成人X站

It鈥檚 been a nervous business from the get-go, Jerina Pillert said. The decision to sell marijuana for a living means existing between what鈥檚 locally sanctioned and nationally forbidden, between persistent customer demand and a skittish finance industry. It isn鈥檛 for the faint of heart, she said.

New policy could mean 鈥榤ore marijuana prosecutions鈥�

Pillert, co-owner of cannabis stores in Seattle and Redmond, said the chaos, the choppy seas are a daily reality. It鈥檚 not simply the worry of Drug Enforcement Agency agents kicking down the door, it鈥檚 also the frightened bankers who covet compound interest but fear the feds.

鈥淭here鈥檚 pressure,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e expect it.鈥�

That pressure ramped up recently when that limited enforcement on and prosecutions of businesses which sold legal pot under state law.

But law experts on the tension between opposing state and federal laws and the looming fight over legal pot, say the cannabis industry can find comfort in successful legal battles to thwart gun control, the — and even laws from the 1800s about slave catching.

鈥淎lthough the federal law supersedes in some areas, in many areas including what鈥檚 called the police power, the federal government and the state government should be viewed as being equal,鈥� said, a law professor at the University of Washington. 鈥淎nd (where) states have sovereignty; they can鈥檛 be superseded.鈥�

Spitzer, an expert in the tension between state and federal law, said the U.S. Supreme Court consistently has ruled that the federal government is limited in what federal laws it can impose on states.

For example, when Congress passed a law banning possession handguns near schools, the nation鈥檚 high court held that such limits were solely in a state鈥檚 authority 鈥� not Washington D.C.鈥檚. Specifically, the court ruled that the federal government was allowed to limit interstate sale and movement of handguns but not possession standards within a state.

The Supreme Court also has held that the federal government is limited in its ability to get states to enforce legal federal authority, a process called commandeering. 鈥淭he federal government can鈥檛 make states collect data for it,鈥� Spitzer said. 鈥淭he most recent example of that is the so-called Obamacare.鈥�

In this legal fight, the federal government required states to participate in the Affordable Care Act鈥檚 expansion of Medicare. 鈥淎nd the U.S. Supreme Court simply said you can鈥檛 do that; they don鈥檛 have to participate.鈥�

Which brings the discussion back to pot. People who assume federal law trumps state law in all cases are wrong, legal experts say. In Washington,. People who comply won鈥檛 be charged with a state crime.

This means federal agencies can spend their money to investigate and prosecute but they can鈥檛 compel the Seattle or Spokane police, for example, to help out. Given that established law in other cases says the states can鈥檛 be forced, makes it impractical from both staffing and expense for the Department of Justice to impose its marijuana standard.

鈥淭he feds can spend their money hiring deputies and drug enforcement people to run around shutting down our state-licensed marijuana stores,鈥� Spitzer said. 鈥淭hey could try doing that if they want.

鈥淏ut they have got to spend their money to do it.鈥�

In the 1800s, the federal government tried to force states to return escaped slaves when they were captured. Northern states, which were anti-slavery, balked. Initially, those states lost in court but after the Civil War, the statute was removed.

But one federal caveat remains — The National Guard. The federal government does hold the legal authority to assemble and direct the National Guard within any state. Could U.S. Government direct the guard to enforce federal pot laws?

鈥淭echnically they could do that,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hether they could pull that off politically is another question.鈥�