One man will decide if people are allowed access to marijuana

Michael Murray isn’t well known outside of legal circles, but that may soon change. The former Supreme Court clerk holds the fate of a multibillion-dollar cannabis industry in his hands and will make recommendations soon on whether to launch a crackdown.

People who know Murray can’t imagine the straight-laced young father of three thinking highly of marijuana use and describe him as quiet and personally conservative. But they also say he is thoughtful and independent-minded.

Murray, a 2009 Yale Law School graduate, is a counsel to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and was tasked with the review earlier this year, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a larger crime task force would have a marijuana subcommittee.

The marijuana subcommittee's work is shrouded in secrecy, with recommendations due by July 27. The outcome could be either a yawn or a jarring assault on states that have regulated seed-to-sale markets serving adults 21 and older.

Possession and sale of marijuana remain federal crimes. The Obama administration, however, allowed states broad leeway to regulate medical and recreational sales. Eight states now have laws authorizing recreational pot markets.

Among the conceivable outcomes, the subcommittee could move to pull the rug out from under the cannabis industry by withdrawing or modifying the 2013 Cole Memo, which allowed recreational pot stores to open so long as enforcement triggers – such as underage sales, interstate smuggling and public health consequences – aren’t tripped.

At least in theory, Murray is not the only person reviewing the policy. But it’s not clear who else may be serving on the subcommittee and some legalization advocates fear the fix is in, with large pot advocacy and business groups saying they have had no contact.

"They have been operating in a black box, really," says Taylor West, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association. "There has been no indication that there was an opening for any viewpoint other than those of whoever is on this committee."

West says the group is "preparing with our allies in D.C. for whatever may come from this."

Statistics from the early years of pot legalization can be manipulated to support a viewpoint, making diverse input potentially significant. For example, two recent studies came to opposite conclusions on the effects of legalization on traffic safety. And while surveys show teen pot use has not increased nationally or in the pioneering states since 2012, contrasting current rates to historical low points offers a different impression.

A closed-to-the-press June summit associated with the larger Justice Department task force featured a discussion on drug-supply reduction with Kevin Sabet, the nation's most prominent anti-legalization organizer and leader of the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. Sabet has not said what interactions, if any, he has with the subcommittee.

Amplifying reformers’ concern is the fact that the larger task force is co-chaired by Steve Cook, an advocate of harsh sentences for drug crimes. And Murray’s boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is a cantankerous critic of marijuana use who in May asked Congress to drop budget language protecting state medical marijuana programs.

Murray lacks the combative style of Sessions or Cook, according to friends and former colleagues, who describe him as family-oriented and scholarly. One supporter of legalization who asked not to be identified said they trusted his judgment.

Murray joined the Justice Department after working for the Jones Day law firm, which has sent many attorneys to the Trump administration. His wife, Claire McCusker Murray, became associate counsel to President Donald Trump earlier this year.

“Michael is a brilliant young lawyer [and] he has a somewhat understated personality, especially compared to a lot of people who fill the ranks of the Trump administration,” says David Lat, who also clerked for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, a prominent conservative on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

“I would not expect anything crazy from him,” says Lat, who did not clerk for O'Scannlain at the same time as Murray but knows him socially.

Lat, managing editor of legal news website Above the Law, and others contacted for this story say they cannot recall any specific conversation with Murray about marijuana, but Lat says “my guess would be that he’s not a toker type.”

“The types of people who clerk for Judge O’Scannlain are not the types of people who smoke marijuana,” Lat says. “Judge O'Scannlain hires very proper people. His clerks are basically boy scouts and girl scouts. We are very buttoned-up people, and Michael fits that mold.”

Katherine Moran Meeks, an attorney who clerked alongside Murray for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2013-2014, says Murray is, however, “a man of his own mind.”

“He’s a person of integrity and he’s there to offer a careful legal opinion,” Meeks says. “I’m sure that’s what he’ll give, rather than something driven by partisanship.”

The Justice Department does not have an official photograph of Murray, but a picture showing the tall and fair-haired attorney among a group of Jones Day associates was circulated in 2014 and remains available online. A member of the firm’s media relations department refused to authorize reuse of the photo for this article.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to provide additional details about the ongoing review.

Robert Dunn, who overlapped briefly as a clerk in Judge O'Scannlain’s office in 2010 recalls Murray being “a smart, smart dude” who handed over case work with “a very well-thought-through reason” for everything.

“The adjective that jumps to my mind is that he strikes me as very thoughtful,” Dunn says. “He thinks before he acts."

Source

US Attorney General to Give Pot a Pass?

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper met with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week and left the meeting with the distinct understanding that the recreational marijuana industry will not face the federal crackdown that it had feared.

According to an editorial in the Denver Post, the big takeaway from the meeting is that "the new attorney general is far more focused on other priorities, like securing the border with a wall, than in disrupting our legal cannabis marketplace."

The Department of Justice has been reviewing the Cole Memorandum, an Obama-era document that essentially directed federal law enforcement to keep its nose out of states' legal marijuana industry. According to Hickenlooper's chief of staff, Sessions finds the Cole memo "not too far from good policy."

Marijuana Business Daily published Hickenlooper's comments from an interview on MSNBC:

He is very clear. He is anti-drugs in all forms and he's not going to, in any way, encourage anyone to start a marijuana business to think it's a great idea to do or even safe to do so. That being said, he didn't give me any reason to think that he is going to come down and suddenly try to put everyone out of business.

Source

This is indeed good news. It shows we did make a difference. It shows activism works.

The Senate wants to give the Department of Justice the authority to decide who gets First Amendment protection

Senate Amendment Would Give DOJ Power to Determine Who Is a 'Journalist'

by Ben Shapiro 13 Sep 2013 1017

An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a “journalist” under law would be anyone who:

•Works or worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” Opinion journalists might not be covered.

•Bloggers and citizen journalists – citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet – would not be covered, unless it was determined that “at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” In other words, the government – the Department of Justice – would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.

•Those explicitly excluded from protection include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity’s work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization.” Glenn Greenwald, please contact your lawyer.

Who would decide who fell within these guidelines? A “judge of the United States” can “exercise discretion to avail the persons of the protections of this Act.” But in the first instance, the DOJ would have the discretion to determine whether a person is a “journalist” for purposes of the law. Instead of focusing on acts of journalism, the law would identify people by employment status.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that it should not matter to citizen journalists if new protections extended to a special class of journalists created by the government, since the First Amendment does not grant any right to protect sources in the first place. “When we’re discussing the issue of adding a privilege, the issue of taking away someone’s First Amendment rights just isn’t engaged….All we’re doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this,” said Whitehouse, ignoring the fact that a massive institutional advantage would be handed to approved government outlets, thereby perverting the entire system of a free press.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) launched into the proposed bill, which he said could “have the effect of excluding certain persons from enjoying the added First Amendment protections the bill would provide.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) agreed, stating, “Essentially as I understand this amendment, it protects what I would characterize as the ‘corporate media.’…But it leaves out citizen bloggers….I don’t think any protection should treat citizen bloggers who are meeting the underlying test of being primarily engaged in gathering news to report it I don’t think they should be excluded because they don’t happen to work for a media corporation.” He continued:

It strikes me that we are on dangerous territory if we are drawing distinctions that are treating some engaged in the process of reporting and journalism better than others. If we are advantaging those who happen to receive a paycheck from a corporate media entity over those who happen to be citizens….I for one would have deep troubles with legislation from Congress saying ‘we will grant special privileges if you happen to work for a corporate media interest’….It seems to me the First Amendment protects the activity, not the employment status of the person engaging in it.

Source:click here

This is very important. It means that those who are politically correct will be protected while those of us who believe in civil liberties won't be. Look for assclowns like Dave Futrelle and Hugo Schwyzer being given "journalist" protections while those of us in the manosphere will receive no protections. Do you want some judge to decide? We've all seen how the corrupt the judiary is. It has been documented on the Men's Rights Blog so we know it exists. One liberal judge could destroy everyones' rights. Not only that do you want Eric Holder to decide for you? Remember this is the same Eric Holder who covered up black on white hate crimes:here and here. The is the same Eric Holder who perjured himself in the House concerning fast and furious. Do you want to give more power to Eric Holder? I sure don't.

As far as the bill's supporters perhaps we should email them and let them know we are not fond of this bill and to leave the Constitution alone,this bill is an infringement upon the First Amendment:

Senator Dianne Feinstein contact form

Senator Dick Durbin contact form

Senator Chuck Schumer contact form

Then there are the good guys. We should thank them for standing up for not only the First Amendment but the Constitution itself:

Senator Mike Lee contact form

Senator Ted Cruz contact form

Let's let both sides know how we feel. That we value the Constitution.