Weed, pot, mj, maryjane, cannabis, ganja, grass, flower, broccoli – all names for the street drug known as marijuana. Since the 16th century, when marijuana was brought to the America’s, it has been circulated around the country and the world. It was made illegal under federal law in 1937 with the ratification of the “Marihuana Stamp Act.” After the mass popularization of marijuana as a recreational drug during the 1960’s ‘Summer of Love’, attitudes towards the drug have taken stark and very polarizing sides. Like the counterculture of drinking in the 1920s, with speakeasies, marijuana culture is one that is very controversial. Over the past few decades, millions of Americans have been arrested and many incarcerated for growing, possessing, or distributing marijuana. Some have even spent so much of their life behind bars that they have died there. Resources and millions of dollars are put towards taking marijuana off the streets – but at what cost? Yes, there is the monetary aspect of it, but it goes much deeper than that. Following the 2012 legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington state, it became apparent that just because the drug became legal at the state level, there were still implications when it came to marijuana at the federal level. Implications really meaning it was still illegal (Lopez, Marijuana Is Illegal). It was still considered a Schedule I drug – alongside heroin, ecstasy, and LSD (‘Drug Scheduling’). Technically, marijuana is illegal under federal law, but states are not required to enforce federal laws. Some states have legalized or decriminalized marijuana. Still, at any point, federal agents can swoop in and enforce federal laws, even in these states where it is legal. Not only does this need to stop, but those affected or victimized by this should receive paid restitution for their traumas. Especially in states where marijuana is legal, in no way should busting people for it be a priority. In non-surprising statistics, white people use marijuana at about the same level as non-white people, but are 4 times LESS likely to be indicted and prosecuted. Lives are taken, cut short and brown and black people are constantly being streamlined into jails. Enforcing federal law at the state level undermines each individual state’s authority to make its own independent laws and regulations, and serves as an excuse to funnel people into prisons.
In 1545, the Spaniards brought marijuana to the Americas. It was introduced as a cash crop and grown as hemp and quickly grew to be as popular as tobacco and cotton (‘History Of Marijuana’). Their intent was never to harm anyone. Just like everyone else coming to the New World, they wanted to make money and be successful. After the Mexican Revolution, the US experienced a flood of Mexican immigrants coming into the country. With them they brought their medicine: marijuana. Around the Roaring 20s was when it began to catch on as a recreational drug. It was smoked as an alternative to drinking alcohol when it was illegal during prohibition, and it was popular to sing about in music (‘History Of Marijuana’). Soon after the end of prohibition, at which point it had become heavily correlated with Black and Mexican people, it was made illegal under the guise of controlling an addictive substance that made people violent – but in actuality, it “…was an extension of the demonization of Mexican immigrants” (Burnett & Reiman). The 1937 Marihuana Stamp Act banned the use, possession, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana. It was around the early 1950s when stricter sentencing laws went into practice. The enactment of federal laws, like the Boggs Act of 1952, which set mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses, including marijuana, is a prime example. A first-offense marijuana possession charge carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years with a fine of up to $20,000 (‘Marijuana Timeline’). In the 1960s, the popularity of marijuana was bolstered by the hippie movement in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. This increased popularity of the drug resulted in increased crime rates amongst users because of the laws implemented to control the use, which in turn resulted in increased arrest rates. By 1970, the Controlled Substances Act came to fruition and it “placed all substances which were in some manner regulated under existing federal law into one of five schedules… based upon the substance’s medical use, the potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability” (The Controlled Substances Act). Today, public opinion on the matter is changing day by day, and states are exercising their power to do something about it too.
One of the reasons the federal government should not be allowed to continue enforcing federal laws prohibiting possession of marijuana in states where it is legal trickles down to racism. Today, the marijuana industry is one worth billions of dollars. People are thriving off of the business, and the government is benefitting from it too. Meanwhile, black and brown people are serving prison sentences for simply being in possession of marijuana. From 2001 to 2010 there were roughly 8.2 million marijuana-related arrests (‘Marijuana Arrests by the Numbers’). Statistics show white and black people use marijuana at about the same rates, but black people are disproportionately more likely to be apprehended for the same crime – around 4 times (Marijuana Arrests by the Numbers). Allowing marijuana charges to be a priority perpetuates institutional racism. Instead of focusing on serious problems like sex trafficking, rape, or robbery, already limited resources are being wasted on something that is not an immediate threat to our society. Some cities, like San Francisco, are even taking a stand and repealing thousands of misdemeanor marijuana convictions, proving they should have never been that serious in the first place. According to Timothy Williams and Thomas Fueller at the New York Times, “an additional 4,900 felony marijuana charges will be examined by prosecutors to determine if they should be retroactively reduced to misdemeanors” (Williams and Fueller). States, not federal prosecutors, should have the power to deal with marijuana at their own discretion.
There are those who will say that states do not have absolute power when it comes to dealing with matters at their own accord for a reason. The Constitution itself, in Article VI, states “the Law of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.” One example of an important court case where the supremacy clause was used was an early one, McCulloch v. Maryland. In 1818, Maryland wanted to impose taxes on The Second Bank Of The United States, which was chartered by Congress. In a unanimous decision, it was decided that Congress had the right to establish the bank and Maryland may not impose taxes on the bank, since that means it would render the concept of a federal government useless (‘McCulloch v. Maryland’). This landmark court case lead to the creation of the necessary and proper clause which allows Congress to make laws it needs to carry out its own powers. If it were not for the necessity for Congress to enumerate its powers, the elastic clause would not exist.
While this supreme court case showcases an instance where the federal government took the right call superseding state law, the federal government should not be allowed to continue enforcing federal laws in marijuana legal states because of state sovereignty. Thanks to sovereignty, each state has the power to create its own laws. This is because of discrepancies in geography, demographics, economy, and natural resources between each state. The constitution itself states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." From state to state, laws can vary on different topics such as gun control, abortion, and also marijuana. As of 2018, 10 states have legalized recreational use of marijuana, and 23 others have legalized its medical use (‘Drug War Statistics’). As reported by German Lopez, earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he rescinded guidance from former administration (Lopez, It’s Official). The memorandum about it reads as follows:
In deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the Department's finite resources, prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions… These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community. (Marijuana Enforcement Memorandum)
What this is telling us is that Sessions plans on implementing the anti-marijuana legislation from before the Obama administration. It is a return of trust and local control to federal prosecutors who can deploy Justice Department resources at their own inclination to “reduce violent crime… & dismantle criminal gangs” (Justice Department Issues Memo) Why allow states to make their own laws if they live under the technicality that federal law supersedes state law? It is why we have a democracy; the people choose what they want. Allowing federal prosecutors to go after state-legal marijuana at their own discretion actively undermines the authority that the state holds along with its ability to protect its citizens.
Though many people put their trust in the government, the government does not always have the people's best interest at heart. The people have the power, exercise it, and effectively give the government its authority. Continuing to allow state-legal marijuana to remain untouched by federal prosecutors is a win-win situation for the country. The government continues to pull tax revenue, and citizens can continue to reap the benefits that democracy allows. Allowing legal discrimination is dangerous and irresponsible, and is regressing us in time instead of moving us forward. While the federal government comes in in times of great necessity, there is no need for intervention in inconsequential matters.