Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement

[RainDog]

57. FINALLY! Something liberals and conservatives can agree on - no prohibition

Here are other reactions to Holder's announcement from the pov of conservatives.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16433-feds-will-respect-state-sovereignty-on-marijuana-says-ag-holder

Not all Law Enforcement Officers, past and present, agree with those raising a ruckus with Holder.

"Today's announcement by Eric Holder and the Department of Justice should be hailed as a victory for the 10th Amendment, states’ rights, and small-government proponents,” retired police Lieutenant Commander Diane Goldstein, a board member with the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), told The New American. “Just as it was the states that finally ended the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition, it is the states that are propelling radical shifts in our national drug policy today. It is long past due for our politicians and all the branches of our government to support this change."

...and conservative's who hate the UN are having a "gotcha!" moment...

Despite decades-old United Nations agreements purporting to require global prohibition of the controversial plant and unconstitutional federal statutes claiming to outlaw it for virtually any purpose nationwide, state governments have increasingly turned to nullification by rejecting the war. Already, almost half of the states have adopted laws allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes. Last year, voters in Colorado and Washington decided to end the war on cannabis completely, making it available legally to adults while taxing and regulating the industry.

The UN, of course, has been complaining loudly about recent developments in the United States, absurdly claiming that sovereign state governments could not regulate the plant as they see fit. The global entity even demanded that Obama quash the will of voters, drawing fury from across the political spectrum. Meanwhile, despite its rhetoric, the Obama administration has been targeting the medical-marijuana industry in states where it is legal more ferociously than even former President George W. Bush. The new guidelines to federal prosecutors, however, while leaving some leeway for prosecutorial discretion, are expected to rein in many of the excesses, according to analysts.

And conservatives are hoping this issue signals a future for refusal of... health care? (way to take the wrong lesson from this one...)

Despite numerous controversies surrounding the safety and morality of consuming the plant, the move is also being seen as a positive development among constitutionalists — especially because, as The New American outlined in great detail in 2011, the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate or ban any substances. That is why alcohol prohibition, for example, required a constitutional amendment, which was ultimately repealed after the scheme led to soaring crime, lawlessness, an explosion of gang activity, and numerous other problems. Experts say even if it was not the administration’s intention, it appears as though the decision represents at least a partial victory in practice for the 10th Amendment granting all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

Since the AG's office is talking about a "wait and see" policy - I don't quite see how this issue aligns with conservative goals to deny equal protection. But I'm no constitutional scholar like, oh, Scalia and other conservatives using the interstate commerce clause to deny cancer patients the right to grow cannabis for their own health care in their own backyards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich