Delaware's Democratic Governor Vetoes Cannabis Decriminalization Bill
The bill would've removed civil penalties but stopped well short of taxation and regulation.

Delaware Gov. John Carney announced Tuesday that he would veto the state Legislature's historic passage of a bill fully decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Minor marijuana possession has been partly decriminalized in the state since 2015, when the state legislature made possession a civil infraction with a $100 fine. House Bill 371 would go further by removing "all penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana, except for those who are under 21 years of age," as well as eliminating penalties for people over 21 who transfer one ounce or less of marijuana "without remuneration."
Carney says he supports medical marijuana legalization and decriminalization but cited "long-term health and economic impacts of recreational marijuana use, as well as serious law enforcement concerns[.]" Carney also said legal marijuana possession would be bad for Delaware minors.
Legislators who fought for the bill's passage are dismayed by the veto. Rep. Ed Osienski (D–Newark) said in a statement that he is "deeply disappointed" with the outcome, "especially since [Carney] could have allowed the bill to become law without his signature, which would have preserved both his personal opposition and the will of the residents and legislators."
"Vetoing HB 371 will not stop people from obtaining and consuming marijuana," Osienski continued. "It simply means they could face civil penalties for possession."
Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D–R.I.) framed Carney's veto as a stand against Big Tobacco, saying "[t]oday is a win for public health, the citizens of Delaware, and common sense. Political leaders in Delaware have a rich history of standing up to Big Tobacco and marijuana is simply Big Tobacco's new marketing strategy."
H.B. 371 was introduced by Osienski in March. It passed in the Delaware House and Senate earlier this month. It was introduced alongside H.B. 372, which would have set up a tax-and-regulate system with licenses for sellers and growers. However, the latter bill was defeated this week by just two votes. If H.B. 371 were to become law without H.B. 372, it's conceivable that Delaware could develop a "gifting" retail economy similar to the one used in Washington, D.C.
H.B. 371 received just enough votes in both chambers for the Legislature to successfully override the governor's veto. However, whether the Legislature will attempt an override remains uncertain. According to a Delaware General Assembly memo, the Delaware Legislature has not attempted a veto override since 1990 and hasn't succeeded since 1977.
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
I have always been a supporter of ending drug prohibition in general. There is no denying, however, that the actual record of marijuana prohibition has been pretty disappointing. Crime has exploded over the last several years. Now, that doesn't mean that ending marijuana prohibition caused that. In fact, it didn't. Things like bail reform, defunding police departments, and Soros funded DA's are primarily responsible for that. The fact remains, however, that legalizing pot hasn't seemed to have lowered crime or done anything to make society safer as its proponents claimed it would.
It also hasn't lowered the prison population or done anything to reduce the intrusiveness of law enforcement. The fact is that the claim of there being millions of otherwise innocent pot users and sellers in prison was always a lie. Very few people were in prison for just using or selling pot. They were in prison for that and a lot of other crimes that they either were convicted of or would have been convicted of had they not made a plea deal that allowed them to plea to a marijuana offense in exchange for the government dropping the other charges. Get rid of the pot charge and most of them still end up in prison for their other crimes or worse not in prison at all and out committing more crimes.
This does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't end pot prohibition. What it does mean is that the argument we should rests entirely on the principles of self autonomy on not on any practical claims of it making society safer or reducing the prison population and so forth. The practical arguments seem to have been proven untrue.
^ It’s why Reason needs to focus on the actual libertarian argument for ending prohibition. Unfortunately, legalizing drugs other than marijuana isn’t socially acceptable.
“EMMA CAMP is a student at the University of Virginia.”
Ok?
“Her work has previously appeared in The Cavalier Daily, AL.com, and the FIRE Newsdesk”
Ok that makes sense.
I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. (res-62) All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
.
>>>>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
I used to favor ending prohibition until I thought about what became of other legalization movements.
Enjoy celebrating Addiction Pride month and watching the Mayor of NYC leading the Junkie Pride parade through Times Square.
Anytime I've heard an argument that started with, "It ought to be legal! It's no one's business but mine!", the matter quickly ended up becoming everyone's business, whether they liked it or not, as soon as the reformers got their wish.
That is a very good point. We seem to have lost the ability to understand that just because something is legal doesn't mean it is good or anything to be celebrated. For me at least, one of the best arguments against prohibition is that some things societal mores are more effective in preventing than laws. That has totally gone out the window. Now if something is legal that means it is good and anyone who doesn't celebrate it is a bigot.
The argument for legalizing a thing is usually presented as a libertarianish, "What's the problem? You can do your thing and I can do mine."
Bullshit! Never once has that ever happened. I guarantee that about 15 minutes after they're legalized, drugs will be declared a Human Right, and will be treated as such by all appropriate government regulation and funding.
I agree taking drugs is your own business. I rather like them myself. And if we keep them illegal, you have an incentive for making sure your business stays your business, and not everyone else's.
But if weed, or anything else remains illegal, it IS everyone else’s business, otherwise you wouldn’t need to worry about a SWAT team busting down your door.
Never once? They didn't make abortions mandatory when they were no longer prohibited. They didn't make fireworks mandatory once they were allowed. They didn't make it mandatory to drive over 55 when that became legal again. Liquor is unprohibited and non-mandatory. Owning gold didn't go from disallowed to required. Porn didn't go from censored to required.
I'm trying to think what kind of crazy world's history you must've lived thru to think things have only switched between mandatory and disallowed. Maybe in your alternate history, when the Berlin Wall came down, everyone was rousted out from East and West Berlin and made to move to the opposite side!
There are few real-world examples I can even think of that even approximate what you seem to think happened. We did go from for-cause divorce laws to no-fault, which is arguably mandatory divorce. Some socialist countries did go from outlawing abortions to requiring them, and then back to outlawing them.
Show me where I said anywhere they'd be made mandatory.
They didn't make abortions mandatory when they were no longer prohibited.
No, but they did make funding them mandatory, through taxpayer funding.
But only as a subset of medical procedures generally. So they didn't carve out an exception for abortions in medical subsidies. They didn't carve out exceptions in the laws for any of the other things that've been legalized either.
Your 'generally' is doing some heavy lifting, I think. The funding, and degree, vary on location. As for medical procedure, yes, generally an elective procedure, sometimes one necessary for healthcare, contrary to activist claims. I agree, not that it really matters, on everything else. For what it's worth, I am pro-choice, but am not on board with any of the hyperventilating from those who cannot think w/o talking points. The latter not a reference to anything but the current state of the arguments re Alito draft.
I don’t really care if the Mayor of NY leads a junkie parade. I don’t live in NY.
But the comparison is overwhelmingly favorable to legalization whenever it's done. Of course the same arguments that led to illegalization/controls in the first place will still be there, so as a concession to them there'll always be some mishigas of the type you describe. ("Victims, not criminals!" "Sickness, not evil!" "We were the good guys all the time, now we get to lord it over you!") But the world where X is illegal or rigidly controlled is always a worse one by far than the world where X is legal and uncontrolled but taxed, encouraged, discouraged, or whatever.
Certainly it's been that way with liquor, right? With usury (interest-bearing loans)? With carrying pistols? With telephone service? With ride sharing? With homosexual intercourse? You surely can't believe the world is better where you can be prosecuted for homo sex and where literal fag bashing is unprosecuted, than where there are pride parades.
"You surely can't believe the world is better where you can be prosecuted for homo sex and where literal fag bashing is unprosecuted, than where there are pride parades."
Given some of the people who post here, I wouldn't be confident about that. There's a strong paleo element here.
I don't know anyone who did time for mere possession, but I do know two who spent years in prison for cultivation.
There are some. There is no denying that. That said, however, while some people just did cultivation, a lot of others who got into cultivation were criminals who committed a lot of other crimes in addition to cultivation. Indeed, one of the arguments for ending prohibition is that prohibition made billions of dollars from criminals in the black market. That no doubt is true. It being true, however, is inconsistent with the claim that large numbers of otherwise innocent people were going to prison for pot cultivation.
That said, however, while some people just did cultivation, a lot of others who got into cultivation were criminals who committed a lot of other crimes in addition to cultivation.
Even a lot of those crimes are bogus. For example someone has a grow in the woods, and they have a gun for protection and varmint control. They're facing a minimum of five years for the firearm, and will be considered to be a violent offender.
Yes. When I say "criminals" I mean people who rob and steal and murder for a living who got into cultivation. Killing and robbing your competitors is a real crime. If I got into the illegal pot growing business, I would carry a gun not just for varmints but because I would worry about my competitors robbing me. If they do, what am I going to do about it? Call the cops?
Wait, is this real news? A blue governor in a blue state is denying "my body, my choice?"
For progs, “my body my choice” only applies to abortions and gender reassignment surgery.
Standing up to Big Tobacco? What's the point of that? It's just laid out as if for some unstated reason large tobacco-related companies have always been anti-social. And therefore that if Big Tobacco is for it, you're heroic to be against it. But what's the evidence even that Big Tobacco is for this? Especially when it doesn't affect business of any kind at all, and is just about getting rid of nuisance fines on people who pass a joint around? This whole to-do is astonishingly far removed from any basis in fact.
When the big settlements against the tobacco companies were made, those settlements included long term payouts. Why? Because if the payouts had been done over the short term, the price of cigarettes would have increased so much in such a short amount of time people would have quit smoking in such numbers there would not have been enough revenue to pay the settlements. So, instead, the settlements were paid out over decades to ensure people kept smoking and the money kept coming.
Going after "Big Tobacco" was always about looting an industry. It had nothing to do with public health or stopping people from smoking.
OK, but what does looting them have to do with looting pot smokers?
Someone once pointed out to me that one of the reasons tobacco fell into bad odor among the political class was that the tobacco industry provided a livelihood primarily for rural Southerners, tobacco being a major industry in the South.
Given that we all know how well our liberal overlords love rural Southerners, that doesn't sound entirely out of the realm of possibility.
Nah, those sorts of political considerations are so easily switched, I don't see them carrying lasting weight. Like when tax laws were changed, and Connecticut suddenly became a cigar tobacco state, and then they changed back and it stopped.
Big tobacco has the means of mass production for a genuine pot market. This bothers leftists like Kennedy and the Delaware governor. So they scream “public health!”
Vote everyone out, every time.
I was very excited about this for two reasons. One, there was a clean legalization bill with a separate bill for taxation and regulatikn, so the incentive for revenue was separated from the liberty interests. Voters could easily understand where their representative stood. Two, it was largely an incremental change from legal medical weed and decriminalization of possession, which we already have).
Delaware likes to do things slowly (they legalized civil unions with all of the same benefits as marriage before legalizing gay marriage a few years later). I like that because it allows progress, but not a headlong rush into new legislative territory. It decreases the conflict and culture war stupidity and seems to focus lawmakers on the bill in front of them.
Of course our governor, even though he is a Democrat, has long been opposed to legalization. I also thought the "middle option" that we have in Delaware, that the governor can choose to neither sign nor veto and it will become a law, was the road Carney would go down. It's disappointing, but hopefully the legisalture will override the veto and we can move forward.
I also live in Delaware and I'm disappointed in Carney's decision. Hopefully, they will override the veto.
That's my hope as well. I knew Carney opposed legalization, but I didn't expect a veto.
I am shocked, shocked!
A democrat against a bill just because it doesn't increase taxes and regulations?
Whodathunkit?
That's not why he vetoed it. He has been very public about his opposition to legalization.
As in most cases of legalization, the legislative Democrats were for it and the majority of Republicans against it.
Why does he hate women?
LMAO.... 'Big Tabacoo'.. My, my; How quickly leftards forget their small and short-sighted advertised Liberty platform is just a hoax.
Democratic politicians are never fans of Individual Liberty or Justice; they just *pretend* they are to get votes for Nazi(National Socialist)-Regime building.
For the non-clouded brain this wasn't made more clear than by their stance of Gov-Gun ARMED robbery of citizens for their ?charity? or their Gov-Gun ARMED shut-down of energy of citizens for their ?weather changes? self-made ?science?.....
They're Nazi's.... Self-Proclaimed National Socialists (Nazi's).. Why would anyone expect Individual Liberty or Justice from that ideology???
Well, technically they are INTERNATIONAL socialists.
I just use fascist. It is accurate, and reflects their preference for using "private corporations" to impose their will, neatly bypassing the silly old constitution.
>>would have preserved both his personal opposition and the will of the residents and legislators
not very democratic
Delaware is for Crackheads.
Northern Delaware and the beaches are more pot, shrooms, and coke. Slower lower is more meth and pot. Weed is the uniter of the drug world, everyone likes it.
Reason Editors will need to pull Emma aside to help her properly understand how this is actually the GOP's fault. The icky Republicans must have pounced or something. Not highlighting the GOP's sin and only focusing on the Democrats, that won't get Emma invited to any DC cocktail parties.
Dude, it's Delaware. We aren't plagued by the sort of scorched-earth politics that a lot of states are. Probably because we're so small, both physically and in population.
It's basically like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon if there were only three degrees and any random Delawarean was Kevin Bacon.
Our state politicians follow a strange policy of discovering what issues need to be addressed, talking about them with colleagues in both parties, coming up with a reasonable solution, and instituting it.
I know that sounds like a crazy way to run a state, but it works for us. I can't speak for others, but I think it is nice as a resident.
Time to vote the bum out then.
Are you sure you got his party right?
I guess every few years Patrick Kennedy has to pop his head out of the ground to remind everyone how stupid he is.