Pubdate: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 Source: Wall Street Journal (US) Copyright: 2010 Abdi Soltani Contact: http://www.wsj.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487 Author: Abdi Soltani Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n810/a05.html Note: 1 of 7 responses to this OPED CALIFORNIA: GOING TO POT OR TO SENSIBLE REGULATION? Regarding "California Pot Initiative: Don't Forget About Federal Law" (by John Bartels and eight other former administrators of the Drug Enforcement Administration, op-ed, Oct. 6): The use of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and international treaty arguments against Proposition 19 by former DEA officials is political posturing posing as legal analysis. While it is true that under the Supremacy Clause state law cannot create a shield protecting state citizens from the reach of federal drug laws, Proposition 19 would not do that. If it passes, California would no longer punish adults for possessing and cultivating small amounts of marijuana for personal use, and cities and counties could permit and tax commercial sales without violating state law. Proposition 19 is as constitutionally valid as the medical marijuana laws in 14 states and the District of Columbia. This is because the federal government can't force California to expend state resources to prosecute small-scale marijuana offenses, nor require California to retain state laws prohibiting marijuana sales-or any other law. These are bedrock constitutional principles that the former heads of a federal agency surely understand, and that no administration can ignore or overrule in the name of complying with purported international treaty obligations. Abdi Soltani Executive Director ACLU of Northern California San Francisco - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D