Two Pot Legalizers Top the Democratic Ticket
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz both back marijuana legalization, but they took different paths to get there.

The Democratic Party made history this year by nominating a presidential candidate who supports marijuana legalization. And when Vice President Kamala Harris picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, she doubled that distinction.
Walz, who in 2023 signed a bill that legalized recreational marijuana in Minnesota, has a longer and more substantial record of supporting drug policy reform than does Harris, a latecomer to the cause. But both Democrats are bolder on this issue than their Republican opponents or President Joe Biden, who endorsed Harris after dropping out of the race in July.
As USA Today notes, "Harris has been criticized for aggressively prosecuting weed-related crimes when she was California's attorney general and San Francisco's district attorney, particularly given the racial disparities in punishment nationwide." She opposed a California legalization initiative in 2010 as San Francisco's district attorney; laughed at a question about legalization in 2014, when she was running for attorney general against a Republican who favored it; and declined, as California's attorney general, to take a position on the 2016 initiative that legalized recreational use in her state.
As a senator in 2018, Harris finally took the plunge, saying "we need to decriminalize marijuana nationwide." Later that year, she cosponsored a bill that would have repealed federal prohibition, and she introduced a similar bill in 2019.
Meanwhile, as a Minnesota congressman from 2007 through 2018, Walz repeatedly supported legislation aimed at preventing federal interference with state medical marijuana programs, beginning his first year in office. He thought that protection, which Congress ultimately approved in 2014, should be extended to state-licensed businesses serving recreational cannabis consumers. He also backed a bill designed to protect financial institutions that serve the cannabis industry.
Prosecutorial discretion is the only thing that shields recreational marijuana suppliers from the threat of federal criminal charges and asset forfeiture. When Jeff Sessions, former President Donald Trump's first attorney general, rescinded a memo supporting such forbearance in 2018, Walz criticized him. Sessions is "dead set on overruling states that have legalized recreational or medical cannabis, including [Minnesota]," Walz complained. He promised to "keep fighting alongside the 83% of vets & caregivers who support legalizing medical cannabis nationally."
By 2017, when Walz was running for governor, he had become a full-throated legalization advocate. "It's time to create a system of regulation and taxation for adult-use marijuana in MN," he wrote. In his first year as governor, Walz instructed state agencies to start preparing for marijuana legalization, saying he wanted them to "put all of the building blocks in place."
The bill Walz signed four years later, after Democrats won control of the state Senate, allowed adults 21 or older to publicly possess two ounces or less of marijuana, share that amount with other adults, and grow up to eight plants at home. It imposed a relatively modest tax on marijuana sales, barred local governments from banning pot shops, and required automatic expungement of marijuana misdemeanors. As governor, Walz also supported legislation authorizing supervised drug consumption sites, eliminating legal barriers to needle exchange programs, and creating a Psychedelic Medicine Task Force.
During his 2020 presidential campaign, by contrast, Biden said he would "decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior cannabis use convictions," but he never delivered on those promises. He also said he would "leave decisions regarding legalization for recreational use up to the states" but resisted repealing federal pot prohibition, the main obstacle to those decisions.
Trump and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio), likewise say states should be free to set their own marijuana policies but have not called for repealing the federal ban, although Trump supports rescheduling cannabis and marijuana banking reform. Vance, whose state legalized recreational marijuana by ballot initiative in 2023, has said "you don't want people thrown in prison for having a dime bag" while expressing concern that "we haven't quite figured out how this new regime coexists with not polluting our public spaces." Trump voiced similar concerns when he endorsed Florida's 2024 marijuana legalization initiative in August, noting in a Truth Social post that pot busts "ruin lives & waste Taxpayer Dollars" while urging a ban on public use.
The bolder position staked out by Harris and Walz may be historic, but it is also a lagging indicator. By the time Harris came around, 66 percent of Americans thought marijuana should be legal, according to Gallup, and that number had risen to 70 percent by the fall of 2023.
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
Weed? Check.
Butt sex? Check.
Mexicans? Check.
Libertarians should vote Democrat!
Libertarian party platform, or Abercrombie and Fitch’s latest collection?
They promise they won’t cum in your mouth again.
And of course they won't. They're fucking you in the ass instead.
And they won’t respect you in the morning.
Retard.
Probably the most accurate response to a sullum article.
To every Sullum article.
Kamala Harris: trailblazer for criminal justice reform.
Even if K and W win, we won't get nationwide legalized pot.
Even if they win and we do get legalized pot, it will be in exchange for open borders, eating bugs, and sleeping in pods.
Living under WEF Globalist Democrats will be easier if we're all high.
But they said they would!
Did you know that Chase has a platform on a website?
I heard he was gay!
Jeff and Sarc both made a point to tell me that.
I'd say odds are about equal that either Harris or Trump will actually accomplish it. Trumps doesn't seem particularly opposed.
Not for nothing, but talk is cheap = Kamala, and Tampon Timmy.
Pres Trump is actually voting on the question in the FL state election. And he is voting for recreational weed. How about that? When presented with the chance to definitively state a position and act, Pres Trump did so.
Kamala and Tampon Timmy are just talk.
Prosecutorial discretion is the only thing that shields recreational marijuana suppliers from the threat of federal criminal charges and asset forfeiture.
If 2020-2024 has taught me anything, it’s that, from Georgia to New York, from tax-filing residents to tourists on public land, from meatspace to posting memes on Twitter, prosecutorial discretion is the only thing that shields anyone from the threat of federal criminal charges and asset forfeiture.
The consistent failure to demonstrate even minimal cognizance of this explains why such plainly stupid articles like “Neither Trump Nor Harris Wants To Drain the Swamp. They Want You To Join It.” get published by this magazine.
Prosecutorial discretion. And how many people did Kamala Harris jail for weed-related crimes as a prosecutor?
Yeah, but Tariffs, spending like a drunken sailor, the Jones act and the good faith screening and blocking of offensive material! You're unserious if you're not strategically and reluctantly voting for Harris!
That's nice. Pot legalization is not a high priority political issue, one way or the other, so it does it move the sticks for the Dems, especially with how authoritarian they are everywhere else.
Is there really anyplace in the states where you can’t get some dope if you want some?
How stringent are you with the "if you want some" criteria? If you just expect drugs to show up in the White House with no clue as to who brought them in, how they brought them in, or why they would risk federal criminal charges in order to leave a valuable bag of drugs in the WH, it's a pretty solid "Practically nowhere."
Now, if you're suggesting someone at the WH wanted the drugs there well then, of course, the WH would be one place where that wouldn't/couldn't happen because nobody who would be in the WH would want drugs while they were there.
No. But in some states, you don't have to worry about going to jail if you have some on you.
If it is to be legalized at the federal level it will require legislation. Because as long as it's up to the discretion of the DEA it will remain Schedule I.
Which, if you look at the definition of Schedule 1, means the DEA is not acting in accordance with the law. I wonder if the recent supreme court case about agency interpretations of laws will make it any easier to sue the DEA to properly schedule it at least.
The DEA has a great Catch-22 on their side. As a Schedule I narcotic, they only allow studies that confirm that it's dangerous. But they won't take it off Schedule I unless there are studies that prove it is not. So without legislation it's there to stay.
Is there anything that says those studies can only be conducted in the USA? Pretending that science is different in different countries is a position so ridiculous that the courts ought to tell agencies that take it that they forfeited their case.
I think Americans are exhausted by the amount of politics. That included marijuana's politics. If Harris and Walz can move marijuana off the political page that is one more reason to vote for them. One concern is this idea of the marijuana sin tax. I hope that we just legalize the stuff, regulate it in a manner equivalent to alcohol and leave it at that.
Idiot.
No, he is right, but not in the way he thinks.
The more government intrudes into daily life, the more people have to fight government, or at least ignore it at risk of criminal prosecution and civil penalties. It's all increased so gradually that no one actively thinks about it all day, but people are still aware of it, and the news makes it painfully aware every night.
That's the politicization people are sick and tired of. Political ads just ram the subject home. That's what M4e misses, and will always miss. People just want to be left alone, and government won't let them alone, so they try to deflect government by siccing it on their neighbors, their competitors, stores that wronged them, anybody, because they can't ignore government, they can only try to deflect it.
People just want to be left alone, and government won’t let them alone, so they try to deflect government by siccing it on their neighbors, their competitors, stores that wronged them, anybody, because they can’t ignore government, they can only try to deflect it.
I don't think that's true at all. There are lots of busibodies who truly believe that their neighbors need to be controlled by government and they're not deflecting. Or, as Heinlein put it:
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Let me suggest a corollary to what you are saying. People want a government that serves them in the background and is generally not noticeable in our daily lives. For example, we don't want a government that tells us we cannot drink or how much alcohol we can drink, but we want a government that keeps alcohol impaired drivers off the road (as much as possible).
Harris and Walz are Democrats. If they know it exists, they tax it.
>>The Democratic Party made history this year by nominating a presidential candidate who supports marijuana legalization.
you should be embarrassed for getting rolled by someone who literally jailed human beings for weed.
edit: I mean who knows? maybe it's coming from the top and you're somehow required to forget KH jailed human beings for weed and post this anyway but man if so I kinda side with walking over slaving
The Democratic Party made history this year by nominating a presidential candidate who supports marijuana legalization.
And the death penalty.
Hey bruh, I can bowf sidez this too.
Isidewith:
"Do you support the legalization of Marijuana?"
My answer: Yes
Oliver: Yes
Trump: Yes, but only for medical use
West Stein Williamson: Yes, and immediately release anyone serving time solely for drug offenses
Harris: Yes, and legalize, tax and regulate marijuana instead of criminalizing it.
Skonski: No
Can I get a definition of "skyrocketing" please?
Skyrocket: to increase rapidly while being hidden from view.
Two Pot Legalizers Top the Democratic Ticket
I, in no way, object to this headline and I think you should keep shouting it at the top of your lungs.
Harris has no intention of legalizing cannabis. She'll just say anything to win.
One gets the sense that Sullum will say anything to try and get Kamala elected, and if she is, he'll spend the next 4 years whining about how un-libertarian she actually is.
I miss when Sullum actually gave a damn about tobacco smokers freedoms.