Obama’s drug czar attacks state marijuana laws

RT | April 18, 2013

US President Barack Obama’s drug czar has spoken out against recently-passed state laws in Colorado and Washington, condemning legislation that legalizes the possession of marijuana in small amounts.

Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told an audience in Washington, DC on Wednesday that the Obama administration does not plan on honoring new state laws that let the millions of adults in Colorado and Washington legally smoke up.

Late last year voters in both states passed separate but similar laws allowing residents and visitors over the age of 21 to legally possess up to an ounce of marijuana, in doing so becoming two of the first venues in the nation to relax stringent state legislation.

But despite those laws reflecting the overwhelming voice of voters, Kerlikowske says the White House will rely on a longstanding federal statute that puts pot in the same category as heroin, cocaine and other Schedule I narcotics.

“No state, no executive can nullify a statute that has been passed by Congress,” Kerlikowske said at a National Press Club luncheon on Wednesday, reports Agence France-Presse.

“Let’s be clear: law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold federal law and they are going to continue to pursue drug traffickers and drug dealers,” he said.

Under current federal legislation, a first-time offender caught with marijuana can be forced to pay a $1,000 fine and spend a year in prison. Repeat offenders face penalties that include three-year prison stints and fines reaching $5,000.

According to the Huffington Post, Kerlikowske continued:

"Neither a state nor the executive branch can nullify a statute passed by Congress . . . Nor should we lose sight of the fundamental fact that using marijuana has public health consequences, and the most responsible public policy is one that restricts its availability and discourages its use."

"Neither a state nor the executive branch can nullify a statute passed by Congress," Kerlikowske affirmed.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has yet to formally respond to the administration’s comment, but he said he supported his constituents’ concerns when they voted to legalize weed last year.

“The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will,” Hickenlooper said after the November election. “This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through.”

But just weeks after voters in Washington passed a marijuana reform bill in November, state attorney Jenny A. Durkan said it wouldn’t deter federal prosecutors.

“Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law,” she said.

The Will of the People Doesn’t Mean Jack Shit to the Drug Warriors

Gangsters With Federal Pensions
by DAVE HUMMELS


The Associated Press reports that eight former DEA administrators are urging the Obama administration to sue Washington and Colorado over their voter-approved moves toward marijuana legalization.

One former chief, Peter Bensinger, fears that successful legalization efforts will lead to “a domino effect” in the US. Where have we heard that phrase before? Bensinger continues breathlessly, “My fear is that the Justice Department will do what they are doing now: do nothing and say nothing … If they don’t act now, these laws will be fully implemented in a matter of months.”

So drug warriors are losing their minds over Colorado and Washington. Good! We can only hope that Bensinger’s dire predictions come true and that more Americans are indeed waking up to the absurdity of marijuana prohibition.

The former DEA bureaucrats argue, accurately, that marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. Even in cases involving medical marijuana, the federal government may abuse the commerce clause as a rationale to criminalize users, growers and sellers of marijuana (per Gonzales v. Raich). The commerce clause has become the federal government’s drug war equivalent of catch-all disorderly conduct statutes in the states.

Unfortunately, these goons have a solid case to present to US Attorney General Holder. In New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932), US Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” But today’s political class views federalism as archaic.

Hopefully the administration will choose to ignore this thuggish recommendation. But if they do decide to litigate, this will be another sign that the feds don’t give a damn about the will of the people. Liberty-loving Americans should respond to this federal intrusion with a massive wave of civil disobedience.
Let’s start by publicly shaming the DEA heads mentioned by the AP: “Bensinger, John Bartels, Robert Bonner, Thomas Constantine, Asa Hutchinson, John Lawn, Donnie Marshall and Francis Mullen.” Get to know their names, libertarians. They are your enemies!

Then, let’s publicize the efforts of these authoritarians to undermine the voters of Colorado and Washington. Ask them why they continue to support a policy with openly racist origins which has resulted in mass incarceration. Publicly reveal the motives of the police agencies that enforce these laws . When drug warriors drone on about “protecting the children,” confront them with the horrific reality of wrong door raids, slaughtered family pets and children terrorized with flash-bangs. Wherever an apologist for prohibition gives a speech or attends a meeting, he or she should be met by throngs of boisterous picketers.

As we expose these petty tyrants, we should also seek opportunities to throw a wrench into the machinery of prohibition. A mass movement of jury nullification in drug cases may be a promising tactic. Prosecutors can use voir dire to remove one or two questionable jurors, but what if nullification becomes widespread? They can’t remove all of us. In the future, we should view jury duty as a chance to liberate non-violent people from the state’s clutches.

In Tao Te Ching, the Chinese sage Lao Tzu writes, “The more laws are posted, the more robbers and thieves there are.” Time and time again, this observation has been proven correct. The violence of the drug war is perpetuated by government, yet officials insist they must keep fighting. In their vile attempt to protect their old turf, former DEA bosses show their true colors. They are gangsters with federal pensions. They will do anything to ensure that they and their ilk continue to get their cut of drug war booty. It is up to us to expose their racket and to finish the job sensible voters in Colorado and Washington started in November.

Obama: 'Bigger Fish to Fry' Than Pot Smokers Gettin' High

Friday, December 14, 2012 by Common Dreams

President's statement does not make clear how federal agencies will deal with medical dispensaries or if he would support federal legalization efforts- Jon Queally, staff writer

Telling ABC News‘ Barbara Walters that “we’ve got bigger fish to fry,” President Obama broke his administration's silence on how it intends to deal with new marijuana legalization laws in both Washington state and Colorado.

Voters in both those states passed new laws in November that make recreational use and possession of certain amounts of pot legal, and the president's remarks seem to make it clear that federal enforcement agencies would not impose their authority on such infractions.

"It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal," Obama's said to Walters in an interview to air Friday, Dec 12, 2012 on ABC.

Despite what may appear clear to many supporters of legalization, the Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan Nadelmann said that a "parsing" of Obama's comments to Walters should be conducted. Citing four specific points that demand closer examination, Nadelmann writes:

• The first is that he responded in a serious and substantive tone, which contrasted with the jokingly dismissive ways in which he answered questions about marijuana legalization just a few years ago. The ballot initiative victories in Colorado and Washington gave him no choice this time. Marijuana legalization is now a political reality.  

• The second was his comment -- highlighted by ABC in its news release -- that recreational users of marijuana in states that have legalized the substance should not be a "top priority" of federal law enforcement officials prosecuting the war on drugs. "We've got bigger fish to fry," he said. That statement is not news. Federal law enforcement officials have never prioritized going after users of marijuana. Obama has said much the same regarding medical consumers of marijuana, but that begs the question of whether consumers will be able to make their purchases from legal or only illegal sources.  

• The third was when Obama told Walters he does not -- "at this point" -- support widespread legalization of marijuana. The caveat "at this point" sounds a lot like how he responded to questions about legalizing gay marriage - until he finally decided it was time to publicly support it. Obama cited shifting public opinion and essentially made clear that this is not an issue on which he wants to provide leadership so long as public opinion is split and Congress unlikely to do anything constructive.  

• The fourth, and most substantive, comment was the following: "This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law," Obama said. "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?" What stands out here are the words about the "need to have... a conversation" and the fact that he is framing the conflict between federal and state law as a question to be resolved as opposed to one in which it is simply assumed that federal marijuana prohibition trumps all.

The national trend for support of marijuana legalization has been seen in recent polls, including a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted after November's election which showed that 64% of Americans think the federal government should not interfere with state laws determined by voters and a Quinnipiac poll which found that 51% of registered voters nationwide thought marijuana should be made legal at the federal level.

Obama administration considering ways to overturn marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado

"States' rights trump federal rights every time." ~ Barack Obama, before he was president, when he just wanted the job and said anything to get elected.

Published: 07 December, 2012

New legislation in Washington state went into effect this week that legalizes for the first time in ages the possession of marijuana. Federal law still says otherwise, though, setting up the Justice Department to make some serious determinations.

Even as smoking up became protected by state law in Washington starting Thursday, coast-to-coast prohibition as provided by a long-standing federal ruling remains on the books. For marijuana advocates in the Pacific Northwest, the lifting of the ban is a pretty big victory. That doesn’t mean that the Justice Department has ruled out an intervention, though.

Since voters in Washington and Colorado opted on Election Day to legalize small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, the Department of Justice has been relatively quiet over how it will handle what is likely to become a heated debate regarding states’ rights. In an article published by The New York Times this week, reporter Charlie Savage says senior White House and Justice Department officials are already attempting to tackle how to handle the new marijuana laws, and are amid deliberations right now that will determine when, where and how national law enforcement can intervene.

Savage cites anonymous sources familiar with the discussions in DC, whom he says are considering plans for legal action against the states of Colorado and Washington. Meanwhile this week the Obama administration once again chimed in on the topic, but as with earlier abbreviated statements, the only words out of the nation’s capital forecast an ominous battle likely to brew for some time.

When the results of the legislations up for vote in both states trickled through on the evening of Election Day, the Justice Department dispatched a short statement clarifying the federal classification of marijuana as an illegal substance. This week, the United States attorney for Seattle, WA once again warned that federal law is still on the books.

“In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance,” state attorney Jenny A. Durkan announced in a statement. “Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.”

Additionally, the New York Times quotes Durkan as saying the Justice Department maintains that its "responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged," meaning federal law enforcement isn’t necessarily interested in adhering to local rules.

A similar legislation approved during last month’s Election Day is expected to go on the books in Colorado in the coming weeks. Even before becoming official, however, some important state institutions have announced that they won’t be cooperating with the end of prohibition.

"In order not to lose federal funds, we need to comply with federal law," University of Colorado at Boulder spokeswoman Malinda Hiller-Huey told The Denver Post.

Speaking to NBC, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper acknowledged even before the new law was approved that it would be an uphill battle for local marijuana advocates given the feds’ insistence in playing by their own rules.

"It's probably going to pass, but it's still illegal on a federal basis. If we can't make it legal here because of federal laws, we certainly want to decriminalize it,” he said.

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes tells NPR station KUOW that in his state, residents should be thankful that local law enforcement won’t be tasked with what is largely considered not just a non-issue, but an expensive endeavor. Whereas schools and universities in Colorado aren’t considering the new law for the sake of saving money, Holmes says the legislation in Washington will actually save the state bundles.

"I think that they should acknowledge this newfound right," he says to KUOW. "I think they should celebrate in the privacy of their homes if they choose to do so. And be thankful that we’re no longer arresting some 10,000 Washingtonians a year in the state of Washington and spending well over $100 million in law enforcement resources on that."

Meanwhile, more liberal minded lawmakers in the District are hoping to iron out a way to ensure that state laws are protected before federal agents can have their way. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) introduced a bipartisan legislation before Congress that will amend the US Controlled Substances Act to provide that federal law shall not preempt state marijuana laws.

"I am proud to join with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on the 'Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act' to protect states' rights and immediately resolve any conflict with the federal government," Rep. DeGette said upon introducing House Bill 6606. "In Colorado we've witnessed the aggressive policies of the federal government in their treatment of legal medicinal marijuana providers. My constituents have spoken and I don't want the federal government denying money to Colorado or taking other punitive steps that would undermine the will of our citizens."

According to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, nearly six out of ten Americans want marijuana legalization on a widespread scale. In a separate Angus Reid Public Opinion poll published last week, over 60 percent of Americans surveyed said they expect marijuana to be federally permitted within the next decade.

Battle Looms with the UN Over Pot Legalization

November 21, 2012

Source: Michael Krieger

A couple of weeks ago, following Colorado and Washington’s historic vote to become the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational use, a piece titled Colorado Legalizes Marijuana: Your Move Eric Holder subsequently went viral.  Now the most useless and corrupt organization on the planet has weighed in – the United Nations.

The head of the UN drug watchdog (the International Narcotics Control Board or INCB), Raymond Yans, has come out in a press release essentially instructing the Attorney General of the United States to enforce Federal Prohibition of pot against the rights of the states to implement a law that is not only Constitutional, but a perfect example of a free people deciding what they want for themselves.

Perhaps that is why the United Nations is so panicky about the legislation in Colorado and Washington.  The organization consists of a bunch of global government-craving, control-freak bureaucrats, and as such some welcome this battle as an opportunity to marginalize it further and expose them for the undemocratic creeps they really are.  Anyone remember the massive corruption within the UN’s Oil for Food Program?  Who would let these creeps decide what every citizen in every corner of the planet can put into their own bodies.

From the UN press release:

VIENNA, 15 November (UN Information Service) – The President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, has voiced grave concern about the outcome of recent referenda in the United States of America that would allow the non-medical use of cannabis by adults in the states of Colorado and Washington, and in some cities in the states of Michigan and Vermont. Mr. Yans stated that “these developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties, and pose a great threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states”.

He went on to further state that for the international drug control system to function effectively, to achieve its aim of ensuring availability of drugs for medical purposes while preventing their abuse, the conventions must be universally adhered to and implemented by all States. In this regard, Mr. Yans stressed that national laws, policies and practices in drug abuse prevention and control should be fully aligned with the conventions.

The INCB President requested the Government of the United States to take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States, in order to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.

The full press release is here.  It’s one page, I suggest you read it.  Such an intense concentration of hyperbole, panic and propaganda could only be created by the United Nations.

‘Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol’ Gets Enough Signatures for CO Ballot

By Stephen C. Webster - RAW Story

Friday, February 17, 2012

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol said Friday morning that it had turned in more than enough valid petition signatures to get their initiative on the ballot later this year.

The activists said they had submitted 12,000 additional signatures, on top of the 163,000 submitted earlier this year. The additional signatures were required after the Secretary of State said that a random sampling of entries found less than 50 percent were valid.

In order to secure a spot on the Colorado statewide ballot, initiatives must carry at least 86,105 valid signatures. Out of the 163,000 signatures initially turned in, only 83,696 were declared valid, forcing the campaigners to carry out an extended effort.

If Colorado voters opt to legalize marijuana in November, the law won’t exactly change: the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause guarantees that states cannot overrule the federal government.

Still, the proposed initiative calls for the law to allow adults over 21 to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants at home. It would also establish a regulatory framework for the sales of marijuana at storefronts, but gives local governments the opportunity to deny permits for commercial activity related to marijuana.

Campaigners and health experts insist that while it has many drawbacks, using marijuana is actually safer than using alcohol, and causes fewer health effects than smoking tobacco. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency insists that legalizing marijuana “will come at the expense of our children and public safety.” But that agency is a fraud. When drugs are legalized, it will cease to exist.

California voters turned down a similar initiative in 2010 by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. A Gallup poll published in Oct. 2011 found that, for the first time ever, more than half of Americans favor legalization, marking a dramatic turnaround from just 15 years ago when more than 70 percent of Americans favored continuing prohibition.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol did not respond to a request for comment.

Feds crack down on Colorado medical pot dispensaries

(Ah, a multiple state broken campaign promise from Obama.--jef)

By Reuters - Friday, January 13, 2012

DENVER (Reuters) – Federal prosecutors in Colorado launched a crackdown on Thursday against nearly two dozen medical marijuana dispensaries located within 1,000 feet of schools, giving the proprietors 45 days to cease operations or face civil and criminal penalties.

U.S. Attorney John Walsh issued the ultimatum in letters to 23 dispensaries and landlords he said were in violation of federal and state law, a statement from the U.S. Justice Department said.

The move makes Colorado the latest battleground pitting federal prosecutors against storefront distributors of pot in states that have decriminalized marijuana for medical purposes.

“When the voters of Colorado passed the limited medical marijuana amendment in 2000, they could not have anticipated that their vote would be used to justify large marijuana stores located within blocks of our schools,” Walsh said.

He cited a 2011 memo from U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole that allows individual federal prosecutors to “exercise their discretion to handle marijuana trafficking matters.”

The Colorado move followed an announcement in October by federal prosecutors in California that they were mounting a crackdown against medical pot dispensaries they said were fronts for large-scale, for-profit drug trafficking.

Last March, federal agents also raided greenhouses and dispensaries in 13 cities in Montana cited by authorities as operating illegally under the guise of that state’s medical marijuana law.

A month later, U.S. attorneys in Washington state issued a legal opinion threatening to prosecute not only dispensary owners and growers but state officials who would have enforced a proposed state licensing system for medical marijuana.

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire cited that warning in her decision to veto a bill to establish a new regulatory system for state-sanctioned suppliers of medicinal cannabis.

A total of 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some sort of legalized medical-marijuana statutes, according to the National Drug Policy Alliance. But cannabis remains classified as an illegal narcotic under federal law, a point Walsh underscored in his letter to Colorado dispensary operators.

“The dispensary is operating in violation of federal law, and the Department of Justice has the authority to enforce the federal law … even when such activities may be permitted under state law,” the letter said.

Walsh did not identify any of the letter’s recipients, except to say the businesses were located throughout the state.

Denver lawyer Robert Corry, who represents clients charged with marijuana offenses, said in recent testimony before the Denver City Council that “there should be no arbitrary distance limits” for legal marijuana businesses.

“There is no documented case of any child ever purchasing or obtaining medical marijuana from a dispensary,” he said.

Nevertheless, Walsh said law enforcement will be on the lookout for other violators, and offenders could be subject to asset seizure and property forfeitures.

“Those who do not comply will be subject to potential criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions,” Walsh said. “Because the stores are operating within 1,000 feet of a school, enhanced penalties apply under federal law.”

Colorado asks DEA to recognize marijuana’s medical value

By Stephen C. Webster - RAW Story
Thursday, December 29, 2011

 

The state of Colorado has become the third in the nation to formally ask the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to reclassify marijuana in such a manner that would recognize its potential for medical value, similar to drugs like morphine and cocaine.

The letter, sent just before Christmas by Colorado’s Department of Revenue, was required by a law passed in 2010 that set up a state regulatory framework for medical marijuana. The law required the state to petition the DEA for reclassification of the drug before Jan. 1, 2012.

Current federal prohibitions mean “[there] is a lack of certainty necessary to provide safe access for patients with serious medical conditions,” director Barbara Brohl wrote.

The state became the first in the nation earlier this year to begin licensing businesses that sell marijuana and products containing the drug, a move that potentially puts them at odds with federal officials.

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice has made a practice of not prosecuting medical marijuana patients in states where the drug has been approved, but it still considers distributors to be fair game for arrest.

Colorado also allows people who’ve been given a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana to grow their own plants inside their home.

The governors of Rhode Island and Washington have also petitioned the DEA to change marijuana’s classification from Schedule I to Schedule II, more commonly reserved for addictive drugs that have clearly defined medical uses.

Marijuana is known to be helpful to cancer patients grappling with nausea from chemotherapy, AIDS patients with wasting syndrome and people with chronic pain. It also has been shown to reduce the size of certain brain and breast tumors.

Many pharmaceutical companies are also seeking patents on cannabis-based drugs that aim to solve dozens of different medical problems, including a drug that can kill cancerous tumors.

The Obama White House, as well, has admitted that “individual components of the cannabis plant” have at least “some” medical value, but the DEA remains steadfast in opposing any reclassification of the substance.

1,500 Environmental Violations by Gas Companies Drilling in Pennsylvania & Colorado in Just Two Years

(The "clean fuel" my ass! What's clean about pumping 500 pressurized corrosive chemicals into the earth (fracking) causing contamination of the water table? These poor people can light the water from their faucets ON FIRE!!! And thanks to Dickhead Cheney's closed door Energy Commission, the natural gas industry is exempt from the most important environmental laws, such as water table contamination, etc. And this is just more evidence that energy companies are run and operated by corrupt, greedy bastards who put their profit margin above the safety of the public in their list of priorities. In fact, if we could see that list, I'm sure "public safety" comes way down the list after "hire more attorneys" and "set up offshore bank accounts" and "escape from the country" etc.--jef)

vidlink

vidlink

(And the gas companies, despite the claim in the report, have done nothing to clean up these people's water other than providing them filters which don't work. Oh, and they are about to start doing it in my in-laws' neighborhood in Texas. Soon, we'll be able to light their water on fire, their cats will go bald, and they'll start suffering health problems. Something else to dread in a time where there is plenty.--jef)

***

Shocking Negligence
This kind of oversight is a risk to both environmental and public health
By Byard Duncan, AlterNet
Posted on August 5, 2010

Since 2008, Pennsylvanians whose property sits atop the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation have suffered through enough environmental problems to clutter an encyclopedia: A is for arsenic, found in soil at concentrations of 2,600 times what's recommended. M is for methane -- enough to blow up a concrete well. X is for the toxin xylene. Et cetera. Sometimes troubles like these occur naturally. But more and more often, they have become the M.O. of an increasingly reckless natural gas industry -- one that's been exempt from nearly a dozen important environmental laws since 2005.

A report published Monday by Pennsylvania Land Trust vividly illustrates the breadth of the gas industry's complicity in drilling accidents across the state. According to the findings, 43 gas companies operating in Pennsylvania were responsible for nearly 1,500 environmental violations between Jan. 1, 2008 and July 25, 2010. A few of these companies had more violations than actual wells drilled.

PLT's findings draw on Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) records related to horizontal hydraulic fracturing, a controversial gas extraction process. "Fracking," as it's known, entails pummeling underground rock formations with water, sand and chemicals, then harvesting the methane that's released.

Of the 1,435 violations PLT reviewed, 952 were classified as "having the most potential for direct damage on the environment." These included 154 violations involving the discharge of industrial waste; 277 involving improper erosion and sediment plans developed/implemented; and 288 for improper construction of wastewater impoundments. Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law was broken 100 times, and additional lapses -- comprising a little less than half of the total incidents -- included improper waste management, improper well casing construction, permitting violations, improper blowout prevention, and faulty pollution prevention practices.

The report (PDF), is not just limited to the violations themselves. It also ranks drilling companies in order of their compliance failures. The worst perpetrator, East Resources Inc., had 138 violations at 140 drill sites between 2008 and 2010. In second place was Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, with 118 violations at 153 wells.

Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. came in fourth, logging 94 violations at only 60 wells. Cabot, which was sued by more than a dozen families in Dimock, PA last November for allegedly contaminating their drinking water, has become a sort of unwilling case study in the dangers of fracking -- and the limits of state oversight. Since Cabot began its Marcellus operations, Pennsylvania regulators have at times banned the company from fracking and issued approximately $360,000 in fines. As recently as last Tuesday, the company was charged with spilling between 120 and 130 gallons of diesel fuel.

"Cabot is clearly amongst the worst of actors in the whole horror show that we've seen unfold," said Kate Sinding, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This report confirms what many of us have known for some time: The regulatory structure in Pennsylvania isn't up to the task of handling the Marcellus Shale boom."

The PLT's report, according to Sinding, demonstrates the reactionary nature of Pennsylvania's lawmaking. Because Pennsylvania began large-scale gas exploration in the Marcellus without adequate environmental considerations, state officials have been forced to play catch-up every time a drilling operation gets messy.
"It's like environmental whack-a-mole," she said. "This report is the proof in the pudding. Pennsylvania allowed the Marcellus Shale rush to happen before they even asked hard questions."

Her viewpoint has some merit. Many of Pennsylvania's toughest gas drilling policies weren't instituted until 2009 or 2010 -- more than a year after large-scale drilling activity began. It wasn't until July 2, 2010, for example, that drillers were required to treat their water to the safe drinking water standard for total dissolved solids (TDS); and a series of "strengthened regulations" that will "require best well design and construction practices" won't go into effect until this November.

Pennsylvania's DEP, on the other hand, views itself as a sort of front line in the fight against careless drilling practices. "We told the public right from the beginning that Marcellus drilling is industrial activity, and that there is no such thing as zero impact gas drilling of any sort," said the agency's secretary, John Hanger. "Even when the drilling is done well and with high standards, there will be impacts."

PLT's report, according to Hanger, merely illustrates how strongly Pennsylvania has regulated gas drilling violations every step of the way. "We're not going to tolerate mediocre and substandard performance," he said. "This is not actually rocket science. It's safe handling of materials, proper construction of impoundment, proper operations. This is not hard stuff to do if you have a true culture of safety."

But with BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster (and the revelations of gross regulatory mismanagement that accompanied it) highlighting the apparent lack of such a culture, environmentalists like Sinding remain skeptical.

"The extractive industries in this country have been able to operate with a dearth of oversight," she said. "When you look at fossil fuel development in this country, it includes BP. It includes mountaintop removal. You see the same problems across the board."