting AND is harder to kick than many hard drugs yet it’s legal. Drug prohibition makes zero sense. You can’t protect people from themselves. We need to allow people the freedom to decide for themselves if want to use them or not and hold them accountable for anything they do under the influence as we do with alcohol. It’s hypocritical for people to claim they don’t want the government telling how to live their lives then turn around and support any sort of drug prohibition.
  
  Report this comment
- ultraright
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:14am
  Searcher, keep searching, so far you have just enough truth to be dangerous but enough falsehood to be wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:56am
  Meh, blow all the smoke you want. The federal policing agencies are progressive and only viable using the living constitution theory, which is complete bunk AND NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:57am
  ultraright:
  
  How about you grow a backbone and actually pose a real question to me or challenge my points instead of simply insulting?
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:58am
  “Anyway, you have failed to demonstrate how Federal law does not supersede State and local law.”
  
  The supremacy clause is only applicable to the enumerated powers of the federal government under article 1 section 8.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:06pm
  Resme:
  
  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm
  
  Just the intro from this link:
  
  “Introduction
  
  The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the “Constitution and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means of course, that any federal law–even a regulation of a federal agency–trumps any conflicting state law.
  
  Preemption can be either express or implied. When Congress chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that the federal law is intended to preempt. Implied preemption presents more difficult issues, at least when the state law in question does not directly conflict with federal law. The Court then looks beyond the express language of federal statutes to determine whether Congress has “occupied the field” in which the state is attempting to regulate, or whether a state law directly conflicts with federal law, or whether enforcement of the state law might frustrate federal purposes.”
  enjoy
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:16pm
  “The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the “Constitution and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means of course, that any federal law–even a regulation of a federal agency–trumps any conflicting state law.”
  
  Cleverly leaves out the word pursuant. The rest isn’t worth reading. Why did the federal government need a constitutional amendment for prohibition ( twice )? Couldn’t congress just write up a law??? or did they not have the power via article 1 section 8.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:17pm
  Hey searcher, When was the supremacy clause written and when was the 10th amendment that TRUMPED it ratified? This is where law school and students ALWAYS screw things up.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 12:37pm
  “Hey searcher, When was the supremacy clause written and when was the 10th amendment that TRUMPED it ratified? This is where law school and students ALWAYS screw things up.”
  
  He’s not even bothering with the justifications behind the supremacy clause argued by the federalist papers and state conventions. He’s getting the courts definition of the supremacy clause. The prime reason of the supreme court has been for the validation of the federal government’s over reaching powers, not the invalidation. Gotta have that Legitimacy factor, eh?
  
  Article 1 section 8.
  
  Report this comment
- MEDICINE TO THE DEAD
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 5:38pm
  @searcher619
  
  If government still stayed within the bounds of the Constitution my take would be the following:
  
  Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. In order to regulate drugs congress must pass an amendment which they did with alcohol. Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.
  
  The federal drug laws in place do not trump State law because the federal drug laws that are in place are unconstitutional and therefore void.
  
  If we are talking about something that the feds do have the authority to regulate, then yes, the federal laws would trump any conflicting State law.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:13pm
  MEDICINE FOR THE DEAD, Very well said.
  
  Federal supremacy is only for the specifically enumerated and very limited delegated powers given by The States to The Federal gubment. The Ninth and Tenth amendments are clear on this yet so blatantly ignored especially by the 9 supremes.
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:33am
Billy (Hallowell), you need a proof reader…

“The ex-DEA heads are issuing the statements [THOUGH] the Florida-based Save Our Society from Drugs, a national group lobbying against legalization.” S/B ‘through’; I had to read the dang thing twice…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
woodyee
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:30am
Apparently the Nat’l Education Admin. isn’t doing their job to dumb down our population well enough, and so Holder has to step in and try to allow them to numb their own brains at will.

You’d have to be REALLY stupid to want Obammy relaxing drug laws and allowing Obammy voters to grow exponentially, while Holder arms drug cartels and releases illegal alien criminals in our midst and proposes gun control laws, while questioning, through surrogates, the Constitution amendment keeping him from taking a third term.

You kiddies want your drugs really bad, don’t you?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- woodyee
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:34am
  should read “and while Obammy is questioning, through surrogates,…”
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 6:50pm
  How about getting FedGov out of it, like they should be?
  
  Drugs laws at the Federal level are ridiculous, and are not within the purview of the powers granted the Federal government in the Constitution.
  
  No more needs to be said about this matter. It is illegal for the FedGov to enact or enforce such laws.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:33pm
  WOODYEE, “You’d have to be REALLY stupid to want Obammy relaxing drug laws and allowing Obammy voters to grow exponentially, while Holder arms drug cartels”
  
  First, it is not Obammy’s call – it is a States’ rights issue. And secondly, legalizing drugs will dissolve the bankster run drug cartels and shut down the also bankster run prison industrial complex .And that is why the corrupt PTB will fight tooth and nail against liberating the people from the vicious “war on drugs”.
  
  And all the law-and-order conservatives will be happy.
  
  Report this comment
theBru
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:08am
this administration is not going to stop them, they would like to see more states follow suit…drugs, sex, & TV are the tools used to dumb/numb America…now that it is legal, it will make the people easier to control….do as we say, or we take your pacifiers away…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:42pm
  So you are arguing that gubment should regulate what we should consume into our own bodies, who and when and how we should have sex and what/when we should watch on TV and other mediums?
  
  Gosh, what time do you think the gubment should set as our bedtime? I say we should all have to get up a half hour before we go to bed so that we can be the most productive people on the planet!
  
  Report this comment
ThurstonHowellIV
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:04am
Then they all had a Scotch on the rocks, ignoring history and the lesson that Prohibition should have taught them.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
seanscythe
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:54am
Anyone else down right disgusted with how states can pass laws to legalize drugs but they can’t pass laws to arrest Illegal Alien invaders with out being sued and some progressive judge striking it down?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:55pm
  States have the sovereignty and therefore the authority to decide both issues.
  
  And letting people decide what they want to put into their own bodies is nothing to be disgusted with.
  
  Report this comment
226crimsontrace
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:48am
This story is backwards, but a sign of the times. States should be suing the Feds in droves to nullify all the unconstitutional bullshirt they shove down our throats. But instead, the states all loves the federal milk they keep sucking out of the bottomless teats in D.C.
Some day we’ll figure out that they are not bottomless

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- woodyee
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:24am
  Good observation!
  
  Report this comment
SgtB
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:40am
The “war” on drugs is a waste of our time and money. It has done nothing to increase the safety and security of our nation or the citizens. Drugs are now more prevalent than ever and they are the root of a black market that drives what is now a criminal activity which will cause violence and more criminal activity. So this “war” is causing further criminal activity including real violent criminal behavior.

Furthermore, marijuana is just a plant. It literally grows in the same fields that our food come from. It is also one of the greatest hopes of finding a cure for cancer and can provide very real medicinal properties. There is a reason we have a system in our bodies that regulates brain activity and cellular growth that is called the cannabinoid system.

Lastly, these DEA thugs just want to ensure their lifetime achievements aren’t shown to be fruitless and vein. They want to think that they have done something meaningful with their lives. And they know they haven’t, so they are trying to fool everyone else.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- cdmobley1
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:56am
  Absolutely agree with you. As a libertarian I see no problem with less laws on the book. Whatever happened to Freedom of Choice. Let me decide whether or not I want to light a joint. Hey Government! Stay out of my life!
  
  Report this comment
- BRONZESTAR
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:16am
  You are 100% correct. At the turn of the century it was mandated by that all households grow Marijanna. It has multiple uses, hemp rope for one as well as the obvious. Alcohol and tobbacco are far more damaging than any other drugs one would ingest. If it wasn’t for the big payoff from Tobbaco lobbyist it would still be legal.
  
  Report this comment
paulsfam4
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:35am
they made a funny they said… joint statements….

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bigbear_awake
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:32am
Their voting base they will do notta

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:31am
maybe the only article of substance running at the top of theblaze. Obama administration is correct – they should sit back and let the states decide. No action needed. Do you think Romney would be letting the states decide? Or would Romney sue the states like GW Bush did?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- resme
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:01am
  You do know Obama has raided more dispensaries than bush did in 8 years, right?
  
  “Since then, the administration has unleashed an interagency cannabis crackdown that goes beyond anything seen under the Bush administration, with more than 100 raids, primarily on California pot dispensaries, many of them operating in full compliance with state laws. Since October 2009, the Justice Department has conducted more than 170 aggressive SWAT-style raids in 9 medical marijuana states, resulting in at least 61 federal indictments, according to data compiled by Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.”
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 8:19am
  no, i did not
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 10:05am
  Resme:
  
  I wasn’t aware that Obama himself went on drug raids. That’s pretty impressive given no other president as done anything like that. The DEA is there to enforce federal drug laws. If weed is illegal at the federal level then these dispensaries are in violation of federal drug laws and they well within their right to go in and shut them down. You get that right?
  
  Report this comment
- imperative
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 11:54am
  @searcher619
  
  You do understand that it’s very common for people to refer to the activities under an administration by making reference to the head of that administration, right? I think most people can grasp that… but you can’t?
  
  Pedantry at its worst.
  
  Report this comment
- skunkbear
  Posted on March 5, 2013 at 9:25pm
  SEARCHER, ” If weed is illegal at the federal level then these dispensaries are in violation of federal drug laws and they well (sic) within their right to go in and shut them down. You get that right (sic)?”
  
  The bigger question is: are these laws, federal or otherwise, just?
  
  By what right does one person have to tell another person what they can or cannot do if their actions harm no one else?
  
  After reading your numerous comments on this topic I must conclude that you are a Clover. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is a description. Accurate and apt.
  
  Report this comment
Goldmember
Posted on March 5, 2013 at 7:24am
Nothing to see here.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.