[idlerig]

The truth is that there is no gray zone. Marijuana, until otherwise classified by the FDA, is illegal.

Many states have decriminalized it, meaning that they have effectively nullified the federal regulations-- though not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists.

Like immigration, the federal government chooses to enforce (under Trump) or ignore (under Obama) sections of federal legislation and regulation as they see fit.

I'd personally feel much more comfortable if everyone was subject to the same laws, as selective enforcement can quickly lead to corruption where one group is punished, while the other is ignored.

[lacker]

The truth is that there is no gray zone. Marijuana, until otherwise classified by the FDA, is illegal. Many states have decriminalized it, meaning that they have effectively nullified the federal regulations

The phrase for this situation where it's technically illegal but effectively okay is "gray zone".

[gnopgnip]

The omnibus bill has effectively legallized medical marijuana in states where it is legal at the federal level, by prohibiting interference with state medical marijuana laws including a complete prohibition on prosecution. This is federal legislation.

[Karunamon]

That's all well and good but can be changed on a whim at any time. There's a pretty big difference between "legal" and "illegal, but we won't bother to enforce it". The latter is regularly abused.

[gnopgnip]

It can be changed when the omnibus spending bill is renewed, by congress. Not really at any time.

[Karunamon]

Which is on a regular schedule, and subject to all manner of political gamesmanship on what is and isn't included in it. It's not as reliable as an actual distinct law, in other words, and can't be treated as such.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

Source?

[gnopgnip]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohrabacher–Farr_amendment

It was passed in 2014, and in 2016 case law was set including a complete prohibition on prosecution.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

> The amendment does not change the legal status of cannabis however, and must be renewed each fiscal year in order to remain in effect.

A step, but it's not legalized.

[throwaway_law]

>he truth is that there is no gray zone. Marijuana, until otherwise classified by the FDA, is illegal.

The Federal Government was the first to pass laws allowing individuals to get marijuana for medical reasons, and they even supplied (still do to this day) it to those patients.

Very few people are even aware of this legal history at the federal level, look up the patient Irvin Rosenfeld, the Federal Government has been shipping him 300 pre-rolled joints per month since 1984.

It is very gray area indeed when the FDA says there is no valid medical use for marijuana, whereas the Federal legislature has licensed and supplied certain patients with cannabis for their medical issues for 35+ years.

[wrs]

If you meant “not technically through legislation”, that’s not correct. Washington, for example, legalized recreational marijuana through an initiative and legislation [1] that created a licensing and taxation system (implemented by the existing Liquor Control Board). Several states have had medical marijuana legislation for years.

[1] http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Legal/Regulation/Marijua...

[mises]

Under the supremacy clause, federal law trumps that of states. States can't nullify federal law, either; there was an issue with that, too. I don't know that I agree with the precedent on this absolutely, and it might be less of a problem to start with if the feds passed very few stupid laws, but that's how it stands today. By your logic, a state can override the civil rights act of 1964.

[dsfyu404ed]

> States can't nullify federal law,

In practice they can and do until they get smacked down by a court, which typically takes many years.

[javagram]

It’s not something subject to a court. The FBI could haul in a user of state-legal marijuana and charge them with crimes in Federal court whenever they want (subject to the federal law prohibiting funds being spent on prosecution of medical marijuana in certain states).

That it isn’t happening regularly is just because the FBI/DEA and other federal agencies aren’t currently focused on it. That could change any time at the whim of an executive order from Trump.

[DonHopkins]

I'd personally feel much more comfortable if white people and non-white people were subject to the same laws. Why don't we work on that selective enforcement problem?

[jMyles]

You've got some confusion going on here.

> The truth is that there is no gray zone. Marijuana, until otherwise classified by the FDA, is illegal.

Marijuana is expressly listed in the CSA, so it needs to be reclassified by Congress, not by the FDA. In fact the FDA does not have the power to control something under the the CSA (ie, to criminalize it); that power was bizarrely given to the DEA, ostensibly to be used on an emergency basis. This is how MDMA was made illegal (and many other substances in the phenethylamine and tryptamine families).

Now, are there legal gray areas? Heck yeah there are. Some exist in the form of ongoing legal controversies. While it seems to be settled case law at this point that, even though a constitutional amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, the same isn't true for cannabis, it's not totally unthinkable that the courts might start to accept carve-outs to this rule. Raich vs. Ashcroft wasn't a foregone conclusion when it was decided, for example. A similar case today might even go the other way, especially if the plaintiff were a state rather than an individual.

Then, there are large swaths of untested legal gray areas. For example, if the DEA tried to revoke a doctor's license again with different details (for recommending or perhaps prescribing cannabis or cannabis extracts), it's very hard to say what will happen (we have a tiny porthole of insight via Conant v. Walters, but many unanswered questions remain).

> Many states have decriminalized it, meaning that they have effectively nullified the federal regulations-- though not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists.

Hard to unpack this, but basically no part of this is true.

"Decriminalization" typically means that possession is not a crime, but instead is handled as a civil infraction. Several states decriminalized cannabis in the 1970s.

Legalization typically means that both possession (within certain limits) and retail sale (within certain limits) are wholly absent as a statutory offense to law. Often (but not always) this includes cultivation (within certain limits). This framework - again, called legalization, is the state of local laws in states covering about 25% of the US population.

I don't even know what you are trying to express by "not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists" - each state which has legalized cannabis has either passed legislation (which of course you can read online) or done so through a ballot initiative (the terms of which you can also read online). Plenty of legislation exists.

> Like immigration, the federal government chooses to enforce (under Trump) or ignore (under Obama) sections of federal legislation and regulation as they see fit.

First of all, let's not whitewash the Obama years: immigrants were brutalized, detained, and deported in huge numbers. Deportations are happening at about the same rate today; there has not been a sudden spike. Some particular populations, especially refugees seeking asylum, are treated even worse now than they were then. But the government taken a very uncivilized approach to the border since the 90s.

I'm not sure how this relates to your points about cannabis, though. Perhaps you are referring to the Obama-era directive in the justice department that no federal resources will be used to prosecute people who are complying with state medical marijuana laws?

> I'd personally feel much more comfortable if everyone was subject to the same laws, as selective enforcement can quickly lead to corruption where one group is punished, while the other is ignored.

Well, yeah. :-)

It's not just a matter of comfort; equal protection under the law is part of the bedrock of the Western legal tradition. The 14th amendment didn't invent or establish it; in fact, some of staunchest of the radical republicans insisted that congress had the authority to enforce equal protection even before its ratification.

Drug prohibition is a clear affront to equal protection; each stage of it was enacted specifically as a pretext to criminalize particular populations, and never as a public health measure.

[repsilat]

> I don't even know what you are trying to express by "not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists" - each state which has legalized cannabis has either passed legislation (which of course you can read online) or done so through a ballot initiative (the terms of which you can also read online). Plenty of legislation exists.

The grandparent was referring to their claim of "effective nullification". States have passed legislation to remove state penalties for purchase/possession etc, and the federal government is being a good sport and looking the other way, but the GP says no state has passed a law that explicitly says "...and it's ok with the feds too."

No doubt because it could draw a quick legal challenge, and possibly end the effective legalisation that holds while the federal government chooses not to enforce the law.

[umvi]

> Like immigration, the federal government chooses to enforce (under Trump) or ignore (under Obama)

I'm pretty sure more immigrants were deported under Obama than Trump; the media just prefers to roast Trump more than Obama.

For a while, Obama's opponents were calling him the "deporter in chief", but how quickly we forget...