6 ms·

As a Seattleite I was optimistic things might change at the federal level when Obama appointed Kerlikowski as drug czar, given his experience as police chief in

As a Seattleite I was optimistic things might change at the federal level when Obama appointed Kerlikowski as drug czar, given his experience as police chief in what even in 2009 was a very cannabis friendly city. I guess I was just another sucker for hope and change that never materialized.

munificent 12y ago
The US government is a pretty big boat and takes a while to turn around. You have to have patience and a longer view, but change does happen. In 2012 it was two states. Now it's four. We're getting there.
- lisper 12y ago
  Exactly. Ten years ago gay marriage was illegal in all but one state. Now it's legal in all but 15, and even that number is shrinking rapidly.
- Alupis 12y ago
  The issue at the Federal level is not too long ago the US went around bullying UN nations into signing a unified drug treaty which is in effect for I believe 90 years. The idea was that if all countries agree on banning certain drugs, it can have a more unified effort in eradicating said drugs. It mostly targeted hard drugs, but marijuana is also named in the treaty. It would be very difficult for the US to back out of or alter the very treaty we pressured most of the world into signing not that long ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    That's a very good point - it's the basic reason that Obama can't 'end the drug war with a stroke of his pen' as some people seem to imagine, because treaties ratified by the US have almost constitutional standing in legal terms, and need to be formally derogated rather than legislated away. While the US could certainly do so without suffering meaningful sanctions or major geopolitical harm over the long term, indifference to treaty obligations is often the hallmark of an insular political viewpoint - but then such people also tend to be uninterested in the ramifications for international trade and cross-border institutions in the first place. That said, the SCND dates back to 1961 which was 53 years ago, and those countries which have openly stepped back from full compliance with it such as Portugal and Uruguay don't seem to have incurred any disadvantage or sanctions worth talking about, though you might argue that they had little or no political capital to lose in the first place. I do think there's a global shift towards looking at drug abuse and addiction as public health issues rather than moral vices, so while there's pressure form some quarters to maintain or strengthen anti-drug enforcement there's also pressure to adopt more utilitarian policies focused on harm minimization and demand management. I think the convention will not be explicitly derogated any time soon, but will rather be allowed to become a dead letter through diminished contributions of fiscal and political capital for enforcement, while being nominally and loudly upheld by more authoritarian regimes as both a blunt instrument in trade negotiations and as a proxy for the rule of law.
    - politician 12y ago
      The difficulty in removing them is also why legislation enacted by way of treaties should be vigorously debated in an open forum, as opposed to the way the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been negotiated.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        I think up-or-down votes or referenda are more appropriate for that. Multilateral treaties are inherently legislative documents, and legislating-to-legislate looks like a self-defeating increase in complexity - there's a reason that governments have executive as well as legislative functions, even though they ,may not always yield results we like in the short term. I mean, imagine if the votes of US senators on individual issues were governed by the outcome of votes in state legislatures - you'd have a more responsive democracy on the face of things but in practice legislative work would slow to an utter crawl and you'd have even more procedural maneuvering than we do now. I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP, which would be a shrewd political tactic; while I don't much like that it might benefit the GOP, that's outweighed by my support of free trade and my low opinion of economic populism and national sovereignty (just to be up=front about my political biases).
        Alupis 12y ago
        > I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP He doesn't need congressional approval -- that's exactly how the TPP has been getting negotiated this entire time -- and is exactly why it's so outstandingly bad. Back room deals regarding IP rights (pushed hard by the MPAA, RIAA and other lobbying organizations) among many other blanketed things that the public has no knowledge of nor any say in but will ultimately be as effective as law here in the country. (so much for the legislative branch)
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        You are mistaken. Existing negotiations are geared towards the production of a preliminary draft that would then be subject to legislative debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf <<CRS is the Congressional Research Service, a useful resource for anyone interested in policy matters http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-house-works-to-convince-dems-to-give-obama-fast-track-on-trade http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-hous... (so much for the legislative branch) I could say the same thing about the executive branch, which persons like yourself seem to think should merely administrate the legislative will. Our constitutional design institutionalizes tension between these two branches of government, and very explicitly grants the President power to make treaties, subject to a 2/3 approval from the Senate for ratification. Trade agreements are not exactly the same as treaties, but there is ample precedent for Congress pre-emptively authorizing the President to negotiate them. The consitutional basis for this is discussed in some detail near the start of the CRS paper linked above.
  - binarycrusader 12y ago
    It's sad to say this, but that's not the real reason. The US ignores various agreements it's signed all the time, and international conventions, etc. So I'd say, you're right, but only because it's convenient for them to adhere to it.
  - adventured 12y ago
    It will be very easy for the US to back out of or alter that treaty, for several reasons. 1) The US often does not abide by things the way most other countries are expected to. If we want to back out, nobody can stop us, there will be no negative consequences, nobody is going to embargo or sanction the US over the matter. Is that fair? Of course not, but that's one of the 'perks' of being the lone superpower. 2) Everybody else will celebrate. Most people realize at this point that prohibition does not work very well in most of the world (countries like Japan being the freak outlier due to culture; but I'd argue even they would benefit from liberalized drug policies). 3) The rest of the world wants to tear down the failed war on drugs that the US initiated. They will be eager to welcome a shift in attitude from the US Government. Now that the people of the US want to tear down the failed war on drugs, that is exactly what will happen, slowly but surely. Nothing can stop it now, there has been a fundamental culture shift in the US over the last 20 years, and once that goes a direction, there is nothing that can stop it (see: gay marriage, women's suffrage, civil rights).
- rayiner 12y ago
  It's not just that the U.S. is a big boat, it's that the federal government is necessarily slow to respond to local changes. At the national level, the consensus in favor of legalizing marijuana shifted to a slight majority just last year: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports.... Indeed, if we're talking about the voting public, rather than just the general population, the national consensus is likely still in favor of keeping it illegal, since actual voters skew older and more conservative than the population as a whole. Furthermore, the drug policy boat in particular is very big. A lot of this policy, and the institutions implementing it, was developed in the 1980's and 1990's. In 1991, the consensus in favor of making marijuana illegal was an overwhelming 78-17. Being anti-drug was a political winner, something both sides of the aisle could get behind. Almost everyone old enough to have substantial leadership within the drug enforcement organizations grew up in an intensely anti-drug culture. It will take quite some time for those folks to age out of the system.
  - tmarthal 12y ago
    Actually, I think when Tobacco and Pharmacy companies start to get a piece of the financial incentives in the states where it is legal, you will see their lobbying arm start to influence federal elections on the national level. It is assumed that Marlboro/Camel or whichever tobacco company, could expand their market tremendously with legalized marijuana federal legislation. I am not an expert (anyone want to chime in?), however it seems right now, the industry does not seem to have any real monopolies and that individual dispensaries (which also have farms?) are making most of the money, rather than any corporations.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  Drug Czar is an executive appointment. If Obama had been the change he campaigned on he could have directed that the DEA, an _executive_ agency stop enforcing federal law on marijuana in states where it's been legalised. The grandparent wasn't talking about "the government". He was talking about Obama.
mikeash 12y ago
Marijuana laws are up to Congress, not the executive. They have discretion in how they enforce the laws to an extent, but they shouldn't just ignore them.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, SCOTUS determines their Constitutionality. So in fact, one check that the Executive can have on the Legislative is in not enforcing laws.
  - ams6110 12y ago
    There is an obligation on the part of the executive to enforce the laws passed by congress. The constitution requires that he "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Clearly there's some room for prioritization and allocation of scarce resources but he can't just ignore them. The Executive's check on the legislative branch is the veto power.
    - pmoriarty 12y ago
      There are at least two was to interpret that phrase: 1 - he must take care that when the laws are executed, they are done so faithfully. 2 - he must execute all the laws, and do so faithfully. The first of these interpretations does not require that every law be executed.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "The Executive's check on the legislative branch is the veto power." The President also has the "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States". Choosing not to enforce something is in fact a weaker exercise of power than pardon, as it preserves the ability of future administrations to prosecute current infractions.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      There is a concept of prosecutorial discretion, and the current administration is not shy at all of using it.

munificent 12y ago

The US government is a pretty big boat and takes a while to turn around. You have to have patience and a longer view, but change does happen. In 2012 it was two states. Now it's four. We're getting there.

lisper 12y ago
Exactly. Ten years ago gay marriage was illegal in all but one state. Now it's legal in all but 15, and even that number is shrinking rapidly.
Alupis 12y ago
The issue at the Federal level is not too long ago the US went around bullying UN nations into signing a unified drug treaty which is in effect for I believe 90 years. The idea was that if all countries agree on banning certain drugs, it can have a more unified effort in eradicating said drugs. It mostly targeted hard drugs, but marijuana is also named in the treaty. It would be very difficult for the US to back out of or alter the very treaty we pressured most of the world into signing not that long ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  That's a very good point - it's the basic reason that Obama can't 'end the drug war with a stroke of his pen' as some people seem to imagine, because treaties ratified by the US have almost constitutional standing in legal terms, and need to be formally derogated rather than legislated away. While the US could certainly do so without suffering meaningful sanctions or major geopolitical harm over the long term, indifference to treaty obligations is often the hallmark of an insular political viewpoint - but then such people also tend to be uninterested in the ramifications for international trade and cross-border institutions in the first place. That said, the SCND dates back to 1961 which was 53 years ago, and those countries which have openly stepped back from full compliance with it such as Portugal and Uruguay don't seem to have incurred any disadvantage or sanctions worth talking about, though you might argue that they had little or no political capital to lose in the first place. I do think there's a global shift towards looking at drug abuse and addiction as public health issues rather than moral vices, so while there's pressure form some quarters to maintain or strengthen anti-drug enforcement there's also pressure to adopt more utilitarian policies focused on harm minimization and demand management. I think the convention will not be explicitly derogated any time soon, but will rather be allowed to become a dead letter through diminished contributions of fiscal and political capital for enforcement, while being nominally and loudly upheld by more authoritarian regimes as both a blunt instrument in trade negotiations and as a proxy for the rule of law.
  - politician 12y ago
    The difficulty in removing them is also why legislation enacted by way of treaties should be vigorously debated in an open forum, as opposed to the way the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been negotiated.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I think up-or-down votes or referenda are more appropriate for that. Multilateral treaties are inherently legislative documents, and legislating-to-legislate looks like a self-defeating increase in complexity - there's a reason that governments have executive as well as legislative functions, even though they ,may not always yield results we like in the short term. I mean, imagine if the votes of US senators on individual issues were governed by the outcome of votes in state legislatures - you'd have a more responsive democracy on the face of things but in practice legislative work would slow to an utter crawl and you'd have even more procedural maneuvering than we do now. I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP, which would be a shrewd political tactic; while I don't much like that it might benefit the GOP, that's outweighed by my support of free trade and my low opinion of economic populism and national sovereignty (just to be up=front about my political biases).
      - Alupis 12y ago
        > I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP He doesn't need congressional approval -- that's exactly how the TPP has been getting negotiated this entire time -- and is exactly why it's so outstandingly bad. Back room deals regarding IP rights (pushed hard by the MPAA, RIAA and other lobbying organizations) among many other blanketed things that the public has no knowledge of nor any say in but will ultimately be as effective as law here in the country. (so much for the legislative branch)
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        You are mistaken. Existing negotiations are geared towards the production of a preliminary draft that would then be subject to legislative debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf <<CRS is the Congressional Research Service, a useful resource for anyone interested in policy matters http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-house-works-to-convince-dems-to-give-obama-fast-track-on-trade http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-hous... (so much for the legislative branch) I could say the same thing about the executive branch, which persons like yourself seem to think should merely administrate the legislative will. Our constitutional design institutionalizes tension between these two branches of government, and very explicitly grants the President power to make treaties, subject to a 2/3 approval from the Senate for ratification. Trade agreements are not exactly the same as treaties, but there is ample precedent for Congress pre-emptively authorizing the President to negotiate them. The consitutional basis for this is discussed in some detail near the start of the CRS paper linked above.
- binarycrusader 12y ago
  It's sad to say this, but that's not the real reason. The US ignores various agreements it's signed all the time, and international conventions, etc. So I'd say, you're right, but only because it's convenient for them to adhere to it.
- adventured 12y ago
  It will be very easy for the US to back out of or alter that treaty, for several reasons. 1) The US often does not abide by things the way most other countries are expected to. If we want to back out, nobody can stop us, there will be no negative consequences, nobody is going to embargo or sanction the US over the matter. Is that fair? Of course not, but that's one of the 'perks' of being the lone superpower. 2) Everybody else will celebrate. Most people realize at this point that prohibition does not work very well in most of the world (countries like Japan being the freak outlier due to culture; but I'd argue even they would benefit from liberalized drug policies). 3) The rest of the world wants to tear down the failed war on drugs that the US initiated. They will be eager to welcome a shift in attitude from the US Government. Now that the people of the US want to tear down the failed war on drugs, that is exactly what will happen, slowly but surely. Nothing can stop it now, there has been a fundamental culture shift in the US over the last 20 years, and once that goes a direction, there is nothing that can stop it (see: gay marriage, women's suffrage, civil rights).
rayiner 12y ago
It's not just that the U.S. is a big boat, it's that the federal government is necessarily slow to respond to local changes. At the national level, the consensus in favor of legalizing marijuana shifted to a slight majority just last year: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports.... Indeed, if we're talking about the voting public, rather than just the general population, the national consensus is likely still in favor of keeping it illegal, since actual voters skew older and more conservative than the population as a whole. Furthermore, the drug policy boat in particular is very big. A lot of this policy, and the institutions implementing it, was developed in the 1980's and 1990's. In 1991, the consensus in favor of making marijuana illegal was an overwhelming 78-17. Being anti-drug was a political winner, something both sides of the aisle could get behind. Almost everyone old enough to have substantial leadership within the drug enforcement organizations grew up in an intensely anti-drug culture. It will take quite some time for those folks to age out of the system.
- tmarthal 12y ago
  Actually, I think when Tobacco and Pharmacy companies start to get a piece of the financial incentives in the states where it is legal, you will see their lobbying arm start to influence federal elections on the national level. It is assumed that Marlboro/Camel or whichever tobacco company, could expand their market tremendously with legalized marijuana federal legislation. I am not an expert (anyone want to chime in?), however it seems right now, the industry does not seem to have any real monopolies and that individual dispensaries (which also have farms?) are making most of the money, rather than any corporations.
barry-cotter 12y ago
Drug Czar is an executive appointment. If Obama had been the change he campaigned on he could have directed that the DEA, an _executive_ agency stop enforcing federal law on marijuana in states where it's been legalised. The grandparent wasn't talking about "the government". He was talking about Obama.

mikeash 12y ago

Marijuana laws are up to Congress, not the executive. They have discretion in how they enforce the laws to an extent, but they shouldn't just ignore them.

themartorana 12y ago
Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, SCOTUS determines their Constitutionality. So in fact, one check that the Executive can have on the Legislative is in not enforcing laws.
- ams6110 12y ago
  There is an obligation on the part of the executive to enforce the laws passed by congress. The constitution requires that he "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Clearly there's some room for prioritization and allocation of scarce resources but he can't just ignore them. The Executive's check on the legislative branch is the veto power.
  - pmoriarty 12y ago
    There are at least two was to interpret that phrase: 1 - he must take care that when the laws are executed, they are done so faithfully. 2 - he must execute all the laws, and do so faithfully. The first of these interpretations does not require that every law be executed.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "The Executive's check on the legislative branch is the veto power." The President also has the "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States". Choosing not to enforce something is in fact a weaker exercise of power than pardon, as it preserves the ability of future administrations to prosecute current infractions.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    There is a concept of prosecutorial discretion, and the current administration is not shy at all of using it.