That is the difference in a memo given out to DOJ employees and an existing federal law. No lawmakers give a shit about a memo.
Keep telling the feds they are crazy, Im sure that will change the representatives minds. Fucking amazing...
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
It looks like J Sessions is getting his way....
- Thread starter rolandomota
- Start date
- Status
That is the difference in a memo given out to DOJ employees and an existing federal law. No lawmakers give a shit about a memo.
Keep telling the feds they are crazy, Im sure that will change the representatives minds. Fucking amazing...
We still have the Robacher/ Blumenthal rider on the budget bill that sesisons can't change on his own...
Trump is unlikely to sign any legislation Blumenthal co sponsors. That Senator has been a burr under Trumps saddle all last year.
many thanks for that tidbit, i knew there were some other barriers in place to jeff doing what ever struck his fancy
that does seem to preclude large actions
Green Squall
Well-known member
Turning it over to states US Attorney, not Attorney General. I had to look up mine, and can't really find any info on his marijuana stance. You don't see these people in the spotlight often.
In other news, Session' advisor wants mandatory drug testing amid increasing marijuana legalization. Ya, that's never going to happen, but the fact that one of our Attorney Generals advisors is actually suggesting this is disturbing.
January 4, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: Jefferson B. Sessions,
Attorney General
SUBJECT: Marijuana Enforcement
In the Controlled Substances Act, Congress has generally prohibited the cultivation,
distribution, and possession of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. It has established significant
penalties for these crimes. 21 U.S.C. 841 e! seq. These activities also may serve as the basis
for the prosecution of other crimes, such as those prohibited by the money laundering statutes,
the unlicensed money transmitter statute, and the Bank Secrecy Act. 18 U.S.C. 1956-57,
1960; 31 U.S.C. 5318. These statutes reflect Congress's determination that marijuana is a
dangerous drug and that marijuana activity is a serious crime.
In deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the
Department?s finite resources, prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that
govern all federal prosecutions. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti originally set forth these
principles in 1980, and they have been refined over time, as reflected in chapter 9-27.000 of the
U.S. Attorneys Manual. These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to
prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set
by the Attomey General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal
prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.
Given the Department's well-established general principles, previous nationwide
guidance specific to marijuana enforcement is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective
immediately. This memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative
and prosecutorial discretion in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
appropriations. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.
Previous guidance includes: David W. Ogden, Deputy Att?y Gen., Memorandum for Selected United States
Attorneys: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana (Oct. 19. 2009);
James M. Cole, Deputy Att?y Gen., Memorandum for United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding the Ogden
Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use (June M. Cole, Deputy
Att?y Gen, Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement (Aug. 29,
2013); James M. Cole, Deputy Att?y Gen., Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding
Marijuana Related Financial Crimes (Feb. 14, 2014); and Monty Wilkinson, Director ofthe Executive Of?ce for
U.S. Att?ys, Policy Statement Regarding Marijuana Issues in Indian Country (Oct. 28, 2014).
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: Jefferson B. Sessions,
Attorney General
SUBJECT: Marijuana Enforcement
In the Controlled Substances Act, Congress has generally prohibited the cultivation,
distribution, and possession of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. It has established significant
penalties for these crimes. 21 U.S.C. 841 e! seq. These activities also may serve as the basis
for the prosecution of other crimes, such as those prohibited by the money laundering statutes,
the unlicensed money transmitter statute, and the Bank Secrecy Act. 18 U.S.C. 1956-57,
1960; 31 U.S.C. 5318. These statutes reflect Congress's determination that marijuana is a
dangerous drug and that marijuana activity is a serious crime.
In deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the
Department?s finite resources, prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that
govern all federal prosecutions. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti originally set forth these
principles in 1980, and they have been refined over time, as reflected in chapter 9-27.000 of the
U.S. Attorneys Manual. These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to
prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set
by the Attomey General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal
prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.
Given the Department's well-established general principles, previous nationwide
guidance specific to marijuana enforcement is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective
immediately. This memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative
and prosecutorial discretion in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
appropriations. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.
Previous guidance includes: David W. Ogden, Deputy Att?y Gen., Memorandum for Selected United States
Attorneys: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana (Oct. 19. 2009);
James M. Cole, Deputy Att?y Gen., Memorandum for United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding the Ogden
Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use (June M. Cole, Deputy
Att?y Gen, Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement (Aug. 29,
2013); James M. Cole, Deputy Att?y Gen., Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding
Marijuana Related Financial Crimes (Feb. 14, 2014); and Monty Wilkinson, Director ofthe Executive Of?ce for
U.S. Att?ys, Policy Statement Regarding Marijuana Issues in Indian Country (Oct. 28, 2014).
seems pretty weak to me, but not an expert
hard to see a total roll back of legalization from this
It was modeled after a similar memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden in 2009 that directing US attorneys to “not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”
The Cole Memo represented a significant shift in the federal government to de-prioritize the use of funds to enforce cannabis prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act towards a more laissez-faire, hands-off approach.
After the memo was issued, most federal prosecutions were halted unless they met the listed criteria.
https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/what-is-the-cole-memo
The Cole Memo represented a significant shift in the federal government to de-prioritize the use of funds to enforce cannabis prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act towards a more laissez-faire, hands-off approach.
After the memo was issued, most federal prosecutions were halted unless they met the listed criteria.
https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/what-is-the-cole-memo
that does put it into some context, the memory gets hazy on the federal steps over the years
seems like a 1st step, what comes next - that's the worry
indicting state/local government officials collecting taxes on recreational?
not yet i think
The way I read that memorandum is all previous guidance recommendations regarding marijuana are rescinded, effective immediately.
@Betterhaff - i'm reading it the same way, many former guidance procedures now eliminated. and the " ag " in colorado has had issues with many in politics ....
" I am running to be Colorado’s next Attorney General because our constitutional freedoms and our nation’s commitment to the rule of law requires active citizens and responsible leaders. Our current Attorney General has remained on the sidelines or has cheered on repeated challenges to our Constitution and the rule of law. Notably, while other State Attorneys General have stepped up to challenge the unconstitutional travel ban, the ending of the DACA program, and the undermining of the Affordable Care Act, Colorado’s State AG has refused to act. In some of these cases, she has forced our Governor to hire private counsel to represent our State. And instead of working collaboratively in Colorado to solve problems and address challenges, such as managing oil and gas development responsibly, she has played political games, like suing Boulder County when it was working on an ordinance on this issue. We deserve better. "
https://www.philforcolorado.com/2017/10/20/new-separation-powers/
" I am running to be Colorado’s next Attorney General because our constitutional freedoms and our nation’s commitment to the rule of law requires active citizens and responsible leaders. Our current Attorney General has remained on the sidelines or has cheered on repeated challenges to our Constitution and the rule of law. Notably, while other State Attorneys General have stepped up to challenge the unconstitutional travel ban, the ending of the DACA program, and the undermining of the Affordable Care Act, Colorado’s State AG has refused to act. In some of these cases, she has forced our Governor to hire private counsel to represent our State. And instead of working collaboratively in Colorado to solve problems and address challenges, such as managing oil and gas development responsibly, she has played political games, like suing Boulder County when it was working on an ordinance on this issue. We deserve better. "
https://www.philforcolorado.com/2017/10/20/new-separation-powers/
It is also worth noting that as an independently elected official, the AG does not report to the Governor. The AG represents the state, a position that was reinforced by the Colorado Supreme Court recently when Governor Hickenlooper tried to block Attorney General Cynthia Coffman from suing the federal government over the Clean Power Plan. The court declined to issue an opinion on the matter, stating that there were alternative remedies available. Although the AG’s office may represent the Governor in some capacities and may issue legal opinions to the Governor, litigation control rests with the AG, and the Governor may not direct the AG to cease litigation. In certain circumstances, the Governor or other state agencies can employ outside legal counsel should the AG be unable to provide the legal services needed. In practice, the two offices may confer on major issues, but there is no obligation to cooperate.
The Department of Law, in which the AG’s office is housed, is organized into eight main sections:
Business and Licensing: This section represents the Department of Regulatory Agencies and many of its divisions, the Department of Agriculture, the State Personnel Board, the Independent Ethics Commission, the Mined Land Reclamation Board, the State Claims Board, and the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman.
Revenue and Utilities: This section represents the Department of Revenue, the Trial Staff of the Public Utilities Commission, the Property Tax Administrator and Property Tax Division, and statewide clients regarding bankruptcy matters.
State Services: This section represents half of the executive branch state agencies in Colorado (including the Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Higher Education, and the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing), as well as Colorado’s five elected public officials: the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Treasurer.
Consumer Protection: This section represents Colorado consumers by prosecuting fraud; enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws; implementing the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement; enforcing state laws on consumer lending, predatory lending, debt collection, rent-to-own, debt management, and credit repair; and advocating for residential, small business, and agricultural public utility ratepayers through the Office of Consumer Counsel.
Criminal Justice: This section provides assistance to district attorneys in certain types of cases and prosecutes multi-jurisdictional cases involving human trafficking, major drug trafficking organizations, and white-collar and environmental crimes. This section also prosecutes crimes in which the AG has original jurisdiction: securities, insurance, and election fraud.
Criminal Appeals: This section is responsible for all Colorado criminal prosecutions at the appellate level.
Natural Resources and Environment: This section represents the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and advocates on behalf of the Colorado Resources Trustees and the Colorado Energy Office.
Civil Litigation and Employment: This section defends all state agencies and employees that are sued in state or federal court for personal injuries, property damage, employment discrimination, or constitutional violations. This section also serves as general counsel to a host of agencies, including the Colorado Department of Transportation, Department of Corrections, State Board of Parole, POST Board, and Civil Rights Division.
https://legisource.net/2017/03/27/a...and-its-relationship-to-the-general-assembly/
The Department of Law, in which the AG’s office is housed, is organized into eight main sections:
Business and Licensing: This section represents the Department of Regulatory Agencies and many of its divisions, the Department of Agriculture, the State Personnel Board, the Independent Ethics Commission, the Mined Land Reclamation Board, the State Claims Board, and the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman.
Revenue and Utilities: This section represents the Department of Revenue, the Trial Staff of the Public Utilities Commission, the Property Tax Administrator and Property Tax Division, and statewide clients regarding bankruptcy matters.
State Services: This section represents half of the executive branch state agencies in Colorado (including the Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Higher Education, and the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing), as well as Colorado’s five elected public officials: the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Treasurer.
Consumer Protection: This section represents Colorado consumers by prosecuting fraud; enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws; implementing the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement; enforcing state laws on consumer lending, predatory lending, debt collection, rent-to-own, debt management, and credit repair; and advocating for residential, small business, and agricultural public utility ratepayers through the Office of Consumer Counsel.
Criminal Justice: This section provides assistance to district attorneys in certain types of cases and prosecutes multi-jurisdictional cases involving human trafficking, major drug trafficking organizations, and white-collar and environmental crimes. This section also prosecutes crimes in which the AG has original jurisdiction: securities, insurance, and election fraud.
Criminal Appeals: This section is responsible for all Colorado criminal prosecutions at the appellate level.
Natural Resources and Environment: This section represents the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and advocates on behalf of the Colorado Resources Trustees and the Colorado Energy Office.
Civil Litigation and Employment: This section defends all state agencies and employees that are sued in state or federal court for personal injuries, property damage, employment discrimination, or constitutional violations. This section also serves as general counsel to a host of agencies, including the Colorado Department of Transportation, Department of Corrections, State Board of Parole, POST Board, and Civil Rights Division.
https://legisource.net/2017/03/27/a...and-its-relationship-to-the-general-assembly/
Colorado ~
State governments receive aid from the federal government to fund a variety of joint programs, mainly in the form of grants for such things as Medicaid, education, and transportation. In 2014, federal aid to the states accounted for roughly 31 percent of all state general revenues. Federal aid varies from state to state. For example, Mississippi received approximately $7.2 billion in federal aid in 2014, accounting for about 41 percent of the state's general revenues, the highest percentage of all of the states. By contrast, North Dakota received about $1.5 billion in federal aid in 2014, or just 17 percent of the state's general revenues, the lowest percentage in the nation.[4]
The table below notes what share of Colorado’s general revenues came from the federal government in 2014. That year, Colorado received approximately $7.2 billion in federal aid, 29.1 percent of the state's general revenues. Taking into consideration the state's 2014 population, this came out to about $1,344 in federal aid per capita. Figures from surrounding states are provided for additional context
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget_and_finances
State governments receive aid from the federal government to fund a variety of joint programs, mainly in the form of grants for such things as Medicaid, education, and transportation. In 2014, federal aid to the states accounted for roughly 31 percent of all state general revenues. Federal aid varies from state to state. For example, Mississippi received approximately $7.2 billion in federal aid in 2014, accounting for about 41 percent of the state's general revenues, the highest percentage of all of the states. By contrast, North Dakota received about $1.5 billion in federal aid in 2014, or just 17 percent of the state's general revenues, the lowest percentage in the nation.[4]
The table below notes what share of Colorado’s general revenues came from the federal government in 2014. That year, Colorado received approximately $7.2 billion in federal aid, 29.1 percent of the state's general revenues. Taking into consideration the state's 2014 population, this came out to about $1,344 in federal aid per capita. Figures from surrounding states are provided for additional context
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget_and_finances
Attachments
slapmehard
Member
all they are going to do is make sure the states laws are followed.
it is all they CAN do
it is all they CAN do
Someone should slap you, lol. They are not going to make sure state law is followed, they are going to enforce federal law. As in marijuana is a scedule 1 drug with no medical qualities.
They have too many big fish to fry first. Dont think they wont come after med people.
They have too many big fish to fry first. Dont think they wont come after med people.
M
moose eater
Re. the first paragraph, yes, precisely.
Not State AGs, but US Fed AAG/Prosecutors.
And in the eyes of the US Prosecutors, as far as official policy is concerned (i.e., not their own personal views), every legal rec store and medical dispensary is technically eligible for RICO and King-pin status.
Sitting ducks, if it gets ugly.
As Gry or another pointed out, there's plenty of pressure from the alc, tobacco and pharma dealers to push the other way too.
As far as this figures into California just having opened up for rec., if you had to wrestle an alligator, would you want to do it when it's still young, or wait until it's teeth are the size of .50 cent pieces?
I think I know how J. Sessions thinks they ought to make up the $1.? trillion deficit the 'tax over-haul' is reportedly creating.
The 9th & 10th Amendments have been dead or near dead for a LONG time now, boys and girls. The ubiquitous 'General Welfare' and 'Commerce Clauses' reign supreme in Fed-ville, and spell huge amounts of $$$$$ for the feds, too.
As Little Cindy Loo Who said, "Santa, why are you taking my ganja plant???"
Re. the 2nd paragraph, I say we offer a deal to the aid; they can try to up drug testing, but every politician gets a Psych eval, including an MMPI test, and ANY indications of even a personality disorder, let alone an Axis 1 thought disorder, leads directly to disqualification from any opportunity for public office, to include dog catcher.
That'll thin the bastages out quickly.
Kankakee, the memorandum is a directive to US Attorneys to enforce federal law of which cannabis is still illegal. This is definitely going to turn into a mess. The State Attorney General is somewhat hands tied here because in most cases Federal law supersedes State law.
Sessions pulled a Nixon, like when Nixon ignored the Shafer Commission’s findings and left marijuana as Schedule 1 in the CSA. Sessions ignored the panel he created to investigate what direction should be taken in regards to marijuana and they said things should continue as is, referring to leaving it a State issue.
Sessions pulled a Nixon, like when Nixon ignored the Shafer Commission’s findings and left marijuana as Schedule 1 in the CSA. Sessions ignored the panel he created to investigate what direction should be taken in regards to marijuana and they said things should continue as is, referring to leaving it a State issue.
- Status
