Has the Obama administration read this?
Related Articles
The Obama administration has, just this week, explicitly stated that it will not interfere with state laws permitting the medical use of marijuana.
In a sharp policy shift, the Obama administration told federal attorneys not to prosecute patients who use marijuana for medical reasons or dispensaries in states where it has been legalized.
A Justice Department official said the formal guidelines were issued Monday to reflect President Barack Obama's views. The Bush administration had said it could enforce the federal law against marijuana and that it trumped state laws.
This will no doubt be regarded as good news by proponents of marijuana law reform who voted for Obama, only to be disappointed shortly after his taking office when the DEA raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Lake Tahoe, California.
Here is the part I find particularly interesting:
A White House spokesman repeated Obama's view that "federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws."
Hmm . . . compare and contrast that to this:
The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (”Act”), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.
. . . and to this:
The passage of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, House Bill 246 (Act), effective, October 1, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition manufactured in the State, from most Federal Firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supercedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.
I'm not certain about Tennessee, but in Montana, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) have filed suit in an effort to force the federal government to back off from its insistence on exercising a power that is not delegated to it anywhere in the Constitution. The federal government is, presumably, planning to contest this lawsuit, and the BATFE has declared its intention to enforce the federal laws, regardless of their inapplicability under the new state laws. Is it just me, or does that sound an awful lot like using federal resources "to circumvent state laws"?
I thought this administration had just made up its mind to not do that, and that's without even getting into the Obama campaign position that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Whatever one's position on drug laws, if state law trumps federal law (in the absence of any "interstate commerce" interests) regarding marijuana, how can it not do so when the subject is intrastate commerce in guns?
Comments
Now Kurt, there you go again applying rational thought to matters involving hoplophobia. Surely you know better... :-)
For my money, the most dangerous part about this piece of news is that it is the old government trick of throwing a bone at one group so that fewer people ask the real question. Oh, it's all noble 'n' stuff that the executive is going to call off some of the dogs on an insignificant point of semantica--you know, "permit" SOME people to exercise ONE right in very narrow circumstances--but there is exactly zero percent (0.00%) chance that the feds are going to give up their self-legitimized ability to be Indian-givers down the road. You know, when people start abusing the privilege. (Gosh, do you think they will?)
Any time the government comes to you handing out favors, you know something else is coming. And remember, weighing against any sort of "favor" is this: government is never--EVER--"just asking".
From a legal and constitutional standpoint, Mr. Hofmann's argument in this article is unassailable. Here's why I disagree with him completely.
Juries are critical to our legal system because they ensure that the machinery of law does not circumvent what we know to be just, fair and humane. (This reminds me of an anonymous quote about the difference between art and pornography, "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.") Hofmann's argument fails without his cognizance because he is measuring justice with the wrong tool. Justice is not measured by the constitution or by law, but by the human mind and heart.
Hofmann fails to recognize the critical difference between guns and marijuana, and their implications to the individual and society and thus the different laws and legal interpretations by which each must be governed.
What Mr. Hofmann omits in his article is the antithetical nature of guns and marijuana. Marijuana is a medicine, used to heal whereas guns ar
(continued)
whereas guns are an instrument of destruction and death. Unlike alcohol which (similar to guns) is the cause of domestic violence, rape and assault, marijuana calms the user and is not associated with any criminal activity or violent behavior. (As we all know, criminal activity regarding marijuana is not created by the herb, but by its prohibition.) The proliferation of guns is a threat to public and individual safety. In comparison, marijuana is relatively harmless. (Note: although there may be some risks regarding marijuana use, they are inconsequential when compared to the inherent dangers of guns.)
I pray that, unlike Mr. Hofmann, our politicians and law makers appreciate the difference between guns and marijuana and the laws that must govern each.
Devil's Advocate,
Wow, from a historical standpoint guns in the hands of civilians are actually life preserving tools. The vast majority of death and destruction caused by firearms has been in the hands of agents of various polities.
How does a gun preserve life? Guns either threaten people or kill them. By threatening, maiming and/or killing you have created more problems, more enemies, more sorrow, death and destruction. Peace can only be achieved when we put down our guns and begin to talk to each other.
Peace can never be achieved by threat of violence or through violence. Peace is achieved by trust, respect, and empathy.
Devil's Advocate, we actually have a point or two of agreement. I certainly don't contest your assertion that guns and marijuana are quite different. For example, although I won't argue that marijuana is without legitimate medical utility, I've never heard of it SAVING any lives, but I can find MANY instances in which possession of a gun saved innocent lives. Likewise, I do not know of a single instance in which lack of marijuana was lethal, but I can find several examples in which the lack of defensive firepower played a very large role in the causation of innocent deaths.
(To be continued)
(Continued) As to your assertion that sometimes the law and Constitution must be subordinated to the "human mind and heart," what's the point of HAVING a written Constitution--explicit limits on the power of government--if an official, or body of officials, can simply say that his/her/their mind(s) and heart(s) compel the transcending of those limits? What's to stop an aspiring tyrant (perhaps even a well-intentioned one) from justifying the abuse of his power by claiming that his "mind and heart" demand that he do so.
If the Constitution is not the ABSOLUTE law of the land, then we are subject to the arbitrary whims of those whose job is public SERVANT.
No, thank you.
What Devil's Advocate misses, quite ironically, is that prohibition is what is common to the Wars on (Some) Drugs and Guns. Specifically, FORCED prohibition, implemented by men with guns.
It is a sophistry, plain and simple, to argue that it is legitimate to force a man who has harmed no one, into prior restraint simply because the infraction fits THIS category and not THAT one. Either a human being has the right to be left alone unless and until he aggresses against someone else, or he doesn't.
And he left out the part, when talking about peace, that the most provably violent, brutal, murderous abuser of weaponry in the history of mankind is the state. The same state that demands a monopoly on the use of force, threats, theft and violence within its borders.
We do agree on this: non-aggression IS the answer. Want more of it? Start by disarming the state, not the people.
No government has any legitimate authority over marijuana OR guns. None. When a government tries to assert authority in these areas it only proves how completely EVIL and STUPID its minions are.
By the way, I just noticed that I never made clear, either in today's column or in either of my comments, that I am fully in favor of not only the Obama administration decision to back off from federal enforcement of drug laws, but going much further, and abandoning the insane War on (Some) Drugs altogether.
Kurt, it's possible we may find a few things to disagree on from time to time, but your bona fides in that matter speak for themselves. :-D
I’m impressed with the thoughtfulness and earnestness of all of the participants in this forum (even if we disagree).
Hofmann: “I've never heard of it [marijuana] SAVING any lives”
Choosing marijuana over alcohol, morphine, vicodin, percoset, for either recreational or medicinal reasons will save lives both in terms of the user and the potential harm that the user can inflict upon society. As I stated before, alcohol is responsible for thousands of deaths, crime, assault, rape, etc. Choosing marijuana over alcohol will eliminate much if not all of this. Lives saved.
“I can find several examples in which the lack of defensive firepower played a very large role in the causation of innocent deaths.” And in your “several examples,” how would these innocent deaths occur without guns? No guns, no deaths.
(continued) to Kurt:
“If the Constitution is not the ABSOLUTE law of the land, then we are subject to the arbitrary whims of those whose job is public SERVANT”
First off, in the interests of civility, no need to capitalize. Secondly, excellent point. However, the constitution was written by men, not God. And anything can be wielded as a weapon. Some people believe the Nazi’s have (had) the right to march in Skokie, IL. I’m not one of them. I don’t believe in using the constitution to defend hatred and bigotry and death, although it most certainly can be used that way. (BTW, the Nazi’s rights were defended by the ACLU.) I have an agenda of peace. The constitution does not always secure that agenda.
Kevin:
“What Devil's Advocate misses, quite ironically, is that prohibition is what is common to the Wars on (Some) Drugs and Guns”
Kevin, I think you underestimate me or mis-read my initial post. Of course I understand that prohibition is a common thread to the issues of guns and marijuana. Interesting to note however, guns are not prohibited nor were they ever since bearing them is secured by the constitution.
“It is a sophistry, plain and simple, to argue that it is legitimate to force a man who has harmed no one,” I am certainly not a sophist. However, it is sophistry to assert that these complex issues are “plain” or “simple.” Again, as a general rule to all, I respect your differences of opinion, but let’s try and keep this argument civil.
(continued)
Kevin: “Either a human being has the right to be left alone unless and until he aggresses against someone else, or he doesn't.”
That is simple. I disagree. I think life is far more complex. Using this reasoning, it would be OK for me to run red lights as long as I used my good judgment. And me not getting into any accidents as a result of this behavior, according to your reasoning, justifies me running red lights. Of course, the reality is, that taken as a whole, we all must be restricted by red lights to secure the good of society.
(continued)
I think we disagree as to where we draw the line between the rights of society and the rights of the individual. For me, peace (lack of suffering, death, etc.) is the litmus test by which I make this determination. As I have implied in earlier posts, the constitution and American law in general has protected slavery, slave owners amongst other abominations. As such, my allegiance to peace is greater than my allegiance to law or the constitution. Both Gandhi and MLK would agree with me.
@Devil's Advocate--where to start?
"Choosing marijuana over alcohol, morphine, vicodin, percoset, for either recreational or medicinal reasons will save lives both in terms of the user and the potential harm that the user can inflict upon society."
By that "logic"--that marijuana saves lives by virtue of being a safer alternative to other substances--guns are lifesavers by virtue of being safer, less harmful alternatives to nuclear weapons. I also take exception to your characterization of alcohol as being "responsible" for the various listed atrocities. The responsibility belongs solely to the perpetrators, even a drunk person has free will, and to lay any of the responsibility for their actions on the alcohol is to absolve them of that amount of responsibility. I'm not willing to let them off so easily.
(To be continued)
(Continued) "And in your 'several examples,' how would these innocent deaths occur without guns? No guns, no deaths."
Wrong--guns are far from the only way to murder people. Being myself paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair, I could be easily killed by a thug with bare hands, if I were not carrying lifesaving firepower.
"First off, in the interests of civility, no need to capitalize."
The all caps is my substitute for italics or bold font, since the comment system here does not provide for either of those. If that's too "uncivil" for you, I'm sorry, but I'll make my points the way I choose to make 'em.
(To be continued)
(Continued) "However, the constitution was written by men, not God. And anything can be wielded as a weapon. Some people believe the Nazi’s have (had) the right to march in Skokie, IL. I’m not one of them."
I'm not going to debate religion, but we're going to find very little common ground if you are willing to deny free speech (to enforce that denial, ironically, would require authorities--with guns--unless you think you'll just "talk" Nazis out of spewing their vile venom) because of the offensiveness of some speech.
Your "agenda of peace" is in itself a form of aggression, in that it infringes on free speech and the right to keep and bear arms, and by releasing government officials from compliance to the written Constitution, you are giving them license to oppress, albeit supposedly in pursuance of an "agenda of peace."
Devil go read the Self Defense Examiner. His accumulation of instances where guns have saved innocent lives is impressive and blows your premise out of the water. In some of those cases guilty lives were lost, but they were attacking others, especially the elderly and the frail. In those situations the only peace which can be obtained is to stop the aggressor. The choice is always the aggressor and they do not care how peaceful you wish to be, except that if you are unable to stop them, they own your life to do with as they please. Surely, you do think that proper. Do you?
Hi Devil's Advocate:
I appreciate civility as much as anyone--right up until the "or else" point. No idea is so great, so noble, that it cannot be ruined by coercion. And government operates *entirely* on coercion.
It's a "competing harms" comparison that you're running into here. Some people simply would choose to live peaceably without interference from the state, happy to accept the limitations of that arrangement in preference to the limitations of what we have now. The state, however, continually moves to make that impossible, and, well, it makes some people prickly at the insult.
To be clear, the sophists over-complicated things; they did not over-simplify them.
corrections, place them where they go. aggressor's ; not proper
Duh, prouf reeten is my fiend/!
Kurt:
You raise a lot of issues. I don't know that I can address them all. I don't know if you missed my allusion to passive resistance or if you chose to ignore it. Both Gandhi and MLK fought aggressors who outstripped them with fire power (not to mention political and economic power) thousands of times over. This is a victory on many counts. By not violently threatening and yet still defeating the aggressor one maintains not only one's own human dignity (by rising above hatred and not succumbing to it), but also establishes a precedent of non-violent resolution to conflict. Of course, to do this, one (like Martin and Gandhi) must be willing to give up one's life for what one believes in. I don't claim to be so brave. I hope if I were put to the test I would pass it. I also hope that test never comes!
I think we may disagree what "speech" means. I don't believe in the espousal and dissemination of hate, nor do I think the constitution was built to secure such rights.
Kurt:
“I also take exception to your characterization of alcohol as being "responsible" for the various listed atrocities.” I was speaking strictly statistically, here. From a statistical standpoint, a rise in alcohol use will create a rise in mortality, violent crime, assault, rape, etc., whereas a rise in marijuana use will not produce any of these ill effects. Moreover, our society, laws, the second largest lobbying group (The National Beer Wholesalers Association) are all encouraging people to consume alcohol, and discouraging if not prohibiting marijuana use.
"guns are not prohibited nor were they ever since bearing them is secured by the constitution"
You really believe that? You'd prove it by carrying a loaded, full-auto, short-barrel rifle into the office of your elected representative, who serves you? I'll wait for you here.
One point that colleague Kent McManigal always seems to make before I do--to his credit--is that the big difference between libertarian and statist attitudes is that the statist thinks it's okay to force me to do things his way "for the good of us all", but I don't think it's right to force any peaceable man, even the statist, to do what I think is right.
I've yet to have anyone explain, effectively, how it can be right to force prior restraint on someone who has harmed no one, at the point of the guns of a state which is accountable (by any reasonable assessment) only unto itself.
Every answer I've seen to that presumes the fitness of the state to adjudicate fairly, and some of us just reject that.
marijuana can't kill people
Says DA: "I don't know if you missed my allusion to passive resistance or if you chose to ignore it. Both Gandhi and MLK fought aggressors who outstripped them with fire power (not to mention political and economic power) thousands of times over."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and Gandhi were great men, who accomplished great things through non-violent protest. Such protest, though, has its limitations. Against an aggressor/oppressor with no decency, no conscience, no capacity for guilt, it is of absolutely no use. Dr. King would have died long before he did without the armed presence of the Deacons for Defense and Justice. Desegregation was only enforced with the use of armed federal troops.
It's all well and good to "turn the other cheek"--until your tormentor buries an axe in it.
You advocate regulation of many things--speech (call it "hate" if you must), firearms, etc. Those laws can only be enforced by people with guns, you know.
If you're stoned, you won't care about defending yourself.
Areas with the highest lawful gun owners have the least violent crime. More guns = less crime in any study of the subject. Guns save us from violent crime and our duty is to defend ourselves. the police ariive after the crime and have NO duty to defend the individual.
When you dehumanize your enemies in order to justify your violence against them, you become no better than them.
Diamond Girl: And if you're sober, you apparently won't care about the life you take (or do you not care because you're drunk?)
To DA;
Please indulge my quote of Mr. Mike Vanderboegh, a man I believe to be quite wise, and happen to agree with: Had the Japanese got as far as India. Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass.
Also, I don't have to make any conscious decision whatsoever to "dehumanize my enemy" if they threaten me or my family with physical harm...they determined that outcome themselves when they decided to attack like a wild animal, so shall they be dealt with, and stopped from such attack. It is the most basic response in all of nature - self defense.
Devil's Advocate must believe murder is not possible without guns. Tell that to most mass-murderers and serial killers from Vlad the Impaler to Ted Bundy. If an evil person wants to kill, he (or she) will kill, with or without a gun, and can stack up just as many bodies. A gun is the most effective tool at allowing a smaller, weaker person to defend themselves from a bigger, stronger attacker or attackers. To deny that is evil.
As Americans, we have a clear onstitutional right to bear arms, and it's clear from the context of its writing that the Constitution secures that right as a defense against tyranny. Please not that I don't count myself among those who claim we are currently facing tyrrany; I'm just identifying the historical context of the Constitution.
It's also clear that the Constitution leaves many matters to be decided internally by each State, and there is not _really_ any Constitutional mandate for the Federal government to take any action related to marijuana, provided that the marijuana doesn't cross state lines. The President has made a good decision on the medical mj issue: let the States handle it as they see fit.
Be sure to write the President. Every politician in America is watching to see the public reaction to this one. It takes two minutes; here's the link:
www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
There seems to be a general attitude (in this forum) that survival is more important than how we survive. Sure, we can all behave like animals and kill each other. And we can rationalize our blood lust with the bible, or the constitution, or a particular flag. What I am suggesting is that seeing the humanity in each other rather than clinging to hatred is what elevates us above the animal kingdom.
The other point I am making is that ideas are more powerful than bullets. If they weren't, then the constitution would be meaningless. What holds society together is not the threat of violence (ie guns, prisons), but our joined belief in sustaining principals (ie words and ideas).
Many of you seem to think that self-defense and an imagined “evil” enemy gives you the moral certitude to justify murder. This is the same logic that propels the Taliban. They too believe they are acting in self-defense, and that their enemy, America, is truly evil. (Of course, the Taliban is wrong in this belief.) Consequently, by what authority are you right? The answer is, of course, your own authority. What if you are wrong? That’s a pretty big gamble you are willing to take with someone else’s life. To quote my friend Kurt, “No thanks.”
Has anyone in this forum heard of Stanley Milgram?
BTW - I realize that self-defense is a valid legal defense. My point here is a philosophical one, not a legal one.
DA; You are completely free to test the effectiveness of that psycho-babble upon the next crack-addled rapist, murderer, or thief that (God forbid) attempts to accost you or your family. Be sure to stop back here and let us all know how that worked out for you, should you be so lucky as to escape such an encounter with your life.
My God gave to me the sense to protect myself if threatened. I believe there exists a "best tool" that provides that protection, and it's not by trying to make my attacker see the error of his ways by explaining to him that, "after all, I'm another loving human being just like you are, so please don't kill me or rape my daughter."
I don't carry a gun because I'm looking for trouble, I carry a gun to defend my life from the trouble that may find me. It's quite simple DA, don't attack me or mine, and you have absolutely nothing to worry about from me.
Sorry DA; I'll never use my weapon against an "imagined" anything. And by the way, self defense is a valid legal defense, because it is a completely moral defense.
Says Devil's Advocate: "BTW - I realize that self-defense is a valid legal defense. My point here is a philosophical one, not a legal one."
Any "philosophy" that requires me to meekly submit to violent--potentially fatal--aggression, rather than to defend myself with the most effective means I can carry is a philosophy I reject as evil.
DA: "The other point I am making is that ideas are more powerful than bullets. If they weren't, then the constitution would be meaningless. What holds society together is not the threat of violence (ie guns, prisons), but our joined belief in sustaining principals (ie words and ideas)"
You are correct of course; afaik, Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed millions using words and ideas. To quote Woody Guthrie, "some'll rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen." Are you less robbed or murdered by the fountain pen than by the gun?
DA, I don't know if you have a belief in a deity. I suspect you do not. Here's why. The second most important gift from God is your life. The first most important, is of course, forgiveness and asenscion to Heaven, whatever that is. To refuse to defend that second most important gift against all who would destroy it is a slap in face of God. Your crackpot philosophy pretends to be based on religious and moral codes, but is not, for it denies the sanctithy of innocent life. It is in fact a pact of emil and a compact with the Devil, so I can see how you picked you screen name.
emil should be evil. screen was bouncing out of site and couldn't see what I typed, same with sanctity, hence the extra h
When gun rights people and anti-prohibitionists get together, Then I will have hope. Neither party thinks this way. They are both authoritarian in ideology.
Libertarian, some gun rights advocates--including this one--ARE very much on board with ending the folly of the "War on (Some) Drugs."
"marijuana can't kill people"
GOOD POINT!
Yes, lets take all guns away from everyone, lets cut VA budgets so veterans can sleep on our streets. Furthermore, prosecute as many people as possible (MONEY). Finally, we need a new government, possibly China, they know how to take care of problems (prison).
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!