So, what's going to happen here? How does the US deal with Federal laws being inconsistent with State laws? Could the DEA enforce federal laws regarding possession, production and distribution of marijuana in Colorado and Washington?

I love this, all the pot heads we have in Eugene will soon be moving out, yay, have fun Wa!

the states will let it happen as described by their laws and hope the feds don't raid, lol. obama is a hypocrite former pot smoker who constantly had his DEA raid medical dispensaries though so there'll probably just be a lot of attempts to sell marijuana and so on periodically interrupted by federal raids

the Feds arrest and seize property. and shoot anybody stupid enough to resist them.

and then they auction it off to their fellow demoncrats.

They could and likely will a few times. It will be interesting to see how much it occurs and what the response is.

Could the State do anything to dissuade the Feds from pursuing this or does Federal law always take priority?

They already released a statement that it is still illegal and the Colorada governor I think it was suggested you not go get your cheetos yet or somesuch

With Obama not needing to worry about being reelected at the end of this term, a lot of folks seem to think he won't be sending the DEA after CO/WA like he has done in the past with the dispensaries in CA.

It's also different - in CO/WA it's completely legal, you don't need a prescription. In CA, it's only legal with a script.

oh. now that Obama has no worries, he'll actually do something good...

who will carry on his 2nd term do-gooder philosophy? Joe Biden looks ready to jump in the grave... least a lot faster than me.

while it's possible he won't enforce federal marijuana laws, that's really just wishful thinking at this point since his record indicates he will.

Damn those PSQD!

LOL. the President is going to ignore Federal laws.

The last time Colorado voted to allow a controlled substance was in 1932. You can thank us later.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/...6ffe006c7ca4?OpenDocument

In MA we approved medical marijuana on a ballot question, hopefully recreational use will be decriminalized in the near future.

I was under the impression that most of the California raids had to do with MM dispensaries that didn't even meet the CA regulation requirements.

What I'm more interested in is seeing how much massive hemp farms will affect the economy/will be regulated. That's the real cash crop here, and could be a major boon to CO and Washington.

wouldn't they be subject to seizure under federal law?

Yup.

You guys talk about the president like he makes all the decisions and comes up with all the ideas and implements everything for every department of his government. You think he doesn't have department heads and countless advisors and various other underlings within the government who make all these little decisions? He's just the guy to "sign off" on the big ideas and policy that his "team" agrees on. I guarantee he doesn't give a crap if some dispensary gets raided in California. That's someone else's job 20 levels under him who's job it is to make that call regardless of who's on top.

most of the dispensory raids were for being within 1000 feet (call it 300m) of a school

state law is supposed to supercede federal law within that state, at least thats what i always thought.

There are exceptions, Pain, dunno if this might be one...

from what I've been reading marijuana doesn't technically qualify under the controlled substances act anyway

when he was running in 2008 he said he'd direct his justice department not to spend resources on marijuana enforcement. that's not like a day-to-day nitty gritty thing either, that's kind of a big picture thing that obama can tell them and then sit back. but in actuality the raids went up. and if i know this, and im just some guy that doesnt even live in a medical marijuana state, then you can sure bet the president, whose job it is to run the country, is aware of that as well and doesnt have a problem with it.

Here we go:
http://www.koaa.com/...nt-64-leaves-gaps-in-law/

nah it's the opposite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

so states can go further in say vehicle emissions restrictions or whatever than the federal government requires, but they can't require less. courts also look at the intent and scope of the federal law and determine whether it's meant to be a comprehensive ruling encompassing the entire field, in which case a state law could be struck down for intruding in that sphere as well.

so in other words unless the supreme court legalized marijauna then its still illegal no matter what. what a waste of time to even bother.

because it can get the ball rolling *points at 1932*

A few points.

The legalization of marijuana by Colorado and Washington means that the states no longer have marijuana laws of their own to enforce. A person caught with marijuana in Colorado and Washington will now be subject to fewer convictions of the offense than an offender in Tennessee might be subject to because Colorado and Washington no longer have crimes on which to try the person.

Legalizing Marijuana does make enforcement of the federal law harder because the states will no longer be trying enforce bans as well, so the federal government won't be able to piggyback on state investigative work.

The strictest law between state and federal law will generally be enforced if federal law applies. States can make enforcement of the federal law harder if their enforcement agencies are not looking to enforce similar state laws. Where federal law applies, people can could be charged under both state and federal law for the same incident as they techinically broke two laws. In fact, you could be tried by state law for a crime, be found not guilty and then be tried by federal law and convicted of the crime. This is not double jeopardy as two laws were violated.

Of course the wording of federal or state laws could cause allow future laws by the other entity to take precedence even if the law is not as strict. Why? The US Congress may want something regulated, but also desire to give states flexibility to do what they want. A state may want to regulate a commercial activity, but desire continuity with as much of the country as possible.

Quite frankly, it be more profitable for local and federal government to legalize marijuana, tax it as they do with tobacco and boozee! Win Win!

Hemp will save the world.

So the Feds won't bother using their resources to investigate, arrest and charge some random liberal arts college student getting high on a Friday afternoon in Colorado... but if they really really wanted to, they technically could. Is that a pretty accurate summary?

Yeah hawkeyee, that pretty much says it all. Unless they are still selling it, in which case I am sure they will still frown on that.

Lol yeah you need to get a script for a fake medical condition in CA :)

try PMS