CJLF takes no position on marijuana legalization. At present, it is illegal everywhere in the United States. States that purport to legalize it can pass whatever laws they care to, but under the Supremacy Clause, federal law prevails over contrary state law. In the struggle for civil rights, this was considered a good thing, but that was then.
Not that it matters a whole lot. Simply smoking a joint has been de facto legal for decades. Yes, if you do it on the police station steps, that might be a problem, but short of that....
Still, we have the never-ending and much-fabled "national conversation" about pot. We are advised that we should base our views on facts, not emotion or prejudice.
Sounds good to me. Here's today's fact, from the Associated Press, reporting out of Seattle: "Fatal crashes involving marijuana double in Washington."
I guarantee you that this fact will make no difference. The push to legalize, and thus increase the use of, pot has zip to do with public health, although it is often and aggressively put in those terms. It's about ideology, pure and simple.
How would you describe the ideology driving the push to reform marijuana prohibition, Bill?
I agree the ideology drives many opinions in this arena, but I often feel it is my (conservative) ideological commitment to human freedom and limited government that often drives my interest in ending marijuana prohibition. But I suspect you have a different way to describe the ideology you have in mind. I would genuinely like to hear that description.
May I ask why the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation does not take a position on marijuana legalization? It seems like a popular issue in mainstream dialogue, and the issue is discussed on this blog on occasion. Why does a criminal justice foundation prefer to not take a position on a major issue that affects criminal juatice?
Thank you, Oscar
Doug --
Libertarianism, with an overlay of liberalism.
As I think you know, I have considerable respect for libertarianism, but I disagree on the subject of drug legalization and numerous other law enforcement questions. I would keep pot about as illegal as it is now, to wit, not very for almost all practical purposes.
Oscar --
I'm the wrong one to ask. I am not an officer of CJLF; I'm a guest contributor here. Kent and Mike are better positioned to respond to the question.
My personal view is that pot legalization gets much more attention than it's worth.
Thank you for responding to my question Mr. Otis. I thought it was odd that a criminal justice blog does not take a stance on marijuana legalization, which I believe is a major political issue.
I enjoy reading the commentary by you and Mr. Scheidegger, but it didn't make sense why the foundation wouldn't stake a stance, either for or against, a major political issue.
Maybe Mr. Scheidegger would be willing to supply a response.
Thank you, Oscar
Thanks, Bill, for clarifying that you see that it is a strong ideological commitment to liberty and limited government that drives much (but not all) of the advocacy for marijuana reform.
Now the follow up: what corresponding values/ideologies do you think are well served by the current cannabis status quo that reformers seek to change, which you support and describe as "keep[ing] pot about as illegal as it is now, to wit, not very for almost all practical purposes"?
I think we both have a strong affinity for the rule of law and legal transparency. With those values in mind, I see the current cannabis status quo --- especially with large majority of states with MJ laws that are in great tension with the CSA and cloudy federal enforcement rules nationwide --- as very harmful. I also have a strong commitment to family values, and I see great harm in the status quo to these values when parents cannot access viable treatments these seek to help their sick kids.
Is it just a general public safety concerns/ideology, Bill, that drives your support for the current cannabis status quo, or are other values aslso in play?
Doug --
"[W]hat corresponding values/ideologies do you think are well served by the current cannabis status quo that reformers seek to change, which you support and describe as "keep[ing] pot about as illegal as it is now, to wit, not very for almost all practical purposes'?"
First, I think my description of the current state of play is correct. Smoking a joint is illegal, but the penalties, on those rare occasions when it's penalized at all, are very light.
Life is full of balancing and trade-off's, and this is one of them. Smoking pot is unhealthy and should be discouraged. I have no problem with that. The other side is that, as drugs go, it is less unhealthy than most of the others, so the discouragement should be less harsh. Sliding scale and all that.
That's where we are, and where I would stay. It would send a bad and deceptive sign to legalize it, so I wouldn't. The present enforcement levels are fine. It is not a medicine -- that is total hokum put out by people who like to get blasted -- and in those extremely, extremely rare cases where in has health benefits, I have never heard of a parent's being indicted for giving pot to a genuinely sick child to alleviate a serious illness. In a country of 318,000,000, can you name a single parent who has gone to jail for doing that?
"I think we both have a strong affinity for the rule of law and legal transparency. With those values in mind, I see the current cannabis status quo --- especially with large majority of states with MJ laws that are in great tension with the CSA and cloudy federal enforcement rules nationwide --- as very harmful."
I disagree. There is no doubt about whose law trumps. It's the feds. There is no "tension" for those who can read the Constitution. In addition (re: the polling), criminal law issues do not make even the top ten, and still less the tiny sliver of criminal law issues having to do with pot.
If we want to think about something that is actually harmful, we can direct ourselves to the roughly 15,000 murders a year, the 84,000 forcible rapes, or increasing thousands of heroin overdose deaths. People feeling like they are "harmed" because they can't get zapped with a guarantee (and instead a mere high likelihood) of legal impunity just need to get ahold.
This is a cottage industry on campus and in libertarian think tanks. The rest of the public gives a hoot. Now immigration, Obamacare, slow growth, wage stagnation, a nuclear Iran, Putin's aggressiveness......that is what people care about. The pot stuff is a bee in a small and specialized bonnet.
"Is it just a general public safety concerns/ideology, Bill, that drives your support for the current cannabis status quo, or are other values also in play?"
It's that I think the country will be weaker the more drugs it consumes, that it's part of a worrisome slackening of standards, that it's unhealthy to the user and potentially very unhealthy to someone who encounters an impaired user, and that it's a distraction from the vastly more serious problems this country needs to confront.
I have made the answer a separate post.