Pubdate: Wed, 30 Oct 2013
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 2013 The Baltimore Sun Company
Contact:  http://www.baltimoresun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/37

A CHANGING CONVERSATION

Court's ruling in drug-smuggling case reflects the federal 
government's changing role in enforcing marijuana laws

Aruling handed down by a federal court this week strongly suggests 
that recent changes in state laws governing marijuana are now being 
reflected in how federal drug laws are enforced and will further 
change the conversation about marijuana use in America.

U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar acknowledged that new reality 
when he sentenced Scott Russell Segal to nearly five years in prison 
this week for his role in smuggling hundreds of kilograms of 
marijuana to Howard and Anne Arundel counties from California and New 
Jersey. Under federal sentencing guidelines Mr. Segal could have 
received eight to 11 years behind bars.

But the judge used his discretion to cut that penalty nearly in half, 
saying the federal government's response to the legalization of 
marijuana in some states had raised concerns of "equal justice" if 
federal law mandated significantly harsher punishments than state 
laws for the same crime. In doing so he clearly had in mind the 
Justice Department's recent announcement that it would not seek to 
block state laws legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational use.

Thus while he acknowledged the gravity of Mr. Segal's crimes, Judge 
Bredar also noted that "it's indisputable that the offense is not 
regarded with the seriousness it was 20 or 30 years ago" when the 
guidelines were written. Since that time 18 states, including 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia have passed laws 
decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for 
medical purposes. Two more states, Colorado and Washington, recently 
legalized the drug for recreational use as well.

Taken together, these developments have made it clear that marijuana 
policy in this country increasingly is being driven by state 
legislatures rather than by lawmakers in Washington. Judge Bredar's 
ruling is just the latest evidence of that momentous shift, which is 
sure to have important legal, social and public health and safety 
consequences for the country, not all of them predictable.

Meanwhile, the federal government obviously will have a continuing 
interest in how the policy debate unfolds. Even states that legalize 
marijuana sales can be expected to limit minors' access to the drug, 
for example, similar to the restrictions that presently apply to 
alcohol and tobacco. Today's pot is a lot stronger than the weed 
smoked by the flower children of the 1960s, and relatively little is 
known about its long-term effects. At the same time, federal 
officials are the only ones who can promulgate uniform national 
standards to protect consumers against tainted or counterfeit 
products, as well as rules against false or misleading advertising by 
marijuana growers and processors.

Moreover, the federal government will continue to bear responsibility 
for seeing to it that any relaxation of state marijuana laws doesn't 
open the door for criminal gangs to profit from smuggled contraband. 
The increased revenue state lawmakers anticipate from taxing 
marijuana in states where the drug is legal would quickly evaporate 
if a flourishing black market were allowed to continue.

Judge Bredar briefly wondered aloud whether underground sales of 
marijuana were comparable to the black market in untaxed cigarettes 
in terms of the seriousness of the threat posed to society. But the 
truth is that, unlike black market cigarettes, the gangs that deal in 
illegal marijuana have gotten a lot more violent in recent decades, a 
function of the widespread continuing limited supply and high demand 
for pot as well as of the easy availability of guns. That's a direct 
consequence of the drug's prohibition, just as the gang wars of the 
1920s and '30s were a result of attempts to ban legal sales of 
alcohol. Part of the wisdom of Judge Bredar's ruling lies in the 
recognition that we don't want to repeat the same mistake.

Overall, the court's decision was a reasoned attempt to take into 
account all these factors in order to balance the strict requirements 
of the law against changing public perceptions of marijuana's impact 
on public health and safety. Ultimately some new consensus about the 
benefits and dangers of legal marijuana will emerge and be codified 
in a coherent body of law. But we are not there yet, and until that 
happens cases like this will provide the forums through which our 
national conversation on the subject is conducted.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom