Mark Kleiman writes in the LA Times that even if voters in California approve Proposition 19 to create a regulated legal market for marijuana, it still won’t be legal:
Now that California’s billion-dollar ” medical marijuana” industry and its affiliated “recommendationists” have made marijuana legally available to any Californian with $75 and the willingness to tell a doctor that he sometimes has trouble sleeping, why not go all the way and just legalize the stuff for recreational use as proposed in Proposition 19 on the November ballot? Then we could tax it and regulate it, eliminating the illicit market and the need for law enforcement against pot growers. California would make a ton of money to help dig out of its fiscal hole, right?
Well, actually, no.
There’s one problem with legalizing, taxing and regulating cannabis at the state level: It can’t be done. The federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis. California can repeal its own marijuana laws, leaving enforcement to the feds. But it can’t legalize a federal felony. Therefore, any grower or seller paying California taxes on marijuana sales or filing pot-related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes. And that won’t happen.
From a purely technical standpoint, Kleiman is right. And from a purely technical standpoint, Dick Cheney should be behind bars. The problem with Kleiman’s argument is that when it comes to what the Obama Administration will and will not do, the letter of the law will take a backseat to political considerations. The Obama Administration already demonstrates this by choosing not to go after state medical marijuana providers (both growers and sellers). Despite a few recent raids, marijuana dispensaries are now operating in the open in many more places than they were only two years ago.
Kleiman’s attempt to differentiate this by pointing to international treaties that carve out exceptions for medical use is irrelevant. What the medical marijuana providers do is clearly against federal law, but the Obama Administration chooses not to enforce it. And it’s unrealistic to think that an international treaty that the United States years ago pressured the UN to pass will be used by the international community to force Obama to do something he doesn’t find politically expedient. It’ll never happen. If California passes Proposition 19, the Obama Administration’s hands won’t be tied by anyone or anything. If they think it’s politically expedient to shut it down, they’ll try to do it. If they think it’s not politically expedient, they won’t.
Kleiman makes the case – based on the RAND study from earlier this week saying that marijuana prices in California might plummet – that the Obama Administration would find it politically expedient to shut down any regulated market in California. As he sees it, people will flock to California to buy marijuana on the cheap and re-sell it for higher profits across the country. And as a result, the Obama Administration will have no choice but to shut it down.
On the other hand, California still happens to be the biggest state in the country, and one that Obama would need to win in 2012 to stay in the White House. Having the federal government come in to forcibly overturn a voter-initiative wouldn’t be the smartest move on his part, and it’s one I personally have trouble believing he’d do.
Having the federal government come in to forcibly overturn a voter-initiative wouldn’t be the smartest move on his part, and it’s one I personally have trouble believing he’d do.
If anything a move like that would help advance the legalization movement. People don’t like images of government agents storming in. Its one thing when its ‘criminals’ its another when its some farmers doing something the state they live in find legal. I have a feeling that the federal government occupying California would really turn a lot of people against the drug war at least as far as marijuana is concerned.
I’d almost say bring it on if not for the lives that would be lost.
Interesting analysis…this Administration does seem to put the political equation before most things (that’s not necessarily a criticism). So looking at 2012 would definitely be part of the enforcement decision.
A side question would be the response of growers in neighboring states if a super cheap and (mostly) legal supply source were available….
I’m kind of in the middle on the marijuana thing…but man…this Lee dude is fixated on it…i really don’t think its one of our major issues…either politically or economically.
This will go to the courts without a doubt, and in the end it may be the Supreme Court that rules on the issue. The generations that had been led to believe that Reefer Madness was real are giving way to the real world.
@ 3
It IS one of the major issues. The sole purpose of marijuana prohibition is to provide a nice, tidy legal excuse to convict minority and poor populations of felonies to prevent them from voting.
That is the only result, that is the primary purpose as stated in congressional testimony during the initial prohibition legal process as stated by Henry Anslinger and William R Hearst, among others.
The super-millionares of the time were openly racist and religiously bigoted, and their purposes for maintaining the prohibition enforcement organizations were founded entirely on racial and economic social status. The modern American “conservatives” agree with this policy, understand the real reasons for it, and seek to continue it and increase the level of enforcement in this regard.
After all, we don’t want no knee-growz getting uppity and voting en masse for someone that might have ideas contrary to the millionares wishes now, do we?
It also serves to maintain a huge set of interconnected industries that are extremely lucrative, and would lose a huge income resource if prohibition were to be repealed, something else that the “conservatives” would be loathe to give up.
After all, money is the only real measure of success to them, everything else is totally unimportant.
@5
I can just imagine someone in the 1920s doing what righton is doing to someone who was fighting to end alcohol prohibition. Why are you so obsessed with it? It’s a meaningless issue! Of course, alcohol prohibition was pretty devastating to a number of our cities and particularly to its immigrant communities. Same today, although making this tougher politically is that the brunt of the damage is happening outside of the U.S. (Mexico, primarily).
Lee; the analogy to alcohol prohib fails. nearly everybody drank alcohol back then; not true today. we prohibited a beverage enjoyed by nearly all people. alcohol was part of daily life for all classes of people. it was also the method to turn grain into $$, for the folks say in the Ohio River valleys. (making beer or bourbon)
today marijuana is widely used, but not in the same proportion.
as for Deathfrog. You are wrong. Nice conspiracy theory. you managed to shove the handfull of liberal orthodoxies into one argument (the poor use or sell pot; they become felons, felons can’t vote, therefore all laws are anti poor). You guys of course want felons to vote, don’t want restrictions on marijuana, and you want everyone to stuff the ballot box (adding in people illegally entering the US)
@7
Lee; the analogy to alcohol prohib fails. nearly everybody drank alcohol back then; not true today.
That’s nonsense. Alcohol consumption then was higher than marijuana consumption is now, but there are still over 20 million regular marijuana users in the US which provides billions to organized crime. It’s the same exact problem, just with a different drug.
alcohol was part of daily life for all classes of people.
So is marijuana. People of all classes, races, and backgrounds use it.
it was also the method to turn grain into $$, for the folks say in the Ohio River valleys. (making beer or bourbon)
And how is this different from the marijuana industry? The production is driven by profit.
today marijuana is widely used, but not in the same proportion.
Again, over 20 million users in the United States alone. What exactly are you arguing, anyway? That the crime and corruption in Mexico isn’t a result of marijuana prohibition? That because only about 6-10% of American adults use it that government can stop it only if we make it big enough? Which of those bad arguments are you trying to make?
What if the U.S. Supreme Court ends up hearing two cases, possibly during the same term next year: (a) an attempt by someone challengin California’s initiative 19 illegal as being in conflict with federal law; and (b) an attempt by the federal government to overturn Arizona’s immigration laws.
Both have similar issues (federal pre-emption), although approach their respective issues from completely opposite directions (California seeks to ignore federal immigration laws and not prosecute, Arizona seeks to zealously enforce federal immigration laws).
If the federal government doesn’t challenge Prop. 19, no average citizen would have standing to file a lawsuit. But I’m sure they could find a local sheriff somewhere who was willing to sign up, and argue that the California initiative and Federal law are so much in conflict that it requires him to request clarification from the courts in order for him to do his job.
Funny how Kleiman hasn’t noticed that right now people are flocking to California to buy marijuana on the cheap and re-sell it for higher profits across the country.
@9
To me (and this is not a legal opinion, just a logical one), the difference is that the federal government intervening in Arizona is intervening to protect the civil liberties of people, while the federal government intervening in California is doing the opposite.
As for what the courts will say, I think the federal government will be found to have the ability to overrule both laws (although based on differing precedent).
But again, it comes down to political considerations in both cases as to what the Obama Administration will actually do.
But I’m sure they could find a local sheriff somewhere who was willing to sign up, and argue that the California initiative and Federal law are so much in conflict that it requires him to request clarification from the courts in order for him to do his job.
I’m not sure he’d even have to go that far. I believe he could just call the DEA and ask them to arrest people in his county. He wouldn’t need to seek a court decision. I think if Proposition 19 passes, the production and sale will still only happen in counties where the sheriff would face political recriminations from inviting in the feds.
So Obama won’t shut it down, because the liberals are behind this. The Republicans (and Tea Party wing) can not DARE to even SUGGEST shutting this down because they’ve spent year after year screaming about “states rights” and how they don’t even want a Federal government. So if California voters say they want this, how could ANY Republicans dare to suggest a powerful Fed should come in an overrule the “voters” in a state?
#10 ROTFLMAO
That’s CUTE! You think people need to go to California to get pot? Pot was sold in quantity to most Americans LONG before California had medical marijuana. You idea is interesting but not true in reality. The problem is you just couldn’t get ENOUGH quantity of “medical” marijuana. I don’t think you have any idea HOW much pot this country smokes (and has for decades). You can’t get into a medical marijuana shop, even with your little prescription, and buy 10 pounds. You just get a few joints. You can’t get enough quantity to make out of state sales a success. You’ll spend more in gas money than you make in sales.
This is STUPID. Prohibition on alcohol didn’t work. The idiots there had the EXACT same non-reality based arguments. You can’t legalize vodka, then mom and dad would just sit home and get drunk all day because they can buy vodka. We know if you make something legal EVERYONE will use/abuse it! Of course that isn’t true. Vodka is legal many parents are still sober. Ice cream is legal but I don’t just sit and eat 5 gallons a day. Cigarettes are legal and I don’t smoke. Get over it. Besides, alcohol and cigarettes are WORSE “recreational” drugs in all respects…more cancer causing, more violence causing. The ONLY violence around marijuana (like alcohol during the prohibition) is around the illegal black market supplying it.
Word of the day: Irony
Example: It’s ironic that we keep pot illegal party because we get to fight the violent criminal element that surrounds it, which only exists because it’s illegal. Irony. (re: Wikipedia – “Al Capone and bootlegging”)
Prohibition didn’t work. However, many wars were funded by taxes on alcohol. The Prohibition movement also included woman’s right to vote and the new income tax. At one time the liquor industry contributed 40% of US tax revenue-so when Prohibition started there needed to be new tax dollars to pay for wars. Kinda funny how black market cannabis pays for cartel weapons and other illicit drugs. Maybe Prop 19 will take some of that away. SO WHAT if Federal Law doesn’t like cannabis-grow it and smoke it and practice civil disobediance.
I wonder if Lee and the other potheads pushing for legal pot will say when there is a spike in work related deaths and auto accident deaths if pot goes legal…
@ 15
You really enjoy being a supercilious asshole don’t you?
Typical fascist.
@15
Do you want to put down a wager on that? Send me an email and we can work out the details, but I will happily bet you that once pot is legal that there will be no significant increase in auto accident deaths.
@17
Lee, you must be high if you think people stoned out of their mind are not impaired to drive a vehicle.
I suppose you think a weeded out crane operator is OK too….
I dont care if pot goes legal or not…but its the head in the sand types like you that dont think there will be consequences if the stinky goes legal. hope you sleep better knowing that people will die on the roads – hope you and your family dont turn out to be one of the statistics.
@18 Contemplate this
I will side with Lee on this.
While I certainly must admit that one might expect MJ to impair drivers, I have never found a convincing report that show this.
Do you know of one?
@18
Lee, you must be high if you think people stoned out of their mind are not impaired to drive a vehicle.
That’s not what I said. What I said was that legalizing the drug would not significantly increase the amount of people who die in their cars. And I’ll also contend that the impairment from marijuana is not as dangerous as the impairment from alcohol. In fact, as SJ points out, there are no studies that show a strong correlation between marijuana impairment and highway deaths. People under the influence of marijuana tend to drive slowly and are overly cautious. They’re impaired, but in a very different way.
I suppose you think a weeded out crane operator is OK too….
Even after marijuana is legal, I believe that companies should still be able to fire employees for being high at work, regardless of what that work is.
I dont care if pot goes legal or not…but its the head in the sand types like you that dont think there will be consequences if the stinky goes legal.
You’re making a very common logical error in thinking about marijuana legalization. You believe that there are thousands upon thousands of people in this world who are prevented from smoking pot because it’s illegal, and that if it becomes legal, they’ll start. That’s largely unfounded. People in this country who want to smoke pot already smoke pot. They just do it illegally. You’re not going to see a major increase in pot consumption after its legalized. You’ll only see a large reduction in crime.
hope you sleep better knowing that people will die on the roads – hope you and your family dont turn out to be one of the statistics.
Once again, email me and we’ll bet on this. I know you’re wrong and I’m more than happy to put down the cash. If you’re sure about the nonsense you’re throwing out, let’s make it interesting.
Gosh, lets hope that when CA votes YES then Lee’s wish will come true and BHO will recognize that state law over rides Federal.
Oooops … didn’t we fight a civil war over this already?
If Pot is Bad for Driivng …
OK .. lets go the full bore on this and use science to determine whether we should allow:
driving after an argument
driving while listening to great music
driving after coffee
driving after eating at a buffet
driving after sex
driving after working out.
Seriously, as Lee says, there is no evidence of any significant level of danger of fatal crashes due to marijuana. All studies that have compared stoned drivers to drunk drivers have found that stoned drivers are much, much safer ironically because they are aware of their impairment and compensate (including paying very close attention), and those conducting the studies have opined that it’s safer to have stoned drivers than tired drivers or distracted drivers.
This is why whenever the federal government pushes their “drugged driving” agenda, they end up having to use studies that have nothing to do with marijuana impairment to try to “prove” their point. They have no evidence at all.
My favorite was when the head of the DEA gave a speech about the dangers of marijuana and driving and used an anecdote about someone who had smoked marijuana and killed an entire family in a crash — only problem was that the driver was also drunk and had just taken cocaine. And that was the best example that the head of the DEA and her staff could come up with at the time.
Until about two years ago I suffered from sleep apnea and, yes, could fall asleep at the wheel.
Sleep apnea is far more common then any sort of serious intoxication by MJ. Should we outlaw sleep apnea? Make snoring a disqualification for driving?
For that matter, LOTS of folks drive while sleep impaired and we know that can cause accidents. Should we rule out driving w/o 8 hrs of sleep?
The reality is that MJ is largely an issue of hype. There is no reason to think it is any more dangerous then lots of things we ingest normally. OTOH, the hype from Lee and co is also foolhardy. There is no reason to think of MJ as a particularly useful drug.
So hows it we can not just do the simple thing? Why not pass a law setting minimum scientific criteria for banning any drug? One way to do this is to create a basket of stuff we now accept .. chocolate, exercise endorphins, coffee, nyquill, wine .. if the new thing is no more dangerous than these it ought to be illegal to make the thing illegal.
Note I left out tobacco. Any product that generates carcinogens … including MJ, ought to require safety testing before full scale legalization .. just as we require before a drug can even be tested for efficacy by the FDA.
#18, 20, 22, 23, and 24 have already neatly taken down “Contemplate this”‘s spurious arguments about pot traffic deaths.
I only have one thing to add.
Driving while impaired is illegal. Period. And it doesn’t matter what drug impairs you. The drug can be legal (alcohol or any number of perfectly legal prescription drugs) or illegal (name your poison). The legalization of the drug itself has absolutely nothing to do with whether DRIVING (or performing any other activity requiring the full use of one’s faculties and reaction time) under the influence of said drug is either safe or legal.
That is all.