Will feds let marijuana laws stand without a fight?

SEATTLE (AP) - Washington joined Colorado in voting to become the first states to legalize and tax the sale of marijuana for recreational use, but people shouldn't expect to be able to buy a bag of legitimate weed any time soon.
Though Washington's Initiative 502 decriminalizes the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana beginning Dec. 6, the state has a year to come up with rules governing the growing, processing and labeling of pot before sales to adults over 21 can begin.
In addition, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, so the big question is whether the federal government will allow the measures in Washington and Colorado to take effect without a fight. The Justice Department is offering no enlightenment on that front.
"The Department of Justice's enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged," read identical statements issued by the U.S. attorney's offices in Denver and Seattle. "The department is reviewing the ballot initiative here and in other states and has no additional comment at this time."
State laws can be ruled invalid when they "frustrate the purpose" of federal law, and the DOJ could sue to try to block the measures from taking effect on those grounds.
"We have a lot of work ahead," said Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for the Washington initiative. "The biggest issue I-502 presents for the federal government is that we are creating a robust regulatory scheme."
Initiative 502 calls for a system of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores where adults over 21 can buy up to an ounce of marijuana. It also establishes a standard blood test limit for driving under the influence.
Home-growing marijuana for recreational reasons remains barred, as does the public display or use of pot.
That didn't stop some supporters from celebrating Tuesday night with joints on a sidewalk outside the campaign party in downtown Seattle.
"I've been selling pot for 38 years," said supporter Ben Schroeter. "I've been busted multiple times, most recently eight days ago. Prohibition is stupid."
With 50 percent of precincts reporting, the Washington measure was passing with 55 percent of the vote. Colorado also approved recreational use, while a measure in Oregon was defeated.
State financial experts estimate Washington's initiative could raise nearly $2 billion in tax revenue over the next five years, with the money going toward education, health care, substance abuse prevention and basic government services.
Sponsors and supporters ranged from public health experts to two of the DOJ's top former officials in Seattle, U.S. Attorneys John McKay and Kate Pflaumer.
Legalization could reduce small-time, pot-related arrests and give supporters a chance to show whether decriminalization is a viable strategy in the war on drugs.
The effort raised more than $6 million in contributions, with more than $2 million of that coming from Progressive Insurance Co. founder Peter Lewis, who used marijuana to treat pain from a leg amputation.
Some people in the marijuana reform community also objected to the DUI standard, which they called arbitrarily strict.
The campaign had little organized opposition but raised objections by law enforcement officials and some substance abuse experts who said increasing access to pot was a bad idea.
"Legalizing is going to increase marijuana use among kids and really create a mess with the federal government," said Derek Franklin, president of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention. "It's a bit of a tragedy for the state."
For many voters, it came down to the notion that decades of marijuana prohibition have done more harm than good.
George Cannon, 43, of Seattle said it was an issue of personal freedom: "I'm not into getting into other people's business."
Initiative 502 found strong support among liberals and moderates, Democrats and those with more than a high school degree. Independents and women were split on the issue, as were suburbanites.
I-502 fared well in King County and the Puget Sound area, but not in Eastern Washington, Southwest Washington or on the Olympic Peninsula.
Opposition came from voters 65 and older, conservatives, Republicans and those with a high school degree or less. Weekly churchgoers rejected the measure, while those who said they never attend religious services or considered themselves occasional churchgoers favored legalizing pot.
The survey of Washington state voters was conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research. It includes preliminary results from a survey of 1,493 voters who cast ballots early or submitted absentee ballots, and were interviewed by landline or cellular telephone from Oct. 29 through Nov. 4.
Results for the full sample were subject to sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The figure was higher for subgroups.
Though Washington's Initiative 502 decriminalizes the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana beginning Dec. 6, the state has a year to come up with rules governing the growing, processing and labeling of pot before sales to adults over 21 can begin.
In addition, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, so the big question is whether the federal government will allow the measures in Washington and Colorado to take effect without a fight. The Justice Department is offering no enlightenment on that front.
"The Department of Justice's enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged," read identical statements issued by the U.S. attorney's offices in Denver and Seattle. "The department is reviewing the ballot initiative here and in other states and has no additional comment at this time."
State laws can be ruled invalid when they "frustrate the purpose" of federal law, and the DOJ could sue to try to block the measures from taking effect on those grounds.
"We have a lot of work ahead," said Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for the Washington initiative. "The biggest issue I-502 presents for the federal government is that we are creating a robust regulatory scheme."
Initiative 502 calls for a system of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores where adults over 21 can buy up to an ounce of marijuana. It also establishes a standard blood test limit for driving under the influence.
Home-growing marijuana for recreational reasons remains barred, as does the public display or use of pot.
That didn't stop some supporters from celebrating Tuesday night with joints on a sidewalk outside the campaign party in downtown Seattle.
"I've been selling pot for 38 years," said supporter Ben Schroeter. "I've been busted multiple times, most recently eight days ago. Prohibition is stupid."
With 50 percent of precincts reporting, the Washington measure was passing with 55 percent of the vote. Colorado also approved recreational use, while a measure in Oregon was defeated.
State financial experts estimate Washington's initiative could raise nearly $2 billion in tax revenue over the next five years, with the money going toward education, health care, substance abuse prevention and basic government services.
Sponsors and supporters ranged from public health experts to two of the DOJ's top former officials in Seattle, U.S. Attorneys John McKay and Kate Pflaumer.
Legalization could reduce small-time, pot-related arrests and give supporters a chance to show whether decriminalization is a viable strategy in the war on drugs.
The effort raised more than $6 million in contributions, with more than $2 million of that coming from Progressive Insurance Co. founder Peter Lewis, who used marijuana to treat pain from a leg amputation.
Some people in the marijuana reform community also objected to the DUI standard, which they called arbitrarily strict.
The campaign had little organized opposition but raised objections by law enforcement officials and some substance abuse experts who said increasing access to pot was a bad idea.
"Legalizing is going to increase marijuana use among kids and really create a mess with the federal government," said Derek Franklin, president of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention. "It's a bit of a tragedy for the state."
For many voters, it came down to the notion that decades of marijuana prohibition have done more harm than good.
George Cannon, 43, of Seattle said it was an issue of personal freedom: "I'm not into getting into other people's business."
Initiative 502 found strong support among liberals and moderates, Democrats and those with more than a high school degree. Independents and women were split on the issue, as were suburbanites.
I-502 fared well in King County and the Puget Sound area, but not in Eastern Washington, Southwest Washington or on the Olympic Peninsula.
Opposition came from voters 65 and older, conservatives, Republicans and those with a high school degree or less. Weekly churchgoers rejected the measure, while those who said they never attend religious services or considered themselves occasional churchgoers favored legalizing pot.
The survey of Washington state voters was conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research. It includes preliminary results from a survey of 1,493 voters who cast ballots early or submitted absentee ballots, and were interviewed by landline or cellular telephone from Oct. 29 through Nov. 4.
Results for the full sample were subject to sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The figure was higher for subgroups.
It's funny, when they were trying to privitize liquor sales the oposition cryed "THE CHILDERE!!!,,, THE CHILDREN!!!!,,,The POOR CHILDREN!!!!!!. But for the legalization of pot,,,, not a dickybird. I guess they figure it's OK for the kids to smoke pot so long as they don't do it while intoxicated.
Would making this legal allow us to do this? or is this over the eh 1oz?
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=house+made+of+hemp&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1024&bih=481&tbm=isch&tbnid=d-crjscJAy-ZTM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gizmag.com/first-us-hemp-house/17115/&docid=B6S6wxQotkkeBM&imgurl=http://images.gizmag.com/hero/hemphouse.jpg&w=530&h=297&ei=dD6bUK_TM4iwigK91oCwAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=163&dur=3864&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=228&ty=60&sig=103806608304933145523&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=231&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:74
DOJ won't touch this because Eric Holder is holding and smoking too.
One branch of government, filing suit against another branch of government, argued in front of a third branch of government.
Â
And the great news? I get to help pay for all three sides.
I guess we'll find out if it will be "of the people, by the people, for the people" or "against the people, in spite of the people, and to heck with the people".
Simple fact: Any federal judge can declare it invalid, and that would be that.
Â
Alternate idea: Have the feds bust the regulators and seize the tax revenue (that ends the state support). Then hit every single storefront operation and seize the assets of both the owners and operators, the building owners, and employees. Soon it will be back in the shadows.
Â
Reality check: the only people projecting $2 Billion over five years are those with a vested interest in getting people to believe that. independent academic sources are indicating closer to $10-20 Million annually.
Â
We needed another intoxicant being legal like we need a good Ebola pandemic.
 @ShallowEnder Yes. It's far better to incarcerate those people, so we can spend more tax dollars on the legal system and our for-profit prison system.
Â
Who needs liberty, anyway?
The DOJ and DEA will never stand for this and the battle will cost taxpayers millions...
a federal judge could try to over ride the vote like the arizona migration bill
What a joke. Its not "legal". You can still be tested and fired from your place of employment due to the current federal laws in place, and federal law ALWAYS trumps state law. How far do you really think this is going to go? I really don't care either way but it seems to me that a lot of people are celebrating without knowing what "state legal" really means.
@lped The feds will involve themselves - look ridiculous in the process and be forced to oblige what the Washingtonians have voted into effect for themselves.  This is as ridiculous as alcohol prohibition, anyone that wishes to side with prohibition is siding with organized crime and restricting personal sovereignty.Â
Â
Government has a monopoly on control and force, anyone to acknowledge prohibition as if itâs a good thing needs to consider anything they find dear and personal and have the federal government infringe on their rights to consume.
Â
Civil rights movement started state by state, legalization of same sex marriages is happening state by state and so is medical cannabis.
Â
The feds will follow the states, not the other way about. They feds may kick and scream but itâs inevitable.
Â
Citing the Federal supremacy clause isn't going to snuff out efforts to modify this form of prohibition.
You can look at what a number of counties in Nevada have done with legalized prostitution as a case study.
Also in Nevada, one can buy true cocktails in gas stations...and consume it publicly.
And, then there's the whole gambling thing that the johnny-come-lately Tribes have clued in on.
If you're looking for something less sin-based, head north to Alaska where ex-felons can legally possess firearms (due to it being "wilderness territory").
Â
So, the historical record says, "If enough people decide, in a public forum, to accept an institution, the Federal government is obligated to consider that to be the Will of the People."LOTS of laws are seen as dumb, or archaic, or simply written in to benefit a small percentage of the gentry. Why should one that actually makes sense be so hard to accept?
Probably because of the fact that it does.
I am a Christain and i voted for it and Im pretty sure that God isnt going to send me to hell for using something that he himself made for his children to use, In that case im going to hell because i had some sage on my food last night, Not it too is an herb,read your bibles better you so called church goers but i bet they were the same to vote putting alcahol in grocery stores atleast in my state but its ok because its booze and booze is man made so its alright,whatever God bless this world. one love and peace out
@Sherry Fry That's heavy dude. "I think we should legalize marijuana⦠So potheads have nothing to talk about ever again" - Daniel Tosh.
"I've been selling pot for 38 years," said supporter Ben Schroeter. "I've been busted multiple times, most recently eight days ago. Prohibition is stupid." I guarantee you that guy is a complete moron. You've been busted multiple times? Really? Are you getting busted on purpose? I'm all for legalization but if you are already a moron, you probably should not partake in use of the substance.
 @Portlander29 "I guarantee you that guy is a complete moron. "
Oh let me guess this is a "takes one to know one" kind of thing huh???
The feds have never cared about state law. The DEA will continue raiding anyone and everyone they can.
Should not be a federal matter. States should control or not as they decide; as liquor is state controlled. Except for border control (stopping it from coming in) feds should have nothing to do with drugs.
@jibjockey Liquor is not illegal federally. During prohibition, had a state legalized booze, this issue would have been similar to what they are talking about now.
The people who wanted this bill passed seam to have forgotten that a lot of employers have mandatory random drug testing. Anyone looking for work or who wants to keep working should remember this before they go out and start taking advantage of this new law.
 @scarah25 A lot of employers will fire you if you show up for work under the influence of alcohol too: yet booze is legal. Having legalized pot doesn't change corporate policies, nor should we expect that. Don't go to work drunk: don't go to work high: Better yet - don't go to work st00piD :P
 just think about the reasons they UA. and what they really find when they test.
most illegal drugs are water soluble. another words things like cocaine, meth, heroin, and alcohol, will all be out of your system after 12 - 24 hrs. and marijuana attach-es to fat cells and stays with you for 30 days or so depending on your frequency of smoking pot. ( note you don't stay high, the effects only last about 10 mins.)
so when they test. and you are a heavy drug user (coke, heroin, alcoholic) it will not show in the test if its been over 1 day since last use. if you smoked a joint 3 week ago, it will come up on the test. so you can get away with using dangerous drugs all you want, and you have a 99% chance of testing positive for pot. even if you are a responsible person, who like me smokes pot for relaxation, pain relief, and guess what?> smoking pot can help you quit dangerous drugs. i quite drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes and snorting cocaine, 5 years ago the 28th of this month.
smoking pot got me over and through quiting all those poisons. pot can actual help people get off dangerous and highly addictive, destructive drugs and alcohol.
@Joey Stockert "The effects only last about 10 minutes"...You are high right now aren't you. That or you have smoked some of the worst weed of all time.
I think that eventually, prohibition of MJ will fail, just as prohibition of alcohol failed some decades ago now... Legalization of MJ has a major hurdle to overcome in the form of Big Phama... that wasn't an issue with alcohol back in the '20s and '30s...now there is a staggering amount of money at stake, because the pharm houses have come up with their own (outrageously-overpriced) versions of TCH, and they will continue to fight any competition. Â Â
If we make it that long as a country, I also think that legalizing MJ will end up in the hands of SCOTUS for a final ruling. Â Â
@margay1 I believe its THC, just letting you know
"State laws can be ruled invalid when they "frustrate the purpose" of federal law, and the DOJ could sue to try to block the measures from taking effect on those grounds."
Â
The feds want to control everything even things that are not afforded them in the Constitution.
Â
As far as I am concerned they can pound sand and take their excessive regulations and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.
Â
We need to support states rights.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag Of the Nanny States of America And to the Republicrats for which it stands One nation--or else-- with liberty and justice for their causes."
How are Federal Boarder Agents going to buy their million dollar mansions, lavish their wives & mistresses with diamonds & drink, and afford all their illegitimate children with out the bribes paid to them by Washington state bound marijuana traffickers?
What are the penalties for moving illegal drugs across state lines?  Say buying it over in Vancouver and bringing it over to Oregon.
@pdxtvguy That is a federal crime whether you do it today or when it is legal in Washington. The penalties could be severe but no more or less once it is legal in Washington than it is now.
 @pdxtvguy NO PENALTY if you don't get caught...GOOD LUCK!
Hopefully this will force Obama to change Marijuana to a class 3 drug.
 @swede760 Marijuana is a plant, and always has been!
@August100 @swede760Â And God himself created it for all to use. Its the man made drugs that will kill you,Iv never heard of anyone dying because of an herb personlly myself!! unless their alergic to one.
I think the Federal government will continue to enforce the federal law.Â
Remove pot from schedule 1, problem solved.
The failure of the Oregon initiative demonstrates how the state is not really that progressive.Â
Â
Prohibition is costly to the state tax payer and profitable for the growing organizations. Let the people grow it themselves legally and eliminate any enforcement activity except for those obviously trafficking.Â
@Icarus this conservative household agrees!
'Â marijuana remains illegal under federal law, so the big question is whether the federal government will allow the measures in Washington and Colorado to take effect without a fight. '
Â
Doubt it. In a (pre election pandering, I suspect) nod to the ever-growing 'legalize' movement, President Obama stated (pre-election) that he would not persue criminal prosecutions over medical MJ. Now, the issue has been forcefully placed in his proverbial court with the overall decriminalization of MJ. Eric Holder, and the DOJ/DEA are not likely to sit idly by and watch without stepping in. Remember, the DNC is typcially a proponent of government authority over citizens rights.Â
Â
My guess is that it's a matter of time before DOJ/DEA file suit in state or district courts seeking to overturn WA or NV laws regarding decriminalization, and from there it will end up in appeals, then (possibly) SCOTUS. The problem for the pro-legalization crowd at that point is that the SCOTUS is just another branch of the Federal government. As such, big pharmas influence will be strongly felt in the rulings that come forward. If it makes it to SCOTUS, I strongly suspect that it would be overturned.Â
Â
Personally, I view MJ as being no different (a bit better, IMO) than cigarettes or alcohol. The only conceivable reason that I can logically come up with for it's continued classification as a Sched 1 narc is the influence of the pharma lobby. There IS medical use for TCH, as is demonstrated by the pharmacutical industries development of at least 9 different medications based on either synthetic or natural THC components. As far as the recreational use of the drug... I'll take a pothead over an alcoholic in social settings, or driving, ANY day of the week, and twice on Sunday.Â
It's the driving that bothers most of us that are against. Believing that driving under the influence of ANY drug is safe is dillusional at best.
Â
There are a lot of weed smokers that think there is no harm in driving stoned. They will fight for the right to drive stoned until blue in the face. Without accepting many of us don't want you on the road. If they could get past that they might actually get somewhere with this. Their short sightedness is what is preventing them from making it any further. Instead they focus on trying to make us believe its safe to drive stoned. I'm not willing for my families lives to be the ghinni pigs in that experiment.
@mike You already do, do you think that people aren't smoking and driving now? Because they do, just as they drink and drive the difference is is that if you go do research you will find that more wrecks and deaths are due to  alcahol then marijuana,oh wait good luck in finding many caused by marijuana. Now I agree that driving under any substance isnt safe I dont think anyone is trying to make others believe that It's safe to do it and drive. as with alcahol lets just hope people have the brains not to drive while under the influence.
 @mike >'Believing that driving under the influence of ANY drug is safe is dillusional at best.'
Â
I don't disagree with your comments, In fact, I'm 110 % in agreement with your statement. I just want to make a point of consideration.
Â
I don't know that I believe that just because MJ becomes legal, there is suddenly going to be a dramatic increase in impaired drivers. I suspect that the vast majority of people who would drive impaired under the influence of it are already doing so.Â
Â
The legal & moral issues (to me) arise under the heading of impairment. That is where (insofar as the law in concerned) legal repercussions come into play. When I take a moment to consider how many people use OTC medicaitons, prescription drugs, legal intoxicants... and then factor into it sleepy drivers, careless drivers or just plain incompetent drivers.... The issue becomes much less of a conviction to me.Â
Â
Personally, my biggest consideration comes from professions that require alertness and focus. Heavy equiptment operators, truck drivers, pilots, etc.... Since there is currently no test that can effectively determine a level of THC intoxication reliably, and the drug can be used by some people without demonstratible loss of coordination/motor function/reaction time.... I just don't know that I'm comfortable wondering if my pilot toked a doob 20 minutes before takeoff.Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @mike I don't want pill poppers or drunks driving, yet they still exist. You are already "in that experiment." I don't think people should drive stoned, however that is a weak excuse for not legalizing it. WEAK.
I wonder what the price will be for an ounce. Will it go down from what is currently selling illegally?  The price for high grade stuff here in the NW is about half what it sells for back east. I foresee that there will be a market where an ounce can be bought legally in Washington and then resold illegally for much profit back east. I am sure the Fed will not like this.
I'm really hoping they'll bow out gracefully. We've all suffered losses over the years, and I know this is a huge loss for the DOJ, but it's waaaaay beyond time.
 @Lips I think the feds will bow out if WA slips some of their new tax dollars that direction...
 @Owt_Raged  @LipsÂ
Â
I doubt that any money will match the election contributions and lobbying money of the corporations and industries that make money from prohibition e.g. prison industrial, law enforcement, pharmaceutical, organized pot growers etc.
 @Lips  @Icarus Until more people realize that the government isn't there to help them, they will remain the "mafia" they are! So sad.
Â
How you doing Lips?
 @Icarus  @Owt_Raged Sad that they'll need to be paid like the mafia they are.
 @Owt_Raged Maybe. It will be a long time before local governments can't adequately supplement the Feds loss of turf. lol.