Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
They said they were going to stay out of it if people were complying with state law. Which everyone read as they will stay out of it.
Now it seems they meant what they said about the state law bit.
|
So, when you were criticizing Obama and Holder for "back track[ing] on earlier statements," you meant to criticize them for "doing what they said they would do, but in a way that is inconsistent with what I assumed they actually meant and what I will claim "everyone" understood."
Got it.
Quote:
|
not sure why they think enforcing state law is their bailiwick, but I do know it looks bad politically and is a questionable use of resources.
|
They aren't enforcing state law. They are enforcing federal law. They were willing to make a narrow exception, and to exercise prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the federal law against people who were complying with the medical marijuana law. But once people blew that -- once people started treating state law as a blank check to ignore the federal drug law -- they clamped down.
I'm not particularly anti-legalization, nor particularly pro-legalization. What I don't like is the backdoor approach to legalization -- we'll pretend that it's for medical use, but really it's throwing the doors open..... but, because it's still illegal, we're unable to regulate it in the ways that are needed. If people want to legalize, we should discuss legalization.
As for questionable use of resources, I'd give it about a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 for federal spending.
