Republicans bashed Holder for going too far to accommodate the state actions. Holder at center of marijuana debate

Attorney General Eric Holder found himself caught Tuesday in a vast congressional divide over how the federal government should respond to moves states have made to legalize marijuana.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Republicans repeatedly bashed Holder for going too far to accommodate the state actions, while a Democrat pounded the attorney general for refusing to call for a study of whether the federal drug classification system exaggerates the dangers posed by cannabis.


Panel chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) wasted no time going after Holder on the issue, raising it before the attorney general had even opened his mouth.

”Attorney General Holder announced that the Justice Department would stop enforcing the federal marijuana ban against persons who comply with state medical marijuana laws,” Goodlatte declared in his opening statement.

( Also on POLITICO: Holder pressed on Clapper testimony)

“The Justice Department’s decision not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but a formal, department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress.”

Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) challenged Holder’s statement in January that “public safety” concerns made it wise for the federal government to allow access to the banking system by pot businesses operated legally under recently passed referenda in Colorado and Washington.

“Is there not also a public safety issue from the trafficking of a substance that is still illegal under federal law?” Coble asked.

Holder said the Justice Department was still committed to preventing violence connected to drug trafficking and to going after enterprises that were making marijuana available to children. He defended the department’s policy on the issue as a valid use of prosecutorial discretion.

“There are a lot of things that are technically violative of the federal law. We don’t prosecute every violation of federal law. We don’t have the resources to do that,” the attorney general said. “I think we will still be good stewards of the Controlled Substances Act.”

Holder got a very different perspective a short time later from Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who said Holder was being too timid by not asking Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to conduct a formal review of whether marijuana should be a “Schedule I” drug under federal law. That designation bars use of the drugs in research studies, the lawmaker noted.

( Also on POLITICO: Holder defends timing in mayor probe)

“In my humble opinion — and, I think, the majority of people in this country — there’s no way that marijuana should be Schedule I, because it’s not in the same class as heroin, as is LSD,” Cohen said. “There are certainly medical bases…for multiple sclerosis, for children with epilepsy and seizures, and so it has medical benefit. Schedule I says no medical benefit. Well, that’s just fallacious. … Why will you not act?”

Cohen said it was strange that Obama administration has proudly taken executive action on immigration, environmental and labor policies, but not on reclassifying marijuana. “Why won’t the administration act with the pen and the phone to help people out?” the congressman asked.

“I think we actually have acted in a responsible way,” Holder replied.

When Cohen said it was “obvious” that marijuana was miscategorized, the attorney general gave an answer that captured the disparate views on display at the hearing.

“What’s obvious to one perhaps is not obvious to another,” Holder said.

Near the end of the almost-four-hour hearing, Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) again raised the marijuana issue, arguing that Holder’s decision to limit marijuana-related prosecutions was part of a pattern of the Obama administration ignoring statutes and legal provisions that it does not like.

“One of the laws of the land, which is federal law from 1970 — 10 years before I was ever born, that says that marijuana is a violation — the sale or possession, is a violation of federal law. What do you say to those kids, when you’re in the classrooms and they ask why you choose to enforce certain laws and some laws you don’t enforce?” Smith asked.

Holder sought to turn the tables on Smith, asking if he favored a policy of prosecuting every marijuana possession case at the federal level.

“We have limited resources. I don’t think you are meaning to suggest that the federal government should prosecute every possessory marijuana case in that exists in the United States, which technically we I suppose would have the authority to do,” the attorney general said during the pointed but generally mild-mannered exchange. “That’s not what you’re proposing, right?”

“The law of the land … says all marijuana is a violation — of even one marijuana cigarette,” Smith said. “I’m asking you. You’re the attorney general of the United States … I’m asking why you fail to enforce the laws of the land, Attorney General.”

“Your premise is wrong. We are enforcing the laws of the land,” Holder said. “The question I have for you which you haven’t answered is: Would you have us prosecute every marijuana possession case that exists in the United States of America? Would you have us do that?”

“When you actually answer my colleagues’ questions, I’ll be more than happy to answer yours,” Smith replied.

“I’ll take that as a ‘no,’” Holder shot back.