Now That Pot-Averse Conservatives Are Openly Defying the Federal Marijuana Ban, What Excuse Does Congress Have for Maintaining It?
Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves' grudging support for medical marijuana speaks volumes about the erosion of support for prohibition.

In 2020, Mississippi became the 35th state, and the second in the Deep South, to approve medical use of marijuana. But Initiative 65, which was favored by three-quarters of voters, never took effect, thanks to a legal requirement for ballot measure signatures that was impossible to satisfy. After the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned the initiative, the state legislature responded by independently approving a medical marijuana bill, which Gov. Tate Reeves signed into law yesterday.
The broad, bipartisan support for medical marijuana in a deep-red state shows how far the rejection of pot prohibition has spread since California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana in 1996. That reality seems to have sunk in almost everywhere except on Capitol Hill.
Mississippi's medical marijuana law, S.B. 2095, passed by an 8-to-1 margin in the state House and a 9-to-1 margin in the state Senate. A total of 37 states now allow patients to use cannabis for symptom relief, including conservative bastions such as South Dakota, where 70 percent of voters approved a medical marijuana ballot initiative in 2020, and Alabama, where legislators passed a law similar to Mississippi's by a 2-to-1 margin last year.
Even Reeves, a conservative Republican who worried that medical marijuana could become a cover for recreational use and threatened to veto S.B. 2095 if his objections were not addressed, eventually felt compelled to respect the will of the voters who overwhelmingly approved Initiative 65. "The 'medical marijuana bill' has consumed an enormous amount of space on the front pages of the legacy media outlets across Mississippi over the last 3+ years," the governor complains in a statement he issued when he signed the bill. "There is no doubt that there are individuals in our state who could do significantly better if they had access to medically prescribed doses of cannabis. There are also those who really want a recreational marijuana program that could lead to more people smoking and less people working, with all the societal and family ills that that brings."
Reeves says the changes he demanded (not all of which he got) were aimed at balancing the benefits of medical marijuana against the risk that it might, God forbid, allow some people to smoke pot for fun. "I have made it clear that the bill on my desk is not the one that I would have written," he writes. But he adds that "significant improvements" to the bill—including a reduction in the monthly purchase limit, an in-person visit requirement for cannabis prescriptions, and a ban on marijuana dispensaries within 1,000 feet of churches or schools—made the legislation something he could stomach. He thanks legislators for their responsiveness but ends on a churlish note: "Now, hopefully, we can put this issue behind us and move on to other pressing matters facing our state."
Given his anti-pot prejudices, Reeves' grudging support for medical marijuana speaks volumes about the current politics of prohibition. Under S.B. 2095, marijuana dispensaries are supposed to receive state licenses within six months or so, which means they could start serving patients by the end of the year. When that happens, they will be operating with state approval but in flagrant violation of federal law, which still recognizes no legitimate use for marijuana. Reeves, despite his reservations and his distaste for people who relax with a joint rather than a cocktail, is cool with that.
Eighteen of the 37 states that allow medical use of marijuana, accounting for more than two-fifths of the U.S. population, also allow recreational use, which is clearly a bridge too far for Reeves. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, another conservative Republican, has a similar attitude. When voters in her state approved medical marijuana in 2020, they also approved a broader measure, Amendment A, that would have created a state-licensed recreational market. Noem, who opposed both measures, acquiesced on medical marijuana but backed a successful legal challenge to Amendment A, which the South Dakota Supreme Court nixed last November after concluding that it violated the "single subject" rule for constitutional amendments.
As abstruse as the legal arguments about Amendment A were, the issue that defeated Mississippi's Initiative 65 was even more perplexing. A state law required that no more than a fifth of the signatures for the ballot initiative come from a single congressional district. That made sense when Mississippi had five congressional districts, but by 2020 it had only four, which made it impossible to meet this requirement. Madison, Mississippi, Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler nevertheless persuaded the Mississippi Supreme Court that the law had to be applied as written.
Unlike Mississippi legislators, who have replaced the invalidated initiative with their own law, South Dakota legislators so far have not produced a bill that would accomplish what Amendment A aimed to do. While prominent Republicans in the state legislature have suggested they would like to do that, Noem has threatened to veto any such bill. Amendment A's backers are therefore working on a 2022 legalization initiative that complies with the South Dakota Supreme Court's interpretation of the "single subject" rule.
Congress, meanwhile, has done nothing to address the untenable conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, except for an annually renewed spending rider that bars the Justice Department from interfering with state medical marijuana programs. Notwithstanding that rider, the department is helping California and Kansas cops use civil forfeiture to steal money earned by state-legal medical marijuana suppliers.
President Joe Biden, who says states should be free to go their own way on this issue, nevertheless opposes repealing the federal ban on marijuana. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), who says he wants to legalize cannabis, recently torpedoed a bill that would have removed federal barriers to banking services for state-licensed marijuana businesses.
According to the latest Gallup poll, 68 percent of Americans think marijuana should be legal. When even pot-averse Republicans like Tate Reeves are responding to public opinion by openly defying the federal ban, what excuse do Biden and Congress have for maintaining it?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Jeff Sessions is rolling over in his grave.
In 2022, start earning cash from your home and getting paid(500$ to 700$ / hour ) by this job.DEw These are the best online jobs I’ve made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.
Join it today.............VISIT HERE
That kind of rhetoric has no place in our politics!
Tate Reeves looks like an obese Bill Gates.
By gum he does! He also looks like he belongs in a Dumb and Dumber movie.
Peter Griffin.
Here in PA, if just a few more GOP House and Senate members endorse legalizing recreational weed, it'll pass the General Assembly.
While all libertarian Republicans and most moderate Republicans support legalizing recreational weed, the Puritan theocrat conservative Republicans continue to support prohibition for marijuana and abortion.
In December last year conservatives introduced a house bill to legalize..
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/21/12/24726609/gop-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-streamline-psychedelics-cannabis-research-after-dea-shows-suppor
Apparently the Black Caucus is holding it up.
I don’t see caucae in color
This is wonderful news. Among the population castrated of gender by pollsters, some 20% more oppose than endorse sending men with guns to force women into involuntary labor of reproduction and servitude. One nationalsocialist tool slipped past the electoral vote in 2016 and filled Ginsburg's space with a Hitlerjugend female. Women voters, the ones whose opinions are relevant to the pointers of guns, are now alerted by Texas fascist Fugitive Slave Law 2.0 that God's Nazis must be gotten rid of root and branch.
Speaking of laws, and obeying them, as a substance with proven medical uses, marijuana cannot legally be listed as class 1.
You expect the government to obey the law?
you some kind of anarchist or something?
No.
And the "or something" one - - - - - - -
Speaking of laws, and obeying them, as a substance with proven medical uses, marijuana cannot legally be listed as class 1.
^
And the EUA as it's been done with the vaccines is pretty much all illegal too. And lockdowns were unconstitutional. *shrug*
The Kleptocracy don' need no steenkin' legality to choot an' rob you, White Lamb. Nixon ordered the IRS to upend truckloads of tax money into looter election campaigns, so they can appoint all the Nazi judges they want. The law says whatever elected looters can get a Nazi judge to say it sez, comprende?
'There are also those who really want a recreational marijuana program that could lead to more people smoking and less people working, with all the societal and family ills that that brings.'
Reefer madness, just like TDS still lingers...if only there were a vaccine for such illnesses.
If Reeves had been around in 1933, he would have opposed ending Prohibition. The trouble is, there are still a lot of voters in Mississippi that would vote for banning alcohol if they had the chance - including all the bootleggers and many of their customers.
The judges at Nuremberg rediscovered a cure for superstitious fascination with the initiation of force. Ironically, the invention was made of hemp.
I think legalization at the state level in defiance of federal law is an intentional trap.
The feds want prohibition so they can have an excuse to confiscate guns from people who own them and believe pot to be legal.
Bottom line. Regardless of state law. If you own firearms, having ANYTHING to do with pot is an excuse for the feds to rob and murder you.
Leave it alone. State legalization is a federal honeypot.
Starting with New York in 1923, a hatful of states repealed concurrent prohibition laws before 1933. In fact, it took until 2013 for all fifty states to quit kicking in doors and shooting dogs and families over home brew. Home brew as the Glucose-Yeast-Malt extract cartel was what enabled the Prohibition Party to ban beer nationwide with 1.4% of the vote in 11 election campaigns. Indictments for conspiracy and tax fraud ended their rule--and the banking system--in 1933.
If a state legalizes medical or recreational pot, they are not in "defiance" of federal law. They are simply changing state laws to ease their own prohibition. State laws and federal laws are completely separate. The federal government does not require states to have marijuana prohibition.
The states have no power nor requirement to uphold federal law. The fact that some states bend over backwards to cooperate with the feds does not change this.
So stop with this defiance language. It comes up again and again in these kinds of articles. It makes it look like you don't understand the basic structure of our federal system.
I don’t think Sullum understands the basic structure of our federal system.
I'd bet money Sullum understands how victims of superstitious fascism routinely get mesmerized by Fuhrers, Duces, Caudillos, Radio Priests, Great Dry Hopes and Race-Suicide Eugenics fanatics. Today's Trumpanzees™ are the latest sorry example of collectivized hypnosis into the worship of coercion.
It's not that I don't understand our Federal Republic.
I am stating that we no longer have a Federal Republic.
We are a National Socialist Police State.
The existence of states AT ALL is defiance that will be targeted one layer at a time. Watch for the feds to nationalize voting, law enforcement, courts, all of it.
Hand the man a cigar! But not from Cuba, nor one containing any hemp. In fact, maybe a $20 mandatory testing certificate to prove to Sturmbannfuhrer Drug Czar it contains not a whiff of DMT either. Then there's the tariff and sumptuary excise, and maybe Nixon can be prevailed upon to hand the media-elections racket a billion-dollar subsidy for keeping the Libertarians out of the picture entirely...
"The federal government does not require states to have marijuana prohibition."
Actually it does in a roundabout way. Look at the banking issues that the Pot Industry is encountering. Those are Federal. There was an article here a little while ago about Police seizing proceeds from Pot companies under the FEDERAL Forfeiture Laws.
Last but not least is OSHA. Any incident that they become involved in can lead to charges if a person who is involved has Pot in their system, whether or not they were high at the time.
Two of your three examples have nothing to do with state laws and are part of the federal prohibition regime.
Your mention of forfeiture is missing something because it is legally impossible for states to enforce federal lawson their own. States can cooperate with the feds, and share in the loot that way. But the feds are the ones with the laws.
keeping recreation illegal or when a state legalizes it but then over taxes and over regulates it and creates a high fixed cost to producers they simply just keep the illegal dug trade fed.
Anyone from Oregon or Washington recall paying a drug dealer a 20% sales tax for your weed? Or is that just the dispensary down the street that per the state, city or county hammers you for another 20%+?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Now That Pot-Averse Conservatives Are Openly Defying the Federal Marijuana Ban, What Excuse Does Congress Have for Maintaining It?
Up until 1994, Congress had been held by the Democrats for 40 years straight.
At this moment in time, Congress has the presidency and both houses.
So, from the democrats good/republicans bad on marijuana policy, there have been plenty of chances to turn this over.
What part of “Jacob Sullum” don’t you get?
Sullum won't mention that. He has a bias towards Republicans.
I mean that conservative Obama used bank and tax laws to go after Marijuana sellers. So has biden apparently.
Joe Biden Says All Drug Users Should Go To Jail For Good
Weed is not a dangerous plant. There's actually no justification to ban a plant. It does not fit the definition of a drug. Besides it being relatively harmless, weed cant be a susyainable business anyway. The only thing that ever made it a viable business for anyone is that it was illegal and thusly hard to find. Im literally paying less for it than i did in the 80's before 200% inflated dollar. 5 dollar grams of hydroponic northern lights or sour deisle are the fkn retail prices here. Weed is not addictive. You smoke a little bit, get sick of it and then you're fine. The issue is california trying 5o make opiates illegal. We need to start hunting those evil bastards for sport and public entertainment.
*legal
Legal opiate proponents are all homo's and hookers. Tge homo's need opiates to make more homos and the hookers need it for makeup, so to speak. They get old and johns get tired of looking at them. If a hooker doesnt settle down and find a life partner before the end of their 20's, they're they're leftover and forgotten.
This whole article and not a word about the influence of Big Pharma...talk about the elephant in the room! It's because Reason's benefactors are all heavily invested into Pharma.
When cannabis stores open in a state, Medicare drug billing usually decrease by 25% within a few years. Multiple studies have shown the same results in multiple states with the same 25% metric coming up again and again. So Pharma' revenue drops 25% with cannabis legalization. That is a staggering number and should instantly reveal to all the reason for cannabis prohibition and why the federal ban still exists.
The answer is hemp. Hemp is not Marijuana, but its in the same family and impossible for law enforcement to visually distinguish from marijuana, so as long as growing marijuana is illegal, the feds think they can justify banning hemp farming.. Why ban hemp farming if it contains no THC? Because it is a lucrative cash crop for hemp nuts, hemp fiber bio fuel ect. and at one point other competing industries like cotton farmers lobbied to ban hemp. This is the real reason they have upheld the ban on marijuana for so long. Every govt agency is corrupt and as we have seen from the last two years, can not be trusted. F*ck the feds, F*ck the EPA F*ck the FDA, F*ck the DEA. they are all a bunch of corrupt sell outs to the highest bidder. Its not a new development, but its reaching a tipping point. The people should have revolted long ago. Its way past due. The best solution at this point is to just take the feds out of the picture all together. Igor them. Disregard them and prepare to defend yourself if they come.
It's democracy. After the Five and Ten Crash of 1929, the only Republicans that survived the 1930 mid-term election were "wets" to whom Jesus had appeared in beggar's rags and converted water to wine in a vision. Yet the Republican platform struggled to retain prohibition and even to claw it back to the States. Outcome: FDR taxed the pants off the bastards for 4 elections and Truman another two, while bombing their christianofascist heroes into surrender. History rhymes.
"A state law required that no more than a fifth of the signatures for the ballot initiative come from a single congressional district. That made sense when Mississippi had five congressional districts..."
No, it didn't make sense then either. You would have to get EXACTLY the same number of signatures in each district.
Remember that day the feds were given the POWER to control substance intake????
Yeah; Me neither... F'en Nazi's.
I'm not sure why conservatives are being made the bad guys here - there have been times when Democrats had the numbers to make it legal, but ignored the issue. Like when they rammed through ObamaCare. Or would President Choom not have signed it into law?
There are plenty of conservatives and right-of-center voters and politicians to support it, or at least not filibuster it.
I believe it has more to do with left-wingers not wanting to cede one single nanometer of centralized government control of anything.
All the more reason to vote Libertarian, and leave the looters finger-pointing and accusing one another with tu quoque and utilitarian monster fabrications.
It's at least decriminalized in most states, illegal in a handful of red states, with fullest liberalization in the bluest states, so whatever.
According to Pew, legalization is favored by majorities of all political groups except those who identify as conservative Republicans.
It's also largely an age thing, with only the 75+ crowd not favoring legalization.
I clicked on this article thinking, "This has got to be an article from drug addict Jacob Sullum." I clicked it. Read the author. AND SURE ENOUGH IT WAS! ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Earn income while simply working online. work from home whenever you want. just for maximum 5 hours a day you can make more than $600 per day online. (re4) From this i made $18000 last month in my spare time.
Check info here:- ==>> Visit Here