Right now the possession, cultivation, and sale of marijuana is illegal under federal law. This is true even in states that have legalized marijuana for medical use, but the Obama administration has announced that it will not prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries (or users) as long as they’re following local state law.
Currently there are campaigns in Oregon & California to put measures on the ballot that if approved this fall would fully legalize (& tax) the possesion, cultivation, and sale of marijuana to anyone over 21. Fully legalized, not just decriminalized, not just for medicinal purposes (which CA already defines really vaguely), but for recreational use as well. Basically it’d be treated the same as alcohol (in Oregon it would even be sold in state liquor stores).
Let’s assume that one (or both) measures make it on the ballot and passes. What happens next? Would the Obama administration still decline to enforce federal drug laws that contradict state laws even though current policy only applies to medical marijuana? How would the state officials who’d now be obliged to implement these new, voter approved, policies? Neither state allows the legislature to overide a popular initiative without holding a referendum. In Oregon’s case the a state government agency could be required by state law to sell marijuana even though it’s still illegal under federal law.
As a practical matter if the federal government does decide to fully enforce federal law how hard would it be for them to do so with zero cooperation from state & local authorities? Is there current federal law that would allow the states to be stripped of federal funding (like with the drinking age), or would a new one need to be passed?
I don’t think it would change anything. The people who are going to smoke it probably already do now (for the most part).
I take it back. It will change one very important thing, our overcrowded prisons. Less people put in jail over ridiculous drug possession charges. It might also lower violent crime (though probably not by much - it’s just marijuana after all).
People from Britain might even come to the US just to smoke pot (though they have closer alternatives).
Attempt to legalize in any state, and the right wing base will go ballistic, and the people who exploit their fears will be popping champagne corks. So a moderate Dem legislature is not likely to commit such blatant good sense, might as well nail your pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire. And, of course, even if a tighty righty leg would be so inclined, they would be afraid of attack from their right wing.
So they can’t say “legalize”. They can say “lower the penalties”. They can say “medicinal use”. But that’s it.
Except in Alaska, where it is legal to possessand use less than one ounce in your own home. Alaska is an odd Red State, more libertarian than social conservative.
The simplest way for the feds to obtain state compliance is to tie some type of federal funding to state enforcement. Like with the 55 MPH speed limits.
Not sure how Obama would respond. But in my mind it would be a positive step if one or a few states forced our country to reconsider its extremely costly drug policy.
May I suggest that if many states legalize marijuana and the feds really do look the other way, the following things are possible:
Production of marijuana cigarettes, roach clips, bongs, and other associated items will increase. They will need employees for growing, processing, distribution, etc. Good for the work force.
The price of marijuana will go way down. It is so easy to grow and the danger aspect of growing and distribution has been removed.
A hefty tax can be placed on the MJ and it will still be cheap in comparison. All sorts of state programs will benefit. College tuitions can be lowered again.
Crime statistics will go down.
Prisons will be less crowded.
People will become more creative in their thinking.
Maybe some of those on the right will mellow out a little and some of those on the left will become more understanding and forgiving.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
Actually the low level drug crimes in prisons is “sort of” a myth
Less than 20% of all people in prison in the USA are there on drug charges. Around 5% are for what are considered “soft drugs” And those are almost always a result of creative sentencing. For instance, it’s pretty sure a guy robbed a store but they can’t prove it so they charge him with a drug crime.
So how did this “myth” start, well it’s sort of a myth and not. When people say the prisons are full of low level drug users they’re not wrong, but they are including lock ups, jails, probation and parolees.
This REALLY INFLATES the number big time.
But jail and lock ups aren’t prison. These marijuana offenders do get time, but it’s in the form of extended parole, time already served in a jail awaiting trial or probation, community service. These numbers get lumped in and that’s where that huge figure for low level drug users comes in. A person on community service is included in the number the same as if he went to prison.
Also remember if a person who is charged with a violent crime is in prison, gets paroled and then smokes a joint, he’s now in violation and can be thown back in to serve his original sentence and have it extended even.
So it’s not like people are smoking pot and going to prison. Yes, it does happen, shamefully to admit, in our system people fall through the cracks.
As you can see it’s not to say people aren’t getting into trouble over marijuna use. And a conviction is still a conviction whether you go to jail, prison or serve community service.
(Source: University at Albany - SUNY - Study on Prisons)
Agreed on both points, but I’ll speculate that Obama would probably respond in much the same way he has to the medical marijuana states. He seems pretty reasonable about such things.
Further, I’d hope that the measures pass, and it turns out to be a huge success for those states, so other states will follow suit eventually. I think you could generate a lot of tax revenue at very little social cost by legalizing pot. Also would expect to see a boost in revenue for food delivery businesses…
It seems like a no-brainer for California to do it. Legalize it, slap a stiff tax on it, and regulate it much the same way that we regulate alcohol. With their giant deficit, they could make bundles in taxes on sale of pot directly, moving a giant industry with huge profits squarely into income taxable territory, huge savings in law enforcement costs, and, at least for a few years, a cash influx from out-of-state as Oregonians, Washingtonians, Nevadans, and Arizonans begin to smoke legally grown, probably cheaper Californian pot.
EDIT: Not to mention the hit to the pocketbook that Mexican drug cartels will take. Importing weed will be much less commercially viable, and we all know that the only thing more devious and clever than a DEA agent is Excise and Customs man.
I see it unlikely that the Obama administration would interfere for two reasons. The first reason is that Obama has already OK’d drug legalization for medicinal purposes in States that have passed laws permitting their use. The second reason is a matter of priorities in that the U.S is dealing with two wars, Iran, NK, health care, immigration, regulatory reform, etc etc. Ultimately, Obama would have to determine whether making drug legalization a pressing issue is something that will be fruitful in 2012. I think frankly, he has bigger fish to fry.
I think WAY more people would try it. In Ireland right now we have “head shops”, selling not-yet-illegal synthetic drugs that mimic the effects of cocaine, ecstasy, etc. There’s legal weed too. In the last year, these have been opening up all over the place, and people who would always shun illegal drugs are now going to a head shop at 3 in the morning to get legal drugs that, for all we know, are just as dangerous, very possibly more.
I think drugs should all be legal. But the argument that drug use would stay roughly the same, if we had legal, top-quality, cheap weed is completely wrong imo
Would there really be that much tax revenue? MJ is a weed. You can grow it almost anywhere. I think we would be able to grow much more than we can use. Pot gardeners would be giving the stuff away for free.
Where the HELL do you get the idea it’s the “right wing” that supports drugs being illegal??? Back in the early '90s, National Review, THE magazine of the “right wing” intellectual movement, devoted an entire issue titled “The War on Drugs is Over, It’s Lost” [I may have got the exact title misworded, but the gist is correct]. The premise of the ENTIRE issue was that legalization was the PROPER conservative response to the problem. You read too much left-wing propaganda if you think it’s the right that insists on the “drug war”.
