-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
HARI SREENIVASAN: On New Year's Day, California joined the growing list of states and the District of Columbia where it is now legal to sell marijuana. While state and local leaders may see marijuana as a taxable cash crop, the Trump1 administration has a different point of view. On Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded2 an Obama administration policy that discouraged federal prosecutors3 in most instances from bringing charges in places where marijuana is legal under state law. Joining me now from Washington, D.C., is John Hudak, the deputy director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, to help assess the impact of this move.
So let's just, in plain English, what does the attorney general calling for?
JOHN HUDAK: What the attorney general is calling for is the freeing up for U.S. attorneys, for federal prosecutors to start to go after state legal marijuana businesses who are complying with state law and are serving customers in states that have chosen to reform their marijuana laws. Something that the Obama administration put protections in against, the Trump administration is repealing4 that.
HARI SREENIVASAN: And this was something the Attorney General Sessions said that he wasn't really going to take action on during his confirmation5 hearing, right?
JOHN HUDAK: The attorney general has had a lot of mixed language when it comes to this issue. He's been cagey. There have been moments where he has suggested that he saw the standing6 policy as a good one, or one to keep in place, and there are other moments where you hear the attorney general using that type of “War on Drugs” language about marijuana that we really haven't heard from the top tiers of administrations for, for 15 or 20 years.
HARI SREENIVASAN: But what happens? There are small businesses that are taking steps already in states where it is legal, and there are investors7, there's possible bank loans, all sorts of institutions that are involved in this economy. What happens when this statement from on high comes in? Does it add some uncertainty8 into how these businesses fare?
JOHN HUDAK: Well certainly the statement itself, the policy change itself, adds uncertainty to this industry and of course uncertainty is bad for any business. But the statement itself won't necessarily enact9 change. Change will happen when U.S. attorneys, working closely with DEA and other law enforcement entities10 begin enforcing against these businesses. That day may never come, but if it does, that will be a moment where the industry feels the real effects of this policy. And you'll start to see ripple11 effects spreading out from there.
HARI SREENIVASAN: There's already been pushback from Senator Gardner in Colorado and, how does states respond to this? What can they do to encourage what they might see as an important part of their economy?
JOHN HUDAK: Well you're right about Senator Gardner. In fact dozens and dozens of House members and senators have come out and slammed the attorney general for this policy, in part because it actually goes back on what were statements by the president when he was running for office about his view on this issue. He said that it should be a states rights issue.
So what do states have to do? What can they do? First off, they don't have to help the federal government enforce federal law. There is a protection against that under the 10th Amendment12 to the Constitution. And so you will see a lot of states, most states probably, just say to the federal government, if you want to enforce your laws go ahead and do it on your own. You're not getting a dime13 of state revenue to help do this and that really is the first line of protection that states have.
HARI SREENIVASAN: But what about if the DEA wants to come in to a growing operation in California or Colorado and carry out what they say, “This is my job, I'm doing this, what the federal law says, right?”
JOHN HUDAK: There's really nothing states can do. If DEA goes into a state with recreational marijuana and begins to arrest people, shut down businesses, seize assets, seize plants. There's not much the state can do to combat that. It is illegal under federal law. DEA and U.S. attorneys have the authority to investigate and bring charges against these entities and it would be a difficult day for the marijuana industry. It would be a day that may frustrate14 governors across the country but it's a day that would be completely in compliance15 with federal law.
HARI SREENIVASAN: All right John Hudak of the Brookings Institution, thanks so much.
JOHN HUDAK: Thank you.
1 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 rescinded | |
v.废除,取消( rescind的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 prosecutors | |
检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 ); 告发人; 起诉人; 公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 repealing | |
撤销,废除( repeal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 investors | |
n.投资者,出资者( investor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 uncertainty | |
n.易变,靠不住,不确知,不确定的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 enact | |
vt.制定(法律);上演,扮演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 entities | |
实体对像; 实体,独立存在体,实际存在物( entity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 ripple | |
n.涟波,涟漪,波纹,粗钢梳;vt.使...起涟漪,使起波纹; vi.呈波浪状,起伏前进 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 dime | |
n.(指美国、加拿大的钱币)一角 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 frustrate | |
v.使失望;使沮丧;使厌烦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 compliance | |
n.顺从;服从;附和;屈从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|