Pot & Holder: Will the Federal Government Force the Failure of a "Legalization Experiment?"

The state of California will soon be voting on whether or not to have the nation's most lenient pot laws, via Proposition 19. Among other things, the Proposition is intended to legalize the growing and smoking of certain amounts of marijuana. The substance would still be regulated, as activities like driving while high and smoking in public places would be prohibited. It also does not legalize the distribution of pot, but rather allows for local governments to do so. Fact sheet available here.

Supporters' talking points include increased tax revenue and, as San Jose Police Chief Joseph Macnamara believes, a decrease in crime that would in turn allow for a productive reassignment of many law enforcement resources. Critics' talking points include that P19 is poorly written and will lower the quality of pot, as well as that it will constrict employer regulations of pot use, unintentionally allow people to drive or operate heavy machinery while high, and be ineffective at allowing the collection of taxes on Miss Mary. Interestingly, someone says an undercover agent told him/her that Mexico's drug cartels hope Prop. 19 is voted down because they fear they would otherwise lose half their revenue.

(Controversy after the jump!)



But never mind all that! The big bad wolf is here and he's gonna blow this shit down. On October 13, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter stating that the Justice Department will "vigorously enforce" federal pot laws if Cali votes yes on P19. The "experiment" would therefore be doomed before it begins because the federal government would be maintaining the illegal status of pot, thereby precluding any possible benefits from legalization.

This should worry anyone who believes in relaxing marijuana laws. The multi-layered complexity that would be created by Holder's proposed actions would make it easier for politicians and other national figures who oppose legalization to paint it as a failure. In our ADD soundbite news culture, figures like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh would probably - with the knowledge that many people would not be subjected to that pesky "context" thing - cite the lack of benefits accrued and reference that a drug most people are uncomfortable with was legalized while conveniently ignoring that the Justice Department maintained the drug's illegality. They would then declare that this "reckless experiment" was a dismal failure.

The most popular line of attack would probably be to show that a vibrant criminal culture still surrounds marijuana, conveniently omitting that dealers still have to avoid "vigorous enforcement." There might also be a not-so-subtle undercurrent of questions about what happened to all the tax revenue the state was supposed to collect and possibly even a hint of dissatisfaction with the lack of income reporting by the guaranteed-100%-evil dealers. Tell me you can't hear these said by some self-righteous blowhard betting that his audience will remain ignorant of the reality of the situation:

"This reckless experiment made marijuana more available but did not make our families any safer!"

"Even if California collected taxes on marijuana - which it doesn't -, would it really be worth the safety of your children, who are in no less danger now than they were a year ago?"

"Not a single drug dealer  has reported his income and our state has collected zero dollars in taxes! What happened to all the great new programs we were supposed to see?"

Submissions will be appreciated