In a different thread, Kuvasz wrote:
You know this is going to be an interesting court case.
1. The Executive branch is refusing to administer the law.
2. If you ignore the Feds in this area what situation will happen next where states rights can usurp Federal law?
Civil rights laws?
3. The actions of the government on this issue is dependent upon who is in the White House.
Getting into the weeds here, if a person can act in a way that is acceptable by the laws of the state the person dwells, but not the Federal law, one can imagine all sorts of things the person can do. Additionally, it is not only individuals but corporations that could do things legal "state-wise" but break the law at the federal level.
I think when the dust of 220 years of law books settles on this issue the courts will insist that federal law is administered and pot gets restricted again, along with the suggestion that marijuana be removed from the schedule A classification by the FDA (actually it was an act of Congress that put pot there I believe), afterwhich the situation starts again.
I have a personal interest since I am allowed by my state to grow or consume marijuana medicinally, and the question I have is that according to the way I understand the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution I ought to be allowed to possess it in any state for medicinal purposes.
Time to call in the lawyers!
Kuvasz has a good point here: The Full Faith and Credit clause says
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
But court interpretations have given more "credit" to court orders from other states than to the laws of other states. For example, a state may refuse to honor or apply a sister state's statutes if the sister state's statutes offend the other state's public policy.
I'm all for not harassing medical marijuana users. Certainly, the feds have better things to do than put sick people in jail for relieving their pain.
I'm just skeptical of the precedent this sets. Can the Executive order the DOJ to ignore other federal laws? What happens when the Executive in power isn't as compassionate as the current Executive is? What happens if the not-so-compassionate Executive tells the DOJ not to enforce, as Kuvasz asks, environmental or civil rights laws?
I'd much prefer it if Congress removed pot from its current controlled substance category and placed it into a category that would allow it to be "prescribed" just like other prescription pain medications are prescribed. Then we wouldn't have to worry about whether the next Executive will rescind the policy, and we wouldn't be stirring the pot of bad precedent.
What say you all?