Osler's Razor

I don't have any problem with President Obama's policy. I don't like California's laws regarding marijuana. But California has the right to have those laws.

I only wish that Federalism was the norm and not the exception when it came to national policy.
 

I'm in 100% agreement with Osler on this one. Hooray for federalism! I actually think this is a very sensible, responsible, and appropriate policy from the Obama administration.

I just wish this wasn't one of the only areas in which they embraced the power of the states.
 

In 25 years, the prohibition on the sale and use of marijuana will be looked at like we look at the prohibition of alcohol presently. The temperance movement is one and the same.

This is an interesting conflict between the moralist and federalist factions of the GOP.
 

Hell I just need a list of the states where its legal cause my glaucoma /panicdisorder /aracnaphobia is killing me.
Seriously, an interesting post. I assume the same thought is applied to "crimes" such as prostitution.
 

Toofat--

Prostitution is almost exclusively a state concern under current law, so there isn't the same issue-- that is, federal law rarely covers that type of crime.
 

It's funny when conservatives get mad at something Obama did just because it was Obama did it. This would be like liberals getting upset at Bush about Medicare Part D.

This is something Bush should have done-- just as he should have not opposed Euthenasia legislation in Oregon.
 

I would say that I am irritated in the other direction. When are liberal Democrats for federalism? Only on the rare and obscure occasions when it coincides with their cultural predilections and base political considerations.

Like RRL, I am inclined to say hooray for federalism. But in a world where federalism is dead--and is only resurrected to further the goals of the folks who killed it--forgive me if I don't stand up and cheer when the consolidationists rub my nose in our tragic defeat.

To use this instance as another cudgel to beat conservatives over the head as hypocrites seems a bit gratuitous.
 

Hooray for prosecutorial discretion!
 

Prof-

Thanks for the free plug! But I should clarify the official Davis position somewhat. I don't think that Obama and Holder necessarily made the wrong policy choice, I just think they did it in the wrong way. Federalism isn't a president who picks and chooses which laws he is going enforce; federalism is a devolution of state police power back to the states.

This latest policy announcement is just the flip side of a coin we already know well, the federalization of crime. I'm personally of the mind that since many states have legalized (or at least "decriminalized") the use of medicinal marijuana, the feds should step back from pot enforcement in an even bigger way, and treat it much like the ATF treats alcohol. Regulate it in interstate commerce (and in extremely large amounts), monitor smuggling and the like, but mostly leave it to the states to decide how they want to deal with it. A number of conservatives share this view, including Jonathan Adler, who had a good piece on it over at The Volokh Conspiracy.

This means we need action on the part of Congress to change federal laws, not on the part of a president who's accommodating campaign allies and his West Coast base.
 

The problem with Federalism, which I generally believe in, is that in places like the Washington, DC metro area, the New York Metro area, Chicagoland, Greater Boston, etc., there are at least two or three states that can have different rules.

Back in the 1970's and early 80's the drinking age for all alcoholic beverages in Washington, D.C. was 18. In Maryland and Virginia, the drinking age was 18 for beer and 21 for wine and spirits. So the smart young ones amongst us just drove into DC to get the hard stuff.

Today gun laws in DC are still very strict, despite Heller. But no so much in the Old Dominion. Would be criminals or just crazed psychos can simply drive across the Potomac to get guns (and I think the pawn shop in Arlington still sells guns).

Maybe it's not really a problem, but this is something to consider.
 

Regarding whether marijuana should be legalized: I have yet to defend a case in which a man takes a hit off a bong and beats his wife; I have, on the other hand, represented countless cases in which a man gets drunk and beats his wife. I choose to avoid both. But I struggle to understand why we have chosen to legalize one drug that leaves many victims in its wake and prohibit another that causes far less harm to our families and communities. I don't understand what justifies the distinction. It can't be that marijuana is a gateway drug while alcohol isn't, as alcohol (and prescription drugs, for that matter) is every bit the gateway drug that marijuana is. There is a different treatment without a clear rationale. If there is a clear rationale that I am overlooking, please correct me, as I, admittedly, am not completely apprised of the harm caused by marijuana that is not also caused by alcohol.

This argument is limited to marijuana use. Meth, for example, has far worse consequences to the addict and his community, compared to alcohol use, that justfies restriction. And yes, the community has an interest in protecting the individual instead of only punishing "victim crimes."

That being said: If a local community believes that marijuana use under the appropriate circumstances does not threaten its health, then the opinions of another community 1500 miles away--a ommunity not effected by the other community's decision--ought to be silent.
 

Jesse--

I think that federalism is a priniciple that should be consistently respected and acted upon by all three branches of government, not just the legislature.
 

In re the virtues of smoking pot:

I have never liked the argument that because one harmful drug in our society is legal, then, to be consistent, we really ought to legalize all the other harmful drugs.

Is marijuana harmful?

Based on my experience growing up in Southern California as a contemporary of Jeff Spicoli et al, I would say that weed IS a gateway drug. It is a behavior- and attitude-altering drug--and it contributes to a general malaise in young people.

While I know a lot of successful people who smoked back then and even some who continue to indulge, it is my experience that they got/get away with their habit because they are either privileged or in some sort of creative line of work in which pot-smoking fits in with the culture.

The idea that we would set up smoking pot as something harmless (or even kind of cool) will do great harm to the communities that are most at risk and would benefit the most from more spartan expectations.

My advice: only dopes smoke dope.
 

Hey WF:

dude, lighten up!
 

Farmer, we agree on that, but what about the federalism argument?
 

Mark:

In re federalism: see the first post. I like federalism--but I think it is disingenuous to applaud the Obama administration for federalism when they are only federalists when it suits there political purposes.

But, in principle, if the citizenry of California want to legalize marijuana, I think they ought to have the right.

Although I think Jesse's point is well taken in that the President ought to bring Congress along rather than indulge in government by executive fiat--which exacerbates another bad trend.

Even federalists generally agree that federal law cannot be nullified by the states (or the President).
 

Ralph Malph is my father. Its not like he wrote the lines.
 

WF-

I guess what I'm in favor of in more debate and moving things through the legislative process, not so much an abrogation of fed law buy state law. When the states are moving in large numbers one direction, it's probably time for the federal side to take notice. But I'd agree with you that Obama can't dictate federal policy based upon what has merely proven popular in less than a third of the states. Again, that's what we have a Congress for, to at least approximate national consensus. If the consensus is for decriminalization, well OK. But right now we've got 13 states and the Obama DOJ vs. Everybody Else.
 

What Obama is doing is acting in the interests of federalism. It does not make sense to decriminalize marijuana in states that want marijuana to be illegal. It does make sense not to prosecute in states where they have made it legal. Is it so terrible just because it is Obama doing it?
 

Jesse,

I get the sense from your last post that you feel that I mischaracterized your point. Is that right?

After re-reading mine and your latest, I am not sure how.

What exactly do we disagree on?

Let me know.
 

I absolutely agree with you. State's rights also include gay marriage. Conservative and Republican are no longer synonymous. Unless conservative solely means socially conservative, in which case yes Republicans still embody that like 1950s Democrats did (see Solid South, racism). Unfortunately Federalism can be tossed out as soon as the principle doesn't suit your views.
 

I would also like to add that when I look at the issue all I see is a possible industry to create jobs, a great vice tax comparable to alcohol and cigarettes (vice tax is fairest tax around, you choose to pay). Of course, this would require our lawmakers to address this issue as to public safety, ie. DWI, DUI-- but we are capable of that. Who is the loser by the current situation other than the tax payer? Let the people of each state decide what the people want to do about it. Won't bother Texans because it ain't happening here.
 

This Davis agrees with you. I'll call my relatives.
 

DWP--

Good point. Though I am against legalization for reasons not associated with this particular topic, there is a great tax revenue to be gained from taxing marijuana.

Public safety is a concern, but tests can be completed to determine whether the THC is still psycho-active or whether was is left has been completely metabolized (carboxy-THC). Quantification would be difficult since there may not be an easy bright line rule like with alcohol's .08. Yet it would be easy to outlaw all driving with any non-metabolized THC in the system.

Jesse: 13 states may be a minority, but there are many activities that they can do that won't adversely affect the well being of the remaining 37--smoking pot being one of them. If a person in one of the 13 no longer feels safe, she has 37 more states to choose from.

Waco Farmer: I personally find no virtue in smoking pot. I, too, believe it is a gateway drug and harms the youth that smoke it. I feel, however, that alcohol is equally harmful and is also a gateway drug. My argument wasn't to legalize it, but to let the people who live in a given community decide what they want to do about it.
 

I am absolutely in favor of legalization of marijuana, because I think arbirarily criminalizing it and not criminalizing alcohol and cigarettes makes no sense in any way (as I see no difference in the degree of possible harm caused by any of them), but you all know that.

So federalism is the federal government's agreement to let the states make the laws they want, and not to trump state laws where there is disagreement?

IF we take that argument ad infinitum, why are we the United States in the first place? Why not 50 little countries?

I guess that's a simple-minded question, but I really wonder sometimes how we manage to stick together as a country at all. I suppose I'm wondering at what point it makes more sense to have a federal law, if we are judging based on our own smaller communities?
 

WF- I was just referring to what I thought was your point about the states de facto nullifying federal law, and meant to say I think that's what was happening, or what would happen if the Congress followed the states' lead on this.

AZ- I think we could probably agree on many points of this debate, but it's simply incorrect to say legalized pot in 13 states is not going to have an adverse effect on the other 37 states. It's well known that some "medicinal" users and dispensaries in California stock up and sell to people across state lines, or use their legit activities to hide distribution to non-prescription holders. That's what most of the DEA raids under Bush were about. If Oklahoma legalized pot today, in any amount, I guarantee you that the northern half of Texas would stop buying from Mexico and start smoking the OKC stuff.

Additionally--one look at those shady California dispensaries is all you should need to realize that if you decriminalize only the bottom few rungs of a vast criminal enterprise, it can't help but strengthen the upper, more dangerous rungs. You think that that once people go off their prescriptions they're just going to be OK with not getting legal weed? No, they'll go right back to the illegal dealers supplied by the Mexican cartels. So legalizing marijuana is really an all or nothing proposal, which is another huge flaw I see in Obama's current policy and in you proposition that legal pot in 13 states has no affect on the other 37.
 

I have done a lot of study on this, and have concluded that you all are squares, man.
 

Anon 8:34 - Federalists should have been (were?) upset at Bush for Medicare Part D. The Clawback forces the states to pay for a large portion of that federal program.
 

And the supremacy clause?

If federalism is the proper way to address this issue, should there be a federal law?

And if there is a federal law (as your post says there should), the supremacy clause then mandates the effect of that law with respect to inferior state laws, does it not?

Prosecutorial discretion is valuable, but it should not overcome black letter constitutional law. Or should it?