Cannabis, Obama, And The Rule Of Law

Andrew Sullivan —  Apr 27 2012 @ 12:50pm

On medical marijuana, Obama says he can't ask the DOJ to "Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books." Greenwald asks why not:

The same person who directed the DOJ to shield torturers and illegal government eavesdroppers from criminal investigation, and who voted to retroactively immunize the nation’s largest telecom giants when they got caught enabling criminal spying on Americans, and whose DOJ has failed to indict a single Wall Street executive in connection with the 2008 financial crisis or mortgage fraud scandal, suddenly discovers the imperatives of The Rule of Law when it comes to those, in accordance with state law, providing medical marijuana to sick people with a prescription.

To be fair to Obama, he specifically said the policy was against those abusing the medical marijuana law to sell illegally. And some blame can be attached to the disorderly way in which medical marijana laws have been enforced.

But Glenn is absolutely right in one clear respect: if you do not enforce the rule of law on torture, when your own executive branch officials have brazenly broken domestic and international Kush-trichome-closeuplaw, on what possible grounds do you take a stand on federal enforcement of federal law against state enforcement of state law on medical marijuana? Weak, Mr president. Weak.

I'm glad Rolling Stone asked that question. But the question I'd like to ask Obama is: why do you think alcohol should be legal and cannabis not? So far, I've failed to find anyone who can make a credible argument on those grounds for prohibition of pot. Maybe the president is the one genius who has a coherent answer.

Or maybe he just reeks of fear.