Reporter:
…[Y]ou named a new drug czar today. You’ve taken that position out of the cabinet. You in the past have talked about decriminalization of marijuana. Are we still engaged in a war on drugs?
President:
…I think what gave me pause on that question was I think you — I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that I — well, the implication was somehow that I think we should weaken our drug laws. That’s never been my position. I think that what we do have to — I think the approach that we do need to take is to make sure that we have a both / and approach as opposed to an either / or approach.
I think traditionally the debate is either interdiction, criminalization, longer drugs — longer prison sentences for not only dealers, but users; that’s one approach. And then the other approach would be sort of a public health, decriminalization approach.
My attitude is we do have to treat this as a public health problem and we have to have significant law enforcement. And, you know, if we can reduce demand, obviously that allows us to focus more effectively where interdiction is needed, where we’ve got to go after serious drug dealers and narcotrafficking.
Right now I think that we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our back because our effort to lower demand is grossly underfunded, not as effective as it needs to be. The average person who is seeking serious substance abuse treatment in a big city, like Dallas or Chicago, typically has a three-, four-, six-month waiting list to get enrolled in a program. I think that’s a problem and most law enforcement officials I think would agree that it is a problem.
A president calling for more of a “public health” approach is a fantastic start. Recognizing the paucity of substance abuse treatment options for addicts is a huge moment. The president even seems to understand this isn’t so much a drugs and crime issue as it is a supply and demand issue.
But the president just can’t cross that line to recognize that eliminating all of the demand is never going to happen. And he certainly can’t cross further over the line by recognizing that demand for marijuana isn’t a demand that needs to be eliminated, it’s a demand that needs to be recognized and exploited.
Everybody wants to reduce alcohol abuse and dependence, but nobody ever suggests we need the federal government to act to reduce social drinking. It is accepted that most adults can responsibly use alcohol and all our government tries to do is reduce alcohol’s abuse, not its use. Sociologically we could argue that we actually encourage increasing the demand for responsible use of alcohol, if the omnipresent beer ads on television are any indicator. Even our state governments are encouraging increasing demand for alcohol by ending Sunday sales and other restrictions.
So when will someone in Washington recognize this same reality about marijuana? Marijuana can be abused, but the vast majority use marijuana more responsibly and in a manner less socially detrimental than social use of alcohol. Marijuana doesn’t lead to harder drugs, it doesn’t cause overdose, and it leaves its users in a much more predictable, stable, and passive state than alcohol.
Until the only cars I see parked outside of bars are taxicabs, you cannot convince me that marijuana is too dangerous to legalize.
Loading ...
In general, I think we’re winning the war. If by no other means, then by attrition. Each new generation is more familiar and comfortable with marijuana. If you were 18 for the summer of love, you’ll turn 59 this year. All those or the WWII generations–and their unfortunately hostile position on pot–are dying off. It’s social progress, one funeral at a time.
But.
There’s one huge obstacle on the horizon.
It’s the lack federalism.
The idea of federalism is the one of “50 state laboratories of democracy.”
But we still have ONE federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, which says that growing, possessing, selling marijuana is illegal. As we see with the California DEA raids, that law is still very much a live letter. Then you add to that the asset forfeiture laws, which allow local police departments to seize property from marijuana consumers and you see a real vise grip for bad policy.
When the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition, it didn’t make alcohol legal. All it did was allow allow states to make their own policy (e.g., the previous status quo).
This is what we need today. Different rules for different states
Between “liberal” states like California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, someone would hit on real Marijuana liberty. If the Mormons in Utah want their state to remain “dry,” well, go for it. (Not smart, my friends. Not smart.)
Unfortunately, due to the set-up of the U.S. Senate and Electoral college, small-population conservative states have too much influence.
It’s impossible to imagine–at least right now–that the one-sized-fits-all Controlled Substances Act would be amended in a way that allows states to liberalize marijuana law.
And that’s a huge fucking problem.