- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Obama Administration Unfurls the Banner of Federalism
Today the Obama administration announced that Federal drug agents will no longer arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers who are in compliance with state law. The AP reports,
Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Libertarians are enthused. Nick Gillespie at Reason crows,
After several false starts, the Obama administration is making all the right noises on federal medical marijuana policy.... The devil is in the details, of course, and how the policy is enforced (or not). But it represents the most compassionate and sensible policy to come out of Washington in a very long time.
And Jonathan Adler of The Volokh Conspiracy notes the policy's federalist merits:
...assuming this is an accurate account of the guidelines, this is a positive step toward a more rational drug control policy and greater respect for state-level policymaking.
The Justice Department has to set prosecutorial priorities, as there are more federal crimes on the books than federal prosecutors can ever hope to prosecute. The aim should be to focus federal resources in those areas where there is a distinct federal interest, or where the federal government has a comparative advantage of state and local law enforcement.
Lastly, Glenn Greenwald claims that the decision represents a triumph for states' rights:
Beyond the tangible benefits to patients and providers, there is the issue of states' right. Fourteen states have legalized medical marijuana, many by referendum. The Bush administration's refusal to honor or even recognize those states' decisions -- by arresting people for doing things which are perfectly legal under state law -- was one of many examples giving the lie to the conservative movement's alleged belief in federalism and limited federal power (see here, for instance, how John Ashcroft and GOP Senators tried deceitfully and undemocratically to exploit the aftermath of 9/11 to prevent Oregon from implementing its assisted suicide law). Constitutionally and otherwise, what possible justification is there for federalizing decisions about whether individuals can use marijuana for medical purposes? Ironically (given the "socialism" and "fascism" rhetoric spewed at it by the Fox News faction), the Obama administration's decision is a major advancement for the rights of states to have their laws respected by the federal government.
A "major advancement"? There are two problems with this glee over the Obama administration's apparent newfound love for federalism.
The first is that the feds' own rationale for the decision is not based on the interpretation of the law but on the effectiveness of law enforcement. The Justice Department officials cited in the article said that they are making the change because arresting medicinal marijuana users "is not a good use" of their time. So states' rights, federalism, etc. doesn't enter the equation -- if it were a good use of their time, they'd continue prosecuting medical marijuana users and suppliers. Also, it seems like their language is contrived to leave plenty of loopholes.
The second is that even if this decision truly were made out of respect for states' rights, it seems like a sort of backward approach to federalism, as the administration is simultaneously pursuing numerous policies that would vastly increase the concentration of power in Washington, in areas far more consequential than medicinal marijuana. The obvious example is health care.
It is an odd kind of reform federalism that prizes the recognition of one of the most controversial and dubious of states' rights, i.e. the right to be potheads, while ignoring the trampling of other far more obvious rights, such as the right to choose the system that best delivers medical services. I don't think Obama should get any credit for libertarian or federalist tendencies until his actions comprise more than one scrap tossed to an unseemly faction of the federalist movement.
Comments
Leave a Comment
S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 11:03AM
"It is an odd kind of reform federalism that prizes the recognition of one of the most controversial and dubious of states' rights, i.e. the right to be potheads"
I don't understand why so many AmSpec writers rely so heavily on obfuscation and distortion. You think that's why cancer patients who cannot eat enough to keep themselves alive are prescribed medical marijuana? Because they want "to be potheads"?
If one has an honest argument to make, then make it. Distortions like this are disingenuous in the extreme and discredit the argument.
Joseph Lawler| 10.19.09 @ 11:27AM
S.L.: In that sentence I was referring to the marijuana legalization movement in general, not to the specific rules in question. Although I'm sure that there are cancer patients who would benefit from this measure, in general folks like Nick Gillespie want it to be legal for anyone to smoke weed for any reason -- to be potheads.
But I would also note that there is no doubt whatsoever that many, and probably most, of the medical marijuana purchasers, especially in California, are using prescriptions just to get high, and don't have cancer or other serious ailments.
S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 2:10PM
"In that sentence I was referring to the marijuana legalization movement in general, not to the specific rules in question"
I stand corrected, Mr. Lawler, and beg your pardon.
As I stated below, I believe per the 10th Amendment that marijuana is clearly a state issue, and that any move in that direction is progress, however weak. Do you discern any constitutional justification for the federal gov't regulating marijuana, or for waging the "War On Drugs" at all?
Brooksanne| 10.20.09 @ 2:11PM
Your question can be argued but the point is there are more pressing issues of freedom. Not to denigrate the importance of the drug wars, but just to prioritize...
S.L. Toddard| 10.20.09 @ 2:18PM
It is all part-and-parcel to the same issue, no? Gov't expanding far beyond its constitutional limitations.
MFay| 10.19.09 @ 11:58AM
Mr. Stoddard: When Abraham negotiated with the Lord's angel over the saving of Sodom if only 10 righteous people could be found within the city (bargaining Him down from 50), he was dealing with the only known entity CAPABLE of micromanagement. With all due respect and compassion for cancer patients I think Mr. Lawler has a different point to make than one about the now formerly "insensitive to pain-sufferers" federal power. Wisely, it is neither in the design nor capability of our federal government to micromanage anything. I would not have used the word "potheads" but it's not my article. At another time maybe you can treat us to a story of how the behavior (which after all always speaks louder than words) of dropping federal enforcement at this time flows from the same source as the rest of the liberal cultural and political establishment of which the current Administration is but the most recent expression of.
S.L. Toddard| 10.19.09 @ 1:00PM
I'm sorry, but I have neither the time nor the wherewithal to try and translate this gibberish. I have NO IDEA what you're trying to get across. Are you implying I believe the federal gov't should be "micromanaging" anything? I am a decentralist, a localist; a States Rights conservative. I believe all issues that are not, per the Consitution, federal concerns should be addressed at the state and local level - in fact, at the *most local level possible*, in keeping with the concept of subsidiarity. I believe the federal drug laws unconstitutional in their entirety, though (and I have to say this due to the tendency toward dichotomic thinking here) I am not advocating across-the-board legalization.
It is clearly a state issue, per the 10th Amendment, and any move in that direction is progress, however weak.
MattSwartz| 10.19.09 @ 11:17AM
The problem, Toddard, is that there's no good honest argument to be made against Medical Marijuana, but the people who subscribe to (and fund) AmSpec are stuck in a cold-war, anti-hippie mentality, so they see the issue through that lens rather than through any logical one.
I'm skeptical about the idea that the raids will truly end, for what it's worth. I think Obama's just trying to gain some political cover on the issue.
Even so, I can't see what's so conservative about spending Federal tax money to override the laws of a state on an issue that has literally nothing to do with the Federal government's constitutionally mandated role.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.19.09 @ 11:42AM
Mr. Lawler
Good essay. I think the whole thing is simply another distraction from this government's drive to dismantle free markets and a free people.
Hey, Obama has a new constituency. (smile)
Simple answer: get a prescription from a licensed MD.
MattSwartz| 10.19.09 @ 12:11PM
Ken,
I'm leery of that advice. I am fortunate enough not to need any medication (prescription, over-the-counter, or medicinal marijuana), but a lot of other people aren't so fortunate.
Many MM prescriptions are given out for chronic pain, while others are given out for anxiety. Now, that latter one might sound silly, but it should be remembered that there have never been any fatalities related to Marijuana use or the cessation of that use. The same cannot be said of anti-depressants, some of which have horrible side effects. Painkillers are much the same. Some are as addictive as heroin and wreak havoc on the bodies of people who take them.
There are things far more dangerous than Medicinal Marijuana that get approved by the FDA. Your "simple answer" is about blindly following authority. Ironically, that's just the approach Obamacare is trying to get you to take regarding your own health.
Tim| 10.19.09 @ 4:42PM
What good is MM? You can't sell something that any idiot can grow in his backyard or closet. No my friend, marijuana will not be ready for the market until we can turn it into a highly difficult to produce pill with one or two toxic side effects.
Margie| 10.19.09 @ 8:37PM
I think Obama already had that constituency! :^)
Pingback| 10.19.09 @ 12:45PM
Paging Willie Nelson… « Around The Sphere links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.19.09 @ 2:01PM
Q: Why is it a pipe dream for me to expect my mayor to enforce federal law? « DaTechg links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 10.19.09 @ 2:33PM
Potty you used to be such a wonderful scapegoat...
Pingback| 10.20.09 @ 1:58AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Administration Un links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick S.| 10.20.09 @ 3:06PM
Fred writes "the feds' own rationale for the decision is not based on the interpretation of the law but on the effectiveness of law enforcement."
This is exactly the argument against ANY form of drug war. Everyone knows that law enforcement can't practically prevent use of currently illegal drugs by people who want to use them badly enough. The risk associated with this activity (particularly with Marijuana) is acceptable to many citizens who wish to use it. I don't use any illegal drugs, by the way. I'm just saying that the war on drugs is unwinnable because there will always be people who want to self-medicate. What business of it is ours to tell them how they should do that? I suggest we legalize drugs immediately and use tax revenues generated to pay for treatment programs for abusers who commit crimes resulting from their use of drugs so we aren't flooding prisons with people who got caught with a little too much pot.
Mike from Montana| 10.20.09 @ 8:08PM
While marijuana may or may not be categorized as particularly threatening, much of the federal funding for the war on drugs is directed at foreign sources of so-called "hard" drugs produced under dictatorships or by warlords in third-world countries. While the desire to self-medicate isn't likely to go away anytime soon, we must address the impact of hard drugs on American citizens and the US economy - AND as a funding source for terrorism and oppressive dictatorships. While we can split hairs over what defines "hard drugs," marijuana is currently classified with other illegal drugs. Since suppliers often cross state lines and national boundaries, federal funding SEEMS to be appropriate.
Mike from Montana| 10.20.09 @ 9:43PM
While marijuana may or may not be categorized as particularly threatening, much of the federal funding for the war on drugs is directed at foreign sources of so-called "hard" drugs produced under dictatorships or by warlords in third-world countries. While the desire to self-medicate isn't likely to go away anytime soon, we must address the impact of hard drugs on American citizens and the US economy - AND as a funding source for terrorism and oppressive dictatorships. While we can split hairs over what defines "hard drugs," marijuana is currently classified with other illegal drugs. Since suppliers often cross state lines and national boundaries, federal funding SEEMS to be appropriate.