POLITICIANS BLOW SMOKE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Mention medical marijuana and all the tough talk about states' rights
goes up in smoke.

At least when it comes to Gov. Jan Brewer, Attorney General Tom Horne
and some of the other politicians who claim to champion the authority
of individual states.

Earlier this year, Brewer railed against "an overreaching federal
government" for challenging Arizona's immigration measures and added,
"Never during our nearly 100 years of statehood has federal
interference in ... Arizona affairs ... been more blatant than in 2010."

When the federal government took Arizona to court over SB1070 Brewer
was defiant, establishing a defense fund that drew millions of dollars.

So, when Arizona voters passed a proposition authorizing the sale,
distribution and use of medical marijuana (also challenging federal
authority) you'd expect the governor and attorney general to
aggressively fight any attempt by the feds to inhibit implementation
of that law, right?

Uh... wrong.

Instead of standing firm, Brewer, Horne and, most recently, Maricopa
County Attorney Bill Montgomery are kowtowing to veiled threats that
they have no reason to believe will be carried out.

Several U.S. Attorneys, including Dennis Burke in Phoenix, have sent
out ominous-sounding memos warning that there is no "safe harbor" for
those involved in the marijuana trade. In theory, that could include
the government officials and bureaucrats who oversee the program.
Except that Burke has let it be known he is not interested in hassling
government workers.

Still, rather than responding with defiance, Brewer essentially shut
down the state program, saying, "I just cannot sit on the sidelines
and allow the federal government to put my state employees at risk."

What about states' rights?

Arizona isn't the first or the second or even the tenth state to have
passed a medical marijuana law. No government workers in any of those
states have been prosecuted by the feds.

In his memo on the subject Burke said, "Compliance with Arizona laws
and regulations does not provide a safe harbor, nor immunity from
federal prosecution."

Brewer didn't condemn that statement as an act of "an overreaching
federal government."

Instead, Arizona is meekly asking a court to intervene. Does that mean
states' rights are important only as long as you agree with the law?
After all, Brewer, Horne and Montgomery oppose medical marijuana.

Montgomery told me, "There has been enough governmental action over
the years to allow cynicism like that to flourish... If a court says
that we can do this I'm fine with this. If a court says that
government employees involved in this have a degree of immunity I'm
fine with that. But at the same time if a court says you can't do this
then you can't do it. It doesn't matter if it was a voter approved
initiative."

Montgomery said that the court case is about legality, adding that a
state "doesn't have a right to pass a law that violates the (federal)
supremacy clause."

Funny, that's essentially what the federal government says Arizona did
when the legislature passed SB1070.

And if no officials have been arrested in the other states with
medical marijuana laws why should Arizona take the case to court?

"Just because another state didn't have either the legal acumen or the
political courage to do the right thing isn't going to keep me from
wanting to make sure that I am doing what I need to do to protect
county employees," Montgomery said.

I believe that Brewer, Horne and Montgomery want to protect public
employees. I just don't believe they need protecting. Not in this case.

And if you tried to convince me that Brewer and company are more
interested in safeguarding employees than in advancing a political
agenda I might be tempted to ask: What have you been smoking?