Washington and Colorado are getting lots of love on the left for legalizing recreational marijuana use. The states are especially looking like winners now that the Obama administration has announced that as long as they set up a “tightly regulated market” for pot sales, it won’t send DEA agents and prosecutors after the newly emboldened sellers and growers who are setting up shop. Seen another way, Washington and Colorado opened the door to the federal government to loosen its own strict bans on marijuana use — and the Obama administration just walked through it.
At the same time, liberals have nothing good to say about a rash of state bills that aim to defang federal enforcement of gun laws. The latest proposal, in Missouri, was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon but is scheduled for a second vote to override him later this month. Missouri’s bill has rightly gotten tagged as wacko for going so far as to make it a crime for a federal agent to enforce a federal gun law — for example, by conducting a background check or inspecting a gun seller’s license.
The idea of arresting ATF officers is crazy enough that in Wyoming, a state that actually has such a law on the books, no such arrests have reportedly been made. That’s not really a surprise: These state efforts to nullify federal gun laws are better understood as a form of protest against federal power in general and federal laws about guns in particular. They’ve got little to no chance of holding up in court. The most obvious reason that the pot laws are more effective as a curb on federal power is their indirect approach. Washington state and Colorado aren’t directly challenging the bans on marijuana enacted by Congress. And they’re sure not threatening to arrest any federal agent for enforcing those bans. Instead, the states simply boxed the feds in. The Justice Department can let the marijuana storefronts open, as Washington and Colorado voters have asked for, or shut it all down in the name of federal power.
The Justice Department already had to make this kind of call, on a smaller scale, when states like California legalized medical marijuana. Justice said in 2011 that it wasn’t an “efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement on individuals with serious illnesses,” as in, medical marijuana users. But at that point, DOJ also warned that “large-scale” marijuana growers and sellers should not imagine themselves shielded.
The big shift in the new memo to the country’s U.S. Attorneys, issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole in August, is its statement that if a state has strong regulations in place, and the marijuana business is complying with them, this “may allay the threat that an operation’s size poses to federal enforcement interests.” And so, “in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities.”
In other words, bigger no longer means scarier, because bigger no longer means giant illegal drug cartel. It could someday mean a clean-cut chain, even the Starbucks of Pot.
That’s why marijuana advocates are largely cheering Justice’s new stance. The pro-pot laws in Washington and Colorado don’t have to directly challenge federal law to change it forever.