In the Drug War, Drugs are Winning

[Don]

In anticipation of California's November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana, Steve Chapman restates the case (http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/29/in-the-drug-war-drugs-are-winn) for legalization.

By now, it should be clear that using force to wipe out the drug trade is a task on the order of bailing out the Atlantic Ocean with a teaspoon. Law enforcement can interdict shipments and imprison dealers, but the success is invariably short-lived.

Each seized cargo is an opportunity for another seller to fill the gap. Each arrested trafficker is an invitation for a competitor to grab his business. The more vigorous and successful the law enforcement campaign, the higher the prices drug suppliers can command—and the more people will be enticed to enter the market. It's a self-defeating process.
...
There has always been a demand for mind-altering substances, and there always will be. That's why, despite all the resources the U.S. government has expended on locking up sellers and their customers, drug use is higher today than it was two decades ago.

Prohibition is no match for the obstinacy and ingenuity of many human beings. Iran has a repressive theocratic regime that imposes severe penalties for using and selling drugs—including death by hanging. Yet it has one of the highest rates of addiction in the world.

Will the Californians pass the initiative? What will be FedGov's response if they do?

[Zoombie]

Well, I hope they get rid of the war on drugs. It seems like a giant black hole of money to me.

That is, it is a black hole that sucks up money, not...a...black hole MADE of money.

[Shadow_Ferret]

We need more firepower.

[Noah Body]

More like we need more taxable items!

[LOG]

I wrote a post awhile back that I think touches on this.
Main point is that wars on social problems are notoriously difficult to wage, and for the most part, not very feasible.
Original post here. (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4622347&postcount=1)

[Don]

I'm really curious about the questions I asked in the OP.

Will the Californians pass the initiative? Prior to the Prop 8 vote, I held the flyover country opinion that the state was full of liburals and the vote was a slam-dunk. Obviously, assuming this vote will be a cakewalk would be a big mistake.

What will be FedGov's response if they do? Would FedGov have the manpower to actually do anything about it? Sanctions or fund withholding of some sort, perhaps?

[Zoombie]

I dunnkow, I've seen a lot of support for legalizing pot in my college.

But...that's college.

[rugcat]

I'm really curious about the questions I asked in the OP.

Will the Californians pass the initiative? Prior to the Prop 8 vote, I held the flyover country opinion that the state was full of liburals and the vote was a slam-dunk. Obviously, assuming this vote will be a cakewalk would be a big mistake.

What will be FedGov's response if they do? Would FedGov have the manpower to actually do anything about it? Sanctions or fund withholding of some sort, perhaps?I don't think they will.

Having a revenue stream for the state is appealing, since it's in financial crisis, but the bad economy is also making people uneasy, fearful, and not at all prone favor radical changes. (See health care bill) The marijuana initiative just adds one more uncertainty to their already overloaded plates. And the Feds reaction would be still another unknown.

So I think that although the majority of people in CA are theoretically in favor of legalization, when it comes down to stepping up and actually voting for it, they're going to balk.

[blacbird]

I don't live in CA, so no firsthand knowledge of how the campaign is going. But I'd venture that it will fail, by a narrow margin. One reason is that the political Right in CA, while not in a majority, is dominated by religious social conservatives who are about as far from libertarian on this issue as it's possible to be. They'll turn out big to vote it down.

caw

[robeiae]

Is it just me, or does the thread title sound like the opening line for a new Law and Order spinoff?

Law and Order: Vice Squad

We can watch a way-too-attractive detective and her living-on-the-edge partner run stings to nab people for having a joint...

[clintl]

I agree with rugcat. I'll vote for it, but I think it will lose this time.

[MattW]

If drugs are outlawed only outlaws will have drugs!


Also, I seriously suspect that California is nowhere near as liberal as people think. It's probably that the conservatives have either been conditioned to keep quiet or shown how ineffective their votes are for the mundane, uninteresting things. It's only when a serious social question comes up that they get off their butts.


Not that it wouldn't be a great boon for the CA economy to legalize pot, and a great precedent for other states to recognize futility of fighting, and the reality of personal liberty (while making a buck).

[Slushie]

In anticipation of California's November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana, Steve Chapman restates the case (http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/29/in-the-drug-war-drugs-are-winn) for legalization.

Will the Californians pass the initiative? What will be FedGov's response if they do?

I'm really curious about the questions I asked in the OP.

Will the Californians pass the initiative? Prior to the Prop 8 vote, I held the flyover country opinion that the state was full of liburals and the vote was a slam-dunk. Obviously, assuming this vote will be a cakewalk would be a big mistake.

What will be FedGov's response if they do? Would FedGov have the manpower to actually do anything about it? Sanctions or fund withholding of some sort, perhaps?

I was pretty much floored when Prop 8 didn't pass in California, but I guess it upholds the theory that a threatened voter is a scared voter and a scared voter is a motivated voter.

So I'm not holding much hope that MJ will get legalized in Cali. These damn youngsters with their pots aren't really known for being motivated.

If the proposition does pass, though, I'm thinking it will be challenged by the Feds, and become an interesting SCOTUS case. The Feds might also withhold funding for certain programs, although I don't know which programs that would be. I've heard--but don't know if it's true--that if a state lowers the drinking age below twenty-one then the Feds would stop funding that state's interstate-highway maintenance, or something like that, I think.

[benbradley]

I was pretty much floored when Prop 8 didn't pass in California, but I guess it upholds the theory that a threatened voter is a scared voter and a scared voter is a motivated voter.

So I'm not holding much hope that MJ will get legalized in Cali. These damn youngsters with their pots aren't really known for being motivated.
No doubt a lot won't vote, though some pot smokers are so responsible they even have jobs. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to register to vote and to vote.
If the proposition does pass, though, I'm thinking it will be challenged by the Feds, and become an interesting SCOTUS case.
The Feds don't have to challenge it. I'm thinking all they have to do is enforce the Federal laws.

Didn't the Obama administration call off Federal raids on California "medical marihuana" places? I recall something like that. While Obama is unlikely to dismantle the DEA, it's easy to see this administration having a more liberal view of drug laws, and of that having an influence.
The Feds might also withhold funding for certain programs, although I don't know which programs that would be. I've heard--but don't know if it's true--that if a state lowers the drinking age below twenty-one then the Feds would stop funding that state's interstate-highway maintenance, or something like that, I think.
Federal Highway Funds are tied to probably more stuff than I can think of. Speed limits come immediately to mind, but a quick search brings up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage#United_States_of_America
The legal age for purchase or possession (but not necessarily consumption) [of alcoholic beverages] in every state has been 21 since shortly after the passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984, which tied federal highway funds to states' maintaining a minimum drinking age of 21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%E2%80%93Lautenberg_amendment
The Solomon-Lautenberg amendment is a 1991 law that requires U.S. states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) to impose a mandatory six-month drivers license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drivers_license) suspension for drug offenses, or face loss of federal highway funds. States are allowed to pass legislation opting out of this.
Dunno what that last part is about. Why have such a federal law if states can opt out?

Anyway. this has been one big thing by which Congress controls the states (this state of affairs is dlrectly tracable to the 17th Amendment which emasculated whatever power the States had, but that's a different rant).

But this isn't even needed, as there's still a Federal law against possessing, growing, using, buying, selling, etc. marijuana. But again, the question would be whether it gets enforced in California.

[Don]

But this isn't even needed, as there's still a Federal law against possessing, growing, using, buying, selling, etc. marijuana. But again, the question would be whether it gets enforced in California.
I think the point here is that state and local cops tend to cooperate and assist in enforcement of federal laws. Without that support, I don't think the Feds have enough LEOs to run around California chasing all the pot smokers.

[Dommo]

The thing is, if California can legalize a large portion of the drugs business, they might generate enough cash to offset whatever the Feds might do to penalize them. It could be an interesting situation.

[whistlelock]

We need more firepower. We're gonna need a bigger boat.

[Don]

You can add Philadelphia (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100405_Philadelphia_to_ease_marijuana_penalty.ht ml?cmpid=41144277) to the list of those recognizing the futility of the drug war.
The city's new district attorney and the state Supreme Court are moving to all but decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use in an effort to unclog Philadelphia's crowded court dockets.

Under a policy to take effect later this month, prosecutors will charge such cases as summary offenses rather than as misdemeanors. People arrested with up to 30 grams of the drug - slightly more than an ounce - may have to pay a fine but face no risk of a criminal record.
The police, however, have no intention of cooperating.
Police have been briefed on the policy shift, but appear less than enthusiastic about it.

"We're not going stop locking people up," Lt. Frank Vanore, a police spokesman, said Friday. He said marijuana possession remained illegal.

"We're going to stop people for it. . . . Our officers are trained to do that," Vanore said. "Whether or not they make it through the charging process, that's up to the D.A. We can't control that. Until they legalize it, we're not going to stop."
It looks like there might be some profit in the idea, too.
The new approach could generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for the Philadelphia courts. While the amount has not been formally set, fines for minor drug possession would be $200 for first-time offenders and $300 for others.
The article also includes a brief note of similar situations in other jurisdictions.
Police and prosecutors in other cities and states have taken similar steps toward decriminalization or something approaching it. Several dozen cities have enacted "lowest law enforcement priority" ordinances, stipulating that police pursue such cases as a last resort.

Voters in Seattle approved a ballot question mandating this change in 2003. Since then, arrests for possessing small amounts of marijuana have fallen by three-quarters. In 2005, Denver voters approved an ordinance legalizing possession of less than an ounce, or 28 grams. San Francisco passed a similar law in 2006.

Several states, too, have taken a softer stance on marijuana possession. For example, Massachusetts decriminalized marijuana in 2008, making it a civil offense and imposing a $100 fine for possession of less than an ounce.

[MattW]

Fines only or fines and confiscation?

Personally, I see putting people through the system for simple possession as a form of abuse of police power. They can't get you for anything serious, but they want to get you off the street, so possession it is.

[Plot Device]

Massachusetts opted for a very tame and agreeable way NOT to legalize pot but merely to make the crime of posession less of a life-destroyer. Durig the 2008 election we voted to allowed that the posession of pot would be tallied as a misdemeanor, giving cops leeway to just give someone a warnign and let them go. Cops all over Massachusetts admantly supported this measure because a lot of cops were sick of the mandatory ruining of the lives of 19 year old kids who had not a single offense to their name, not even a parking ticket.

Massachusetts passed that revision to the law with little argument.

Baby steps, people.


::ETA::

Ooops! I missed Don's post up above in Post #18 where he quotes the Massachusetts measure that was passed in 2008.

[kuwisdelu]

Personally, I see putting people through the system for simple possession as a form of abuse of police power. They can't get you for anything serious, but they want to get you off the street, so possession it is.

Frankly, I'm not surprised.

[Don]

MattW[/B] http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4829610#post4829610)]
Personally, I see putting people through the system for simple possession as a form of abuse of police power. They can't get you for anything serious, but they want to get you off the street, so possession it is.

Frankly, I'm not surprised.
How I yearn for the 60s, when you could tell a liberal by their concern over the police state. We'd have gone to the mats over the Patriot Act in the 1960s. People mostly yawned and went back to their video games.

[CheyElizabeth]

I think it should be legalized, but I also think it won't happen for a LONG long time. If ever.

When Cali couldn't pass the gay marriage thing, I was just blown away. It seemed like a no brainer, but it didn't pass, and I don't think pot will either.