Pubdate: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 Source: Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) Copyright: 2012 The Press-Enterprise Company Contact: http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/letters_form.html Website: http://www.pe.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/830 CONGRESS NEEDS TO CLARIFY MARIJUANA LAWS California, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have placed their residents in legal jeopardy over the sale and possession of marijuana for medical purposes. Now two of those states - Washington and Colorado - have done the same for recreational use. It's time for Congress to either adopt a more federalist approach to marijuana laws, or to reiterate that the plant is an illegal controlled substance. Washington and Colorado voters approved pot-possession initiatives in last month's elections. But the marijuana story that created the most election buzz this year was the endorsement of Mitt Romney by the creator of the comic strip "Dilbert," Scott Adams. It was a "firing offense," Adams wrote, for President Obama to put "an American citizen in jail for 10 years to life for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in California where it is legal under state law." Adams was referring to the case of Aaron Sandusky of Rancho Cucamonga, who was operating dispensaries in Upland, Colton and Moreno Valley. He was convicted in federal court in October on charges including conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He received a sentence of 10 years to life. Sandusky's prosecution demonstrates the legal ambiguity under which medical marijuana dispensaries and patients now conduct their business. The state says what they're doing is legal. The federal government says it's illegal. And whether buyer and seller go home to their families at night or go to prison depends in large part on the attitude of the local U.S. attorney. Medical-marijuana buyers and sellers might have presumed that the Obama administration had carved out a safe harbor for them. In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder stated that "it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on marijuana." And Obama himself told ABC News this month that prosecuting marijuana users in states that have legalized the drug should not be a "top priority" for the federal government. But priority or not, anyone violating federal law can face criminal charges, regardless of state legislation to the contrary. The capricious nature of Sandusky's prosecution is one reason Congress should revisit federal marijuana laws. Governments should uniformly and even-handedly enforce their laws. Otherwise, justice becomes subjective, with enforcement based on prosecutors' opinions or political whims. Citizens need to know that law enforcement will treat them the same as their neighbors - or in Sandusky's case, their competitors - for engaging in identical actions. There are other troubling issues surrounding the state of marijuana law enforcement. For one thing, the Obama administration's statements about priorities should concern Americans devoted to the idea that this is a nation of laws, not of men. Holder's job is to enforce laws Congress enacts, not to pick and choose which laws to enforce, or to enforce some of the laws some of the time. Such attitudes breed disrespect for the law in general. For another, a growing number of states - whether by voter initiative or through their legislatures - are shrugging at Washington. The federal government has a responsibility either to put down this minor rebellion, as it has with others in the past, or lighten up officially by changing the law and giving states responsibility for enacting and enforcing their own marijuana statutes. Americans should be able to conduct their affairs with certain knowledge that their actions are within the law or beyond it. The existing discordance between state and federal laws, which sows doubt and offends justice, is unacceptable. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom