Now that the House has voted to decriminalize recreational marijuana at the federal level, Senate opponents ought to filibuster.
The House passed the bill, which contains several unwise provisions, almost entirely on the strength of Democratic votes. The Democrats’ decriminalization effort makes risible the national Democratic Party’s mantra to “follow the science” because science increasingly shows marijuana to be more dangerous and to have fewer medical benefits than the urban legends say it does.
Two recent Washington Examiner editorials recount the latest strong evidence against marijuana, including findings that even medical marijuana often does more harm than good. By now, the data from public-safety statistics in states that have legalized cannabis and from peer-reviewed clinical trials is compelling: Marijuana can be addictive, is frequently associated with psychosis, and is more carcinogenic than tobacco (among other bad effects). And “medical marijuana” often fails to improve pain, anxiety, or depression, even when prescribed by a doctor.
Children increasingly use marijuana where it is legalized and suffer great risks from its use. Legalized marijuana also correlates with significantly greater numbers of traffic fatalities.
All of which strongly argues against removing cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances. Not that many House politicians actually care about evidence if they think they can get more votes by decriminalizing it.
If Congress wants to make clear that states can approve cannabis use supervised by licensed physicians, perhaps that nod to principles of federalism (and compassion) might make sense, even though the perceived medical benefits might prove ephemeral. Nonetheless, to remove all federal penalties for recreational use is baldly irresponsible.
The bill in question, known as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, also undermines respect for the law in general by expunging federal convictions for all nonviolent marijuana offenses. This sends a terrible message. If someone knowingly broke federal law in a manner serious enough to get the attention of a U.S. attorney and that person was duly convicted, he doesn’t deserve to be made innocent ex post facto just because politicians change their minds about its legality. It’s one thing to pardon those occasional convicts whose punishment doesn’t fit the crime — it’s quite another to issue blanket amnesty for willful violations of the duly enacted laws that result from our democratic process.
This is a bad bill that must be stopped. The House should not have passed it, but now, Senate opponents, exercising the institutional rights of a substantial minority, should snuff it out.
