Politicians have a tendency to be honest about difficult issues only when they are leaving or have already left office:
ENDING the consumption and the trafficking of illegal drugs is “impossible”, according to Felipe Calderón, Mexico’s outgoing president. In an interview with The Economist Mr Calderón, whose battle with organised crime has come to define his six years in office, said that countries whose citizens consume drugs should find “market mechanisms” to prevent their money from getting into the hands of criminals in Latin America.
In an interview recorded last month for this week’s special report on Mexico, Mr Calderón said: “Are there still drugs in Juárez [a violent northern border city]? Well of course, but it has never been the objective…of the public-security strategy to end something that it is impossible to end, namely the consumption of drugs or their trafficking…
“[E]ither the United States and its society, its government and its congress decide to drastically reduce their consumption of drugs, or if they are not going to reduce it they at least have the moral responsibility to reduce the flow of money towards Mexico, which goes into the hands of criminals. They have to explore even market mechanisms to see if that can allow the flow of money to reduce.
“If they want to take all the drugs they want, as far as I’m concerned let them take them. I don’t agree with it but it’s their decision, as consumers and as a society. What I do not accept is that they continue passing their money to the hands of killers.”
It would be nice if the administration of a second-term Democratic president could find the balls to at least reclassify cannabis as a Schedule 3 or 4 drug. It is not as dangerous as LSD or as addictive as heroin, and it does have some medicinal purposes. Some examples of Schedule 3 drugs: Vicodin, Special K, anabolic steroids. Some examples of Schedule 4 drugs: Xanax, Valium, Halcion.
A Schedule 1 drug is supposed to have no medical use and be so dangerous that it cannot even be taken safely with medical supervision. It’s also supposed to have a high potential for abuse. I think heroin belongs in that category but it is impossible to see how marijuana can belong in it.
A reclassification of cannabis doesn’t require an act of Congress. The administration can do it unilaterally if they feel the drug is currently misclassified.
It’s kind of like refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court because you’ve come to believe that the law is unconstitutional. Only you have even more justification for changing how you treat the law because Congress has already ceded the power to classify drugs to the Executive Branch.
Get it done, Obama.
Would that action be sufficient or are there federal criminal laws that specifically itemize marijuana? It still is using or selling a controlled substance or acting or driving under the influence of a controlled substance.
Does reclassification require the President’s signature?
Would that action be sufficient or are there federal criminal laws that specifically itemize marijuana?
There used to be specific laws to marijuana, but in the 1960’s all previous drug laws were bottled into one: The Controlled Substances Act. So no, there are no laws itemizing marijuana, or any other drug (that I know of). Any other “laws” passed are rolled into this. Kinda like Medicare Part D being rolled into the overall Medicare system.
Does reclassification require the President’s signature?
Yes and no. Congress can do it on their own, which is then signed by the president (Barney Frank and Ron Paul’s bill, for instance); the Attorney General can do it on his/her own, but acts in the interest of the president.
The Controlled Substance Act was 1970, but obviously worked on prior to that date.
Also, rescheduling would NOT make it legal to use recreationally. That would still be illegal.
Would making it a schedule 3 or 4 drug allow Coloradans for example to obtain Medical Marijuana legally?
Yes. It would make it legal in many states that don’t even explicitly state it anyway, because a lot of states don’t have their own laws on the books: they simply say, “See the Federal Law regarding this.”
Believe it or not, it’s decriminalized in Mississippi.
…elegant solution to the problem.
And maybe using science as the guide would be the way to go, such as using this major study done in the UK that found (contra Booman) that cannabis and LSD have among the lowest harm of currently-illegal drugs. (They didn’t consider everything in the UK study, but this is consistent with numerous scientific findings that psychedelics in general don’t have the same physical harm or abuse potential as depressants or stimulants. Still, LSD in particular has the potential to harm certain individuals.)
Btw, once you hear Michael Pollan talk about cannabis, it really changes how you think about how we decide our drug policy in general (even though that’s not his aim).
Also Ecstasy:
NYT: ecstasy treatment for post traumatic stress shows promise
and psilocybin:
Psychedelic chemical subdues brain activity
And this study from Johns Hopkins on the benefits of a single use of mushrooms.
“it would be nice if….a second term democratic could find the balls….”
MAHAHAHA!
Sorry, but having a pair is not Obama’s strong suit.
The power to issue pardons and clemency is arguably the greatest power a president has. Its where people can see their empathy for human injustice and suffering. It is also where a reassessment of drug laws would start. How does Obama do here? Not so good;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/obama-presidential-pardons_n_870431.html
One out of fifty that have come before him, and the only two so far this year? Two turkeys.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/02/barack-obama-is-pardoning-fewer-people-t
Someone with that record is unlikely to use Executive power to adjust drug laws.
.
We should revisit the history of the 18th and 21st Amendments for a reminder of the same scenario relating to alcohol.
Prohibition did little to dry out Americans; it only put a lot of cash into the pockets of organized criminals and quite a few political figures as well. IMHO, alcohol abuse is a much larger social problem than pot. We’ve tried throwing a gazillion bucks at the weed prohibition issue and its time the madness stopped. IncarcerationCo will not be pleased, however.
My High School history teacher claimed that alcohol consumption went up after prohibition because going to the speakeasy was socially “in”. And that it dropped after repeal.
The two groups that are most against an end to prohibition are 1) the dealer chain and 2) the prohibitionista industrial complex — the U.S. spends $ billions on this “war”, and many municipalities make a decent buck in the “war loot” confiscation racket. What would the DEA and BATF do with 85% of their workforces? Not to mention the prison industry filled with drug war criminals.
Hell, this itself would be its own Fiscal Cliff issue — Krugman would have a cow over the end of the drug war costing so many jobs since blowing cash on broken windows is always better than leaving it with those who actually use it to improve the national standard of living.
Is there a Schedule 5? Because marijuana should not be compared to Xanax. Xanax is physically addictive and as tolerance is built up higher doses are required for the same result. Rapid withdrawal can cause dangerous side-effects. Trying to quit it cold turkey can kill you.
OTOH, you don’t build up a tolerance to marijuana that requires you to imbibe more to get the same degree of relaxation. And the only withdrawal symptoms are psychological as in, “Oh shit, I need to find a new dealer. Who can I trust to ask?”
Legalize a weed and let me grow my own.
There is, but it’s extremely small and limited. And considering Tetrahydrocannabinol is scheduled as a Schedule III, it’s unlikely to go to Schedule 5 (or even Schedule 4 for that matter).
Still, Tetrahydrocannabinol was Schedule 2, and then rescheduled even lower. So in the future, perhaps.
Or you could do what we did to alcohol and tobacco: exempt it altogether from the CSA and deal with it in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code.
I’ve looked at the studies and it’s not clear that cannabis is as non-addictive / harmless as you portray it, but it is certainly one of the least harmful of drugs out there. (I’d put it in the same category as caffeine.)
Well, it looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue, but this ain’t gonna happen.
I don’t see how that would help. Even if it’s reduced to a prescription drug, like xanax, it’s still going to have a vigorous black market.
In fact, right now it’s prescription drugs that are the most abused in this country.
I see no way out of this without full legalization for over 21’s, regulating and taxing it.
Given that the science (most of it pursued outside the US due to our idiotic laws) is pretty unequivocal that cannabis is not even remotely similar to, say, heroin, it would be nice if the Obama administration would take to heart the results of the recent election.
You know, the one in which the country emphatically rejected a political philosophy in which ideology and self-interest overrides science and reality. In which a whole lot of voters said that “because I want it to be true” is not a rational or acceptable basis for enormously destructive public policies.
Right. Fat chance.
“Schedule 3 drugs: Vicodin, Special K, anabolic steroids.”
Pardon, got to head out the supermarket and score me some Special K for breakfast.
(which probably just reveals my not-with-it state of knowledge; and besides, I prefer Chex)
If rationality ruled, then the example of Prohibition, and the objective data on drug effects would have long ago legalized a variety of drugs. But, clearly, drug-induced delusions are so powerful that they affect even non-users.
Is it legal to sell homeopathic marijuana? Someone with ‘flexible’ ethics should find out.
Homeopathic marijuana would be marihuana in name only, so I think, yes.
One doesn’t know, till one is a bit at odds with the world, how much one’s friends who believe in one rather generously, mean to one. ~D.H. Lawrence
sherwani
I can’t think of any commonly abused drug which should be Schedule 1. Heroin is just a pro-drug of morphine (inert on its own, converted to morphine in the body) and is pretty much equivalent – actually somewhat superior on side effects. Meth is IMO the worst for abuse and its active ingredient is actually Schedule 2 (properly, I think).
Marijuana as Schedule 1 is particularly ridiculous as it’s a good candidate for least problematic recreational drug. It’s certainly better than alcohol or tobacco.
Why did Obama bust the medical marijuana industry? Bush managed to ignore it for 8 years. It seems a completely unforced move, as it was not on the radar as an issue at that moment. And it was an FU to some of his own supporters.
So is he going to change now? I don’t see it. I guess he is concerned with American competitiveness, or else he just doesn’t want to take on any political liability over this. Either way, that doesn’t get you to yes.
This is wrong. For one, the dispensaries weren’t widespread under Bush. For two, there wasn’t widespread production like there is now. Obama has only really challenged California — as he said he would on the campaign trail. California is pot-anarchy right now. Has he done much of anything in New Mexico or Colorado? Not that I’ve seen. If California instituted a medical system like that of Colorado, I bet he’d have treated them the same.
Obama and Holder stated repeatedly that federal enforcement would be limited to operations that violated “both” federal and state law. To wit:
“During a March 22, 2008 interview with Gary Nelson, editorial page editor for the
Oregon newspaper Mail Tribune, Barack Obama stated: “What I’m not going to be doing is using
Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want
folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We’ve got a lot of things for our
law enforcement officers to deal with.”1
In a February 5, 2009 article in The Washington Times, White House spokesman Nick
Shapiro said, “The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent
state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal
government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind.”2
When asked during a press conference on February 25, 2009 if recent raids on medical
marijuana providers in California represented American policy going forward, U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder responded, “No. What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be
surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing in law enforcement. He was my
boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said
during the campaign is now American policy.”3
On March 18, 2009, during a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice
Department, Holder clarified his previous statement. He said, “The policy is to go after those
people who violate both federal and state law … Given the limited resources that we have, our
focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of
marijuana and doing so in a way that’s inconsistent with federal and state law.”4
In October 2009, Holder’s stated policy was memorialized in a memo written by then
Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden to United States attorneys in states with medical
marijuana programs. The memo said that law enforcement efforts targeting drug manufacturing
and trafficking should not “focus federal resources . . . on individuals whose actions are in clear
and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”5 The Ogden memo provided a list of characteristics of “illegal drug trafficking
activity of potential federal interest,” which included sales to minors, violence, ties to other
criminal organizations, and unlawful possession of firearms.
New Mexico’s first licensed producer was licensed 2009, and U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder was specifically asked about the federal government’s take. He said, “For those
organizations that are doing so sanctioned by state law and do it in a way that is consistent with
state law, and given the limited resources that we have, that will not be an emphasis for this
administration.”6
During a May 10, 2010 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman
Jared Polis (D-CO) asked Attorney General Holder, “Do you believe — do you agree that
statements that could be reasonably taken as threatening to businesses that are legal in our state
are, in fact, contrary to your stated policy?” Holder replied, “Well, again, if the entity is, in fact,
operating consistent with state law, and is not — does not have any of those factors involved that
are contained in that Deputy Attorney General memo, and given, again, the limited resources that
we have and our determination to focus on major traffickers, that would be inconsistent with what
the policy as we have set it out.”7″
There have been busts in at least nine states, including Colorado.
Also why you should expect them to tread carefully: conventional wisdom is shifting, and rapidly. So rapidly that you could see marijuana decriminalization by 2016:
Washington Post Calls on Obama to Leave Colorado and Washington Marijuana Laws Alone
Erm, decriminalization endorsed* (not passed)
Regarding legalization, not just decriminalization, Kevin Drum sees another problem:
Not quite. The States are precluded from being a party to an international treaty by the U.S. Constitution. The Federal government can not force the States to adopt laws that they don’t like. It’s not even that cut and dried. Switzerland is in compliance with the treaties despite having limited legalization of heroin.
Furthermore, the only countries who really want to uphold the treaty are the UK, the US, and maybe Sweden. The rest hold tepid support and only because the US exerts substantial pressure. If the US falls, the rest of the world will join.