Mr. Obama, just say no to state ballots on marijuana legalization

The silence of America's top law enforcement officials – President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder – on three state votes to legalize marijuana is puzzling. If any of the measures pass, it will cause a constitutional crisis as well as a dangerous jump in pot use.

AP Photo
Chicago police enter an area where authorities are busy chopping down 6-to-8-foot tall marijuana plants that they found growing on a chunk of land the size of two football fields on the city's South Side Oct. 3. Officers on routine patrol in a police helicopter spotted the crop.

Voters in three states face ballot measures Nov. 6 on whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. If any one of them passes, it will be a historic first for the United States. But it will also lead to clear violations of federal law that has long banned pot – for any use.

To avoid a constitutional crisis for whoever occupies the White House next year, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder must speak out now – as law enforcement officers – to influence voters in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado.

An ounce of political prevention would be worth a pound of legal cures later.

Their silence as federal officials is difficult to understand. In the last two years, the Justice Department has been tough in many of the 17 states that now allow marijuana for alleged medical use – especially in California, where the rules on pot dispensaries are weak and the will of state leaders to fix them even weaker.

The White House’s reticence is also puzzling because Mr. Obama was not shy about taking on Arizona over its immigration law. His inconsistency on these two fronts with states suggests to some a political desire to push pro-pot young people to the polls, especially in the pivotal state of Colorado. If true, that also suggests a political expediency at the expense of moral integrity.

Leading experts say legalizing marijuana in the US would double or triple the number of people with a dangerous dependency on pot to 12 million. And the amount of time that pot users would be intoxicated would also double or triple, with an estimated $100 billion loss of worker productivity to the economy. That figure far surpasses the money spent on anti-marijuana enforcement.

Despite federal actions against medical-marijuana abuses, sometimes words can speak louder. Obama, himself a reformed pot user, should simply state his disapproval at passage of these ballot initiatives. (Mitt Romney has said he will rigorously enforce the federal ban.)

Marijuana use need never become as pervasive as that of alcohol if government leaders head off the legalization movement.

Obama has plenty of moral backup. Nine former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration asked Mr. Holder in a letter last month to publicly oppose the ballot initiatives. “To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” they wrote.

Passage of the three measures – Amendment 64 in Colorado, Measure 80 in Oregon, and Initiative 502 in Washington – could lead to massive violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act – and not just by ordinary citizens who would start to use pot openly, but state workers who assist in growing and selling it.

Such widespread lawlessness would be on the scale of the current population of illegal immigrants, a problem that corrodes the rule of law and creates deep political divisions among Americans.

As difficult as it might be, the president need only spend a minute at a microphone in coming days stating his opposition to legalizing pot.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.