There has been a large amount of activity on the boards and in the media regarding tax and regulation proposals for marijuana.
It seems that their needs to be a phased approach where the Federal Government formally recognizes the rights of the States, in a signed law, to regulate and enforce marijuana laws within their own borders. It should prohibit Federal law enforcement to become involved in purely intrastate marijuana commerce, unless formally asked to do so by the State.
Any law should retain Federal authority over interstate or international transfers of marijuana, but leave marijuana regulation and enforcement authority for intrastate commerce solely with the State governments. Medical marijuana laws are one example of this intrastate regulation and commerce.
If California wishes to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, they should be allowed to do so within their State. However, transfer of marijuana from California to Oregon would still fall under Federal jurisdiction, so would transfer from Mexico to California. If a state wishes to keep it illegal under the current Federal system, then they can do so.
This approach doesn't advocate full legalization, but allows the States to craft their own solutions to marijuana depending on their unique local situations. It also allows policy makers to study the different approaches short of a national legalization.
There are still "dry" counties and cities in the US with regards to alcohol.
Comments (7)
I meant to type "Codify". Sorry for the typo.
toomey
this is the first time i saw a states rights approach to MJ use. great idea and i hope it gains traction.
It just prolongs and stratifies the battle.
I think a top down approach would be more efficient.
There are a lot of vested interests making tons of money off of the current policy. Marijuana legalization is probably not controversial in Los Angeles, CA, but there's an ingrained fear of it in Goodland, KS.
Taking an slow, incremental approach to marijuana policy reform would allow people to get enough empirical data to show, definitively, which policy works. Right now, the policy is being driven by propaganda and fear mongering, not rational thought.
With a slow approach, as opposed to immediate, full legalization, you can back off quickly if it doesn't work. That takes much of the "allergic reaction" out of marijuana policy reform.
Colorado experimented with limited gaming legalization in the late 1980's and early 1990's. It turned into a disaster when entire quiet Colorado mountain towns turned into corporately owned megaresorts. All of the local residents could no longer afford to live in those towns. As a result, Colorado backed off the policy.
There have been recent anti-tobacco policies put before Congress that actually have a good chance of passing. Twenty years ago, those policies would have never been discussed, much less printed into a Bill.
Unfortunately, politics is often about "tracking the money". If a policy change is going to immediately disrupt an economy, people are going to have an allergic reaction to the policy. Most people want to really look before they leap into full legalization and, outside of the propaganda, there's very little data.
A 'states rights' approach would leave Texas in the hands of the uber Christian bullies like Rick Perry.
RocknRoll, Oooooouuch.
I love the label uber christian though.
Just plain scary.
FREE THE MEDICINE!