Facts of the Case
In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California’s law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient’s home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.
The medical marijuana users argued the Controlled Substances Act – which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce – exceeded Congress’ commerce clause power. The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use. Relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Congress’ commerce clause power – U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) – the Ninth Circuit ruled using medical marijuana did not “substantially affect” interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress.
Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress’ power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress’ power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a “class of activities”: the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use “essential” to regulating the drug’s national market.
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. requires that the Governor cause to be published a list of those chemicals “known to the state” to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The Act specifies that “a chemical is known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity … if in the opinion of the state’s qualified experts the chemical has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.”
The lead agency for implementing Proposition 65 is the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency. The “state’s qualified experts” regarding findings of carcinogenicity are identified as the members of the Carcinogen Identification Committee of the OEHHA Science Advisory Board.
OEHHA announced the selection of marijuana smoke as a chemical for consideration for listing by the CIC in the California Regulatory Notice Register on December 12, 2007, subsequent to consultation with the Committee at their November 19, 2007 meeting. At that meeting, the Committee advised OEHHA to prepare hazard identification materials for marijuana smoke.
At their May 29, 2009 meeting the Committee, by a vote of five in favor and one against, found that marijuana smoke had been “clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer.”
Read the full report Marijuana Smoke and Cancer
Nullification generally is considered to take one of two forms. The first is where a State acts within the system, whether through a court challenge, or through concentrated series of efforts designed to repeal or amend offending legislative provisions. The second form is most simply described as outright defiance of the law; in other words, a State simply would ignore a federal provision, or a decision of a federal court.
Nullification, If Meant As A Term Through Which Offending Legislation or Judicial Decisions Are Overturned By Working Within The Existent Constitutional And Legal Framework, Is Permissible And Encouraged By Our System of Checks and Balances.
Idaho has historically participated in a number of these efforts including the current challenge to the Healthcare Reform Law, as well as various resolutions addressed to the Federal Government with respect to the state sovereignty and specific federal legislative enactments. (See HeR 64, 44,and SJM 106 (2010)). These examples reflect how a State can work within the constitutionally designed system to overturn or amend a provision that offends a State’s notion of sovereignty and federal overreaching.
Nullification As Defiance Of Federal Law Or Enactment Is Inconsistent With A State Officer’s Duty To Act In Conformity With The Federal And State Constitutions.
Nullification is generally the argument that States have the ability to determine the constitutionality of a federal enactment, and if a State finds the enactment unconstitutional it can ignore or otherwise refuse to adhere to the federal requirements.
The basis for this argument is that the States came together to create the federal government, and therefore the States retain the ultimate discretion as to the reach of federal authority.! The adoption of these Resolutions in some respects represents the apex of the ongoing argument between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over the scope and influence of the fledgling federal government.
These arguments arose cyclically throughout the Nation’s early history, reaching a virtual breaking point in 1828-1833 in what was referred to as the “Nullification Crisis.” President Andrew Jackson expressly rejected the theory of nullification as incompatible with the existence of the Union and destructive to the very purpose of the the Constitution. Southern State nullification advocates nevertheless continued to press their cause, and their arguments formed a central justification for the Civil War.
The Legal Difficulty Of Idaho’s Nullification Claim.
As an historical matter, many of the original States came into existence first as English colonies and then as sovereign parties to the Articles of Confederation. Idaho’s road to state status followed a much different path.
Virtually all land within Idaho is the result of the United States making a claim to the land, which was disputed by the British until the adoption of several treaties leading ultimately to the creation of the Oregon Territory. Congress then created the Territory of Idaho and, ultimately, the State of Idaho. Once Idaho was admitted as a State, it acquired all of the privileges and immunities held by each of the other States, but as reflected above, the right of nullification, the right of secession, and the compact theory had all been rejected by the United States by the time of statehood.
The framers of the Idaho Constitution were acutely aware of that fact. Hamilton actually suggested sending the Army into Virginia as a pretext-thus even the earliest arguments for nullification were viewed as latent arguments for civil war. See also Jonathon Elliot, “Answers of the Several State Legislatures: “State of New Hampshire” Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, pp. 538-539. (1907).
Jackson also expressly rejected the right to secede, noting that the Constitution forms a government, not a league of States. President Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832.
Joint British and United States Claim was provided for in Treaty of 1818. The Oregon Treaty (1846) established the boundary between United States claims and British Claims at the 49th Parallel. The territory of Oregon was created on August 14, 1848. The territory of Idaho was created on March 4,1863. Reviewing the Idaho Admission Bill, § 19 specifically applies the laws of the United States.
State inseparable part of the Union.
The State of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
The framers therefore expressly recognized Idaho’s status as a part of the United States and the supremacy of the United States Constitution. Consistent with this recognition, every legislator is required to affirm “that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Idaho. Legislators and other state officials, in other words, pledge to carry out their duties in a fashion that directly conflicts with the second form of the nullification theory.
The alpha and omega of the nullification theory, in sum, rest upon rejecting the principle that the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The theory runs contrary to the very purpose of the federal constitution and Idaho’s express constitutional acknowledgment in Article I, § 3 of that supremacy.
Courts Have Expressly Rejected Nullification
Our history is replete with federal enactments that were unpopular in one State or another, or even within regions. Taking the logic of the nullification theory to its natural extension, federal law would become a patchwork of regulation depending upon which States chose to comply. It is hardly surprising, given this specter, that no court has ever upheld a State effort to nullify a federal law.
The most instructive case on nullification is likely Cooper v. Aaron. This case arose out of a belief by the State of Arkansas that it was not bound to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 9 Arkansas, through its governor and legislature, claimed that there is no duty on the part of state official to obey federal court orders based upon the Court’s interpretation of the federal constitution.
The governor and the legislature, in practical effect, were advancing the theory that the States were the ultimate arbiters of the constitutionality of federal enactments and decisions.
The Court expressly rejected this argument stating: “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” The Court went further: A governor who asserts power to nullify a federal court manifests that the fiat of a state governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land.
There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a State will follow. Aside from ignoring the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, that contention cannot be reconciled with Article I, § 3 of the Idaho Constitution or the oath of office prescribed in Article III, § 25. I hope this brief analysis responds adequately to your inquiry.
Assistant Chief Deputy
Read the full letter: Idaho AG Letter 20110121
As Colorado’s Attorney General I take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution. As part of this job, I frequently urge upon the state and federal courts a particular interpretation of these constitutional documents.
But the final word on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court and the final word on the meaning of the Colorado Constitution is the Colorado Supreme Court.
In a dispute on whether federal laws trump state laws under the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.
In Gonzales v. Raich [case], the U.S. Supreme Court held that even when marijuana is grown, distributed and consumed within a single state, it does affect interstate commerce and is therefore subject to federal regulation. While you or I may find this decision by a majority that included Justice Antonin Scalia to be “judicial activism,” it is nonetheless the law of the land. In Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March, the federal government is citing Gonzales v. Raich and other similar cases to argue that the Commerce Clause allows it to require every American to buy health insurance or face an economic sanction.
My fellow attorneys general and I have successfully argued in a U.S. District Court and the in 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that one’s failure to buy a particular product or service at the federal government’s direction is economic inactivity (unlike growing and selling a crop) and therefore not subject to congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause.
We argue that if the federal government is able to regulate your economic decision making in such a manner, federalism is essentially dead. Rather than having limited enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, the federal government would have largely unbridled power in all areas not addressed in the Bill of Rights.
But make no mistake about it: If the U.S. Supreme Court should determine that the individual health insurance mandate is a proper exercise of the commerce power by Congress, that will be the law of the land and Americans will be left to pursue political remedies as opposed to legal ones.
Such is the rule of law in America. Because of the rule of law, until a change of policy by Congress, medical marijuana remains in violation of federal law. The state attorney general cannot change that.
The national pro-drug lobby spends millions of dollars to persuade voters to falsely believe “medical” marijuana laws are about compassion for the terminally ill. Because there has been little coordination between the states, the people of targeted states are unaware of the negative consequences of these bad laws until after they have been fooled into passing them. These laws are simply a back-door route to legalization, a shield for widespread recreational use of marijuana, and a springboard for a lucrative marijuana industry that can’t be regulated. Once passed, those selling these laws to voters on the premise of compassion quickly demonstrate their only real interest is capitalism.
Similar to the experience in other targeted states, virtually all of the money spent on Arizona’s “medical” marijuana initiative came from the Marijuana Policy Project. The Arizona prevention organization raised and spent a paltry $25,000 on their campaign as compared to well over $800,000 spent by the Marijuana Policy Project. Their disingenuous campaign tactics were ones used successfully in other states. Their campaign materials were printed in advance and their talking points were well rehearsed. Their main message was an impassioned plea to allow suffering, terminally ill people access to “medicine.” A beautiful young woman who had been a cancer patient was the official spokesperson. The media ate it up, giving plenty of free media time to the beautiful young cancer victim as a human-interest story (thus not a campaign message requiring equal time from our opposition). We were outspent and disadvantaged by years of propaganda. It should have been a rout.
The polls predicted a rout in Arizona. We now understand that the conducting and releasing of disingenuous polls is another one of the national pro-drug lobby’s campaign tactics. Throughout our campaign, well-funded pro-drug groups released (or encouraged the media to conduct and release) poll after poll showing that we would lose by a landslide. Apparently, the pro-drug lobby believes people (and legislators) are sheep. The simple question — “Are you in favor of ‘medical’ marijuana?” – does not reveal the deeper (and more relevant) feelings concerning the widespread recreational use, as well as increased social and economic ills, caused by these laws. This “polling” tactic is going on all over the country. The “polls” simply do not accurately reflect the opinion of the majority on the real issues.
As you know, contrary to the claims of the pro-drug lobby, state “medical” marijuana laws are not popular! (Similar to their strategy of relentlessly repeating their false mantra for 20 years that “marijuana is harmless,” they have spent millions and millions of dollars to deceive the public with disingenuous, loud and aggressive campaign tactics proclaiming the popularity of “medical” marijuana.) Marijuana advocates don’t mention that in California and Colorado, more cities and counties ban marijuana businesses than allow them! Nor do they mention that state “medical” marijuana laws create chaos, causing increased crime, youth marijuana use, and traffic fatalities and spawning a business that simply can’t be regulated.
As evidence that the public is becoming more aware of the chaos, just this past year, among other significant events:
- the people of Montana, through a grassroots campaign created by four moms, led a repeal effort (which led to repeal by the legislature, but then vetoed by the Governor, followed by the passage of a severely restrictive bill that now is being challenged in court by marijuana advocates),
- the people of South Dakota soundly rejected a “medical” marijuana initiative,
- the people of Oregon soundly rejected a “medical” marijuana dispensary component for their existing program,
- the people of California defeated a general legalization bill, despite being outspent by marijuana advocates $3.8 million to $300,000,
- the people of Arizona very narrowly passed a “medical” marijuana bill, despite the fact that opponents were outspent by advocates $800,000 to $25,000, and
- a repeal bill was introduced in the New Mexico legislature, resulting in a memorial bill requiring comprehensive studies over the next year.
More and more states are saying yes to medical marijuana. But local governments are increasingly using their laws to just say no, not in our backyard.
In California, with the nation’s most permissive medical marijuana laws, 185 cities and counties have banned pot dispensaries entirely. In New Jersey, perhaps the most restrictive of the 17 states that have legalized marijuana for sick people, some groups planning to sell cannabis are struggling to find local governments willing to let them in.
Dispensaries have also been banned in parts of Colorado [and Montana, California] and have run into opposition in some towns in Maine.
Local politicians have argued that pot is still illegal under federal law, that marijuana dispensaries bring crime, and that such businesses are just fronts for drug-dealing, supplying weed to people who aren’t really sick.
Cities and towns are prohibiting dispensaries outright or applying zoning ordinances so strict that they amount to the same thing. The ordinances typically set minimum distances between such businesses and schools, homes, parks and houses of worship.”
A total of 1240 persons were killed in the last five years in fatal motor vehicle crashes involving Marijuana. 230 were killed in 2008. Use has increase steadily in the last ten years and is now at 5.5% in fatal passenger vehicle crashes.
The use in single vehicle fatal crashes where most drivers are tested shows an involvement rate of 8.3%.
The largest increases occurred in the 5 years following the ‘decriminalization’ of Medical Marijuana in January 2004.
For the five years following legalization there were 1240 fatalities in fatal crashes, compared to the 631 fatalities for the five years prior, for an increase of almost 100%. In 2008 there were 8 counties where more than 16% of the drivers in fatal crashes tested positive for Marijuana. Five of the 8 counties had rates over 20%.
Based on this experience, a use rate of 16% to 20% is very likely. A rate increase to only 16%, would result in 670 fatalities, and at 20% we would have about 840 fatalities annually. The 20% level would be more than triple the present level of 230 fatalities in 2008. At these levels, Marijuana would rival alcohol at 17.9%, as the top cause of traffic fatalities.
If “TC2010” passes, tax income on Marijuana is estimated at $1.4 billion annually compared to an estimated $4 billion or more economic loss from Marijuana related fatal crashes.
Read the full report CA Motor Fatalities Study.
The LA District Attorney provided the following point as to the unworkability of the proposed Regulate, Control and Tax cannabis Act:
- Ceding authority to local government is unworkable
- Cultivation provisions are ambiguous and unfairly limit rights of property owners
- Discrimination provision prevent safe employment and violates federal laws and federal mandates
- Result in uncertainty regarding existing marijuana statutes
- Unduly burdens local government and local law enforcement
Read the report in full LA District Attorney Full Brief.
AB 390, a bill to legalize marijuana in California, has gone up in smoke at the State Capitol.
Children need to grow up in safe neighborhoods and attend schools free of marijuana users and sellers. We need to continue to protect our youth from the dangers of drugs. That starts with stopping the proliferation of pot.
The demise of this disastrous California bill goes to show that our voice was heard at the State Capitol and legislators on both sides of the aisle agreed we don’t want a proliferation of WEED in our streets and communities…our churches…parks and schools.
Legalizing marijuana is bad public policy and most of the legislators know it. In my opinion, once the public wakes up and understands the dangers of legalizing marijuana, legislators voting to legalize may find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. A lot of voters are going to let their representatives know they will not stand for legalizing such a dangerous drug.
Marijuana is a dangerous and destructive drug…and we must not rest until the pro-legalizers are defeated once and for all.
To think some California lawmakers would resort to legalizing the sale and manufacture of drugs to generate tax revenue in which to balance our state budget is an outrage!
There are many ways to get the economy moving again. Putting a flood of mind altering drugs on the streets and then taxing their sales is not one of them.
It doesn’t make sense for our legislators to ban cigarette usage in public places because it is harmful to health, while at the same time saying “yes” to marijuana smoke, which is also carcinogenic.
California lawmakers recently banned trans fat because it is harmful to health. And now they want to make marijuana legal because it’s supposedly good for consumption in certain cases?
If we say marijuana is okay for adults…then what message do do send our children? That it’s okay for them too?
How do we expect our youth to say “No!” to drugs when the adults are saying “yes.”
Why would our public policymakers legalize marijuana, tax it and then go back and use that same money AND MORE for drug prevention programs to convince kids to not smoke dope. It’s bad public policy. It doesn’t make sense.
Taxing marijuana is “blood money” plain and simple. And California lawmakers would have blood on their hands if they voted to legalize this dangerous drug.
Pot should never be legal for general use in California. It’s bad for health, it’s bad for our communities, it’s bad for kids and it’s bad for our brains.
California will go down a dangerous path for which there will be no turning back if voters legalize marijuana. To think people will smoke pot while driving on our roads, visiting our parks, walking in our neighborhoods, sitting in their backyards (with the odor wafting over our fences) and passing near our schools. It is a disaster waiting to happen of enormous consequences. Has anyone given any thought to this?
Rogue legislators like Tom Ammiano want to legalize marijuana because they say it will be a windfall for the economy. Many others think it would actually be a drain on the state budget and the root cause of many job losses due to absenteeism and lost productivity.
There is no guarantee that legalization would undercut the black market, especially if the drug is taxed. Drug pushers would simply sell it “tax free.”
Legalizers think the revenue from a new marijuana tax will solve California’s budget woes, but AB 390 specifically states that people can grow their own weed, which many will do. How do you tax that?
Where will we get the money to pay for a new watchdog agency to regulate the drug? And will employees of this same agency be allowed to smoke it during their work breaks since it will be legal?
AB 390 to legalize marijuana was passed in the California Assembly Public Safety Committee (Tom Ammiano’s committee) on January 12, 2010. Increase the use of drugs, and our public will be safer? Was there another motive?
President Obama was right to declare he wants to usher in a new era of responsibility; and that includes ensuring marijuana remains classified as an illegal drug. There’s no excuse for legalizing another harmful drug known kill through the inducements of carcinogens and mental instability.
Because marijuana is illegal at the federal level, one can imagine California becoming a favored destination for drug buyers – and an exporter of drug dealers.
The “legalizers” will argue we are overcrowding our prisons with people arrested for simple possession of marijuana. The truth is: no one ever stays in jail for more than a day just for possessing it. Anyone that is in jail or prison for marijuana either:
- Also had a role in distribution; or,
- Pled down to possession in exchange for information; or,
- Violated terms of parole/probation, and their original crime was much more serious
Legalizers say: “If marijuana is legalized we can tax it and bring in much needed revenue to our state.”
- In 2005, the State of California spent $19.9 billion dollars on substance abuse and addiction or $545.09 per capita on alcohol and tobacco. But, the State of California collected $1.4 billion dollars of tax revenue or $38.69 per capita on the sale of alcohol and tobacco products. The costs far exceeded the revenue, and marijuana would likely follow a similar trend.
- The tax revenue does not account for the additional public health concerns and costs, such as cancer risks due to smoke inhalation or increased mental illness due to prolonged use.
Legalizers say: “People with medical issues should be able to smoke marijuana to relieve pain or other debilitating symptoms.”
- There is likely medical benefit from components in the cannabis plant. This is very different than legalizing smoked marijuana.
- Medicine should never be determined by voters.
- The general public does not have the knowledge necessary to vote on whether a particular pill or patch is beneficial for the treatment of heart disease, attention deficit disorder, or diabetes. Why is this different?
- The 1999 IOM report said that smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for medical use; we don’t “smoke” medicine.
Legalizers say: “Marijuana toxicity has never killed anyone.”
- Marijuana contributes to dependence, mental illness, lung obstruction, lung cancer, memory loss, motor skill disruption and other harms in a way that tobacco does not, and its harms are underappreciated.
- ER admissions for marijuana-related illness (psychotic episodes, etc.) exceed those of heroin.
- There have been numerous cases of fatal car and other accidents caused by someone under the influence of marijuana.
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. Pot smoke contains more carcinogens than cigarette smoke and is simply not healthy for you. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration routinely tests new drugs according to a rigorous protocol to prove their safety before they are allowed to be sold to the public as medicine. Marijuana has passed no such test.
Legalization will increase drug use and health care costs. Marijuana is an addictive drug that poses significant health consequences to its users. Recent studies have linked marijuana use to birth defects, respiratory system damage, cancer, mental illness, violence, infertility, and immune system damage.
The latest information from the U.S. Treatment Episode Data Set reports that 16.1% of drug treatment admissions were for marijuana as the primary drug of abuse, compared to 6% in 1992.
Legalization will increase crime-related costs. 75% of children in foster care are placed there because of a parent’s substance abuse. Sexual assault is frequently facilitated by substance use – some experts put the number at over 60%. The U.S. Department of Justice found that 61% of domestic violence offenders also have substance abuse problems.
All forms of marijuana are mind-altering (psychoactive). In other words, they change how the brain works. A lot of other chemicals are found in marijuana, too — about 400 of them, some of which are carcinogenic. Marijuana is addictive with more teens in treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.
Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit.
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke.
Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving — thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver’s ability to “track” (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the “high” is gone. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road.
Emergency Room admissions for marijuana-related illness (psychotic episodes, etc.) exceed those of heroin.
Is the quality of ‘street’ marijuana in question? Does it contain contaminates like heavy metals, fungus, bacteria and pesticides?
There are various laws and agencies that control the quality of food, drink and medicine we consume.
California AB 390 brought many of these issues to the forefront.
For the full report lick here 2010 Analysis of AB390.
(only Counties with 200,000+ residents)
Los Angeles 10,393,185
Santa Barbara 431,312
San Diego 3,173,407
San Bernardino 2,060,950
San Joaquin 689,480
San Francisco 845,559
Santa Clara 1,857,621
Contra Costa 1,060,435
San Mateo 745,858
San Luis Obispo 270,429
Santa Cruz 268,637
The issues around marijuana may seem complicated, but the bottom line is simple:
- We know from analysis at RAND that legalization would cause the price of marijuana to fall and its use woould rise, especially among youth.
- With more users, we will see more addiction. Marijuana addiction is real and affects about 1 in 9 people who ever start using the drug (a number similar to alcohol). If one starts in adolescence, that number jumps to 1 in 6 users.
- If you care about educational outcomes, you need to oppose legalization because marijuana use reduces learning and memory, increases drop-out rates and lower grades.
- If you care about economic competitiveness and jobs, you need to oppose legalization because employers will not hire those who test positive for drug use.
- If you care about safe roads, you need to oppose legalization because smoking marijuana doubles a user’s risk of having an accident.
- Taxes on marijuana would never pay for the increased social costs that would result from more users. Our experience with alcohol and tobacco shows that for every dollar gained in taxes, we spent $10 in social costs.
- Legalization would jeopardize our ability to get Federal funds, because of drug-free workplace requirements and the fact that marijuana is against Federal law.
- Our experience with even tightly regulated prescription drugs, such as OxyCotin, shows that legalizing drugs widens availability and misuse, even when controls are in place.
- Legalization would not curb violence. Marijuana accounts for only a portion of the proceeds gained by criminal organizations that profit from drug distribution, human trafficking, and other crimes, so legalizing marijuana would not deter these groups from continuing to operate.
- Legalization wouldn’t even reduce the burden of the criminal justice system. Today, alcohol ~ which is legal- is the cause of over 2.6 million arrests a year. That is a million more arrests than for all illegal drugs combined.
- In places that have experimented with quasi-legalization, marijuana use and associated problems have skyrocketed. That is why the Netherlands, the U.K., and other countries, after experiencing a wave of increased use, are now reversing their policies.
Today a full 16 percent of the U.S. population is dependent on alcohol, nicotine or other drugs. Another 27 percent of the general population engages in use of these substances in ways that put themselves and others at risk, including underage and adult excessive drinking, tobacco use, and misuse of pain relievers, stimulants and depressants. For a staggering 43 percent of the nation, then — nearly every other American — addiction and risky substance use are a matter of public health.
Addiction is America’s number one health care and health cost problem. Approximately 30 percent of our federal and state health care spending is attributable to this disease. Across all government spending, the total financial cost is nearly $500 billion annually.
The extent of human misery is incalculable.