Justice Department unsure about pot options
WASHINGTON — How children will be affected will be one factor the Justice Department weighs as it determines how to respond to the legalization of marijuana in Washington state and Colorado, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Thursday.
“When it comes to these marijuana initiatives, I think among the kinds of things we will have to consider is the impact on children,” along with factors such as violence connected to trafficking and organized crime, Holder told a House appropriations panel. He commented in response to questions about ballot initiatives legalizing the drug that passed last year.
“We are certainly going to enforce federal law,” Holder said.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law, and one congressman pressed Holder to challenge the state initiatives in court. Holder said he hasn't decided what to do.
In December, President Obama told ABC that the federal government won't go after recreational marijuana use in the two states that have legalized it. When asked if he supported legalization, he responded, “I wouldn't go that far.”
Holder reminded the panel of that, and added, “I'm not for it either.”
But Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, said that the president didn't take a position on the initiatives and urged the Justice Department to do so.
“Your department could choose to attempt to overturn those laws,” said Harris, a physician. That would send a message to America's youth that marijuana is not a safe drug, he added. “Kids need clear messages, and I'm afraid we're not sending them one,” he said.
Harris pressed Holder on when a decision might be made, “because children are dying from drugs. It is a scourge … can you give me a general idea of when that decision's going to be made?”
Holder would only say, “As quick as we can.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.