It's Going to Take More than a Memo to Fix the Drug War

Today, the DOJ released a memorandum (PDF, hereafter "Cole memo") sent to all US Attorneys' offices to "update [the DOJ's previous] guidance" on federal policy as it relates to liberalized state marijuana laws. A lot of drug reformers are hailing this memo as a great step forward for the government. I'm less convinced.

As I've written elsewhere, we've seen DOJ memos on this topic before. Indeed, the opening lines of the Cole memo directly reference the 2009 Ogden memo and its 2011 clarification. The latter,  also written by Cole, effectively gutted the spirit of the Ogden memo's message to de-prioritize state-law compliant medical marijuana distributors: "The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law."

Looking at the language of today's memo, there is no concrete change in policy by the DOJ. Yes, it is encouraging  that the Attorney General wants to de-emphasize regulated marijuana distribution as a prosecutorial priority, from a politically symbolic standpoint. But U.S. Attorneys don't primarily operate within the realm of politics--they prosecute people for the federal government. They have the widest discretion imaginable and literally countless federal laws with criminal and civil sanctions from which to choose to prosecute any person in their jurisdiction. Those prosecutions cost money to investigate and they have finite resources with which to work--though much larger than the resources of the would-be defendants facing federal prosecution.

Rand Paul's Filibuster, Due Process, and Democratic Cowardice

I've never been a big Ron or Rand Paul fan. The elder's refusal to take responsibility for his racist fundraising emails in the 1980s is an inexcusable disgrace. Rand has publicly distanced himself from the "L-word," and proudly asserts his conservative bona fides. I am not anti-Pauls, but I'm not about to put a "Paul 2016" sign up in my window either.

But what Rand Paul did yesterday was remarkable and one of the greatest political moments of my life. For thirteen hours, Rand Paul held a basic--though imperfect--civics lesson, citing simple truths and fundamental rights that the Obama administration blithely asserts they can ignore. Only one Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden, had the courage to quite literally stand up for what is right.

I say "imperfect" because, not only did he get some constitutional doctrine wrong, Paul became too distracted by "drones," the weapon with which the United States carries out much of its targeted killing program. Easily lost in his many hours of talk about drones and Hellfire missiles, Paul was making an extensive and coherent defense of Due Process and the fundamental rights every American has against his government. In the criminal realm, these rights include, but are not exclusive to:

• Right to habeas corpus (the government has to present just cause for imprisoning you)
• Right to counsel
• Right to face your accuser
• Right to trial by jury
• And, in the case of an accusation of treason Article III  § 3 of the Constitution is quite specific:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Two witnesses. Overt acts.  Open court. For all the ambiguity in the Constitution, the requirements placed on the government to pursue charges of treason against a citizen are about as unambiguous as the document gets.

Yet, there isn't one of these rights and protections that isn't violated in its entirety by President Obama's "Kill list."

Since the birth of government thousands of years ago, rulers and despots have been ordering enemies killed for both just and unjust causes. It is the most brutal use of state power and it has been used and abused throughout the history of civilization.

But for almost 800 years, Western legal tradition has forbidden its use against its citizens. The rights listed above aren't some product of a bleeding heart ACLU lawyer, they have been formed by our  understanding of the rights of man since 1215. For reference, Genghis Khan was pillaging China when England decided, "Hey, maybe we should put in some safeguards to protect people from being indiscriminately killed by our leaders."

There is nothing that changed on 9/11 that should upend the wisdom learned over the greater part of a millennium.  The brilliance and beauty of our 224 year old system of government is that, at great cost and over time, it has continued to expand, not restrict, these protections that once were given only to "free men." The ancient right to Due Process was crafted over centuries, ultimately codified in our Constitution, to protect citizens from the unilateral actions of a government entity.

And yet, we have an administration that claims the power of assassination by executive decree, with no geographical boundary, and no reasonable understanding of "imminent threat"--the standard used to self-justify their secret decisionmaking.

When directly questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, whether the government had this power to order the domestic killing of an American citizen away from any cognizable battlefield, Attorney General Eric Holder essentially admitted as much, though he said it was highly unlikely they'd use it. Holder half-assed his answers, obfuscating as much as he could, in order to not say outright that the government can kill you without oversight or due process at its whim, dismissing the question because it was "hypothetical."

Yet, for another hypothetical, Holder didn't back down from specifics. This is the exchange Holder had with Sen. Grassley:

GRASSLEY: Once again, thank you for coming up here. I want to follow up on your response to Senator Cruz. And I think he talked about introducing a bill. Do you believe that Congress has a constitutional authority to pass a law prohibiting the president's ability to use drone aircrafts, to use lethal force against American citizens on U.S. soil? And if not, why not?

HOLDER: Do I think the Congress has the ability to pass such a bill?

GRASSLEY: No, whether the legislation -- well, yes, Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law prohibiting the president's ability to use drone aircraft, to use lethal force against American citizens on U.S. soil.

HOLDER: I'm not sure that such a bill would be constitutional. I think that might run counter to the Article II powers that the president has. I'd have to look at, obviously, the legislation, but I would have that concern.

GRASSLEY: OK. But your basis is -- the why not, it'd be because of Article II?

HOLDER: I believe so, yes.

The  Attorney General of the United States's first reaction to a hypothetical bill to ban domestic drone strikes is to "have concern" that the President's power may be limited. Yet, the hypothetical nature of a question whether the government could summarily kill a citizen on American soil prevents him from unambiguously supporting 800 years of common law and the explicit text of the Bill of Rights.

I have a hypothetical for the administration:

A train is bombed by terrorists, killing over 100 people. A fingerprint pulled from the reconstructed device comes up with a match in the government's database. The fingerprint belongs to a Muslim American citizen living in Oregon. The United States has tangible evidence that he is responsible for over 100 deaths of innocents. Can the government kill him?

These facts aren't really hypothetical. In the wake of the Madrid train bombing, Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield was taken into custody and held weeks without charge for a misidentified fingerprint. He was guilty of no crime, but government agents threw him in a cell and denied him his constitutional rights for weeks. Due Process should have protected him, but because he was thought to be a Muslim terrorist, his rights were ignored. Presented with tangible evidence in the wake of a mass casualty attack, in a world in which American terror suspects are routinely targeted abroad, it doesn't take a slippery slope to reach the point where a presidential hit is put on an American citizen in the United States. It just takes one step and a call to clandestine operations.

So when a U.S. Senator took to the floor to bring this bold assertion to the forefront of the public eye, only one person from the party that prides itself on its civil rights bona fides stood up to even question the claim. One.

I do not believe for one moment that most of the Republican senators, or even all of the Republicans who raised questions last night, agrees with Paul. They used his filibuster as a political tool to attack Obama. Under a Republican administration--which not a few of them imagine themselves to be someday leading--many would have no qualms whatsoever with this power. But this was an opportunity for the Democrats to stand up for what they claim to believe in, at no conceivable political cost from their constituents, yet all but one sat on their hands. They said nothing. They'll get no such support against executive overreach from Republicans during a Republican administration, and they know it, yet they just sat idly by as one man spent 13 arduous hours explaining the fundamental importance of Due Process and how assassination by executive decree, with no oversight or recourse, is anathema to a functioning republic.

Their silence was cowardice. They should be ashamed of themselves.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

UPDATE:   Adam Serwer reports that Holder has answered Paul:

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."

Sigh. The drone issue continues to obscure the fact Americans have no legal recourse against a secret executive order to kill them, whether at home or abroad.

Why the Feds Are Unlikely to Respect Washington and Colorado

The recent ballot initiatives that allow recreational cannabis use in Colorado and Washington have been welcomed by many folks as a sweeping change in American drug policy. To the extent that the initiatives represent a shift in popular conception of cannabis use, I join the general enthusiasm expressed by libertarians and a several on the Left. However, the Obama Administration has shown no substantive will to rein in the federal Drug War and until it does, these measures can only be viewed as partial victories in those two states. Moreover, many supportive commentators seem overly optimistic of what is likely to happen, perhaps based on misplaced assumptions of how the Drug War is fought.

Quoting Mark Kleiman, co-author of Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, MoJo's Kevin Drum writes:

[Kleiman:]The federal government could shut down both of those experiments, if it were determined to do so....But it would make it impossible to learn anything useful from the Colorado and Washington experiments.

So why shouldn’t the federal government cut Colorado and Washington some slack? As long as those states prevent marijuana grown under their laws from crossing state lines and thereby subverting marijuana prohibition in the rest of the states, the Justice Department could step back and let the consequences of the new policies play themselves out. They might succeed, or they might fail. In either case, the rest of us could learn from their experience.

I doubt that either state can effectively prevent locally-grown marijuana from crossing state lines, but hell, they can't prevent it now either. So I'm with Mark: there's no need to announce any public change of policy, but Obama should tell DEA to lie low for a while and see how Colorado and Washington do. A controlled experiment like this is the best way of finding out the effect of full legalization of marijuana. Does it lead to higher consumption? Is it a gateway drug? Will it reduce consumption of alcohol? (emphasis mine)

There are three main problems with this excerpt. 

 

First, Professor Kleiman's question rests on the assumption that the federal government has any desire to see how the “experiments” play out. As I've noted before, the DEA effectively prohibits experimental research on cannabis in a controlled environment by anyone but the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a government agency. Cannabis, as explained in Kleiman's book, is the only illicit drug that is off-limits to non-governmental researchers that are open to positive value in cannabis use. There is no reason to believe that while the DEA won't allow literal experiments by scientists in a lab, they would be amenable to whole states being substituted as figurative laboratories. As a drug researcher, he knows this, but this sort of 'why not?' obscures the hurdles the government  institutes to hamper the “science” the ONDCP is so fond of citing to support their policies.

Second, Drum assumes that cannabis would need to cross state lines to violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to enter the federal jurisdiction—a perfectly reasonable belief. Unfortunately, this is not how the Supreme Court has ruled...twice. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the New Deal Court ruled that a farmer who set aside wheat for his own family's use could be regulated—read, “prohibited”—by the federal government of the Interstate Commerce Clause. More recently, in Gonzales v. Raich (2004), the Court ruled—with Republican-appointed Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting—that cannabis grown by a terminally ill individual in accordance with state law for one's own medical use violated that very same Interstate Commerce Clause because by not participating in a (prohibited) interstate market, you affect demand. Not coincidentally, this tortured reading of the clause was cited in just nearly (if not) every single brief supporting the government in the Health Care Cases (2012). In short, much of the Left's economic and legal agenda rides on the federal government asserting power, via the Commerce Clause, into any aspect of our economic and personal lives. That Obama's Administration would find a new respect for federalism for cannabis is laughable...literally.

Third, and perhaps most important, it's not only the DEA that needs to stand-down. The U.S. Attorneys in every federal jurisdiction in the country have very wide latitude on whom they prosecute and for what offense. As you may recall, early in the Obama Administration, Attorney General Holder said publicly, backed-up by what is known as the “Ogden Memo,” that the DOJ would no longer consider raiding medical cannabis facilities that complied with state law a priority. Since then, the DOJ has increased raids on those same facilities, sometimes with the help of municipal authorities who don't agree with state law. If a public directive is so willfully ignored, there's little to suggest private encouragement would meet a different fate, particularly in the Eastern District of Washington.

Matt Yglesias, in a post that has a much more realistic view of the new regime, still errs a bit:

“The DEA obviously can't police low-level retailing, so if states and localities say it's legal it'll be a lot simpler in practice to get some pot.”

On the facts of the matter, Matt is correct. There will be no DEA patrols going through neighborhoods looking for cannabis. That said, it has been and continues to be very easy to “get some pot” all across America. Most cannabis users (and dealers, for that matter) simply aren't caught. The Drug War isn't a failure because you can still get some drugs under some circumstances—the failure lies, in part, in the fact drugs are still virtually ubiquitous despite draconian enforcement efforts. Further, the feds are not above using relatively low-level stings to get convictions—they know most offenders are going to plea out. Indeed, they don't even need to charge anyone at all to intimidate a low-level user ignorant of federal law into cooperation. Then, all they need is an inside-lead to a small group of people who have a common connection to drugs—say a commune or even a co-op—and prosecutors may attach the word “conspiracy” to add the cannabis together to reach federally chargable amounts. If any of those people have otherwise legal and unrelated guns on the premises, the charges really start to mount up. A small dispensary or a self-sustaining bunch of hippies can become a target of an ambitious U.S. Attorney—and it's all over. Though hypothetical, it's not at all unreasonable to think this sort of thing will happen—the track record against medical cannabis facilities proves that. I'm sure the DOJ has its stable of confidential informants ready and willing to work under new rules.

So I join Yglesias and Drum with a cautious optimism that this will make life better for cannabis users in Colorado and Washington. But we should not fail to mention that this will not deter federal law enforcement from prosecuting state-legal activity. That enforcement, though less harassing to the general public than state and municipal policing, will continue to ruin lives through incarceration and depriving the sick of relief. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the Administration that continues to deprive cancer and AIDS patients regular access to their medicine suddenly changing its tune now that Dave-O can load up his stash before a Phish show. If anything, I would expect heightened federal action against participants in the new regimes not long after they are put in place.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

An Anger-Fueled Ruse

So, apparently Attorney General Eric Holder is back up on the Hill doing his usual CYA Dog and Pony show about Operation: Fast and Furious, the gun-walking (remember when it was gun running?) operation that led to U.S. DOJ officials losing track of the guns it sold to drug lords without apprehending anyone. I know I've discussed this before, but I get irritated every time I see Holder try to B.S. his way out of this by bringing up gun control.

The guns are a distraction: a massive, calculated, politically motivated distraction away from the actual problem--the Drug War. The Republicans are using F & F to embarrass Holder and, predictably, Holder is getting defensive and trying to turn the blame on the Republicans for creating the environment where guns may flow freely across the border. I've seen this show before.

Never mind that people don't tend to kill each other willy-nilly with a body count in the tens of thousands just because they have guns. Never mind that a lack of prohibition on guns is being scapegoated to cover up a failed prohibition that has gone on for a half century. Never mind that the drug prohibition has made drug trafficking so lucrative that kingpins can buy whatever they want: they have submarines now.

WE NEED BETTER SUBMARINE REGULATION!

So, as I write this, you have grown men and women engaging in heated, angry, blame-filled hearings, arguing over something completely tangential and plainly irrelevant to the actual cause of the violence and murder. This is your government on drugs.

Any questions?


bellum medicamenti delenda est