Precedent?

[wheelgun1958]

I wonder if states can use this ruling as precedent in the ongoing Firearms Freedom Act legislations?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33374563/ns/politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Under the policy spelled out in a three-page legal memo, federal prosecutors are being told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law."

[Purplehood]

I suspect that despite the logic of it being a valid precedent, the actual decision-making process behind it leans more towards the administrations personal leanings rather than any respect of States vs. Federal rights.

[nitrogen]

Precedent only matters in certain kinds of court hearings and judgements, not arbitrary policy decisions. (At least in the pure definition of the word Precedent.)

It certainly is something I stand behind; the federal government keeping its nose out of state's business on criminal matters. I hope it does set a Precedent insofar as that.

I doubt it will, because this is Obama doing as little as possible to keep a campaign promise without actually DOING anything regarding a hot button issue. I don't think it's because of any philosophy he has regarding separation of powers. (And this coming from someone that mostly likes the guy.)

[stevie_d_64]

I'm not sure I would want any leniency for any firearms related issues, at the expense (or exploitation) of loosening up enforcement of illicite drug use or possession of...

Those states that want to excuse drug use, just because it is so rampant, then I would argue that having masses of people doped up on the street, and going about their lives in such a condition would cause a lot more problems than justify the enormity of the problem to begin with...

DWI's are an after the fact occurance...You cannot prevent people from deciding to drive while under the influence if they know the law will not enforce the illegality of the offence to begin with...I just don't see the logic in looking the other way, if it is a hazard to the populace, and illegal to be under the influence, just because the problem is too big to handle...

That is lazy, and immature for lawmakers to even discuss it...Those folks need to learn a new word in my opinion...It's called "unemployment"...Remember that on November 3rd, 2009...And take that template to the polls in 2010...