States Vs Sessions Whose Right??

Legally, California and other states can’t prevent the federal government from enforcing federal drug laws. “There is nothing that I can see the state attorney general could possibly do to preclude a marijuana prosecution under federal law,” said industry attorney Aaron Herzberg. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. “The federal supremacy clause governs.”

Politically, however, officials in states that have legalized pot feel they’re on stronger ground, given the growing public acceptance of legalized marijuana and the sheer scale of the rapidly expanding legalized industry.

Sessions notably did not order federal prosecutors to begin a stepped-up assault on marijuana, instead saying he would leave the decision up to each of the country’s 93 U.S. attorneys. That approach could lead to vastly different federal law enforcement from state to state or even within larger states that have several U.S. attorneys’ offices. California, for example, has four.

The attorney general has, however, expressed specific concerns about marijuana policies in California. In a remark after a news conference last month, for example, he said he was disturbed about California’s role as a pot-exporting state, noting that much of the state’s crop ends up on the black market.

Whether federal prosecutors have the resources, or even interest, to thwart the national movement toward more permissive cannabis regulation remains to be seen. The move on Thursday to rescind the Justice Department’s so-called “safe-harbor” policy, however, is certain to spread anxiety throughout the multibillion-dollar pot business.

In California, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney in Sacramento said the office “will evaluate violations of [federal] laws in accordance with our district’s federal law enforcement priorities and resources.” A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in San Francisco largely echoed that statement, adding that the office will work with “state, local, and federal law enforcement and allocate resources accordingly.”

The U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego went a step further, issuing a statement saying Sessions’ decision “returns trust and local control to federal prosecutors in each district when it comes to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act.”

Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, said he did not have any specific comment about whether the office would change its policy toward marijuana prosecutions.

Excerpts From LA Times:

– As you can see from above Beauregard is demanding but then placing his district US Attorneys in the crosshairs. From the statements of the four district of California US Attorney’s on one in San Diego seems to be a problem for the State. Or maybe he’s just bucking for a promotion within Trump’s Administration.

E. Bishop III, The Money

Affiliate of TedEd TV Channel

“Following That Almighty Dollar For Our Community”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *