The political significance of Obama’s comments on marijuana policy
Following up on Rob’s post, I think Obama’s comments to the New Yorker about marijuana policy may be one of the most politically significant statements on the topic in the past few years (or even decades.)
On one level, his remarks weren’t all that exceptional. As far as substance, he doesn’t say anything we didn’t know already. He acknowledges marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol (“I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”); expresses concern about racial disparities i enforcement (“Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do.”); and expresses support for the DOJ’s memo advising prosecutors not to use resources to interefere with Colorado and Washington’s legalization laws (saying of the laws, “it’s important for it to go forward[.]”)
And, as Rob very effectively explains, Obama’s power to unilaterally change federal marijuana policy is very limited.
But, in terms of the politics, I think Obama’s statements are incredibly important.
First, they paint the DOJ’s 2013 memo on Colorado and Washington’s laws in a much different light that the DOJ’s 2009 memo on medical marijuana. Up until now, President Obama’s comments on state marijuana policy has focused on the need to prioritize federal law enforcement resources. The DOJ’s 2009 memo turned out to have very little impact, in part because US Attorneys could tell local media that it was never really intended to do much more than advise on the use of resources. What Obama told the New Yorker about Colorado and Washington is very different. Instead of saying only that going after people in compliance with state law isn’t a good use of resources, Obama said he thinks it is “important” for Colorado and Washington’s laws “to go forward.” I think this may distinguish the 2013 memo–both politically and in terms of how prosecutors and DEA agents on the ground see it–from the DOJ’s ineffective 2009 medical marijuana memo. Obama’s statement doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for federal prosecutors and DEA operatives to go after people in compliance with Colorado and Washington’s laws the way they did with medical marijuana. Legally, there there is no difference. But, politically, I think Obama’s remarks will make it a lot more difficult for federal officials to go after people in compliance with state laws.
Second, I think Obama’s comments indicate that he and his advisors may believe the issue is nearing a tipping point. When Obama was asked about marijuana in 2009, he couldn’t even be bothered to give a serious and substantive answer, treating the question as a joke. To the New Yorker, Obama echoed support two key talking points from marijuana legalization advocates: that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol and that marijuana prohibition has racially disproportionate impacts. Though he was also careful to express concerns about legalization, his comments seem like the first real indication (to me) that he may be on the political road to “evolving” on this issue.
Finally, and closely related to point two, I think Obama’s comments will go a long way toward establishing marijuana legalization as a serious political issue. In 2009, Obama treated it as a joke. In 2012, Mitt Romney wouldn’t even answer questions about the topic, saying it wasn’t an issue of real significance. This is in keeping with the tendency of mainstream media and politicans to treat marijuana legalization as a joke. Obama’s treatment of the issue in the New Yorker is, I think, a preview of what is ahead in the 2016 campaign. Politicians are going to find that they can’t just laugh off marijuana legalization. Voters are going to expect real answers on the topic.
Of course, these trends were already underway. And, the bar is low when it comes to significant comments about marijuana from politicians. All that said, it is hard for me to think of many statements on marijuana policy in the past years or decades that I think are more politically important than Obama’s.