AMBIGUITY ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHAMEFUL

From the Political Notebook:

- - I don't know whether the legal action Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney
General Tom Horne took seeking declaratory judgment about the
legality of Arizona's medical marijuana law will result in any
clarity. But I do know this: The ambiguity of the federal government
regarding its enforcement policies about medical marijuana is grossly
irresponsible.

The Obama administration has said that it probably won't prosecute
patients using medical marijuana under state laws for possession
under federal law. But even that isn't for sure.

With respect to prosecution for any other aspect of medical marijuana
- - growing for resale, distributing and dispensing - the federal
government isn't saying. It may prosecute. It may not.

The Brewer-Horne action was triggered by a May 2 letter from Arizona
U.S. District Attorney Dennis Burke to Will Humble, the director of
the Arizona Department of Health Services charged with implementing
Arizona's medical marijuana law.

The letter flatly threatens legal action against "large
marijuana-production facilities" irrespective of whether those
facilities are operating in compliance with the state's medical-marijuana law.

The letter also raised the question of whether state workers are in
legal jeopardy for their actions implementing the medical-marijuana
law. The federal law makes aiding and abetting the marijuana trade a
federal crime.

Burke took great offense at the filing of the lawsuit and the raising
of the specter of legal liability for state workers. According to
Burke, he doesn't intend to take action against state workers. Horne
should have just written him a letter back seeking clarification.

Burke's letter, however, cannot be interpreted any other way than to
raise the specter of state worker liability. He expressly threatens
legal action against other facilitators - the property owners,
landlords and financiers of medical-marijuana operations.

In his letter, Burke says he is writing to assist the Department of
Health Services "in making informed choices." The department needs no
assistance from the U.S. Attorney General's Office about the
implementation of state law, and it would be inappropriate for the
U.S. attorney general to give it. The only assistance the U.S.
attorney general can possibly give to the department about making an
"informed choice" is about potential violations of federal law.

But here's the most important part. It doesn't matter what Burke
says, orally or in writing. What Burke says and writes isn't binding
on anyone, including Burke. The federal Department of Justice has
retained the full discretion to enforce federal marijuana laws
against anyone, in any circumstances. It could hardly do otherwise.

Much has been made about the fact that Brewer, Horne and Maricopa
County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who wrote a careful legal analysis
concluding that state and county workers who implement the state's
law are running a risk of federal prosecution, all opposed the
medical-marijuana initiative. The claim is that they are
inappropriately seeking to overturn it.

The fact that they opposed the initiative doesn't make their legal
analyses wrong. And the federal government's "guidance" on the matter
cannot be read without concluding that proceeding with implementing
the law runs substantial risks of federal prosecution of someone for something.

- - The rope-a-dope President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats are
playing on the federal budget is truly disgraceful.

According to the Budget Act, a budget resolution is supposed to be
enacted by Congress by April 15.

The House has passed a budget. The Senate has not.

As a political gotcha, Senate Democrats put the House budget, crafted
by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, up for a vote. All but five Senate
Republicans voted for it. All Senate Democrats voted against it, so
it was defeated.

As a political gotcha-back, Senate Republicans put the president's
budget up for a vote. It didn't get a single vote. Every Democrat
voted against it.

House Democrats, to their credit, put up several alternatives to the
Ryan plan. No Senate Democrats have voted for any budget. And they
have no plan or timetable for producing one.

In response to the Ryan plan, Obama gave a speech basically declaring
his own budget dead. Instead, he proposed a new outline raising taxes
by a trillion dollars over 10 years, cutting spending by $2 trillion,
and saving a trillion on interest on the national debt. But he's
never produced a new budget giving the specifics. And doesn't plan to.

Instead, Obama and Senate Democrats want to hide in the weeds until
closed-door negotiations produce a bipartisan compromise. That way,
they get to beat up Republicans over the Ryan plan without truly
owning an alternative.

That may be smart politics. But it ain't leadership.