The Drug War. So much for federalism. SSS is elated.
Pot Stocks Tumble After Jeff Sessions Rescinds Policies Allowing States To Legalize Pot
Just days after California started selling recreational marijuana to anyone over the age of 21, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced plans to rescind policies that have allowed states to circumvent federal laws and legalize the drug. According to the Associated Press, the move by Sessions will require U.S. attorneys where pot is legal to decide whether to aggressively enforce federal marijuana law.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is going after legalized marijuana. Sessions is rescinding a policy that had let legalized marijuana flourish without federal intervention across the country.
That’s according to two people with direct knowledge of the decision. They were not allowed to publicly discuss it before an announcement expected Thursday and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The move will leave it to U.S. attorneys where pot is legal to decide whether to aggressively enforce federal marijuana law. The move likely will add to confusion about whether it’s OK to grow, buy or use marijuana in states where it’s legal, since long-standing federal law prohibits it.
This is not great news for the folks that have plowed roughly $158 million into the weed ETF over the past week. Following the report, pot stocks have tumbled on sudden crackdown fears.
The U.S.-listed ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF , which began trading on Dec. 26, has risen to $164-million in net assets from $6-million in one week.
Oh well, Bummer dude….
* * *
For those who missed it, below is some background on the weed laws in California and other states around the country.
A long-awaited law in California kicked in today allowing anyone 21 and older to purchase marijuana at licensed shops, grow up to six pot plants at home and possess up to an ounce (28 grams) of the drug – joining Colorado, Oregon and Nevada’s expansion into recreational use by adults.
Opponents say the law will encourage gateway drug use and lead to higher DUI rates.
Californians voted on the legislation in November, 2016, which has paved the way for around 90 licensed retailers – concentrated mostly in San Diego, Santa Cruz, Silicon Valley and Palm Springs.
“It’s been so long since others and myself could walk into a place where you could feel safe and secure and be able to get something that was good without having to go to the back alley,” Jeff Deakin, 66, who waited in Oakland with his wife, Mary, and their dog all night for Harborside dispensary to open at 6 a.m told the USA Today. “This is kind of a big deal for everybody.“
Los Angeles and San Francisco, however, was unable to sort out local regulations in time to start issuing licences to local pot sellers, while Bakersfield, Fresno and Riverside have adopted laws forbidding recreational marijuana sales. The San Diego Union-Tribune estimates that over 70% of California cities have banned either the sale or cultivation of cannabis.
In late December, Los Angeles officials announced that they would not begin accepting license applications to sell recreational marijuana until Jan. 3, and it may take several weeks before licenses are issued. Meanwhile, lawyers advising medical dispensaries who wish to also sell recreational marijuana have advised businesses to continue to sell pot as “collectives” until local and state licenses are secured, according to Jarred Kiloh of the United Cannabis Business Association. There are around 1,000 existing medical marijuana dispensaries statewide.
The new pot laws include several specific provisions governing its use; no smoking pot in public areas or anywhere cigarettes aren’t allowed, while traffic laws prohibit marijuana use in vehicles – smoked or ingested, even riding as a passenger.
Cannabis cannot be sold before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m., and diespensaries and similar busineses can’t operate within 600 feet of any school – and must maintain 24-hour surveillance for security reasons.
California is also imposing a 15% levy on all pot sales, including medical pot products – while local governments are piling new taxes on top of the statewide levy – which could result in a 70% increase in the price of marijuana. In Oakland, for example, taxes for most customers will increase from 14.25% to 34.25%. The state estimates an increase in annual tax revenue of $1 billion from the legal adult-use marijuana industry, which itself is expected to have a projected value of $7 billion.
As Fortune reports:
In order to collect $1 billion a year in taxes, the state will need to reach a projected $7 billion in annual legal recreational cannabis sales. (California residents already reportedly spend that much on marijuana annually, but most of it is still on the black market.) At that rate, California would easily be the country’s largest legal marijuana market, as the entire legal cannabis industry in the U.S. is expected to pull in roughly $10 billion in total sales for 2017. That number would almost certainly get a boost in the coming years, as legal markets grow in California and other states, such as Nevada (where legal recreational marijuana sales kicked off over the summer) and Massachusetts (where the adult-use market is expected to open in July 2018).
Five states have already created regulated marketplaces for recreational marijuana, with Maine and Massachusetts preparing to begin legal recreational sales next summer. according to Fortune, here’s how other states that have legalized recreational marijuana collect taxes on the substance:
- In Nevada, revenue from a 15% tax on wholesalers gets funneled into the state’s education budget, while a 10% tax on retail sales gets put into the state’s rainy day fund.
- Colorado, the first state to legalize recreational marijuana sales, has raised more than $500 million in tax revenue since January 2014. This comes from a 2.9% state tax on all marijuana sales along with an additional 15% excise tax and 10% special tax for adult-use weed sales.
- In Oregon, the state tax on recreational marijuana is 17% and local governments can vote to add municipal tax of up to 3% on each sale. The largest portion of this revenue goes to education, with the rest going to law enforcement, addiction treatment, and cities and counties around the state.
- Washington levies a 37% tax on adult-use weed purchases. Legal sales of recreational marijuana in Washington state began in July 2014.
- In Alaska there is a $50 tax on each ounce of marijuana buds or flowersand a $15-per-ounce tax for the remainder of the plant.
In anticipation of the new law going into effect, Jack in the box Inc. has partnered with a digital media company backed by Snoop Dogg to bring back their “munchie meal.”
The “Merry Munchie Meal” will be available at three California locations for a week in January. Its price is an elbow-in-the-ribs $4.20, also the time of the day notorious for smokers to light up. The meal features two tacos, french fries, onion rings, five mini churros, three chicken strips and a small drink. –Deadline
Here’s a 2014 promotion for the pot-themed meal:
Meanwhile, grandmas across the state can rejoice and partake of cannabis without worrying about getting busted by the fuzz.
I’ve seen door stops which were of more use than Sessions. This guy is compromised. No doubt about it.
Congress can make prohibition go away. I wonder how much the alcohol lobby is paying Sessions?
POTUS has made his position clear. CONgress made the law to criminalize cannabis and must reverse that law. His job is to ensure the laws passed by CONgress are enforced. He is doing his job and placing responsibility squarely where it belongs, but don’t expect CONgresscritters to actually do their job.
Gil, some people don’t want to hear the truth.
It ain’t the alcohol lobby paying Sessions, it is more likely the pharmaceutical industry. Weed is a cheap alternative to prescription pain killers.
Stopping CA from achieving 1 Billion in taxes is a good thing.
Excessive taxes encourage black-market activity.
Last gasp battle of the “refer madness” generations.
There is no authority for federal meddling in this issue.
The 18th amendment created alcohol prohibition.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.
Where’s the amendment concerning drugs?
The Federal authority would fall under the regulation of interstate commerce, the same place gun where control laws, alcohol laws, phone and internet regulation, regulations of financial institutions, and so on get their authority.
True, but weed, grown, sold, and consumed within a state would not cross that jurisdiction.
UNLESS they pull the money card. Using FRN’s could be argued to be within federal subject matter jurisdiction. However using US mint/treasury produced money would not fall under that nexus.
This is the danger pursuing this in court. They risk exposing the grand lie.
They’ve actually done worse in past rulings.
One (I forget which and don’t feel like researching it) actually ruled a business that was a local business to be engaged in interstate commerce because it had a telephone which was connected to interstate telephone lines.
Another ruled that a small farmer could not grow his own animal feed outside of allotments because that would he wasn’t buying it in interstate commerce where his animals ended up being sold and would have an effect on interstate commerce. FWIW, that ruling, as written, could also be interpreted to give the Feds control over your garden if they wished to claim it.
There’s lots of other stuff like this. As I said, it’s the most abused clause, but one the Courts uphold in almost all cases where actual commerce -conducting business- is involved.
What about the insecticides, herbicides and fretilizers used to enhance plant growth and the light bulbs used to grow it and the burlap used to wrap it ? Is none of that produced out of state? Of course, this arguement is absurd but I am sure the Feds hae used similar rationals gor sticking their noses in local business.
BTW, I wonder if those pot-head grannies were once the grass-hoppers we porked 45 or so years ago on liberty from Camp Pendleton?
But on a more serious note, why waste Federal funds on this when illegal aliens overwhelm the country. Apparently, this is one law enforcement effort that Attorney General Sessions is not reluctant to assert authority.
Anon is speaking of this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It took the commerce clause into the land of absurdity, during WW2 when FDR was God.
Somehow if this kind of thing came back up for review I’d bet it would be struck down as that case essentially made the commerce clause relevant to everything. It is not harmonious with the constitution.
Saying intra-state commerce effects inter-state is akin to saying the sun makes the earth warm. Using that to commandeer intra-state commerce into the federal sphere is completely absurd. It totally erases the lines between state v federal commerce and is unconstitutional per the 9th and 10th amendments.
One of the states where recreational marijuana is legal should try to get a case back in front of SCOTUS to reverse Gonzales v Raich. Only 3 of the original 6 who (wrongly) OK’d the federal law against pot are still on the court (Ginsburg, Kennedy & Breyer). Kennedy may retire after this term & Ginsburg’s gotta croak soon – no matter what voodoo she’s doing to stay alive. Breyer should retire to spend more time with his husband.
If Gonzales were overturned, it’d please the dopers and reverse abuse of the Commerce Clause.
“I mean was he a heavy doper or was he just a loser? He was a friend of yours.”
– Neil Young, “Tired Eyes”
Which authority over personal choice in consumer products is nonexistent. The Wilson Administration admitted this fact, but ten years later the US started “regulating” substances…
Naturally, the black robed clowns went along with it…
And it’s those “black robed clowns” that have the final say.
Exactly!
“refer madness”: the madness of directing one’s attention?
Sooooo, by PRESUMING association, [Numb] NUTLESS Session’s ridiculous “actions” are all being orchestrated by the Trumpster. Well, if that’s the case, why hasn’t the HildaBeast done a “perp walk” yet?
Sessions needs to be relieved of his duties ASAP. He is a useless piece of Shit that is nothing more than a swamp creature as corrupt as the day is long. Just look how all this coincides with him being in bed with for profit prisons and his civil asset forfeiture stance.
Ignoring the law was originally decreed to be ignored by Obama.
Now it is to be enforced the way Congress has legislated.
So do you support rule by decree or rule by law. and do you feel the same about the immigration laws Obama also decreed should be ignored?
Congress needs to address this, not the President who has sworn to uphold and enforce the legislation Congress has passed into law.
It seems more like a 10th amendment issue to me.
That would put it under the Courts rule, and the Court has affirmed the Federal power to make those regulations (FWIW, they’ve recently decided their power is the highest power and law of the land and Federal power and law from the Legislative or Executive Branches are granted only at their discretion).
FWIW, the 10th only covers powers not given to the Federal government or prohibited to the States. Regulating interstate commerce is specifically given to the Federal government.
Also FWIW, I consider the IC clause to be the most abused of the powers given to the Feds in the Constitution, expanded to cover things that were most certainly not intended by its authors.
Anon,
The Interstate Commerce clause falls flat on this issue. Cannabis cannot be transported outside of any of the states that have legalized it’s usage and sale. ICC is not in play.
Yes, but interstate commerce gets involved in all sorts of ways.
And illegal trafficking makes it fall under drug laws anyway, a legal source can be regulated or stopped to prevent the illegal use of something across State lines.
This is the law, you can either support enforcing it till it is changed or support an imperial Presidency that can declare any laws valid or not at its own whim (as Obama did, not only on this but on many issues).
I suggest writing Congress about it and seeking a change in the law as it now stands.
I personally believe POTUS is pushing one of the states, probably Colorado, to challenge the federal law in court. Fed doesn’t fight too hard (if at all), signaling the SCOTUS to scrap the law. I don’t believe the federal law has actually been challenged yet. Quick win from POTUS, little to no work. Smart guy.
Honestly, if that happens I will have reevaluate my opinion of DJT.
“Laws” (color of) are decreed. Ignoring that trespass is nullification. Which went much, if not all, of the way in getting alcohol color of law prohibition repealed.
This stuff is makework blowjobs all around. Consensual bj’s are supportable. Parliamentary forcefeeds aren’t supportable. Any more than ‘just following orders’ – “sworn to uphold” – is.
Federale•ism, not federalism. Luke, what’s your weed doin’ in boss Kean’s ditch? Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!
Went to batteries plus. Got a clear 150watt incandescent there once before, wanted more. Had to settle for soft whites. The last 2 on the shelf. No mas. Bulbs? You don’t need no stinkin’ bulbs!
Bitcoin futures are trading. Bulbs? Get yer tulip bulbs here! Cuz tomorrow they might well be timed out – sessions might federale-decide you don’t need ‘em.
Nothing in this means any of the states must reverse their laws on pot. It means that the Feebs will start “enforcing the law” again. Of course there is nothing that says the state or local governments must do anything to help the Feebs enforce that law. Make the DEA solely staff any of the raids, with no help from local cops. Don’t let the DEA hold any pot arrestees in the local jail or charge the Feebs $10,000 a day per prisoner. If the Feebs want to enforce this law, let them pay to do it.
I read a while back how the maids, at the hotels the commiefornia pot eradicators were staying at while they performed their foul deeds, would wipe the bed sheets down with poison ivy. Seems even they, the maids, understood the negative economic ramifications that the Prohibinistas were causing to the local economy.
If Sessions determines that Federal law trumps State law, and that State laws that are in violation of Federal laws carry no legal standing, and are unconstitutional, then laws such the California Senate Bill #54 that was recently signed and enacted by Gov. Jerry Brown declaring California to be a sanctuary state is likewise void and unconstitutional.
Certainly, Sessions has more pressing and radioactive issues to deal with in the swamp than to dredge up the Tenth Amendment which claims that:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
SCOTUS has historically stood behind the Amendment, but Congress generally sticks their nose in 10th Amendment issues by invoking cooperative federalism or withholding Federal funds for non-compliance with Federal laws, such as national speed limits and smoking and drinking ages. Sessions is attempting to do just that with sanctuary cities, and I would not be surprised to see him do that with state marijuana laws.
Personally, I am all for State’s rights ahead of Federal rights to determine laws that affect the States. If States choose to reciprocate on certain issues with other states then that is their prerogative, as long as it is the will of the majority in those states. If California chooses to be a sanctuary state, then so be it, but if criminals such as Kate Steinle’s murderer venture out from California to states that are not sanctuary states, then that non-reciprocating state should have the right to apprehend him should he break that state’s laws (such as being an illegal alien). The Tenth Amendment should continue to restrict the power of the Federal government lest state governments become of no use, and we then live in a “representative” dictatorship. It is only constitutional, by George.
[img
[/img]
Not a fan of legalization but Sessions could use resources in a more productive way. Putting Hillary,Comey and Koskanen in prison would be a good start.
I hope Sessions gets cancer…as he’s laying on the floor puking his guts out I wish that someone would say” Jeff a little reefer would help with that nausea but hell…the pot dispensary was closed down by your office “.
In Gonzales vs Raich the black robed thugs made a ruling that in Clarence Thomas dissent gave the Feds control over aspect of our lives.
This B.S. reminds me of the ol’ song Wildwood Flower/Weed
Thomas’ dissent in Gonzales should have forever shut up the windbags who say that Thomas is a dullard. Thomas put Scalia to shame on that one. Clarence Thomas and Stephanie Breyer provide strong evidence that – on the Supreme Court – intelligence is inversely related to how much you say from the bench. Also, the more French you spout, the more of a fag you are.