Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Renewed War on Marijuana Spurs Congress to Defend Federalism

Next week's budget showdown will include a fight over an amendment prohibiting the DOJ from preventing states from legalizing medical marijuana.

Those who advocate a safe, regulated and legal climate for marijuana sales and use were unquestionably alarmed by the elevation of anti-marijuana crusader Jeff Sessions to attorney general. Public opinion polls show strong and growing nationwide support for legalization. In California, medical marijuana has been legal for 21 years and remains about as controversial as any other form of prescription medication.

During a Senate hearing in 2016, Sessions, then a Republican senator from Alabama, said, "We need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it's in fact a very real danger." His follow-up comment—that government officials need to send the message "that good people don't smoke marijuana"—has often been quoted as Sessions, now the U.S. attorney general, attempts to put his views into action.

Most significantly, Sessions revoked the Obama-era Cole Memorandum—a 2013 missive penned by former Deputy Attorney General James Cole that provided guidance for federal prosecutors in light of state legalization laws. The nonbinding memo provided some assurance that the feds wouldn't crack down on states if their laws met a few standards, such as preventing distribution to minors and keeping revenues from funding drug cartels.

But a funny thing happened on the way back to a 1980s "War on Drugs" approach to marijuana this time around: Congress got its hackles up. Marijuana businesses complained loudly, of course. But "Capitol Hill screamed just as loudly," reported Politico. "And it wasn't just the Democratic members of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. It was Republican senators, too."

Congress has been dealing with the issue in a temporary and inadequate way since 2001. That's when a representative from New York first introduced a bill to stop the Justice Department from using funds to prevent states from legalizing medicinal marijuana. Ultimately, the similar Rohrabacher-Farr amendment—now known as Rohrabacher-Blumenauer, following the retirement of Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)—became law in 2014. It halted the Justice Department from trying to prevent 33 states and the District of Columbia from implementing laws that "authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."

Because it is attached to spending bills, the measure needs to be reauthorized every year. This year's reauthorization became a flashpoint in budget negotiations before the short-lived federal government shutdown. Congress approved the amendment, but the protections only last until Feb. 8—the deadline for the next budget vote to avoid another shutdown. Indeed, real threats often lead to more substantive solutions.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, the California Republican who co-authored the amendment, hopes its passage will buy time to come up with a permanent fix. He has introduced H.R. 975, which he tells Leafly "would be putting into law the idea that the states will be the ones that will make the decision" and would make clear to "everybody, not just the Department of Justice, but everybody, like the banking regulators and other regulators," that they must treat cannabis like "any other commodity throughout the states that have designated it that way."

The legislation has one sentence: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana." Archaic spelling aside, the bill offers protections to the eight states plus the District of Columbia that have legalized marijuana for recreation and the 29 states that allow it as medicine.

Marijuana advocates have debated a variety of approaches to keep the feds from prosecuting businesses and individuals who sell and consume marijuana. The Obama administration's effort to provide sensible guidelines to U.S. attorneys, although well-intentioned, was too ephemeral. It was overturned with the stroke of a pen. An emerging multibillion-dollar industry needs more security in order to invest and expand.

Likewise, efforts to force the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify marijuana could also be fleeting. Currently, the DEA classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug that has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." That classification is as inexplicable as Sessions' comments about "good people," but a federal agency—and the federal government in general—is the wrong place to fight this battle.

The correct battlefield is in the states. The states are resolving the issue on their own in a way that reflects local values and preferences, and upholds the intent of our Founding Fathers. Attitudes toward marijuana differ greatly between California and Mississippi, for instance. Sessions' boss, Donald Trump, advocated a state approach to marijuana when he was campaigning for president. Congress needs to act to keep the federal government from undermining state lawmakers and voters.

Without the attorney general's approach, the uneasy status quo may never have come to a breaking point. "Did Jeff Sessions just increase the odds Congress will make marijuana legal?" asked Politico. Maybe not, but he has increased the chances that Congress will let states make these decisions for themselves. If Congress follows through, it will be a boon not only to a growing industry but to one of our Constitution's most-cherished concepts.

Photo Credit: Damian Gadal/flickr

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.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "We need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it's in fact a very real danger."

    Well, that leaves pretty much anything in DC out.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The correct battlefield is in the states.


    Disagree. The "correct battlefield" is whichever is winnable. In this case, that seems to be the states, and getting the Fed to back out would be an improvement. But if there was a constitutional argument that had a serious shot at winning in the SCOTUS, it would be entirely appropriate to pursue that too.

    Unjust laws don't become magically "okay" if they're done by states instead of the Fed.

  • Robert||

    What evidence is there of there being a renewed war on mj? I don't see anything happening? Do you think the appointment of Sessions, or a statement by him, was a trial balloon? His appointment was political payback, & well deserved, so I strongly doubt that was a trial balloon re mj enforcement. So his statements? If any were a trial balloon, they didn't go over.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Reason just had an article regarding CA Banking for MJ. CA has had a few banks end relationships with mj producers/sellers after Sessions letter. Now CA is thinking of starting a state bank for mj. So not only did it hurt mj it has given rise to more socialism. Thanks Jeff.

    http://reason.com/blog/2018/01.....o-create-a

  • Robert||

    But do you think those banks ended those relationships because of the Sessions letter (which was not a letter particularly to banks)?

  • Billy Bones||

    As a marijuana advocate, and frequent imbiber, I cannot disagree with this issue being left up to the individual states (except for the fact that I reside in Georgia, arguably one of the last states in the Union that would even consider legalization (side note: I live in the largest county in Georgia and we are still by law a dry county)), but I do have one major issue. There is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that what I can do without repercussions in Colorado can cost me my job, my family, and my freedom in Georgia, for engaging in the exact same activity. Either something is good or it is bad, but it CANNOT be good in one state, but bad in another.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I bet the Reason GA meetups with you, shreek, SIV, and lc1789 are a hoot.

  • Eidde||

    "The Obama administration's effort to provide sensible guidelines to U.S. attorneys, although well-intentioned..."

    Was unconstitutional no matter how you slice it. If you think the MJ laws are constitutional, then it violated the President's duty to faithfully execute the laws (not *fitfully* execute the laws). If the MJ laws are unconstitutional, then the policy was unconstitutional because it enforced the MJ laws at all.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Faith-based infiltration of government per the George Waffen Bush EO is spreading. Yesterday's São Paulo newspapers reported that with no public debate (thanks to lots of local mentoring by America's CIA, FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG and Prohibition Party) Brazil's Christian national socialist junta is restarting an all out shooting war on plant leaf products.

  • working poor||

    I am for it being made legal. I am also for voting out congress critters who don't get behind it.

  • Tekxpertt||

    Congress has been dealing with the issue in a temporary and inadequate way since 2001. Which is more efforts to force the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify marijuana could also be fleeting. zte router customer service

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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