Whatcha
Gonna Do?
The
marijuana legalization votes in Colorado and Washington have tongues wagging
across the country. And much of that
tongue-wagging centers on one question: “Hey, Feds, whatcha gonna do now? State legalization puts strong pressure on
federal attempts to maintain the War on Drugs, and none of their possible
responses would be effective.
The
government’s choices narrow down to about six, although these can be combined
or varied: 1) keep doing business as usual, 2) step in and try to enforce the
federal marijuana laws vigorously, 3) bow out and ignore marijuana activity in
these states, 4) treat the
legalizing states like foreign drug producers and seal their borders with other
states, 5) apply indirect pressures on bankers and landlords and stop federal
funds to these states, or 6) ask congress to amend the federal laws. None of these options provide the feds with a
rosy outlook.
Business
as usual looks like the best bet for the federal government. Except for concerns with cross-border
smuggling from Mexico (and to a lesser extent from Canada), marijuana is not on
the federal radar anyway. The dividing
line for federal actions against marijuana is normally ninety-nine plants, that
being the statutory threshold for applying the most severe sanctions. States have been expected to pursue any cases
involving smaller amounts. This strategy
has two major flaws. First, a large and
thriving commerce can develop operating under a hundred plant cap. Second, it would create an impression either
that the federal government is powerless to prevent marijuana commerce or that
it condones that trade.
The
feds can’t simply step in and close the gap by directly enforcing the federal
marijuana laws. They don’t have the
resources. The dirty little secret of
the Drug War is that the federal government has always relied on the states to
provide the manpower and resources to enforce the drug laws. The numbers tell the story. Each year about 1.5 million are arrested for
drug offenses, over half of them for marijuana crimes. Simple marijuana possession accounts for
around 800,000 of those. The federal
court system handles just over 14,000 criminal cases each year – and that
includes terrorism, bank robbery, kidnapping, and white collar crimes. Even a relatively low-population state like
Colorado will generate twice that number of cases each year. Only 480 federal trial judges are available
to handle these cases; and they have large civil dockets as well. DEA agents will not lurk on street corners
arresting teen agers holding a single joint.
The DEA has a total of around 5500 agents (including those stationed
abroad and those acting bureaucratically in Washington). This number is about the size of the Houston police
force. Teen-age stoners will become
octogenarian couch potatoes before the DEA can get around to arresting them.
On
the other hand, Colorado and Washington cannot just be ignored. Their
experiments might be successful. Rampant
drug abuse and crime might not occur.
They might save large amounts and law enforcement and garner massive tax
revenues. And if that happens and the
feds don’t slap them down, then the other forty-eight states will join the
stampede (several bills have already been filed in state legislatures in less
than a month.)
Surely
the feds can force them to keep their weed at home and not let it leak out to
the other states. Can they be treated
like drug-exporting countries like Colombia and Mexico? Some states are already complaining about
marijuana coming into their states from medical marijuana states like
California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado.
Legally grown marijuana from Colorado and Washington can severely
undercut the price of Mexican imports and improve on the quality as well. The 5500 DEA agents and 14,000 Border Patrol
agents have been unable to even slow down the flow from Mexico, and they will
have far fewer tools to prevent interstate traffic. Washington’s two long borders with Oregon and
Idaho and Colorado’s with Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and
Utah are almost as long as the Mexican border.
The border patrol and ICE has no jurisdiction over interstate movement
or commerce. Interstate borders cannot
be blocked with armored walls; and checkpoints and warrantless searches would
be unconstitutional. On the other hand,
increased interstate commerce in legalized marijuana should greatly crimp the
earnings and ability to do business of the Mexican cartels.
Indirect
enforcement would also be ineffective.
In California, Colorado, and Montana the DEA has attempted to use the
banking authorities to block marijuana businesses from using banks, tried
oppressive income tax enforcement, and brought forfeitures against
landlords. But banking limitations are
easily avoided and tax and forfeiture cases are so ponderous that, while they
are destructive to a few individuals, they have little effect on the business
overall and build public resentment.
While congress has pressured states into uniform drinking ages and speed
limits by threatening to withhold highway funding, strong constitutional
questions will arise if the feds try to withhold funds not related to the
problem they are trying to regulate.
The
feds could go to congress for help, but what could congress do? The Controlled Substances Act already pushes
the limits of congressional power under both the commerce and treaty
clauses. Under current circumstances
congress is unlikely to increase spending on drug law enforcement to any great
extent. The courts have already been
pushed to the limits on search and interrogation methods. About the only doors open to congress at this
point are those leading to a loosening of drug prohibition.
# # #
Somewhere in Washington a conference room window glows in
the midnight dark. Fluorescent glare
highlights a gleaming conference table littered with coffee cups, open law
books, and laptops. Tired men in
wrinkled suits with tussled hair and ties askew talk quietly or stare blankly
at the walls. I wish I were there so I
could ask: “Hey, Feds, whatcha gonna do now?”
Why would indirect pressure such as the IRS actions against landlords not be effective? From what I have those tactics actually have knocked out substantial amounts about supply-side market participants. Why would withholding funds such as the tactic re uniform speed limits not be effective? Sounds like the issue is that the statement by the voting populace shows that the policy is unpopular and therefore it is politically inexpedient to keep forcing it.
ReplyDeleteThreats against landlords are real and have freightened SOME landlords from the market. But while the absolute number of dispensaries has decreased, more than enough remain to satisfy the market.
ReplyDeleteThe major problem for the feds is that, even with the reduced burden of proof and streamlined procedure, forfeiture is clumsy, slow and expensive compared to a simple criminal process leading to a guilty plea. The DoJ and DEA simplydon't have the resources to bring a significant number of forfeiture actions.
You missed the obvious. The case pending in the D.C. Appeals Court to force the DEA to remove cannabis from Schedule One. I believe everything is on hold until this is decided. It would absolve everyone in government of the responsibiliy of moving against the states. It would require our criminal penalty statutes be changed or scrapped. It solves most problems and sets the stage for some sort of tax and regulate. Although, it would not be ex post facto, you would see our prisons begin to find ways to release the thousands of pot prisoners who never committed a crime against person or property. That's how it was done after prohibition was repealled.
ReplyDeleteThe ASA case is just a stale replay of the first three attempts at rescheduling.
DeleteBut, even if successful, it wouldn't change anything. Placing mj in Sched. II still leaves it a controlled substance and classifies it with morphine, OxyCotin, methadone, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and Ritalin.
Additionally, it would still be subject to FDA regulation, amking its sale without an approved label a criminal offense. And I know of no one willing to spend the $500 million or so and five to ten years that FDA approval requires.
The Fed should just repeal the law of 1938 that originally removed Cannabis from the drug store shelves due to pressure of bug pharma.
ReplyDeleteThe "drug" laws are insignificant in comparison to Cannabis vs. climate change
ReplyDeletehttp://californiacannabisministry.blogspot.com/2012/04/emergency-preparedness-response-and.html
The President could simply issue a directive to the DOJ not to pursue any criminal charges, or civil forfeitures, against state-compliant businesses. This would be a tacit acknowledgement of the states' Tenth Amendment rights.
ReplyDeletePlease look at my earlier post on the Tenth Amendment
Delete