It would be very difficult for the US to back out of or alter the very treaty we pressured most of the world into signing not that long ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...
That said, the SCND dates back to 1961 which was 53 years ago, and those countries which have openly stepped back from full compliance with it such as Portugal and Uruguay don't seem to have incurred any disadvantage or sanctions worth talking about, though you might argue that they had little or no political capital to lose in the first place. I do think there's a global shift towards looking at drug abuse and addiction as public health issues rather than moral vices, so while there's pressure form some quarters to maintain or strengthen anti-drug enforcement there's also pressure to adopt more utilitarian policies focused on harm minimization and demand management.
I think the convention will not be explicitly derogated any time soon, but will rather be allowed to become a dead letter through diminished contributions of fiscal and political capital for enforcement, while being nominally and loudly upheld by more authoritarian regimes as both a blunt instrument in trade negotiations and as a proxy for the rule of law.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014...
[2] http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/05/teen-dead-after...
[3] http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/15/yet-another-example-of-why...
I mean, imagine if the votes of US senators on individual issues were governed by the outcome of votes in state legislatures - you'd have a more responsive democracy on the face of things but in practice legislative work would slow to an utter crawl and you'd have even more procedural maneuvering than we do now.
I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP, which would be a shrewd political tactic; while I don't much like that it might benefit the GOP, that's outweighed by my support of free trade and my low opinion of economic populism and national sovereignty (just to be up=front about my political biases).
He doesn't need congressional approval -- that's exactly how the TPP has been getting negotiated this entire time -- and is exactly why it's so outstandingly bad.
Back room deals regarding IP rights (pushed hard by the MPAA, RIAA and other lobbying organizations) among many other blanketed things that the public has no knowledge of nor any say in but will ultimately be as effective as law here in the country. (so much for the legislative branch)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf <<CRS is the Congressional Research Service, a useful resource for anyone interested in policy matters
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-hous...
(so much for the legislative branch)
I could say the same thing about the executive branch, which persons like yourself seem to think should merely administrate the legislative will. Our constitutional design institutionalizes tension between these two branches of government, and very explicitly grants the President power to make treaties, subject to a 2/3 approval from the Senate for ratification.
Trade agreements are not exactly the same as treaties, but there is ample precedent for Congress pre-emptively authorizing the President to negotiate them. The consitutional basis for this is discussed in some detail near the start of the CRS paper linked above.
In either case, there is zero domestic legal consequence to deciding to ignore the treaty provisions. Technically a decision by the executive branch to violate treaty provisions is a violation of federal law, but there are no consequences. Obviously, if the US decides to violate a treaty agreement there may well be international consequences, including other nations' decisions to back out of the treaty, to refuse to trust the US in other negotiations or treaties, etc. All of that, of course, is exactly the same regardless of whether or not there is a formal process of derogation.
[0] There's a third form of treaty, "sole executive". That form is applicable when the treaty obligations are entirely within the scope of presidential power, such as Status Of Forces Agreements which the president executes in his role as Commander-In-Chief. Those, of course, have no legal standing at all except as lawful orders from the president to his employees.
As a matter of domestic law, that's not the case. Treaties are on the same level as federal legislation and the last in time controls. There are a series of court cases that disfavor implied abrogragation under comity principles, but if a later-in-time statute is in clear and unavoidable conflict with an earlier treaty, the statute controls.
1) The US often does not abide by things the way most other countries are expected to. If we want to back out, nobody can stop us, there will be no negative consequences, nobody is going to embargo or sanction the US over the matter. Is that fair? Of course not, but that's one of the 'perks' of being the lone superpower.
2) Everybody else will celebrate. Most people realize at this point that prohibition does not work very well in most of the world (countries like Japan being the freak outlier due to culture; but I'd argue even they would benefit from liberalized drug policies).
3) The rest of the world wants to tear down the failed war on drugs that the US initiated. They will be eager to welcome a shift in attitude from the US Government. Now that the people of the US want to tear down the failed war on drugs, that is exactly what will happen, slowly but surely. Nothing can stop it now, there has been a fundamental culture shift in the US over the last 20 years, and once that goes a direction, there is nothing that can stop it (see: gay marriage, women's suffrage, civil rights).
The US ignores various agreements it's signed all the time, and international conventions, etc.
So I'd say, you're right, but only because it's convenient for them to adhere to it.
Furthermore, the drug policy boat in particular is very big. A lot of this policy, and the institutions implementing it, was developed in the 1980's and 1990's. In 1991, the consensus in favor of making marijuana illegal was an overwhelming 78-17. Being anti-drug was a political winner, something both sides of the aisle could get behind. Almost everyone old enough to have substantial leadership within the drug enforcement organizations grew up in an intensely anti-drug culture. It will take quite some time for those folks to age out of the system.
I am not an expert (anyone want to chime in?), however it seems right now, the industry does not seem to have any real monopolies and that individual dispensaries (which also have farms?) are making most of the money, rather than any corporations.
1 - he must take care that when the laws are executed, they are done so faithfully.
2 - he must execute all the laws, and do so faithfully.
The first of these interpretations does not require that every law be executed.
The President also has the "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States". Choosing not to enforce something is in fact a weaker exercise of power than pardon, as it preserves the ability of future administrations to prosecute current infractions.
The DEA and FDA directors serve at the pleasure of the president. Thus, Obama can legalize marijuana if he wants to. He doesn't remotely want to.
Here is to hoping the next big issue after marriage equality if fixing our drug laws, which are more damaging than many will admit and far too profitable to law enforcement and the prison industry.
The problem is the US Government, and always has been.
Citation for the "Many"?
Only about 5% of prisoners are in private prisons.
That seems like it would be a union problem and not a prison problem.
The money made on prisons, is made by construction firms, labor that works at the prison, and slave labor used to manufacture things. There is a ton of profit being made from government prisons.
I always find it bizarre that people point to the 5% to 8% problem - corporate prisons - and think that is the problem, while pretending the huge money that circles around the other 92% - the government prisons - is benign by comparison. The other 92% is even more vile than the 8% corporate prisons - it's 11 times larger.
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/
http://mic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-califor...
EDIT: Here's a cute quote from Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest for-profit prison companies:
"any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them." [0]
[0] - http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N...
If someone comes up with a cure for cancer, a lot of oncologists are going to be out of a job. Does that mean that oncologists are actively suppressing cancer cures?
Corrections Corporation of America and other private prison companies openly fight efforts to relax drugs laws. Same for prison guard unions; In 2008 the CCPoA, California's largest prison guard union, was the most active opponent of Prop 5, which would have expanded treatment for non-violent drug offenders, and reduced criminal penalties for non-violent drug crimes [1].
As far as I know, oncologists are not fighting cancer research in order to protect their careers.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_5_%2820...
Do private prisons fight relaxing laws to make more money? I'm sure some do, but most don't.
Corrections Corporation of America does, and they account for more than 80,000 of the 133,000 private prison beds in the US. GEO Group does, and they account for about 49,000. Together they thus represents the vast majority of private prisons in the US.
Both of them are part of ALEC - a DC base lobbying group that develops model legislation that it then pushes as a means for state legislators to be "tough on crime".
As far as lobbying, the other 92% of prisoners are guarded by very powerful public sector unions, whose incentives are the same.
The existence of even a single for-profit prison provides a perverse incentive to put the marginal criminal into a private, profit-generating cage rather than a public, tax-draining, politically-risky rehabilitation or diversion program.
Furthermore, it is an invitation to corruption. Remember the judge that was sending juvenile defendants to a reform camp, often regardless of the merits of their cases, because he was getting kickbacks from the camp?
For the other 92%, how much work does that state-run prison contract out to private companies?
Quick, off the top of your head: do you have any idea just how many people are incarcerated in this country, in both absolute and per-capita terms, and how those figures compare to, say, every other country on Earth?
8% of the US prison population is a HELL of a lot of people.
That still means there are millionaires out there lobbying to keep drug laws as is so they can keep filling their prisons. And the other 92% of prisons probably have a ton of people behind bars due to drug laws because of the 8% of prisons that lobby for & profit from them.
Jobs, graft, construction, maintenance, slave labor, etc. - huge sums of profit derived from the government prison system, far more than in the corporate system.
As though the 92% of that equation is looking to give up its jobs and tax dollars. Because we just know how much the government likes to give up its spending.
It's 11 times larger. That's a lot of tax money to roll around in, and generates a ton of profit in the form of slave labor manufacturing, graft, jobs that politicians use as platforms, labor unions that get kickbacks and get to dole out well paying jobs.
What's the difference, when we're speaking of "profit" when it comes to whether the corporate prison generates a 7% margin, or whether that 7% goes to a union at a government prison? There is no real difference, it's just a matter of whose pocket the cash ends up in.
No, the DC provision does not allow for licensed dispensaries for recreational use[0]. (Dispensaries for medical use have just begun opening under the medical law passed in 2011, but this is separate from the situation in Colorado post-Amendment 64).
> That's pending congressional approval though. (Really it's pending congress not striking it down, which they seem loathe to do except for one very zealous committee member without much power).
Do you have a source for this? Congress has struck down similar measures from DC in the past.
I'm trying to track down my source for the approval, but the general thought seems to be that the republicans other than Andy Harris (aforementioned super opposed member) are less likely to start a fight where they're in the minority on a "state's rights" issue during what should be a quiet legislative session.
Harris isn't a committee chair so he can't bring up the ban/amendment without help. I don't know the committee politics to well enough to know this is likely; but usually they sneak these things in as budget riders which takes the approval of the committee chair.
That's precisely the separation of state and federal power the founders envisioned.
This sort of hack to elevate crimes to federal level has been abused plenty of drugs cases in the past, so that separation of state and federal powers is mostly a matter of decorum, if the feds want to be involved in a case they will be.
Not that there is absolutely any evidence theres even 10% of voters in Mississippi - let alone 51% - that would really support instituting Jim Crow laws now. For starters, 37.5% of Mississippi population is African-American, and it would require 88% of white vote to achieve 51%. Are you seriously claiming 88% of Mississippi white population - I assume you don't go as far as assuming African-American citizens of Mississippi want to introduce Jim Crow laws - are not only fervently racist, but actually want Jim Crow laws? Any data to back that ridiculous assumption?
As far as I know, those objections are irrelevant -- there is nothing saying "expanding people rights" or "removing governmental restrictions" are preferable compared to the opposite acts. As long as two acts of law both abide by US constitutional rules, they are equal in "goodness".
But let me ask you this: if for you it's the same, what problem you have with Jim Crow? After all, Jim Crow laws were approved by many courts and were considered very constitutional for a long time. So for you there was no problem with them? I know why I'd have problem with that - because they remove people's rights, and for only reason that they are of a "wrong" race. For me it's bad. But if for you there's no difference between people's right and government restrictions and one is not preferable to the other, what exactly is the problem there for you?
I think you're jumbling up various documents there.
> After all, Jim Crow laws were approved by many courts and were considered very constitutional for a long time. So for you there was no problem with them?
From a legal standpoint, no, there was no problem (well, except for state-sponsored school segregation, which was ruled unconstitutional). From my (and likely yours) moral and cultural standpoint, they were terrible and this eventually resulted in the act that abolished them all. Both the act that instituted them and the act that abolished them were perfectly legitimate in their own way.
Morality and law are different things. The former can provide impetus for forging the latter, but confusing them is a Bad Thing and it's what leads you to Iran.
Nope. What I said is that, if it's legal then it's OK from a legal perspective, which is a tautology really and I can't believe I'm still explaining it to you.
> "But separation of powers!" is an Iran-like answer to this
To the contrary, the Iranian answer is to implicate moral into everything so that the law has to answer to "superior values", and to be honest I struggle to understand how you could fail to see this (unless you don't really know how Iran runs -- hint: religious/moral authority trumps regular law).
Separation of powers starts with the "two swords" of religious and temporal power being handled in different ways by different people, back when these topics were first seriously discussed in Europe (one could argue that the "unto Caesar" line is the start of this particular debate, but it was basically ignored for centuries afterwards). When people realized that this separation alone was not enough of a guarantee, they split it further (roughly along Montesquieu's lines) exactly so that nobody could inflict its own personal moral code on the whole of the community without the community agreeing first. When the community changes its stance (because of moral or technical changes or whatever), then it collectively agrees that laws should change, and new law supersedes old law. This is how the system should work in a democratic society (which is not to say that's actually what happens, but it's the ideal we strive for, so to speak).
Law shouldn't answer to anything but future law. The US Constitution lives about most other laws, but it's still "just" law.
That is how progress is achieved and how we can all live together without starting religious wars every other day.
Police in my province have been trained to spot DUI of drugs (besides alcohol) mostly pot since it seems many people think it's OK to drive stoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard#Missi...
I wonder how this all interacts with the CBP.
(Open to correction, enhancement, or clarification from anyone who is a lawyer, and/or who has experience in these matters).
I deleted it because I just discovered that it's technically illegal in Canada; thought it was less murky than it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_C...
And the likelihood that you run into a federal officer while crossing the WA/OR border is pretty slim.
Are there big differences in how Washington and Oregon are taxing marijuana?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/03/irs-lim...
Right now rec shops in Vancouver, WA are benefiting from their proximity to Portland, but that's going to flip around once Oregon is up and running.
Q: Can I take marijuana into Washington where they also allow recreational marijuana?
A: No. You can not take marijuana across state lines.
But last night an article ran in our local paper stating that the Coast Guard will continue to enforce federal marijuana regulations [0]. In Alaska, that's a huge asterisk next to legalization. You can't carry marijuana on a boat, which includes the ferries in southeast and throughout the Gulf of Alaska. That also impacts all of the villages throughout the state whose main access is by river. And finally, transporting marijuana by air is against federal regulations as well. That means marijuana is essentially legalized on the road system of Alaska, which leaves much of the state in another legal limbo.
I look forward to the day where the entire country has a more reasonable approach to marijuana regulation.
[0] http://juneauempire.com/local/2014-11-03/smoke-water#.VFpFQT...