Here are two statements that seem in conflict.
- I don’t like marijuana.
- I want marijuana legalized.
But there’s actually no conflict because we can decide that some things are distasteful without wanting to infringe on the freedom of others to partake. And you can make that decision for moral reasons or utilitarian reasons.
Now let’s consider two more statements.
- The rule of law is a bulwark of a civilized society and government officials should not engage in arbitrary enforcement.
- Attorney General Jeff Sessions is wrong to enforce federal drug laws in states that have decriminalized marijuana.
I’m tempted to agree with both sentences. The rule of law is vital, after all, and I definitely don’t like (and not for the first time) when Sessions uses the Justice Department to hassle people for victimless crimes.
But here’s my quandary: Should we applaud if government officials ignore laws, even laws we don’t like? That approach has some distasteful implications. If you’re on the right, would you want a left-leaning government to have the leeway to ignore criminal behavior by, say, union bosses? If you’re a leftist, would you want a libertarian-leaning government to have the ability to decide that tax laws can be ignored?
Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review hits the nail on the head.
There’s no question that the right approach is for the federal government to eliminate drug laws. Heck, even people who support the War on Drugs should favor this approach since criminal justice (other than a few select areas such as treason) should be a matter for state and local governments.
And a broader point is that we simply have too many laws. Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average person unknowingly commits three felonies per day.
This means that government officials could probably indict, convict, and imprison almost all of us. Needless to say, that’s not how a free and just society should work.
Our Byzantine tax code is an example. Many of us probably unintentionally violate the law because of needless complexity. Or even if we haven’t violated the law, I’m guessing a prosecutor could convince a grand jury that we should be indicted. And who knows what would happen after that.
So while I mostly argue for tax reform because I want more growth, I also think there’s a moral argument for a simple and fair system.
And there are other laws that shouldn’t exist at all. I obviously put drug laws on that list, but I’d also add anti-money laundering laws and civil asset forfeiture laws.
All that being said, I obviously don’t want the Justice Department in Washington to waste law enforcement resources in a campaign to undermine states that have decriminalized pot. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to solve this problem.
P.S. You can click here for other libertarian quandaries.
International Liberty 
I wish more politicians who smoked pot in college and yet later on down the road want to enact policies to punish us if we did the same thing were called out over their hypocrisy. Either abide by the same laws that you enact for the rest of us or get rid of these laws.
it’s time to legalize drugs… we are facing the prospects of terrorists weaponizing America’s clandestine drug supply… it could well be a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER… we know all too well that terrorists are engaged in the illegal drug trade… by mixing drugs like carfentanyl with other drugs the terrorists can kill thousands of Americans… and I truly don’t want to think what might happen if these people contaminated the drug supply with a deadly communicable biological agent… if our people are not going to give up drugs… it is the responsibility of the government to keep them safe… and the only way to insure the drug supply is not contaminated is to legalize it and sell it at a drug store as a recreational drug… this is NOT silly libertarian BS… sprinkle carfentanyl over a bag of pot and you have dead Americans… contaminate that bag of pot with a biological agent and you could have thousands of dead Americans… it’s that simple…
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Carfentanil or carfentanyl is an analog of the synthetic opioid analgesic fentanyl.[1] A unit of carfentanil is 100 times as potent as the same amount of fentanyl, 5,000 times as potent as a unit of heroin and 10,000 times as potent as a unit of morphine.[2]
The toxicity of carfentanil in humans and its ready commercial availability has aroused concerns over its potential use as a weapon of mass destruction by rogue nations and terrorist groups.[3]
———————————————————————————————————
“WASHINGTON — Terrorists could weaponize an opioid that can be so dangerous in tiny doses that emergency personnel responding to America’s growing epidemic of overdose cases are put at risk, officials told Congress.”
Terrorists Could Weaponize Synthetic Opioid Blamed in Scores of Overdose Deaths
BY BRIDGET JOHNSON APRIL 25, 2018
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/terrorists-could-weaponize-synthetic-opioid-blamed-in-scores-of-overdose-deaths/
Drug laws, just like laws against prostitution, are absurd.
[…] a victory for liberty, though it surely would be best – as we discussed just a few days ago – if politicians repealed the bad laws that make unjust prosecutions […]
“Opioid Deaths Plummeting in States with Legal Weed”
by James Holbrooks
“Hospitalization rates for opioid painkiller dependence and abuse dropped on average 23 percent…”
https://www.infowars.com/opioid-deaths-plummeting-in-states-with-legal-weed/
It should not be legalized.
It should be totally decriminalized. Any and all laws related to it should be repealed..
An assistant AG wrote a memo directing AG’s about whether to enforce Federal law regarding pot. That is NOT how it is supposed to work. Even that AG isn’t with the Government anymore. Sessions is doing what he is supposed to. Enforce the law. Congress can remedy it and should. It will be a very nice beginning of returning rights to the states. No more selective enforcement on some stuff and coercive enforcement on others., ie, alcohol limits ( DUI )…
I don’t see the quandary.
While rule of law is essential, the Constitution (mostly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) don’t delegate drug regulation to the Federal Government. As such, the Schedule 1 drug laws are, on the face, not Constitutional.
This kind of arbitrary approach to enforcement of federal law isn’t uncommon in situations which present a Constitutional quandary.
So I would disagree with the quandary’s existence – if the Federal government doesn’t have the right to regulate drugs (it doesn’t), then it doesn’t have the right to overrule or interfere in areas where the states’ rights prevail.
My issue is what Sessions is doing with his time. Certainly he has bigger fish to fry?
Having said that, I think you hit the nail on the head. We are in a quandary as to whether to uphold the law or to selectively ignore it. A slippery slope there. The only other consideration is that the founders made it clear that any law outside the limited powers of the federal government is both unenforceable, and illegal. So, it seems the states are within their rights to go against it.
Perhaps as some advocate, the only answer is for a constitutional convention in which the states can knock the federal government back into its constitutional position. The founders intended that the federal government’s powers be severely limited, and clearly stated so. Over time, the supreme court and congress has eroded that intention.
My vote is that we repeal the 17th amendment. The intent of the senate was that senators would be those who represented states’ rights at the federal level. They were to be appointed by the states to protect those rights. The 17th allowed that they be elected by the citizens, thus becoming a simple (and more powerful) version of the house of representatives. Let’s get the states back to their rightful position at the table. Note that this would also effectively create a term limitation, as it is doubtful that state governments would continue to appoint the same senators over and over. Folks like Mitch McConnell would be beholding to his state’s legislature, and would be replaced on the next go-around of state elections. This might create some cronyism at the state level, but it sure as heck beats cronyism at the federal level. This amendment more than any other has had a profound detrimental effect on the structure and direction of our government.
To shawnbrodof and crisbd: I agree with you. Unfortunately the fallback position for every control any party wishes to impose are the “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses (neither of which have been used as they originally were intended, but used they have been and are) in the Constitution. The only solution is to argue for their proper use in any forum where anyone will listen…
I live in a state where recreational weed is legal
I still by my weed the old-fashioned way – from my black market dealer, because it is easy and cheap (and I don’t feel like the gov’t is watching me)
Enforcing federal weed laws will not in any way what-so-ever affect the price or availability of black market weed
All drugs deemed illegal should be legalized at all state and federal levels, and drug enforcement funds diverted into rehab/health (drug addiction is a medical issue, not a civil issue)
Sessions can better serve the public by focusing on investigating and prosecuting corruption in the federal gov’t
Where’s the quandary? The 10th not only says it’s nothing to do with the Feds, it says it’s “reserved to the people.” So doesn’t the Constitution say each person has the right to decide for himself?
An ethical libertarian will deny any right to impose his views on others and deny support to anyone so attempting. No conundrum anywhere!
When discussing federal laws, I think it is always worth prefacing any comments with “Where is this in the Constitution?” Here is a nice site that documents some of this: https://whereintheconstitution.wordpress.com/
I think the federal law will be repealed – as a natural consequence of more states passing laws legalizing the drug. We should support these measures vocally so that this happens. It is none of the governments’ business what someone puts into their body – even if the substance may be harmful.