Law & Politics
Bernie Sanders Pledges to Reform Federal Marijuana Laws
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, just endorsed ending the federal criminalization of marijuana.
“Right now, marijuana is listed by the federal government as a Schedule I drug—meaning that it is considered to be as dangerous as heroin. That is absurd,” Sanders said at a rally with a large group of college students on Wednesday night.
“In my view, the time is long overdue for us to remove the federal prohibition on marijuana,” he continued. “In my view, states should have the right to regulate marijuana the same way that state and local laws now govern the sale of alcohol and tobacco. And among other things, that means that recognized businesses in states that have legalized marijuana should be fully able to use the banking system without fear of federal prosecution.”
If Sanders turns his campaign proposal into legislation, it will mark the first time in history that a bill to end federal marijuana prohibition has been introduced in the U.S. Senate.
Dan Riffle, a Congressional lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project, said on Twitter that legislation is coming, and that it will look similar to a 2011 House bill which would have exempted marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act except for maintaining a prohibition on transporting or shipping the drug to places that have not legalized it.
@_cingraham @germanrlopez His bill will look a lot like this: https://t.co/N8JGVN3a2C Possibly identical.
— Dan Riffle (@DanRiffle) October 28, 2015
“In 2015, it is time for the federal government to let states go forward as they best choose,” Sanders said at the rally. “It is time to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It is time to end the arrests of so many people and the destruction of so many lives for possessing marijuana.”
Earlier this month, Sanders made history at CNN’s Democratic debate by becoming the first major presidential candidate to indicate that he would personally vote for a legalization ballot measure if given the chance.
The time is long overdue for us to take marijuana off the federal government’s list of outlawed drugs.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 29, 2015
Sanders’s campaign also launched a marijuana petition on its website on Wednesday, indicating that top strategists surrounding the candidate see the inherent list-building and fundraising value in taking on a strong, visible leadership role on the issue.
Click here to find out what else Bernie Sanders and other presidential candidates have said about marijuana.
Support for Legalization Continues to Grow Into The Future
Public policy, in a democracy, depends on the will of a majority of the citizens. Only when a clear majority favor a change in policy can that change occur, and even then, when working with elected legislators, these is always a significant lag between a change in the public attitudes, and a change in public policy. Most elected officials, with an eye towards being re-elected, find it safer to vote for the status quo, until it is unavoidably obvious they are on the losing side.
Fortunately, in half the states citizens have the option of going around their elected state legislatures and changing public policy by a voter initiative – a direct vote of the people. Which explains how the marijuana legalization movement has been so successful over the last few years. As public attitudes have increasingly shifted against prohibition, and in support of legalization, we have had the ability to ask the citizens in several states to approve legalization, despite the trepidation of their state elected officials.
And that has allowed us to enact legalization in a few states several years earlier than would have been the case if we would have had to move the proposal through the state legislature. For that, we are truly benefiting from the successes of the Progressive movement of an earlier era, from where the concept of a voter initiative.
The Latest Gallup Poll
But none of that matters unless a proposed change in policy enjoys the support of a majority of the public. And as the latest Gallup Poll results underscored, the support for legalizing marijuana continues to increase, and there is every reason to believe that trend will only increase in the coming years. And the political implications of that are obvious.
More specifically, this latest Gallup Poll found that 58 percent of the public nationwide now support the full legalization of marijuana, matching the highest level of support Gallup has ever found over 46 years of polling on the question.
Gallup first polled the American public about their support for legalizing marijuana in 1969, the year before NORML was founded, and found the support level at only 12 percent. That number rose to 28 percent by 1977, before beginning a decline, falling to 23 percent by 1985. Support then again began to rise gradually over the next 25 years, until finally reaching 50 percent in 2011. Gallup found support peaking at 58 percent in 2013, before showing a decline to 51 percent in 2014 (those numbers are within the 4 percent margin of error for their telephone survey of just over 1,000 respondents), and then rebounding to 58 percent again in 2015.
These latest 2015 findings were overwhelmingly favorable in all age groups, with a majority level of support in all age categories, except seniors (my own group), and even there we are showing big gains.
Younger Americans, Democrats and independents are the most likely to favor legalizing cannabis, while Republicans and Americans over the age of 65 are least likely to do so. Among those poll respondents age 18 to 34, 71 percent endorse legalization. Among respondents age 35 to 49 years of age, 64 percent support legalizing marijuana. Among those age 65 and up, support fell to 35 percent, but this too reflected a sharp increase in support.
We Are Outliving Our Opponents
At NORML we have often joked that our strategy, if all else failed (and there were certainly decades when we were making very little measurable progress), was to out-live our opponents. We were only partially kidding, as we were aware that younger Americans were far more supportive of legalization than were older Americans, and eventually we would win.
The most significant implications of this latest Gallup data is the likelihood that this trend will continue for many years in the future, as more seniors are replaced by younger Americans, making it possible for us in the next few years to adopt legalization in many more states that offer a voter initiative; and importantly, in many other states that do not, by way of the state legislature. Even elected officials can only ignore the will of the public for so long, before either supporting that change, or being replaced by those who do. It is only a matter of time.
The poll’s authors suggested the future looks positive for those who favor legalization. “Given the patterns of support by age, that percentage should continue to grow in the future. … These trends suggest that state and local governments may come under increasing pressure to ease restrictions on marijuana use, if not go even further like the states of Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Alaska in making recreational marijuana use completely legal.”
Or as NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano has pointed out, continuing to support marijuana prohibition is now a “fringe position” in America. “These results ought to embolden campaigning politicians, as well as elected officials, to take a more pronounced stance in favor of legalizing and regulating cannabis in a manner that is consistent with the desires of the majority of their constituents.”
The Next Administration
This is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about who might be elected the next US president, and whether that individual will continue “the Obama policy” of allowing the states to determine their own marijuana policy, without interference from the federal government. With support for full legalization reaching nearly 60 percent nationwide, it will be difficult, and likely politically impossible, for the next president to change that policy, regardless of her/his personal views.
We have, after a long and sometimes frustrating public debate covering several decades, finally won the hearts and minds of a majority of the American public, and with that, the power to move marijuana legalization forward full speed, until it is the law of the land. We are now the majority.
It’s a wonderful time to be a marijuana smoker.
Sanders Jokes: Let Postal Service Deliver Marijuana to Raise Revenue
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders made history last week at a Democratic primary debate by becoming the first major presidential candidate to indicate he’d vote in favor of legalizing marijuana if given the chance.
But now, thanks to Jimmy Kimmel, Sanders might have a way to use marijuana to save the the U.S. Postal Service from budget problems that have plagued it in recent years.
“Would you be open to the idea…maybe have postal carriers deliver marijuana to people?” the ABC late-night talk show host asked Sanders during an interview on Wednesday.
“That’ll get rid of the federal deficit pretty quickly, won’t it?” quipped the senator from Vermont.
The Postal Service has operated at a loss recently, ending the most recent fiscal quarter $568 million in the hole. The previous quarter it lost $1.5 billion.
Sanders has already proposed allowing people to access banking services through post offices, and now the marijuana delivery idea, while clearly a joke for now, might actually not be too far off from being seriously considered as more and more states enact legalization and pressure builds on the federal government to end its overarching prohibition laws.
On the broader question of legalization, Sanders told Kimmel that he’s still taking a close look at how Colorado and other states are implementing their new laws. “I am not unfavorably disposed to moving toward the legalization of marijuana,” he said.
Click here to see what else Sanders and other presidential candidates have said about marijuana.
A Second Look at Ohio: Why It’s Worth Supporting
With the 2015 election day only two weeks away, and prodded by our friend Russ Belville at 420 Radio for failing to more enthusiastically embrace Issue 3 in Ohio, this seemed like a good time to take a second look at the measure on the ballot in Ohio to both legalize marijuana for medical purposes and fully legalize marijuana for all adults.
First, one might justifiably ask the authors of this measure why they would bother with medical marijuana at all. If marijuana is legal for all adults, that includes patients as well as recreational users, and it removes the need for patients to pay a physician to confirm their need for marijuana. With the exception of a small medical use program that would cover those minors who have a legitimate medical need, there is no need for two separate legalization distribution systems.
But having somewhat duplicative legalization systems, while it may not be efficient, is not a reason to oppose Initiative 3.
Provisions Limiting Access to the New Market Are Not New
The reason given by most who claim to support legalization, but who oppose the Ohio proposal, is the reality that the investors who have put up millions of dollars to qualify the initiative for the November ballot also stand to profit handsomely from their investment, by controlling the 10 commercial cultivation centers allowed under this plan. It strikes many of us as inappropriate to build such an economic advantage by a few rich investors into the state’s constitution.
But as Belville and others (including this author) have noted, several other states that have legalized marijuana (for medical use) have limited entry into the legal industry by placing severe limits on the numbers of licenses that will be permitted, or by requiring such enormous financial investments that ordinary citizens are effectively shut out of the industry. So limiting access to the commercial cultivation centers in the newly legal market would be nothing new, nor should it justify opposing this opportunity to end marijuana prohibition in Ohio. We should focus on ending prohibition, and not get distracted by who will profit from the legal market.
Why NORML Supported I-502
In his latest rant, Belville questions why NORML and other pro-legalization organizations would endorse I-502 in Washington state in 2012, which failed to legalize personal cultivation, and included a 5 nanogram per se DUID provision that would leave many smokers unfairly subject to a DUID charge, but would either remain neutral on Issue 3 in Ohio (MPP, ASA and DPA) or tepidly endorse the proposal (NORML).
The answer to this question is simple: In 2012 marijuana for personal use was illegal in all 50 states, and had been for more than 75 years. It was crucial that some state – any state – show the courage to break the mold and openly defy federal law, as New York and a handful of other states did near the end of alcohol prohibition. For the legalization movement to gain credibility and force our way onto the mainstream political agenda, we had to take legalization out of the theoretical realm and demonstrate that it actually works.
Our opponents had always claimed that if we legalize marijuana, the sky would fall. Everyone would sit home and get stoned all day; no one would go to work or live an ordinary life; and western civilization as we know it would come to an end (perhaps that’s a slight exaggeration, but you get the point).
Of course, we would counter that legalization would stop the senseless arrest and prosecution of otherwise law-abiding citizens who smoke marijuana responsibly, and save enormous amounts of law enforcement resources that could be redirected to fighting serious and violent crime.
But until we had at least one state with the fortitude to declare itself out of the prohibition game, we had no actual data to validate either position. It was an endless theoretical argument, with no clear winner.
The approval of legalization in Washington and Colorado in 2012, by giving us these two state laboratories where we could measure the actual impact of legalization, was the game changer that catapulted full legalization into the mainstream political debate, and gave us the measurable evidence that legalization is indeed the solution that most Americans are looking for. And the fears that were stoked by our opponents – of a spike in adolescent marijuana smoking, or carnage on the roads caused by stoned drivers – simply did not materialize. In fact, just the opposite. Adolescent use is slightly down in the legalization states, and there has been no increase in DUID cases.
We gave our strong support to I-502 in Washington (as well as A-64 in Colorado) even with its limitations, because of the crucial need to demonstrate that a majority of the voters in a state would support full legalization, and that legalization actually works on the ground, with few, if any, unintended consequences. Those first two victories made it possible for our subsequent victories in Alaska and Oregon in 2014, and hopefully many more to follow.
Issue 3 in Ohio Should Be Approved
There. Now I have said it, clearly and unequivocally. Issue 3 in Ohio should be endorsed by all who favor legalization, even with its imperfections. As the NORML board of directors concluded when we endorsed the Ohio proposal, unless the current proposal in Ohio is approved, it will likely be five years or more (perhaps far longer) before marijuana will be legalized in Ohio. Under their current laws, roughly 12,000 Ohioans are arrested on marijuana charges each year. Does anyone really believe we should sit by waiting for a more acceptable version of legalization to magically appear, while another 60,000 to 100,000 smokers are arrested in Ohio?
In addition, just as the victories in Washington and Colorado were especially significant because they were the first, and opened the door for serious consideration in additional states, it would be an enormous step forward politically to adopt full legalization in Ohio — a large, conservative midwestern state. And it would suddenly put full legalization on the table for serious consideration by many other similarly situated states.
Its time to legalize in Ohio.
State Department Highlights Global Anti-Marijuana Discrimination Against Rastafarians
A new report from the U.S. Department of State shines a spotlight on how anti-marijuana laws around the world further religious discrimination against Rastafarians.
The 2014 Report on International Religious Freedom, released Wednesday by Secretary of State John Kerry, “attempts to give voice to those oppressed people and to document when and where the universal human right to religious freedom was violated.”
In nearly 200 country-by-country summaries, the document details discrimination that people of various faiths face from governments and non-state actors, and quite a bit of attention is paid to the plight of Rastafarians who are criminalized for using marijuana — an important sacrament for many in the religion.
Rastafarians in Barbados, for example “were concerned about the government’s prohibition on marijuana use, which they said was integral to their religious rituals,” the report says. “Rastafarians reported extra scrutiny from police and immigration officials” as a result.
In Jamaica, “Rastafarians stated that elements of their religious observance, such as wearing dreadlocks and smoking marijuana, presented serious barriers to their ability to find employment and achieve professional status,” the State Department writes.
“Rastafarian leaders stated their members continued to experience police profiling and targeting due to their belief in the religious use of marijuana,” the report’s section on The Bahamas says. “They also expressed concern that prison officials cut the dreadlocks of Rastafarian detainees held in short-term custody, and that prisoners at Bahamas Correctional Services were not regularly provided with meals that met their religious dietary requirements.”
Anti-marijuana discrimination against Rastafarians is also reported in Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
In Panama, Rastafarians appear to have experienced so much discrimination that many have felt compelled to compromise the full expression of their faith. “Rastafarian leaders reported that arbitrary strip searches by police agents decreased significantly over the last decade since the international Rastafarian leadership decided to improve the group’s image by wearing tam hats and refraining from smoking cannabis in public,” the State Department writes.
As marijuana legalization gains popularity around the world and anti-cannabis stigma begins to dissipate, however, things appear to be improving in some places. “While some Rastafarians stated they had also experienced other forms of societal discrimination,” the report says of Jamaica, “others said such discrimination had diminished considerably in recent years, especially as Rastafarian styles in clothing and music gained wider acceptance.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the State Department report neglects to discuss the fact that the U.S. federal government does not recognize any religious exemption to existing laws that treat use, possession or cultivation of marijuana as criminal acts subject to arrest, fine and incarceration.
This May, for example, a judge in Indiana rejected a man’s request to reduce marijuana charges on account of the fact that he is a practicing Rastafarian. That is just one of numerous cases over decades in which state and federal courts in the U.S. have rejected arguments that marijuana use can be a legitimate religious activity and in such instances should not be criminalized.
Clinton: It’s “Important” for Feds to Let States Legalize Marijuana
One day after she declined to endorse legalizing marijuana in the first Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton gave her strongest indication yet that, if elected to the White House, she would nonetheless allow states to move forward with implementing their own cannabis laws without federal harassment.
“I really believe it’s important that states like Colorado lead the way, so that we can learn what works and what doesn’t work,” the former secretary of state said in an interview on Wednesday with KUSA-TV, the NBC affiliate in Denver.
“And I would certainly not want the federal government to interfere with the legal decision made by the people of Colorado, and enforced by your elected officials, as to how you should be conducting this business that you have approved. So, no, I want to give you the space and I want other states to learn from you, what works and what doesn’t work.”
During Tuesday’s debate, Clinton said she wasn’t ready to take a position on whether legalization is a good policy, but made sure to note that “I do support the use of medical marijuana” and “I agree completely with the idea that we have got to stop imprisoning people who use marijuana.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination, on the other hand, made history at the debate by becoming the first major presidential candidate to indicate he’d personally vote for legalization if given the chance.
Last month, Clinton said during an appearance in Iowa that she “would support states and localities that are experimenting with this,” but the new remarks are her clearest yet on the federal-state relationship on marijuana laws.
Click here to see what else Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and other presidential candidates have said about marijuana law reform.
Leaked Report: UK Legalization Would Generate 100s of Millions for Government
Legalizing marijuana in the United Kingdom would generate new tax revenues and savings totaling over half a billion pounds, according to a newly leaked report from the nation’s Treasury.
The analysis finds that ending cannabis prohibition and legalizing sales could “generate noteable tax revenue” somewhere in the range of £397-£871 million per year and says that lessened enforcement would “lead to overall savings to public services” by an estimated £211 annually.
Not having to chase down, arrest and process cannabis users would save approximately 672,000 hours of police time every year, the report indicates.
The analysis was commissioned months ago by then-Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg but was kept under wraps until Monday, when it was leaked to the The Independent newspaper and BBC’s Newsnight program.
The document came to light on the same day Members of Parliament convened a debate on marijuana law reform that was spurred by an online government petition that garnered more than 200,000 signatures.
The report also notes that “evidence suggests that alcohol and tobacco – both legal – may cause greater harm” than cannabis. And whereas U.S. states that have ended prohibition have set the age for legal use at 21, the Treasury calculations assume that the U.K.’s legal age would be 18.
In addition to legalization’s economic impact, the report details some additional benefits that ending prohibition would have, such as mandated potency and purity testing on marijuana, sting operations to curtail underage sales and licensing conditions that would help keep the market under control.
Prime Minister David Cameron remains opposed to legalizing marijuana for now, but reform advocates say that the new report could boost the debate further into the mainstream to the point that ending prohibition will eventually become a political reality.
“We have a Conservative government who have not responded to rational argument on drug reform historically — but who are facing a massive deficit and struggling with unpopular cuts to public services,” Steve Rolles, a senior policy analyst with Transform Drug Policy Foundation, told Marijuana.com in an email. “In this context a strong economic argument from a trusted source can change minds where more established social justice arguments have failed. The government is doing its own cost-benefit analysis, but a political one — and a report like this can only helps tip the scales in favour of change.”
Read the leaked report in full here.
Ben Carson Knows Anti-Legalization Stance Isn’t Popular
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson opposes legalizing marijuana, and he knows that his prohibitionist stance isn’t likely to win him any votes from young people.
Appearing on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last Wednesday, Carson was asked whether his support primarily comes from voters who care about fiscal or social issues. Without direct prompting, the neurosurgeon who has never held political office responded that his stances opposing legalization of marijuana and marriage equality for LGBT people aren’t doing him any favors when it comes to attracting support from younger generations.
“When we have rallies, I see huge numbers of millennials and young people, and I know that they for the most part probably don’t agree with me on the definition of marriage or whether marijuana should be legalized,” he said.
But he added that for the most part, young voters are willing to look past their disagreements with the candidate on these social issues in favor of fiscal concerns. “They do understand that there’s somebody who is looking out for their future,” he said. “And understands the economic implications of our fiscal irresponsibility and what it would do to them.”
Carson isn’t the only 2016 candidate who knows a prohibitionist stance is a political loser. Last month, fellow Republican Rick Santorum, who opposes legalization, was asked why Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders seems to be drawing a lot of support from young people. “When you go out and say you’re gonna legalize drugs and do all sorts of great stuff, you get people showing up at your events,” he said.
While marijuana legalization and drug policy reform were once widely seen as dangerous third rails of politics to be avoided at all costs, polling now shows that a growing majority of Americans support ending cannabis prohibition and supermajorities support medical marijuana and letting states set their own laws without federal interference. And support for marijuana law reform is particularly high among younger voters: One survey showed that 63 percent of Republican millennials support legalization.
Even though he opposes full legalization, Carson does at least support medical marijuana. “Would I recommend medical marijuana? Absolutely,” he said at a campaign rally in Ohio. “I have no problem with medical marijuana. But that is very different from legalizing it for recreational use. I would not do that under any circumstances.”
Click here to see what else the presidential candidates have said about marijuana.