Tweet
Eight former Drug Enforcement Administration directors sent a letter asking the Obama administration to nullify the marijuana legalization laws voters recently approved in Washington State and Colorado. Not surprisingly, a bunch of people who have made very successful careers around fighting the drug war want to make sure the drug war continues.
These former DEA directors are clearly in the minority when it comes to public opinion. Polling has found that the vast majority of Americans think marijuana law should be a states’ rights issue and the federal government should let these two states enact their new laws.
While strongly disagreeing with the former directors’ position on the issue, I do share their analysis about how incredibly important the next few months are for the future of marijuana legalization. From the Washington Post:
One of the former DEA administrators, Peter Bensinger, told The Associated Press the day before that the more time that goes by, the harder it’ll be to stop the two states. Marijuana is illegal under federal law.
Bensinger, who lives in the Chicago area, said the government must immediately sue the states or risk creating “a domino effect” in which other states follow suit.
“My fear is that the Justice Department will do what they are doing now: do nothing and say nothing,” said Bensinger. “If they don’t act now, these laws will be fully implemented in a matter of months.”
If Obama aggressively tries to stop Colorado and Washington from implementing their new laws it would be a significant setback to the marijuana reform movement. It won’t stop the rapid change in public opinion about the issue, but as long as Obama was in office it would make it harder to convince other states to adopt similar laws. If, on the other hand, the administration takes a more hands-off approach, it would create an opportunity to prove legalization can work, making it easier to spread the reform to other states in the near future.
Photo by marijuana2007b under Creative Commons license.
25 Comments
“Sequester” the DEA.
If the will of the electorate was to legalize pot, their representatives in Congress would be introducing and passing laws legalizing pot.
Speaking of the ‘Electorate’… Here in the Isles today…The Hawaii state Senate has voted unanimously to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana….
maybe you live in a different USA but I havent seen congress reflect the will of the people in quite some time……
John, the domino effect has already started IMO. The horse has left the barn etc. IMO its now simply a matter of time.
I still disagree on working this on the state level. If the federal government no longer classified pot as a DANGER then many states would quickly follow suit and change what ever laws they have.
In my state as long as the fine and probabtion money is coming in they will never lift a finger. With out drug and DUI arrests they would have to look at a state income tax!
Until proven otherwise I believe that Federal legalization or decriminalization of Pot will never happen. That being because it is an hallucinogen or its effects are widely understood to fall under that definition, and so it is subversive to the normal social order. Well I can’t think of another way to put it. The word hallucinogen is fraught with complications I know and pot has other effects with other definitions.
I have always thought too that the difficulty in determining a users intoxication makes it extremely worrying to employers on many levels from safety to liability to of course productivity. It’s easy to say don’t be drunk at work and easy enough to detect someone who is. With pot it is I think impossible to determine if someone is stoned except in the extreme and only possible after the fact to determine if it is in their system, but that has nothing to do with their level of highness at some previous time, measured in an hour or two. This all plays into the final decision of the Feds to say no. I think economic forces are afraid legalization may hurt productivity. I think they are right but maybe not for the reasons they think.
Currently most workplaces will test for pot in the system of anyone hurt on the job and this can limit their liability. What happens if it is legalized or quasi legalized like the states are doing. Can employers still limit their liability if a worker has a legal drug in their system?
Two words for the people of Colorado and Washington when Dubyabarry and his thugs in the DoJ attack, Jury Nullification.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jury_nullification
The will of the electorate? You don’t take that democracy malarkey seriously, now, do you?
@ rapier51 -So, in your thoughts have you given any brain time to the fact that all your “reasons” are based on fear(indoctrination) and not facts? Research a little- economic forces are not afraid of productivity, it is the drug, alcohol, and for profit prisons who are sending the lobbiests into your representatives offices. Follow the money, it is these groups and others that stand to lose here.
oh, don’t forget the amazing research in canabidol- kills pain and cancer without any get high side effects…
Thats a good idea this, it could be the next shiny thing everyone focuses on.
Obama drug raids with Drones.
It would be like the show “Cops”, except we would mindlessly sit there watching drone footage of patches getting hit and lit by Hellfire missiles.
Of course you won’t get to see the collateral damage except on the DVD version.
Christ on a crutch.
A bunch of
criminalsgovt agents & fellow travelers have had important careers running drugs & guns, including selling same to gangs in the USA. They don’t want pot legalized. Takes away a line of their very lucrative “business.”. WTF is the “will of the people”?? Making money trumps all.Whaddaya think?? That this is a democracy? LOL!
If this twisted logic doesn’t leap out to you, it would be ridiculous to even try explaining it to you.
Think about this: why does it matter if you can’t tell? Is there some magic evil radiation that someone stoned may subject an unsuspecting innocent to, causing permanent brain damage? (Did you hear about that teenager hopped up on reefer that killed his parents with an ax?)
My suggestion: Get this party started. Get the growers working, set up the distribution network, and get the tax stream flowing! Once that kicks in, the state officials will never allow it to go back. From there, cut the feds their share and the war is over.
These DEA clowns have it wrong. Prigg v Pennsylvania, which ruled STATES neither have to enforce federal laws they disagree with nor assist federal police enforcing the law. This was in regards to the various Fugitive Slave acts and laws. The legal precedent is there, so I don’t know why any state attorney general worth a damn refuses to challenge the raids–yeah, thanks Obama–currently going on. Why aren’t Californians demanding their state tell Holder’s buttboys no? Starting with Prigg, the federal government responded with more abusive laws like today, i.e., making it a felony and huge fine to not comply. The feds were shot down by court each and every time, including the Supreme Court (yeah, I know, Roberts=Taney). “Settled Law,” IMHO, shows states and citizens can legally nullify federal agents regarding drug raids. These DEA people would have hunted slaves in Free States and are just as immoral as the US Marshalls back then. If NORMAL would listen for once, they need to start a mirror of the Innocence Project and start funding creative lawyers to finally nullify the “drug warriors” like attorneys did the “slave catchers.” It did not matter that slavery was deemed “constitutional,” just like Holder et alia scream that federal drug law trumps state law. I would find it rich if state anti-slavery laws were re-written against a BLACK president AND attorney general who insist on using federal agents against citizens who want change.
Remarkable. According to the National Cancer Institute, no less, cannabis has an anti-tumor effect.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
Follow the money.
So it’s OK with you if truckers hauling various dangerous chemicals are smoking dope before they hop in the truck? I know this is an extreme case but where do you draw the line. Being high on pot reduces the performance of most tasks in probably hard to quantify ways.
Listen I am playing devils advocate here. No opponent ever mentions this sort of worker performance and safety thing so it’s probably not a factor in their opposition. I think the main opposition comes from some deep suspicion that somehow pot is subversive to the existing social order and I think that is true. In a minor way maybe but true.
That’s sarcasm, right?
What are we doing about truck drivers who drink while driving, or who have taken any drug, over the counter or prescription, that specifies that taking it might cause drowsiness?
Wiki describes the Prigg decision as follows:
In the Prigg case, the Pennsylvania statute was invalidated because it conflicted with the right of return of slaves then guarantied by the Constitution.
The federal government cannot require states to spend their money on anything, including on enforcing federal law. However, most law enforcement agencies do cooperate with each other to a degree.
The former DEA directors continue to live in a fantasy world where the war on drugs is a resounding success. They have to keep up this charade to validate themselves. they will never admit they were wrong.
It is far too complicated to write here, but it all started with Prigg. Of course the Dred Scott Decision, the primary law concerning returning slave property from a Free State, was what angered the North. Fifteen years prior to the Civil War (I’m excluding SC’s Nullification here) saw much action by anti-slavery citizens. On numerous occasions anti-slavery posses killed US Marshalls–only to be acquitted in court. Just look at the history of Kansas and armed gangs that “kidnapped” slaves from Missouri. What I am stating is look at the LEGAL reactions by anti-slavery in fighting draconian federal punishments. The Free States eventually found LEGAL means to trump federal laws, sometimes along with civil disobedience when federal agents showed up. I wrote about it decades ago. PLEASE think outside the box, and I don’t mean that insultingly. When local police start arresting federal agents for not complying with state law, Holder and the DEA will realize they don’t have enough agents to go around. They will also realize they don’t have enough US Attorneys and AUSAs to go around fighting a continuous stream of state lawsuits. Congressmen will have to side with their constituents or lose the next election. Maybe 15 anti-Drug War states will threaten to secede from repressive federal laws. It happened once, so it can happen again. At least I am optimistic it could. And wouldn’t that be rich?
Letters like this are really valuable because they destroy the lie that the Administration can’t do anything.
On drug policy, the President is the only actor that counts – Congress and Republicans simply are not an obstacle at all.
This is unadulterated bullshit. But what else should I expect from a “liberal” who thinks drone bombings are awesome but pot is a scourge?
right on…I was hoping it was sarcasm, but I’m thinking trollery is more likely as I’ve read some other comments (or at least, embarrassing ignorance).
Which still amuses me that people think FDL can be trolled. This is a place where people actually advocate what they believe, not just worship the whims of the power structure.