Here is a revealing snapshot of the conflicting
impulses at work within the Republican Party: The same omnibus
spending bill that
blocks the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in
Washington, D.C.,
demands that the federal government refrain from interfering
with the legalization of marijuana for medical use in Washington,
D.C. Both riders were sponsored by House Republicans who are
generally viewed as conservative.
The anti-legalization amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Harris
(R-Md.), prohibits the District of Columbia from spending federal
or local funds to “legalize or otherwise reduce penalties
associated with the possession, use, or distribution” of marijuana
or any other Schedule I drug. In June an earlier version of the
Harris amendment, attached to another spending bill, passed the
House Appropriations Committee by a mainly party-line vote, but it
was omitted from the final legislation because of resistance from
Senate Democrats.
The medical marijuana amendment, introduced by Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), prohibits the Justice Department (which
includes the Drug Enforcement Administration) from spending money
to “prevent” D.C. or the states from “implementing…laws that
authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of
medical marijuana.” The Rohrabacher amendment
passed the House last May with support from 219
members, including 49 Republicans. A Senate version, co-sponsored
by Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), was
introduced in June but never got a vote.
Explaining his motivation for opposing marijuana reform, Harris
says he worries that legalizing adult use, or even reducing the
penalties for it, “will result in higher drug use among
teens.” His position is conservative in the sense that he
wants to retain the current policy of prohibition, which was
imposed at the federal level 77 years ago. It is also conservative
in the sense that it expresses animosity toward the countercultural
values that cannabis continues to represent in the minds of many
right-wing Republicans.
Rohrabacher’s attitude toward marijuana reform can be
described as conservative as well, since he prefers local control
to congressional dictates. Last month he joined
Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s congressional delegate, in
urging his colleagues to respect the will of the voters who
overwhelmingly approved marijuana legalization in the District on
November 4. Rohrbacher argued that trying to block legalization in
D.C. or in Alaska and Oregon, where voters also said no to
marijuana prohibition last month, would flout “fundamental
principles” that “Republicans have always talked about,” including
“individual liberties,” “limited government,” and “states’ rights
and the 10th Amendment.”
Strictly speaking, “states’ rights” do not apply to the
District of Columbia, which was created by Congress and is subject
to much more extensive federal control than the states are. But the
arguments for federalism—in particular, the idea that political
decisions should be made at the lowest feasible level to facilitate
citizen influence, policy experimentation, and competition among
jurisdictions—apply to D.C. as well as the
states. Last year Rohrabacher introduced
the Respect
State Marijuana Laws Act, which reflects his federalist
approach to drug policy. It would lift the federal ban on marijuana
in states that decide to legalize the drug for medical or
recreational use.
Paul, who like Rohrabacher
believes drug policy should be handled mainly at the state
and local levels, agrees that Congress should not interfere with
the District’s choices in this area. “I think there should be a
certain amount of discretion for both states and territories and
the District,” he told reporters
on Election Day. “I’m not for having the federal government get
involved.”
The two marijuana riders, in short, pit venerable conservative
principles against blind hatred of a plant. Which agenda represents
a
more promising future for the Republican Party?
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1wyzu3J
via IFTTT