"Movin' Out"

The Political Agenda is moving! From now on, posts will be on Tumblr. All previous posts have been transferred to the Agenda's Tumblr account.

The new URL:
http://thepoliticalagenda.tumblr.com

Please be sure to visit the new, improved Agenda on Tumblr...

Goodbye Blogger!

"Megalomaniacal Munchies"

Marijuana Decriminalization Considered in R.I.
From Jointogether.org

February 8, 2010

A state Senate leader and the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) are pressing state lawmakers to decriminalize marijuana possession in Rhode Island, the Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 3.

Sen. Josh Miller, a local restaurant owner, heads a special legislative commission that is studying issues around marijuana prohibition and has held hearings on drug-policy reform, including decriminalization of small amounts of the drug. Miller said that Massachusetts' recent move to decriminalize marijuana, along with the argument that the policy shift would save the state money, have helped propel the debate.

Miller's panel recently took testimony from Jack Cole, a former narcotics officer who heads LEAP. Miller and Cole said that the key to their success could lie in convincing law-and-order politicians that pursuing marijuana offenders keeps police from preventing more serious crimes.

The Rhode Island District Attorney's office has told Miller's panel that decriminalization would not save the state any money and could take leverage away from police and prosecutors in pursuit of higher-level offenders.

Rhode Island’s consideration of the decriminalization of marijuana is a brazen action against the supremacy of federal policy. The cultural shift that has lead to a more liberal acceptance of marijuana for medical or even recreational purposes has prompted 13 other states to take similar actions. Under federal law, marijuana possession, use, and cultivation are illegal; it is classified under schedule one restriction – the most highly restricted class of drugs (which includes heroin, cocaine, etc.). In states that allow the usage of marijuana, users are able to partake in marijuana consumption because of lax federal enforcement of anti-cannabis laws. Under the recent Clinton and Bush administrations, prosecution of marijuana violations was common – a part of the overall “War on Drugs” policies. However, under the Obama administration there has been a movement away from strict enforcement of federal laws restricting marijuana in states that have decided to decriminalize the substance. Federal prosecutors have been directed to focus on high level drug trafficking, money laundering, and disruptive legal activity – while largely ignoring medical marijuana dispensaries and usage in states where it has been determined legal.

Even though the federal laws regarding the criminalization of cannabis are largely ignored as of late, the policy is still in existence, and is Constitutionally superior to any laws passed by states legalizing the substance. The supremacy clause of Article VI establishes that federal policies are the highest form of law in the US legal system, mandating that they remain upheld even if state laws conflict. The decriminalization of marijuana is essentially a direct violation of Article VI.

Despite the lack of federal action in enforcing the national policy, the US government has the capacity and Constitutional authority to punish these disorderly states. Potentially, the federal government could instate cross-over sanctions on any and all federal funding towards state programs in order to force preemption of new state decriminalization laws. Because the federal government is such a major source of funding for state governments, tightening the purse strings would inevitably result in massive budget shortages in the states. This would definitely be an effective tactic of establishing federal supremacy, although it could potentially have devastating effects on already struggling state economies. Another less callous way of retaliating against these states would be to bring charges against them in the court system, where the actions of the states would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional.

In the defense of Rhode Island and the other states that have moved towards the decriminalization of marijuana, it is debatable whether or not the federal government has the Constitutional authority to pass anti-cannabis legislation. Many would argue that it is a stretched interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling on Wickard v. Fillburn (1942) bloated federal power even more by blurring the lines between intrastate and interstate commerce.

Once upon a time in WWII-era Ohio, farmer Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression. Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted and was therefore ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his OWN use and was NOT selling it. The Supreme Court invoked the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce) deciding that because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the interstate market, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and could be regulated by the federal government. So basically, the federal government now had the power to regulate any and all trade, as long as it at least could POSSIBLY affect interstate markets... in other words, states lost major economic power.

Due to this “loose” interpretation of the Commerce clause of Article I, the federal government has the ability to declare marijuana sales within one state an influence on interstate trade, because of potential macroeconomic implications of pricing. So even if there is no sale of marijuana across state lines, it is still considered to fall under the scope of interstate trade, and can be regulated by the federal government. It is possible that states such as Rhode Island could challenge that weak constitutional argument by taking the issue up with the Supreme Court. But what seems more likely, is that the current leadership in Washington will continue to allow the policy to go informally unenforced until more states pass similar decriminalization legislation – and further shift the national opinion of a change in federal drug policy. However, if a new administration decides to enforce federal policies on cannabis; state governments, marijuana dispensaries, and cannabis consumers will all feel the effects of a steroidal federal government that has hacked away at states’ rights since FDR’s presidency.