Tweet
Here is an email I recently received. I don’t know the in’s and out’s of “Bill Language” so smarter people than me will have to inform us on what the bill(s) actually means.
1:38 AM
FROM: Jasmine Tyler, DPA
SUBJECT: New Bill in Congress to Protect Marijuana Legalization
Drug Policy Alliance email to elise mattu
Urge your representative to support a new bill that would protect marijuana legalization!
Take Action
Contact your representative today.
Even as the drug policy reform movement celebrates our historic victories legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington, we still have to ensure that the states can implement their laws without federal interference.
Several U.S. representatives from Colorado recently introduced a bipartisan bill to help protect our victories by giving the states room to implement the new laws.
Tell your U.S. representative to support the bill that would enable the states to make their own marijuana laws.
The Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act would affirm the ability for states to establish their own marijuana laws free from federal interference.
This bill’s primary sponsor, Democratic Congresswoman Diana Degette from Denver, was joined by her fellow Colorado Republican Congressman Mike Coffman — who voted against Amendment 64 but still wants to ensure that the federal government respects the will of voters.
Although Colorado and Washington voted to regulate and tax marijuana, these ballot initiatives are not going to implement themselves. We need to do everything we can to ensure the federal government plays a constructive — rather than destructive — role.
This is just the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition. We have our work cut out for us. And we need your help!
Urge your representative to support the new bill in Congress that would enable the states to implement their own marijuana laws free from federal interference.
Sincerely,
Jasmine Tyler
Acting Director, Office of National Affairs
6 Comments
Interesting. The old federalist, states’ rights argument that most Republicans claim to hold so dear. If nothing else, it will be fun to watch some of them try to wriggle out of it.
Bullseye
Thanks Elise.
Recommended (FDL)
Tweeted
Recommended (FB)
This is a great bill, and I’ll try as a layperson to
explain the basic legal issue. More expert readers in
this area, please feel free to correct any mistakes or
missed fine points!
Normally we think of the States, not the federal
government, as making and enforcing most of the
criminal laws, or more generally exercising what is
termed the “police power” to regulate the public
safety and morals. This sense of “police” goes back to
the 18th century, and refers to such social regulation
in general, rather than specifically to constables and
the like.
However, the federal government can get involved in
these areas also — to what extent is often a topic
for constitutional debate. But if Congress does
validly get involved and passes a criminal law — for
example, enacting a federal death penalty or
criminalizing marijuana use — then that law, if
indeed constitutional, applies even in States which do
not have a death penalty or which have legalized
marijuana.
The reason that such a law — assuming it’s
constitutional! — trumps contrary state law and
public policy is the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, which makes the federal Constitution,
treaties, and valid federal laws binding on the
States.
This supremacy of federal law is also sometimes termed
“preemption,” and may be a topic of legal controversy
as to whether Congress intended to bar state
legislation of various kinds in the same area.
How federal-state relations and conflicts play out can
vary depending on the area of law and the intentions
of Congress (as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme
Court).
For example, the federal automobile fuel efficiency
regulations set a minimum standard applying in all
States, even those which might prefer a lower
standard, or no regulations at all. But a State like
California is free to set additional requirements
beyond those of federal law, a choice not “preempted”
by the action of Congress.
The federal death penalty statutes of 1988 and
especially 1994, applying capital punishment to many
forms of aggravated murder usually tried under state
laws, can be used to prosecute crimes even in the 17
States which have abolished capital punishment, or
indeed in a State like Michigan, which since 1963 has
had its own constitutional ban on the death penalty.
One might argue, as I do, that the death penalty
violates the Eighth Amendment to the federal
Constitution, and so is invalid across the board.
Or one might argue that specifically in a State like
Michigan which has a constitutional bar — and
likewise in Puerto Rico — the federal death penalty
is “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” as judged under the
relevant community standards of these jurisdictions.
But, under the current position of the U.S. Supreme
Court, the death penalty is constitutional, suggesting
that the 1988 and 1994 federal statutes apply even in
abolitionist States, and possibly in Puerto Rico also,
under the Supremacy Clause.
However, another aspect of the 1994 death penalty
statute is relevant to the federal marijuana bill
we’re considering here. Under the 1994 act, Indigenous
or “Indian” Nations have a choice as to whether or not
the federal death penalty will apply on their lands.
Overwhelmingly, the choice of these Nations has been
not to have the death penalty apply. The special
nature of Indigenous sovereignty — a consideration
which can and should apply to Puerto Rico as well –
may have induced Congress to show just a bit of
cultural sensitivity in passing an atrocious
“bipartisan” piece of legislation.
The proposed federal legislation would be analogous
for the federal laws criminalizing marijuana: a State
such as Washington or Colorado would have a choice to
“opt out” of federal enforcement against conduct now
authorized by state law. Thus the States would have
the same choice regarding federal marijuana laws that
Indigenous Nations do regarding the federal death
penalty.
Of course, an alternative way of reaching the same
practical result would be an exercise of enlightened
discretion by the executive branch: simply deciding
not to enforce federal marijuana laws in a way
contrary to state policies favoring either general
legalization (as in Washington or Colorado) or
narrower medical uses (as in California, for example).
The problem is that such a solution is subject to the
political winds. Thus, to use our death penalty
analogy again, the Clinton Administration had a
general policy of not seeking the federal death
penalty in States which had no capital punishment. The
Bush and Obama Administrations, however, have done
otherwise, and the Supremacy Clause makes it very
difficult to challenge their policy.
But the proposed legislation establishes as law a
policy in favor of respecting federalism and also the
ability of the States to serve as “living laboratories”
for social policies such as easing up a bit on the
“War on Drugs.” This is a good bill.
Thanks a lot for this Elise.
We need to remove the Federal Prohibition, but how and when can we get honest un-Bribed Senators to do that?
Other options would be an Article V Constitutional Convention, to put Legal Marijuana in the Constitution by way of an Amendment.
But it is possible that the US Supreme Court will let recreational Marijuana stand, as it has Medical. That would keep the Feds after it like they are now.
Very much appreciate you taking the time to set out all of those explanations. And if what you are saying is correct – that this law, once enacted, would indeed give any states wherein voters are setting up their approval for marijuana use the total ability to opt out of utilizing the Federal prosecutors and agencies from going after marijuana users in those states, and in prohibiting them from coming in, – well, Hallelujah, I am all for normal states of the Union to have the same legal abilities as the Native American jurisdictions in terms of sovereign rulership of the citizens themselves over their citizens. It would bring back the meaning “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” rather than the current incantation of “of Big Pharma, for Big Pharma, and by Big Pharma.