6 ms·

Why is there still such resistance at the highest levels to legalization / decriminalization? Obama and Holder have made it pretty clear (at least personally)

by nlh 13y ago

Why is there still such resistance at the highest levels to legalization / decriminalization? Obama and Holder have made it pretty clear (at least personally) that they don't see marijuana as a risk, and yet when the discussion about removing it from Schedule 1 status comes around, the answer seems to be "no". Why is this? Obviously politics, but I'm curious where the big resistance is coming from. What would happen if Obama just said "You know what, we're taking it off Schedule 1 status. Done." Who would fight back and why?

ewoodrich 13y ago
If that were to happen, Congress could immediately reschedule it as Schedule 1. They've done this before with GHB when they disagreed with the existing schedule.
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  They could do that. And Obama could pardon every offender currently in jail and every offender that goes to jail until he leaves office. I wonder why he doesn't.
  - shykes 13y ago
    It's one thing to implement common sense progressive marijuana legislation, and probably quite another to make headlines as "the marijuana president" for possibly months in a row.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Because he cares more about party politics. He is not going to be re-elected of course, but his party still needs to win elections and he won't do anything that he thinks will jeopardize that.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Congress doesn't determine the Schedule, the DEA and FDA do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
Synaesthesia 13y ago
Drugs are still a huge taboo in our society and widely misunderstood, and maligned. The government can't just back down that quickly from a propaganda campaign they've been waging for decades.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  According to polls, the battle lines aren't drawn by party affiliation. It's mainly by age. They're mainly a taboo for voters older than 40.
  - Synaesthesia 13y ago
    Sure, and it is changing rapidly, thankfully. Marijuana is much less of a taboo, but other drugs are, there's still a lot of misinformation out there.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > Drugs are still a huge taboo in our society and widely misunderstood, and maligned. I don't think this broad characterization is correct: Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs, but widely used and accepted in our society. Certain forms of medication could easily be added to the list. It's just that certain drugs are not accepted in our society, despite all scientific evidence that they are at least not more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
  - Crito 13y ago
    In my experience with talking to people with poorly thought out positions against drugs, mentioning alcohol or caffeine will usually get you a "what do they have to do with anything, we're talking about 'real' drugs." It's not rational or informed, but lots of people are still thinking that way.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      My mother falls into the rarer "ending prohibition was a mistake" camp.
crystaln 13y ago
There are enormous vested interest in marijuana being illegal. The biggest may be that most local police departments are funded largely by the seizure of assets from minor drug offenders and innocents who they can get away with accusing of drugs. Other vested interests are the large number of government employees and private companies who benefit from the drug war, from drug detection to prisons. There are also political issues. Marijuana legalization is opposed by many swing voters, and neither party can afford to lose those. Leaving matters up to states allows states where the majority favors continued criminal prosecution of marijuana offenses to do as they wish. This is actually the way it should be constitutionally. I'm actually not sure how the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce drug laws against the wishes of a state. If anyone can point me to a precedent, that would be helpful. The federal government has no authority to enforce laws against most crimes that occur entirely within a state's borders unless they violate international treaties. EDIT: It appears the authority was challenged and affirmed in Gonzales v Raich case, though I think the opinion is in error as it grants the federal government complete authority to regulate local activity, an opinion which the Constitution was written to prevent. Congress is limited to the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- mschuster91 13y ago
  > unless they violate international treaties Which they in fact do - there are multiple international treaties on drug crimes and enforcement.
  - crystaln 13y ago
    Feel free to enumerate any that would require the federal government to enforce marijuana laws. If there were any, I would have expected them to be mentioned in Gonzales v Raich, but none were.
    - mschuster91 13y ago
      I know of the "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" and the "United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances", but I am no lawyer so I can't say whether these treaties have a legally binding effect which prevents more relaxed dealing with drugs.
overgard 13y ago
It's a lot easier to get a law passed then to get it revoked, because revoking a law would suggest admitting some sort of mistake, and that's pretty much a political impossibility. So once a law gets into place it's damn near impossible to get rid of it. I think a large part of the reason pot is still mostly illegal is because no politician wants to be the guy to say "wow what a massive fuckup we've made".
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  For a good example of this phenomena see alcohol prohibition in the USA Passed an amendment to make it illegal Then passed an amendment to make it legal Instead of revoking/cancelling/etc to the first one
  - jpatokal 13y ago
    The only way to "revoke/cancel" (repeal) an amendment is to issue a new amendment repealing a previous amendment, which is precisely what the 21st Amendment does. Think of it like git version history: even a revert is actually a new commit.
- GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
  This is a case where mixing up then and than makes a difference
rhizome 13y ago
Why is there still such resistance at the highest levels to legalization / decriminalization? Government is filled with a bunch of squares. DOJ and DEA doubly or triply so. Did you ever know anybody in school who not only never smoked pot or drank, but thought people who did were human failures? They went on to become professional squares, the US government employs thousands of them, and they've got the power of law enforcement and judicial precedent supporting the careers they've spent their lives building. They also populate the staffs, advisors, and campaign workers of Congresspeople who do smoke and drink. As much as you think legal weed is a slam dunk derp, there are huge swaths of the country who through religion, politics, bad experiences and/or general upbringing who think it's just as simply a terrible idea.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  There are a lot of people who will vote for some regulation, and in Retardistan, D.C. that turns into total regulation to maximize the number of votes. You know, like "health care seems kind of screwed up" turned into "put an excise tax on doing nothing" and "hire a contractor already famous for spectacular failure". Or like "establish safety standards for children's poducts" turned in to "you cannot resell a children's produce without burning it and blessing the ash". The American people get the government they deserve, and they get it good and hard.
- pachydermic 13y ago
  Dude what are you talking about? Honestly, are you trolling? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-major-shift-dc-voters-strongly-support-legalizing-marijuana/2014/01/15/9fcc6d04-7d6a-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html?hpid=z2 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-major-shi... Turns out that old white dudes - which I think would most clearly fit your label of "squares" (please) - are actually not the ones who strongly oppose legalization. True, this is just DC proper and not Virginia/Maryland, but given that Maryland has had votes to decriminalize it and such I don't think it's absurd to apply some general lessons from this to other parts of the area. Really, the only people who reliably oppose legalization seem to be older black women and republicans - which is kinda funny if you ask me.
tsotha 13y ago
I know I'm showing my age here, but back in the old days the legislative branch was the one that made laws and the executive branch was supposed to enforce them. Obama and Holder can't legally take marijuana off schedule 1 because it's specifically listed as a schedule 1 drug in federal law. Not that that would actually stop Obama or Holder, mind you.
dobbsbob 13y ago
The DEA has also prohibited any armoured car cash pick up service, making these dispensaries wide open to robbery http://m.laweekly.com/los-angeles/blogs/Post?basename=marijuana-dea-bans-armored-cars-from-picking-up-pot-shop-cash http://m.laweekly.com/los-angeles/blogs/Post?basename=mariju... Meanwhile WA police lamenting the loss of all that stolen prohibition money they used to enjoy http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304753504579282940412941998-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMDExNDAyWj http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304...
- bmelton 13y ago
  Which is ironic, as that could be resolved with a simple Executive Order.

by nlh 13y ago

ewoodrich 13y ago

If that were to happen, Congress could immediately reschedule it as Schedule 1. They've done this before with GHB when they disagreed with the existing schedule.

anonymoushn 13y ago
They could do that. And Obama could pardon every offender currently in jail and every offender that goes to jail until he leaves office. I wonder why he doesn't.
- shykes 13y ago
  It's one thing to implement common sense progressive marijuana legislation, and probably quite another to make headlines as "the marijuana president" for possibly months in a row.
- Crito 13y ago
  Because he cares more about party politics. He is not going to be re-elected of course, but his party still needs to win elections and he won't do anything that he thinks will jeopardize that.
rhizome 13y ago
Congress doesn't determine the Schedule, the DEA and FDA do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

Synaesthesia 13y ago

Drugs are still a huge taboo in our society and widely misunderstood, and maligned. The government can't just back down that quickly from a propaganda campaign they've been waging for decades.

chaostheory 13y ago
According to polls, the battle lines aren't drawn by party affiliation. It's mainly by age. They're mainly a taboo for voters older than 40.
- Synaesthesia 13y ago
  Sure, and it is changing rapidly, thankfully. Marijuana is much less of a taboo, but other drugs are, there's still a lot of misinformation out there.
Xylakant 13y ago
> Drugs are still a huge taboo in our society and widely misunderstood, and maligned. I don't think this broad characterization is correct: Alcohol and Nicotine are drugs, but widely used and accepted in our society. Certain forms of medication could easily be added to the list. It's just that certain drugs are not accepted in our society, despite all scientific evidence that they are at least not more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
- Crito 13y ago
  In my experience with talking to people with poorly thought out positions against drugs, mentioning alcohol or caffeine will usually get you a "what do they have to do with anything, we're talking about 'real' drugs." It's not rational or informed, but lots of people are still thinking that way.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    My mother falls into the rarer "ending prohibition was a mistake" camp.

crystaln 13y ago

There are enormous vested interest in marijuana being illegal. The biggest may be that most local police departments are funded largely by the seizure of assets from minor drug offenders and innocents who they can get away with accusing of drugs. Other vested interests are the large number of government employees and private companies who benefit from the drug war, from drug detection to prisons. There are also political issues. Marijuana legalization is opposed by many swing voters, and neither party can afford to lose those. Leaving matters up to states allows states where the majority favors continued criminal prosecution of marijuana offenses to do as they wish. This is actually the way it should be constitutionally. I'm actually not sure how the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce drug laws against the wishes of a state. If anyone can point me to a precedent, that would be helpful. The federal government has no authority to enforce laws against most crimes that occur entirely within a state's borders unless they violate international treaties. EDIT: It appears the authority was challenged and affirmed in Gonzales v Raich case, though I think the opinion is in error as it grants the federal government complete authority to regulate local activity, an opinion which the Constitution was written to prevent. Congress is limited to the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

mschuster91 13y ago
> unless they violate international treaties Which they in fact do - there are multiple international treaties on drug crimes and enforcement.
- crystaln 13y ago
  Feel free to enumerate any that would require the federal government to enforce marijuana laws. If there were any, I would have expected them to be mentioned in Gonzales v Raich, but none were.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    I know of the "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" and the "United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances", but I am no lawyer so I can't say whether these treaties have a legally binding effect which prevents more relaxed dealing with drugs.

overgard 13y ago

It's a lot easier to get a law passed then to get it revoked, because revoking a law would suggest admitting some sort of mistake, and that's pretty much a political impossibility. So once a law gets into place it's damn near impossible to get rid of it. I think a large part of the reason pot is still mostly illegal is because no politician wants to be the guy to say "wow what a massive fuckup we've made".

hayksaakian 13y ago
For a good example of this phenomena see alcohol prohibition in the USA Passed an amendment to make it illegal Then passed an amendment to make it legal Instead of revoking/cancelling/etc to the first one
- jpatokal 13y ago
  The only way to "revoke/cancel" (repeal) an amendment is to issue a new amendment repealing a previous amendment, which is precisely what the 21st Amendment does. Think of it like git version history: even a revert is actually a new commit.
GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
This is a case where mixing up then and than makes a difference

rhizome 13y ago

Why is there still such resistance at the highest levels to legalization / decriminalization? Government is filled with a bunch of squares. DOJ and DEA doubly or triply so. Did you ever know anybody in school who not only never smoked pot or drank, but thought people who did were human failures? They went on to become professional squares, the US government employs thousands of them, and they've got the power of law enforcement and judicial precedent supporting the careers they've spent their lives building. They also populate the staffs, advisors, and campaign workers of Congresspeople who do smoke and drink. As much as you think legal weed is a slam dunk derp, there are huge swaths of the country who through religion, politics, bad experiences and/or general upbringing who think it's just as simply a terrible idea.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
There are a lot of people who will vote for some regulation, and in Retardistan, D.C. that turns into total regulation to maximize the number of votes. You know, like "health care seems kind of screwed up" turned into "put an excise tax on doing nothing" and "hire a contractor already famous for spectacular failure". Or like "establish safety standards for children's poducts" turned in to "you cannot resell a children's produce without burning it and blessing the ash". The American people get the government they deserve, and they get it good and hard.
pachydermic 13y ago
Dude what are you talking about? Honestly, are you trolling? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-major-shift-dc-voters-strongly-support-legalizing-marijuana/2014/01/15/9fcc6d04-7d6a-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html?hpid=z2 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-major-shi... Turns out that old white dudes - which I think would most clearly fit your label of "squares" (please) - are actually not the ones who strongly oppose legalization. True, this is just DC proper and not Virginia/Maryland, but given that Maryland has had votes to decriminalize it and such I don't think it's absurd to apply some general lessons from this to other parts of the area. Really, the only people who reliably oppose legalization seem to be older black women and republicans - which is kinda funny if you ask me.

tsotha 13y ago

I know I'm showing my age here, but back in the old days the legislative branch was the one that made laws and the executive branch was supposed to enforce them. Obama and Holder can't legally take marijuana off schedule 1 because it's specifically listed as a schedule 1 drug in federal law. Not that that would actually stop Obama or Holder, mind you.

dobbsbob 13y ago

The DEA has also prohibited any armoured car cash pick up service, making these dispensaries wide open to robbery http://m.laweekly.com/los-angeles/blogs/Post?basename=marijuana-dea-bans-armored-cars-from-picking-up-pot-shop-cash http://m.laweekly.com/los-angeles/blogs/Post?basename=mariju... Meanwhile WA police lamenting the loss of all that stolen prohibition money they used to enjoy http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304753504579282940412941998-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMDExNDAyWj http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304...

bmelton 13y ago
Which is ironic, as that could be resolved with a simple Executive Order.