Pot May Become Legal in California

In November, California voters will decide whether to decriminalize small quantities of marijuana possession:

The initiative would allow adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce for personal use. Possession of an ounce or less has been a misdemeanor with a $100 fine since 1975, when Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who was then governor, signed a law that reduced tough marijuana penalties that had allowed judges to impose 10-year sentences. Legalization supporters note that misdemeanor arrests have risen dramatically in California in the last two decades. The initiative would also allow adults to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana per residence or parcel.

The law would also authorize local governments to permit and tax marijuana-related commerce:

But the measure, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, goes further, allowing cities and counties to adopt ordinances that would authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana, which could be taxed to raise revenues. It's this feature of the initiative that supporters hope will draw support from voters who are watching their local governments jettison employees and programs in the midst of a severe budget crisis.

As always, November will be interesting in California.

California Voters May Not Like Same-Sex Marriage, But They Love Pot!

According to an article in the Washington Post, the legalization of "medical" (wink) pot is making the use of marijuana a "mainstream" practice among residents of California. Even though California is more conservative than Iowa on the issue of same-sex marriage, residents in the Golden State can smoke pot with abandon -- so long as they get a doctor's note.

With little notice and even less controversy, marijuana is now available as a medical treatment in California to almost anyone who tells a willing physician he would feel better if he smoked.

Pot is now retailed over the counter in hundreds of storefronts across Los Angeles and is credited with reviving a section of downtown Oakland, where an entrepreneur sells out classes offering "quality training for the cannabis industry. . . ."

It really is that easy, the barker explains. Before being allowed to enter the upstairs dispensary and "smoking lounge," new customers are directed first to the physician's waiting room, presided over by two young women in low-cut tops. After proving state residence and minimum age (21), customers see a doctor in a white lab coat who for $150 produces a "physician's recommendation."

Valid for one year, it is all that California law requires to purchase and smoke eight ounces legally.

"I told him I had problems with my knee," said Joe Rizzo, 31, emerging from an examination recently with a knowing grin and a renewed card.

Outside the Blue Sky Coffee Shop in Oakland, Ritz Gayo clutched an eighth of Blue Dream ($44) and tried to remember the nature of his complaint.

"Um, my back," said Gayo, 20. He went on to recite a partial list of symptoms suggested in newspaper ads: "Chronic back pain and the rest, like everyone else," he said. "Non-sleeping. Can't eat very much.

"That, and I love pot."

Before I provoke the rage of my pot-advocate readers: I am not endorsing re-criminalization. Instead, I think it is fascinating that voters in the state were so incensed over gay people marrying each other that they rushed to amend the state constitution to deny equal protection. At the same time, voters have shaped California law to defy national "morality" over the issue of drugs and criminality. Am I wrong -- or is that an interesting contrast?

Obama's Pot Comment Has Andy Sullivan In a Lather

I guess Obama can do something to upset Andrew Sullivan after all. During his online townhall meeting, Obama rejected, with a giggle, the notion that legalizing pot would translate into gobs of tax revenue and jobs. Sullivan is not amused.

Sorry, Andy, but I'm with the President on this one. People often strain to fit their desire to smoke pot into politically mainstream policies like access to health care (medicinal marijuana) or economic growth and development (taxing pot). Why not advocate decriminalization on its own merits? If you want to light up a joint, make the case for doing so. But I imagine that most people who smoke pot are not relieving arthritis pain, and they probably do not want to pay a sales tax in order to enjoy their high.

New Medical Pot Mystery

President Obama indicated during his campaign that he disfavored the prosecution of medical pot usage and distribution. He also said he would not use his office to "circumvent" state law on the issue. After he became president, however, the DEA raided medical pot dispensaries in California, which led to political protests.

Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder caused a major buzz among medical pot advocates when he announced that Obama's campaign promise had already become policy. According to the L.A. Times, two days after Holder's comment, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California (which includes Los Angeles) directed prosecutors not to pursue any more criminal charges against medical pot dispensaries. A few days later he abruptly ordered prosecutors to resume business as usual:

The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles sent a confidential memo to prosecutors last week ordering them to stop filing charges against medical marijuana dispensaries, then abruptly lifted the ban on Friday, according to sources familiar with the developments.

U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O'Brien declined comment on what prompted him to issue the directive or to later rescind it.

O'Brien's decision to temporarily halt the prosecutions came two days after remarks by Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, who seemed to imply at a Washington, D.C., press conference that medical marijuana prosecutions would not be a priority for the Justice Department under President Obama.

A Justice Department official said Friday that the attorney general did not direct O'Brien or any other U.S. attorney to alter policies regarding the prosecution of such cases.

My Take
I have always assumed that if Obama moved on this matter, he would do so in a subtle fashion. The original memorandum from the United States Attorney, however, was very open and explicit -- even though it was "confidential" (so confidential that the L.A. Times presumably has a copy of it).

A formal policy of nonenforcement will excite proponents of decriminalization. But an explicit policy would also generate vocal criticism from "law and order" types who fear liberalization of drug laws and who do not agree with a president declining to enforce an entire category of federal criminal law.

Furthermore, the threat of prosecution of medical pot users and distributors could serve as tool for enforcing other crimes -- in particular, nonmedical usage of pot. For that reason, many prosecutors probably do not want an explicit policy of nonenforcement, which would constrain their options unless it included exceptions for certain circumstances. I do not know if this analysis explains the mystery behind the conflicting memoranda, but it seems plausible.

Pot Users Lose High After Obama Administration Continues Medical Pot Raids

Pot users were enthusiastic when Obama signaled during the Democratic primaries that he disfavored criminalization of medical marijuana and that he would not use federal drug laws to go after users and suppliers of pot for medicinal purposes. But now that the Drug Enforcement Agency has raided several medical pot centers in California, pro-pot activists are smoking. Several protestors gathered in Los Angeles earlier this week and urged Obama to follow through with his campaign promises.

White House spokesperson Nick Shapiro signaled a potentially new direction in federal drug enforcement policy, once Obama finishes appointing new personnel to the DEA:

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. . . .

Critics, however, argue that Holder, whom the Senate has already confirmed, could stop the raids. But I think that medical pot advocates should also read the fine print. Shapiro stated that Obama would appoint people whom he "expects" to "review" existing policy. Furthermore, even if he does not want to "circumvent state laws" on the subject, federal law prohibits the possession and distribution of marijuana, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the government could apply those restrictions against medical pot usage as well (and liberals dominated the majority decision). Furthermore, during the Democratic primaries, Obama told the Mail Tribune that:

As for medical marijuana . . . I think the basic concept of using medical
marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs
prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate. I'm not going to be
using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this
issue.

But marijuana does not have the "same controls as other drugs" because the FDA has not approved it, and the U.S. government has argued that medical marijuana is often used for recreational purpose (what a shocker) and not for treating actual medical conditions. I suspect that Obama will, at most, quietly deemphasize the enforcement of drug policy against medical pot distributors and users. He probably will not seek changes to federal drug legislation or issue an executive order on the subject, however, which would leave persons in possession of pot vulnerable to federal criminal charges.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Doctor, Pass the Bong! States Continue to Consider Medical Pot Laws Despite Federal Ban

Michigan, Massachusetts and Marijuana