Sanjay Gupta and Medicinal Marijuana

First Dr. Sanjay Gupta went public on CNN endorsing medicinal marijuana, claiming that the research shows that he was wrong to trust the reports of the DEA. Then prominent media outlets ran stories about a father in New Jersey who claims that medicinal marijuana is vital for his daughter and her severe form of epilepsy, and also discussed a medicinal marijuana bill on Governor Christi’s desk.

This indicates that the tide is definitely turning on the issue. Public support for medicinal marijuana or just marijuana in general has been rising to the point where it is difficult for the ruling class to ignore.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the medical mouthpiece of the establishment, would never have come out in favor of medicinal marijuana without knowledge that it would be safe for him to do so. Were the political establishment still firmly against marijuana in any form, Dr. Gupta would have been quickly discredited.

Instead of discrediting Dr. Gupta, a story was covered that supports medicinal marijuana. Several outlets covered the father and his attempt to get an answer out of Governor Christi, and Governor Christi’s non-committal answer.

There is still dissent, with Republicans generally on the side of leaving matters the way they are, but increasing Democratic support for the issue is revealed by the way the media is leading this issue. Like gay marriage, an issue that previously only libertarians were bold enough to take, eventually progressives and liberals caught up and are starting to fight on the same side as well.

They Should Be Allies

There was recently a gun buy-back program, sponsored by a medicinal marijuana dispensary. This is an interesting, if unfortunate event considering the common ground between those who believe in marijuana reform and protecting the second amendment.

It is a common enough occurrence, people who should be allies find themselves separated by party lines and the same underlying issue is divided between red and blue. Those who believe in ending the war on drugs are seldom the same people who believe in ending the war on guns, yet both are reacting against an overly strong federal government violating people's rights.

It is the same basic issue, self determination and the freedom to act in any way that doesn’t cause harm to others. Yet many liberals who support marijuana reform are terrified of firearms, and many conservatives who defend the second amendment are staunch opponents of drugs.

Not all liberals support drug reform, but it is within the allowable range of ideas for liberals. Likewise not all conservatives want to protect the second amendment, but it is within the allowable range of ideas. But support for gun liberty is not allowed for liberals and support for drug reform is not allowed for conservatives. Libertarians are once again completely outside the standard spectrum.

This is yet another in a long list of examples of how the two party system is designed to keep people apart from and opposed to each other. Natural allies lose sight of the common ground by the focus on specific issues as well as the great blinders of the red versus blue divide.

What Marijuana Legalization Lacks

The states of Washington and Colorado have gone farther on fighting against the drug war than other states have. Instead of merely legalizing medicinal marijuana, voters in those states have legalized marijuana. It does not matter if it is medicinal or recreational, it is legalized. Officials in the Justice Department are already figuring out what to do about this, how to enforce federal law in spite of the wishes of the voters. Elected officials in those states appear poised to cooperate with the Department of Justice.

This is, sadly, the fate of most marijuana legalization bills, whether medicinal or general. Federal lawyers argue in front of federal judges that the federal government’s drug policy preempts state drug legalization efforts, and the local police then cooperate on enforcing federal law when in the past they enforced both federal and state law.

There is one state where this is different. The statute in question isn’t a drug law, although it is a law where a state has asserted preemptive powers over the federal government through the tenth amendment. This would be Montana, and the subject of the dispute is in gun rights. While the law is winding its way through the court system, so far the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has not interfered in the state.

What made the state law special was a clause that instructed police to arrest federal officials attempting to enforce federal laws on those firearms covered by the state law.

That clause should be strengthened. Not only should the police be instructed to arrest, the district attorneys in the state shall be instructed to try the case and to not drop charges, the state judges should be instructed to deny any arguments based on federal preemption or immunity, and the law should include mandatory minimum sentences.

This clause is more likely to happen on firearms legislation than on marijuana legislation, which is unfortunate because it is needed in both. Libertarians cannot carry the whole burden of getting these initiatives to the ballot, and therefore need allies. Those who advocate firearm liberty are more likely to be friendly to tenth amendment arguments than are those who advocate marijuana liberty, even though both are making the same tenth amendment argument.

It is therefore unlikely that a marijuana legalization ballot initiative will have a shall arrest state supremacy clause, which is unfortunate because that is exactly what those initiatives need. If enough drug warriors are put in cells with the same drug users they helped to arrest, it might actually cause them to rethink the drug war as a whole, and it would become a true turning point in the war on drugs.

California Proposition 19

When discussing voting, the point was made that there is a good side and a bad side to every ballot proposition. That is actually an exaggeration, as some ballot propositions are procedural and have no impact on individual liberty. Examples of this are California's 2010 propositions 20 and 27 which address redistricting, which the Libertarian Party of California has taken no position on.

Then there are complex measures, which have positive features and negative features. Those require more careful analysis, to determine whether the overall effect of the proposition is more beneficial than harmful. An example of that is Proposition 19, which has caused debate in libertarian circles.

Of course the purist argument is that "legalize it and tax it" contains three unnecessary words, that all that should be needed is "legalize it." In a perfect world a simple "legalize it" would be on the ballot, but the absence of a perfect proposition shouldn’t deter people from analyzing whether Proposition 19 is worth voting for.

So is Proposition 19 more beneficial than baleful?

According to Ballotpedia if Proposition 19 passes then the laws are greatly loosened. Persons over the age of 21 will be able to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana.

It does not address federal activities, and it is theoretically possible that local police could ignore this law by working with federal law enforcement. An unnoticed criticism of Proposition 19 is that, like 10th Amendment resolutions, it lacks teeth. Many police and district attorneys are against Proposition 19, and while they will be unable to directly act against small marijuana users they can always encourage cooperation with the DEA.

Overall though it is a step in the right direction. Not a full step, not a perfect step, but definitely in the right direction. Given how few steps there are in any good direction, this is definitely worth supporting.

Who would be hurt by ending the drug war

A friend actually requested this article. The economic dislocations of ending the drug war is one reason that she cannot yet back doing so. She wanted this issue explored farther.

Momentum is growing to legalize some drugs, which is good. So what will it mean if drugs are legalized?

In terms of abuse, it is unlikely that matters will change significantly in terms of general usage. The ending of prohibition provides an object lesson in that as consumption of alcohol changed very little once prohibition was repealed. If anything the damage will be lessened the way the damage of alcohol was lessened due to the introduction of quality and price competition.

But the real area of focus is in how the economy will be impacted by the ending of drug prohibition.

Government statistics show that a significant portion of the prison population is "non-violent drug offenders." It's not the best indicator, as the best is "victimless drug offenders." A victimless drug offender only includes those involved in purchase, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and conspiracy to purchase, sell, possess, or use drugs. Non-violent drug offender can include those who steal without hurting anyone. "Victimless" also includes money launderers from the drug sales.

It's also often reported that the prisons are overcrowded. Releasing the victimless drug offenders will reduce overcrowding by a significant amount. This will bring a recession into the prison construction industry, but those in that industry can apply their talents to constructing other buildings.

This will also significantly reduce the role of any police involved in drug enforcement, from city and county level up to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Those on the city and county level, where most laws are enforced, will be able to turn their attention to crimes that actually have victims. In an ideal world police reports about drug enforcement mean that all other crimes have been solved. In this world those reports mean that time is being taken away from all other crimes.

It is at the level of the Drug Enforcement Agency where real changes will be seen. Taking just marijuana off the enforcement list alone will reduce the need for their operations enough to cut both budget and jobs.

This could result in unemployment among drug enforcement agents. Many of them could transfer to other departments within law enforcement. Given that all of them are already tax consumers instead of wealth producers, switching them from drug enforcement to welfare recipient merely switches numbers from one column to another.

Plus it enriches everyone else because even if their welfare exactly equals their salary they cannot impoverish anyone through the activities of their job any more.

Due to a decline in crime, including violent crime, law enforcement will find they have less to do. As a result, slowly, the police may start to reduce their numbers. That is actually unlikely as government agencies exist to expand their budgets instead of achieving efficiency. More likely the police will claim that budgets need to be maintained or expanded to continue the downward trend in crime.

Cities will no longer need to pay reparations for wrong house no knock raids (sometimes ending in the death of the house occupant and always ending in death of their dogs). Lawsuits will decline as a result. The cities will be richer by the amount of those lawsuits. Those who live at the places that may be raided are not impoverished by the raids anymore. (And the dogs are all safe.)

The biggest losers of drug legalization are the criminal syndicates that currently supply illegal drugs. They will lose their market share, their standard of living will rapidly plummet – and they will not be able to wage war on their competition.