« Ohio completes its 50th execution in modern era | Main | After state senate vote, Maryland appears poised to repeal its (already dormant) death penalty »

March 6, 2013

"Sen. Leahy: Sequester should halt federal marijuana raids"

The title of this post is the headline of this Washington Times account of some discussion about federal marijuana policy today in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here are the details:

The Obama Justice Department is still trying to figure out how to handle the legalization of marijuana possession in Colorado and Washington state, but one senator on Wednesday said that in an era of stretched budgets, the feds should back off.

“I would suggest there are more serious things than minor possession of marijuana,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Judiciary Committee chairman, told Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

Minutes earlier, Mr. Holder had warned that the budget sequesters are forcing him to cut more than $1 billion from his department’s operations and said that could hurt national security.

Mr. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said that’s all the more reason to not continue targeting marijuana users.

Mr. Holder is trying to figure out how the federal government, which still considers marijuana a major illegal drug, will deal with pot users in states where it’s been legalized. He said he expects to have a policy soon.

March 6, 2013 at 02:30 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2017d418bfa78970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Sen. Leahy: Sequester should halt federal marijuana raids":

Comments

With Chavez passed, perhaps cocaine trafficking may be more assailable.
E.g.:: Venezuela Is Cocaine Hub Despite Its Claims - NYTimes.com,
Revealed: Chávez role in cocaine trail to Europe | World news | The ...www.guardian.co.uk,
Colombia: Hugo Chavez, cocaine and how to contain FARC ...www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/

Chavez/U.S. relations:
cjj.ca, haaretz: 3/6/13:
Iran declares day of mourning for anti-U.S. ally Chavez. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had forged a public friendship…Syria also mourns. Ahmadinejad, who had forged a public friendship with Chavez characterized by lavish mutual praise, hugs and light-hearted moments…has praised terrorism: “Iran can
recruit hundreds of suicide bombers a day. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way," said of 911: "segments
within the American government orchestrated the attack", and threatened: “Anybody who recognizes Israel will
burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury”.

CNN: 10/1/12:
Chavez told state-owned VTV, "In the point of view of his politics, if I were voting, I would vote for Obama
and I believe that if Obama was from Caracas, he would vote for Chavez, I am positive."

newsfromVE: 7/27/10
Report from Criminal Justice Intl. Associates, a global risk assessment firm estimates the Hugo Chavez family fortune
at around $2 billion USD

CNN: 9/22/09
Drawing on 2006 remarks in which he compared former U.S. President George Bush to the devil…
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said, "It doesn't smell like sulfur anymore….I hope God will
protect Obama from the bullets that killed Kennedy," he said.

ABCnews: 4/18/09:
Chavez Gifts Obama With Book That Assails U.S. Chávez strode up to Obama, patted him on the shoulder and,
with a friendly handshake, gave him a paperback...Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent....The copy of
the book Chavez gave Obama appears to be in Spanish, a language Obama does not speak.“You know, I
thought it was one of Chavez’s books," Obama answered. "I was going to give him one of mine.” "I try
to figure out what's right in terms of American interest, and on this one I think I'm right," he said.

{ { GuardianUK: 4/19/09, CNN: 4/20/09, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTlBzdhpLYs also } }

Posted by: Adamakis | Mar 6, 2013 3:07:06 PM

"Mr. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said that’s all the more reason to not continue targeting marijuana users."

What is he talking about? Mere "users" aren't "targeted" now. If you smoke a joint on the federal courthouse steps, sure, you'll get arrested, but not a whole lot of people do that. More than 99% of pot use never winds up in an arrest, much less a federal arrest. That makes pot use de facto legal, as I've said before. Leahy is just blowing smoke, as it were.

I suggest that we save the money Leahy is so suddenly concerned about by laying off all the AUSA's and AFPD's in Vermont.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 6, 2013 4:42:13 PM

'Leahy is just blowing smoke, as it were.'

still much more preferrable than just blowing it out the ass like you though

Posted by: Greg | Mar 6, 2013 7:25:33 PM

Greg --

Gosh, that's so cute! Can you type all by yourself?

I note that you don't, because you can't, refute my point that users aren't targeted now, contrary to Leahy's nonsense.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 6, 2013 7:59:30 PM

Of course, Bill Otis is once again out in some sphere other than the sphere of reality.

Those of us who actually practice law know that federal and state officials regularly arrest and prosecute mere growers and users of marijuana. I'm representing a handful of mere growers and users right now.

Wake up Bill. Your drug war is a vicious, evil, immoral monstrosity. Own it.

Posted by: Phil Jensen | Mar 7, 2013 3:23:28 PM

Phil Jensen --

Learn how to read, hotshot. The question is not whether "federal and state officials regularly arrest and prosecute mere growers and users of marijuana." The question is whether Leahy knew what he was talking about when he told Holder that he had better things to do than "target" mere users.

So, first, it makes no difference for these purposes what "state officials" are doing, unless Holder has suddenly become a state official. Second, I said nothing about growers, and neither did Leahy. Third, OF COURSE people can still be arrested for pot use, and I never claimed otherwise. But arresting an occasional pot user is hardly the same as TARGETING pot users.

If you show the same ability at reading comprehension in your practice that you showed in reading my comment, it's no wonder you lose most of your cases.

Your druggie clients know full well that federal law forbids what they're doing, put they do it anyway, because they think the law is only for other people. Am I supposed to have sympathy for that attitude?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 7, 2013 5:30:13 PM

Somebody needs to get Bill Otis into a straight-jacket.

What a frick'n nut.

Posted by: Samantha Estridge | Mar 7, 2013 11:47:29 PM

Greg, Phil Jensen and now Samantha display more vividly than I could the level of maturity, and the analytical ability, of the druggie bar.

No analysis, just mud slinging. How impressive.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 8, 2013 9:29:12 AM

'No analysis, just mud slinging.'

still a sight better than the wanker bullshit you constantly sling though.

Posted by: Greg | Mar 8, 2013 7:30:44 PM

Greg --

I'll give you this: Your manners and your thinking are at the same level of development.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 9, 2013 3:52:28 PM

We've never seen any type of thoughtful analysis from Bill Otis on marijuana issues. He can't get past his cramped view that those who support legalization, repeal, and/or liberalization are "druggies." Seemingly, boring old white guys like Bill Otis can't get past the reefer madness cartoon images rattling around in their brains. Happily, Bill Otis' way of thinking is not long for this world.

Posted by: Jason Arthur | Mar 10, 2013 12:33:06 PM

Jason Arthur --

"We've never seen any type of thoughtful analysis from Bill Otis on marijuana issues."

Translation: Disagreement with legalizers is verbotten.

"He can't get past his cramped view that those who support legalization, repeal, and/or liberalization are 'druggies.'"

And you can't get past your view that 1969 was a while back. Not that it was all that good when it was here.

"Seemingly, boring old white guys like Bill Otis can't get past the reefer madness cartoon images rattling around in their brains.

Aren't you druggies supposed to be against racist and ageist stereotypes? Ooooooooops!

"Happily, Bill Otis' way of thinking is not long for this world."

Yes, there's nothing more elevated than looking forward to your adversaries' deaths.

You're truly groovy.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 10, 2013 7:18:31 PM

"boring old white guys like Bill Otis can't get past the reefer madness cartoon images"~~Jason Arthur

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity,
but that she is a typical white person."~~B. Obama
----- -----

Strange then that noted pot advocates are old and white, e.g. Bill Maher, Schwarzenegger...Are they boring & old & white?

Are white guys typically boring, or must they be old and white to be boring?
▼ What is the causal agent? ? ?▼

Are Jews white? ... ¿Puerto Ricans? ... Prince Michael Jackson?

Colour is such an enhancement to a deficient argument, perhaps I shall try it:

-} Obama is a typically pale old President, and I'm darker than him depending on the light,
(the "Grecian" effect as GW Bush might say) so people like him can't get past the Doonsbury legalisation cartoon images.

Pitiful: I just can't manage to (mis)appropriate race like ▼ liberals—they can't be racists, neither can
minorities▼ —but I must be if I am not sufficiently guilty of my moderate colouration.

Posted by: Adamakis | Mar 11, 2013 2:05:51 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB