Conflicting Smoke Signals

Recently, the US Attorney General, Jeff Session declared that he and his DoJ would reverse course on the doctrine set forth under Obama and Holder and restart enforcement of federal drug laws as they pertain to marijuana. This, frankly, leaves me feeling ambivalent since one could say that I’m getting conflicting smoke signals… and neither of them have anything directly to do with either medical or recreational use of cannabis.

To me this is an example of federal overreach resulting in the Constitution being in conflict with itself at this time. I find that the entirety of the federal drug laws, except those that cover importation, exportation, or interstate trafficking, to be violations of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. However, the Take Care Clause (Section 3, Clause 5) of Article II of the Constitution requires that the Executive shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In other words, the Constitution requires the Executive branch to enforce the laws set forth by the Legislative branch unless and until the Judicial branch declares said laws to be null and void.

That conflict is what’s making me ambivalent about this whole thing, not my personal opinions of either medical or recreational use of marijuana.

Related Reading:

Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto
The Tenth Amendment: Limiting Federal Powers (Amendments to the United States Constitution: the Bill of Rights)
The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty: Constitutional History and Contemporary Issues
Federalism: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution (Reference Guides to the United States Constitution)
Davis's Drug Guide for Nurses

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

One Response to “Conflicting Smoke Signals”

  1. Felipe Zapata Says:

    I’m not ambivalent. The “War on Drugs” is absurd and counterproductive from the get-go. If you want to get stoned, do so. The law should only come into play if you drive and do damage, like it does with drunk driving, etc. It’s not illegal (in most places) to get drunk, especially in your home. It’s only illegal to go swerving down the highway while drunk or if you hold up a convenience store. That makes sense. Similarly, the law should get involved with drug use only if you do something that endangers others while under the influence. Again, like booze. The government getting involved with the use of nonaddictive drugs like LSD, ecstasy and mushrooms is especially egregious. Stick to heroin and crack. Also, like booze, drug use or even possession should be illegal for minors. Kids are dumb.

    The drug laws were born from American Puritanism, nothing else. It’s sanctimonious.

Leave a Reply