The Federal Legalization of Marijuana

In November 2012, the states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, along with the right for certain commercial organizations to grow and distribute marijuana within certain guidelines and regulations. Though 21 states currently allow for the medicinal use of marijuana and 16 have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana—according to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, during his Opening Statement at the Committee’s Hearing on “Conflicts Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws” on September 10, 2013—these two states are the first to create laws that are in direct conflict with the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970. This highly controversial topic has become incredibly complicated, in part because of the different frameworks of laws at the state and federal levels. Proponents and opponents, alike, have become increasingly vocal through a variety of mediums, including op-eds: both online and in print, television interviews, rallies, and at congressional hearings. There is a great variety of arguments for and against the legalization that has already occurred at the state level, about what the federal government’s response to those state laws ought to be, and whether there should be the legalization of marijuana at the federal level.

After the passage of the laws in Colorado and Washington, there was some trepidation about how the federal government—specifically Attorneys General and the DEA—would react with respect to the conflicting laws at the state and national levels. At the September 10 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole discussed the history of state and federal drug enforcement officers working together to enforce both the state and federal laws, that tended to be the same or very similar. With this new rupture between the laws, the federal government had to determine what its response would be. Cole communicated to the Committee that on August 29, 2013, the Department of Justice told Colorado and Washington that they had decided not to attempt to preempt the new laws established by the states. Instead, their federal law enforcement efforts would now have a very narrow focus, including such things as preventing the use of marijuana by minors, preventing drugged driving, preventing the use of marijuana on federal grounds, preventing the transport of marijuana to other states, and other similar goals intended to promote public health and safety .

The announcement means that—at least in the short term—the federal drug enforcement mechanism will not interfere with those states as they begin to set up their regulatory frameworks. Cole did add a caveat, however, that the DOJ reserved the right to step in if it seems that the regulations set up by the states were not adequately protecting the public health and safety of their citizens.

Opponents think many of the same things they argued to try to convince voters to reject legalization. One such opponent, Sabat (2013), who was once a senior drug policy advisor for the Obama administration, has predicted a wide variety of negative effects of both legalization at the state level and the hands-off approach to enforcement at the federal level. He says that marijuana usage is very low when compared to alcohol and tobacco use, and credits drug laws for this. He argues that legalization (or nonenforcement on the part of the federal government) will lead to a dramatic increase in marijuana usage. He also claims that usage among minors will necessarily increase as pot is made more available to adults, citing survey information from Colorado that shows an increase in high school students who use pot. This view is also shared by a CNN correspondent, David Frum (2013), who thinks it will be likely that teens will be targets of the marijuana industry.

Opponents also argue that these new dispensaries and grow shops are oftentimes affiliated in some way with drug cartels and organized crime groups. In fact, according to a Rand Corporation study (2010), the decriminalization of marijuana in California did not lead to much of a decline in cartels and their power. In other words, the argument that legalizing the drug trade would put cartels out of business, might not be so accurate, after all.

Sabat (2013) also pointed out the international relations’ effects of legalization and the DOJ’s new policy approach of the DOJ. The U.S. is bound by several different international treaties on narcotics and drug trafficking. The treaties are in line with federal drug laws as they now stand. Among other effects, officials in Mexico have said that this shift in policy and laws will have a detrimental effect on their ability to continue fighting their own drug war against cartels and gangs in their own country and their fight to keep the cartels from infiltrating the U.S.

Proponents of legalization—on the other hand—welcomed the policy announcement by the Department of Justice. If the Department sticks to its word and refrains from pursuing small-time users of "weed", it will allow those states the opportunity to develop and refine their regulatory processes without interference from the federal level. On the other hand, many proponents of the legalization of marijuana think this isn’t enough: they want marijuana legalized federally, in part in order to provide more protection for the fledgling businesses that are beginning to grow and sell marijuana to legal consumers.

Currently, some dispensaries and grow centers are having trouble convincing banks to allow them to open bank accounts for their places of business. Those businesses that deal on a cash-only basis tend to attract violent criminal attention, making it much more dangerous for them. Pertaining to the economics of marijuana, if it were legalized federally, banks would not be constrained by federal regulations from allowing these legal businesses to open accounts the way any other legal company can.

If marijuana usage were legalized federally, it would allow also legal growers and distributors of marijuana to be taxed the way any other legal organization is taxed, and also to claim deductions the way any other legal organization is allowed to claim similar deductions. In order for these organizations to become viable and successful businesses—that can then be taxed at the state and federal levels—they must be given the same opportunities as other legal businesses in other industries.

Other proponents, such as CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta (2013), argue for legalization from the medical point of view: marijuana has been proven to be useful for those who suffer from many different types of illness—especially those which cause debilitating pain—and has been shown not to be addictive or harmful. After researching the issue, Gupta wrote the CNN op-ed to explain his change in point of view to readers.

Clearly, the current debate on the legalization of marijuana and—more specifically—the federal legalization of marijuana has become incredibly complicated and heated in recent days. It seems equally clear that the debate isn’t going to be resolved in the short-term. As support for the legalization of marijuana grows both in terms of social acceptance and from a medical point of view, the chances of federal legalization of marijuana are ever-increasing.

Works Cited

Cole, James M. Statement to the Senate, Judiciary Hearing on “Conflicts Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws.” 10 September 103.

Frum, David. “Be Afraid of Big Marijuana.” CNN 10 September 2013. Web. October 17, 2013.

Gupta, Sanjay. “Why I Changed My Mind on Weed.” CNN 18 August 2013. Web. October 17, 2013.

Leahy, Sen. Patrick. Chairman’s Statement at Senate Judiciary Hearing on “Conflicts Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws.” 10 September 2013.

Rand International Programs and Drug Policy Research Center, “Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico: Would Legalizing Marijuana in California Help?” Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, 2010.

Sabat, Kevin A. Statement to the Senate, Judiciary Hearing on “Conflicts Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws.” 10 September 2013.