LifeZette, a new on-line magazine, is a breath of fresh air in Washington, DC. Instead of the weary, threadbare cliches from the liberal Establishment that have been driving the conversation inside the Beltway for decades, it presents a frankly conservative perspective.
I was grateful to be able to contribute mine this morning, "Trump Can Reverse the Deadly Spike in Violent Crime."
You suggest in this commentary, Bill, that it is misguided to "lighten up" on nonviolent drug dealers. Are you referencing marijuana dealers in states like Colorado et al? It seems that under regulatory regimes, states through legalization have taken violence out of a big part of the marketplace. But maybe you still see MJ dealing as a big "law and order" problem.
I am sincerely interested in your views on how the Trump Admin should approach marijuana policy.
As Bill pointed out in the column, the "nonviolent drug dealer" is a myth, or construct.
Yahoo commentor: are you asserting that the tens of thousands of people employed in the legal marijuana industry in Colorado are all violent criminals?
Here is the factual context for this question: "In 2015, the legal marijuana industry in Colorado created more than 18,000 new full-time jobs and generated $2.4 billion in economic activity, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis of the economics of legal cannabis in the state."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/27/the-marijuana-industry-created-over-18000-new-jobs-in-colorado-last-year/?utm_term=.ff045c84d56c
I am sincerely interested in a sincere and direct answer to my query: Does Bill and/or others who read this blog believe that all these folks working in the CO MJ industry are violent drug dealers? Technically, they are all federal drug dealers and could be subject to federal criminal prosecution (and perhaps will be under the next administration).
But my question here is not whether these folks are federal drug dealers (they are); my question is whether these folks are, in your view, VIOLENT drug dealers.
I wonder why you repeatedly come running to talk about marijuana when Bill has repeatedly answered you about marijuana. Over and over again.
...and not every drunk driver will cause an accident resulting in injury or death, but we still make drunk driving a serious crime because the RISK AND INCIDENCE of injury and death from it is vastly higher than otherwise.
Similarly with drug dealing: Not every drug transaction will result in violence, but the risk and incidence of violence is so high that trafficking cannot sensibly be viewed -- and, by those working in the field, is NOT viewed -- as anything other than a violent business.
Now let me say, once again, as Kent and I have done often in the past: We would like to keep the thread on the subject addressed in the entry. This entry did not mention marijuana, which almost no one thinks of when they think of the (now 24-month-long) surge in crime that Mr. Trump is going to have to deal with.
There are plenty of places to discuss pot. This thread is not one of them. Please, let's try to get back to the basics of the entry, of which there are many, rather than hijacking it to the eight zillionth discussion of dope.
The subject in the entry, Bill, was your commentary in which you suggest it would be a mistake to lighten up on so-callled nonviolent drug dealers. I am seeking to fully understand what you mean by asking one simple question: are state-authorized marijuana dealers among the drug dealers you are talking about.
If you just answer yes/no to this basic question seeking to understand the meaning of your advocacy, we can move on. But, because your commentary is vague and confusing in the use of the term drug dealer, I just want to know your position on the biggest form of federally illegal drug dealing taking place throughout our nation.
I am sorry if you think my effort to better understand your views amounts to a hijacking. It seems to me that you are working real hard to avoid discussion a real important aspect of federal drug control/criminalization.
You would have an easier time selling me on the idea that you're not trying to turn the thread into a pot discussion if you had less frequently tried that very tack with other threads.
I will nonetheless try to be chipper and accommodating. With Jeff Sessions on the horizon, I'm in an excellent mood. So here goes:
"...you suggest it would be a mistake to lighten up on so-called nonviolent drug dealers. I am seeking to fully understand what you mean by asking one simple question: are state-authorized marijuana dealers among the drug dealers you are talking about."
I would not lighten penalties on "state-authorized" (but federally still illegal) marijuana dealers, but I wouldn't toughen them, either. This is in contrast to the position I've taken on one of your Facebook threads, where I have urged tougher heroin punishment as one measure we should undertake in the current, deadly heroin crisis.
The reason for the difference in my positions (leave pot penalties where they are but get tougher on smack) corresponds to the increased violence we see with the latter, compared to the stable level of violence (much less) with the former.
The reason I want to stay on message rather than get into the weeds (as it were) about one drug (pot) in one state (Colorado, the state you point to in your comments) is easy: The subject of this entry is how Pres. Trump can stop the surge in violence. Drug dealing, looked at as a whole, is a violent business. Therefore, the answer to curbing violence -- whatever else it may be -- cannot be to LIGHTEN the penalties for drug trafficking.
Of course, as my entry notes (but you seem less interested in discussing), sentencing is but one aspect in which Trump can move against violence. Being an ally rather than an enemy to local police; reining in the Big Government, anti-federalism Civil Rights Division; using the bully pulpit to discourage the corrosive culture of whining and excuse-making that breeds criminal attitudes -- all these are other aspects of the fight Trump will need to undertake.
I would welcome your thoughts on them. The virtually non-existent federal "crackdown" on some guy smoking a joint in Boulder is less than a speck on a very big canvas.
Thanks for this explanation, Bill, and I would be happy to discuss the other issues you mention, though you should be prepared to hear how they look to me as a proponent of federal marijuana reform:
1. Ally to local police: One easy/important way for the feds to be an ally to local police is to make clear to them whether they should consider marijuana use/dealing a serious crime or not really a crime at all. The CSA now treats it as a serious crime, while state laws say the opposite. This dichotomy strikes me as very corrosive to the rule of law and makes it especially hard for local police to know how to do their jobs.
2. Rein in Big Govt/anti-federalism: De-scheduling MJ so it is treated/regulated/prohibited at state level like alcohol and tobacco would be great first step on these fronts, no?
3. Using the bully pulpit: especially to uphold the rule of law, which has taken a beating since the Clinton and their allies became main DOJ sheriffs. Reforming federal MJ laws would be a good first step here, too.
Key point, Bill, is that this discussion now has ZERO to do with a guy smoking a joint in Boulder. Rather it has to do with the multi-billion $$$ industry that is emerging in dozens of states as the citizens at the ballot box consistently assert a desire to end blanket marijuana prohibition and to replace it with a sounder form of public policy.
I agree that drug dealing, looked at as a whole, is often a violent business IN THE BLACK MARKET IN THE SHADOW OF BLANKET PROHIBITION. Bootleggers were very violent a century ago, and heroin dealers are violent now. But history shows that violence largely goes away when prohibition goes away. I know of little "alcohol dealing" violence in the US since the 1920s and I have seen few reports of "marijuana dealing" violence in states that have reformed their marijuana laws recently.
Like you, I want to stop the surge of violence. As a student of history, I notice we did that pretty effectively in the 1930s when we repealed blanket alcohol prohibition. I am hopeful that a repeal of blanket marijuana prohibitions will help, at least at the margins and as a way to free up police/prosecutor/prison resources to go after more serious threats to public safety.
And here I am really just trying to figure out if you are willing to give this a try --- i.e., try federal MJ repeal and see if it reduces violence --- and if you want Trump et al. to allow state experiments in this regard to continue apace.
I see I was mistaken in trying to be accommodating, and thinking that, in doing so, you might then be able to depart from what has become an obsession with pot.
I was a federal prosecutor in a pretty conservative jurisdiction for a long time. Pot, other than large-scale trafficking (which REMAINS ILLEGAL IN COLORADO and the other pot-friendly states), is simply not an issue. Nobody gives a hoot. Pot is slightly illegal under federal law, and in my opinion should remain so. This is not going to change.
What's going on here is an attempt to get the explicitly law-and-order administration of Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions to do for fans of pot what, for eight long years, they couldn't get out of their far more left wing buddies, Obama, Holder and Ms. Lynch.
If you actually think Jeff Sessions is going to get to the left of Eric Holder, have at it!!! Wanna bet? How much???
P.S. I will repeat, lest there be any doubt: Drug dealing is a violent business. And we know from 20 years of very recent experience how to cut down on violence -- aggressive policing and tough sentencing across the board. It's not even arguable.
What exactly are you offering to betting on, Bill? I would very much like to make some bets about the future of federal marijuana prohibition, so please propose some terms.
Thanks!
P.S. Given all the GOP folks still vocally promoting some significant form of federal sentencing reform --- e.g., Grassley, Cornyn, Ryan, Lee, Paul, Tillis, Sensenbrenner, Labrador --- it would seem that not everyone in your own party, Bill, agrees with your sense of what is "even arguable."
P.P.S. And if nobody gives a hoot about federal marijuana policy, why are there so many more articles about it these days than about any other federal criminal justice reform issue?
-- I'll not only offer terms, I'll offer more than one bet.
First, there will be no broad-based federal statutory sentencing reductions enacted in the next two years. $500 on that one.
Second, Congress will not eliminate criminal sanctions on pot from federal law in the next two years. $500 on that one, too.
-- The GOP folks you name are exactly the same ones, with not a single addition, that you've been bringing up over the last Congress (the SRCA) and the one before that (the SSA). Neither bill got even a floor vote, much less passage, in either chamber.
So after repeated failure with the same cast, this time you're going to succeed, only with Jeff Sessions elevated to Attorney General and Donald Trump as President?!
Far out!!!
-- What I said is not arguable is this: "And we know from 20 years of very recent experience how to cut down on violence -- aggressive policing and tough sentencing across the board." I will repeat -- that proposition is not arguable. (I would note that you don't argue with it, being a bright man).
-- "And if nobody gives a hoot about federal marijuana policy, why are there so many more articles about it these days than about any other federal criminal justice reform issue?"
For three reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
First, tenure-track academics have to publish, and love to suck up to the Received Wisdom on Campus, that being that Pot is Wonderful. (Although admittedly this has to compete with "Tsarnaev is Wonderful" and "Cops are Nazis").
Second, because sentencing reformers understand everything else on their agenda is deader than dead, and hope to keep the fires burning at least for the one thing they're most nostalgic about from their own groooovy days in the now-ancient Sixties.
Third, because you yourself are a man of tremendous energy, and your pot blog alone can churn out articles like nobody's business. I didn't have your stamina when I was 25.
How about a bet that there will be a lot more open and notorious federal drug dealing in many more states in the form of public medical and recreational marijuana sales and yet no significant increase in major federal prosecutions during the first Trump term?
I share your view that it is fairly unlikely that Congress will become more "productive" in terms of passing massive new criminal justice statutes, especially over the next few years.