Most don't realize Trumps addition means nothing.
Did anyone note Hickenlooper's and Sandoval's utilization of the phrase "laboratories of democracy" in their discussions with Sessions last week?
There was a reason why:
State Medical Marijuana Programs Are Not Preempted By Federal Law
While marijuana possession and distribution — even for medical purposes — is a federal crime under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land,” [1] that is not the entire story: The U.S. system of government is one of dual sovereignty where the states can and do serve as “laboratories of democracy.”
The question of federal preemption is a question of congressional intent. The CSA makes it clear it only preempts state laws under very limited circumstances. 21 U.S.C. 903 says it is not intended to preempt the field of drug laws if “there is a positive conflict” between state and federal law “so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” Courts have generally held that a state law is only preempted by the CSA if it is “physically impossible” to comply with both state and federal law or if the state law stands as an obstacle to the CSA. Neither is the case with carefully crafted state medical marijuana programs.
A state law — or a portion of it — would be preempted under impossibility preemption if it required someone to violate federal law. For this reason, effective medical marijuana laws do not require state workers to grow or dispense marijuana in violation of federal law; they just regulate private individuals who choose to do so. Requiring someone to break federal law is quite different from allowing and regulating conduct under state law.
When discussing preemption, it’s important not to forget about the Tenth Amendment. The federal government is free to enforce its own marijuana laws, but requiring state agents to enforce federal laws would be unconstitutional commandeering of a state’s resources.[2] As one court noted:
It is of considerable consequence that it is Arizona’s attempt at partial decriminalization with strict regulation that makes the AMMA vulnerable … This view, if successful, highjacks Arizona drug laws and obligates Arizonans to enforce federal prescriptions that categorically prohibit the use of all marijuana. The Tenth Amendment’s “anti-commandeering rule” prohibits Congress from charting that course.[3]
The federal government has never alleged in court that federal laws preempt state medical marijuana laws. In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in favor of dismissing a lawsuit claiming Arizona’s medical marijuana law was preempted. That suit was dismissed.[4]
Everyone is continuing with business as usual except the news sources reporting the possibility of otherwise. (Including Sandoval, whose state launches recreational sales in 52 days. The very same who sat with Sessions last week ;)
People are being seriously played right now.
