Obama on Marijuana Legalization: If Not Now, When?

President Obama's recent comments about marijuana legalization, noted this morning by Mike Riggs, hit a familiar theme: Going after newly legal recreational users in Colorado and Washington, he said, is not a good use of the federal government's scarce resources. He and his underlings have repeatedly said the same thing about medical marijuana users. But going after pot smokers has never been a "top priority"—or any priority at all—for the Drug Enforcement Administration, which eschews cases involving small amounts of marijuana. Those are handled by state and local police, who account for 99 percent of marijuana arrests. So leaving individual users alone does not suggest that Obama is any more enlightened, compassionate, tolerant, or rational than his predecessors. The new aspect of the policy announced by Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder with respect to medical marijuana was that they promised prosecutorial forbearance not only for patients but also for their suppliers, provided they complied with state law. Obama has conspicuously failed to deliver on that promise, cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries more aggressively than George W. Bush. So even if he said it is not a good use of Justice Department resources to target state-licensed growers and retailers, you would have to take it with a shakerful of salt. In the event, he did not address suppliers at all in his ABC News interview with Barbara Walters.

"As a politician," ABC News says, "Obama has always opposed legalizing marijuana." That's not quite true, since as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004 Obama told a group of students at Northwestern University that "we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws." That is literally what Colorado and Washington have done, removing all criminal penalties for possessing up to an ounce and for growing or selling marijuana in accordance with state regulatons. (Colorado also has decriminalized home cultivation of up to six plants and noncommercial transfers of up to an ounce.) It is not clear exactly what sort of decriminalization Obama had in mind, but presumably he meant at least that users should not be subject to criminal penalties. That position proved inconvenient during his presidential campaign, when he went back and forth on the question of whether he still supported marijuana decriminalization. At one point, a spokesman said Obama had "always" favored that policy and had accidentally indicated otherwise during a debate by raising his hand in response to a question he had misunderstood. A week later, he retracted that correction.

What does Obama say now?

He told Walters he does not support legalizing marijuana "at this point." He said something similar last April, when he told Jimmy Fallon, "We’re not going to have legalized weed anytime soon." Well, he was wrong about that, since Colorado and Washingtton legalized marijuana just seven months later. But maybe he meant that the federal ban on marijuana will not be repealed anytime soon. Putting these two comments together, I surmise that Obama will endorse marijuana legalization after it happens. Or maybe, like Bill Clinton, he is just waiting to leave office to express his actual opinion about the war on drugs, assuming he has one.

In the meantime, Obama says, "what we're going to need to have is a conversation about how...you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal." He calls it "a tough problem," because "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws." In truth, there is no need to "reconcile" anything; the states are under no obligation to punish every action Congress considers a crime. The question is how gung-ho the Obama administration will be in going after marijuana growers and distributors who are no longer subject to state penalties. The intensity of its response, which will help determine whether Colorado and Washington have the freedom they should to chart their own courses, is completely within Obama's discretion.

On Wednesday, ABC notes, Attorney General Holder said, "There are a number of issues that have to be considered, among them the impact that drug usage has on young people, [and] we have treaty obligations with nations outside the United States." The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires signatories to enact criminal penalties for the nonmedical production, possession, and distribution of cannabis. But that requirement is subject to "constitutional limitations," which in the United States bar the federal government from demanding that the states ape its drug laws. Does the treaty compel the federal government to crack down on state-licensed marijuana suppliers in Colorado and Washington? Apparently not. Since the 1970s, the Dutch government, which is also a signatory, has nevertheless managed to tolerate retail sales of marijuana, which remain technically illegal. Similarly, the U.S. government could maintain its ban on marijuana while tolerating sales by state-licensed pot shops. Obama just needs a little Dutch courage.

Addendum: Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance parses Obama's words at The Huffington Post, seeing hope in the fact that the president is no longer laughing at questions about marijuana and in his call for a "conversation" rather than a federal diktat.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When Obama or any politician talks about something not being a priority, they're leaving a door open. If all the things that are prioritized higher get done, then they can still do that lower priority thing and technically not have lied. It's weasel speak.

  • R C Dean||

    If not now, when?

    Try not now, because never.

  • Wulfz||

    Refer madness sheeple never learn.

  • SIV||

    Sullum You Insensitive CLOD! There was a SCHOOL SHOOTING!

    GET SOME PRIORITIES!

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    He's a weaseling cunt.

  • Jeremy Daw, J.D.||

    Bravo to Mr. Sullum for pointing out the proper context behind Obama's announcement; prosecution of individual cannabis users has not been a priority of the federal government's since the late 1930s, when Harry Anslinger was forced to retreat from his aggressive enforcement posture by public outcry over an encroaching federal bureaucracy. George W. Bush tried briefly in California but had to focus on dispensaries after raiding the home of a wheelchair-bound woman with cancer.

    The White House remains strangely silent over the more salient question of what they will do about cultivation and distribution concerns which will inevitably try to cash in on a newly legal product. While no one (probably not even the president himself) knows for certain what he will do, we can make some intelligent guesses, which I have outlined on my blog at weedthepeoplebook.com

    -Jeremy Daw, J.D.
    Author of Weed the People: From Founding Fiber to Forbidden Fruit

  • Cyto||

    I don't think you could have a more irrational policy than to say that smoking or possessing small amounts of marijuana as a user is legal, but growing or selling the stuff is illegal (and a major felony). Where the heck do they think it comes from if it isn't grown and sold?

  • TheApostle||

    That whole talk was nice, at least on a few levels, but The Constitution also has other important stuff in it...

    Article Six makes ratified international treaties, such as the UN Conventions on Psychotropic substances, the same level of law as the Constitution itself. These treaties forbid legal recreational use. It requires some legal deterrent, such as civil penalties and decriminalization, to prevent use to begin with. Obviously the Feds are going to have a problem with that.

  • BeNotSheep||

    If it were just flat out made legal, it would be of less service to capital plan. The talking about helps boost the economy in many ways. It is only matter of time and it will be legal. Alcohol is the global demon and epidemic.

  • sohbet||

    super blogs thanks admins
    sohbet
    sohbet odaları

  • cinsel chat||

    earned that one "Sharon Levy" cares more for boot licking than the Hip sohbet odaları & cinsel sohbet

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement