Should marijuana be legalized?

Proponents (including former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) for legalization argue that it is no more dangerous than alcohol (and indeed, probably less), that keeping it illegal fuels violent drug cartels, and that regulating and taxing its sales would bring in much needed revenue for local governments.

Opponents argue it is a dangerous, mind-altering substance that may act as a "gateway drug" to harder ones (such as cocaine), and that legitimizing its use would only encourage teenagers to try it.

Reasonable people can disagree on this subject. But what should be beyond question is the right of voters to choose for themselves which outcome they prefer.

That is supposed to be what democracy is all about, after all.

Unless you happen to live in Eric Holder's America.

On November 2, California voters will decide the fate of Proposition 19. The initiative, if passed, would legalize marijuana for personal use and allow local governments to tax and regulate its sales. Each municipality could choose to opt in, or out, of such a scheme.

Under the United States' Constitution, generally speaking, criminal laws are decided by the states. However, the Federal government can also pass its own criminal laws if the conduct may impact on interstate or international matters. The drug trade clearly qualifies.

So in the United States today we are left with a hodgepodge of state and Federal laws, often overlapping, and sometimes contradictory. Cooperation and mutual respect between the two levels of government is crucial to ensuring a fair and efficient legal system operates and citizens understand what laws they must obey.

Unless, of course, it's politically inconvenient for someone.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General for the United States of America. His role is primarily that of chief law enforcement officer for the federal government. He, and he alone, decides what laws are to be the focus of the government at any given time. He has enormous discretion and can choose where to focus his limited resources.

Thus it is nothing short of a tragedy and insult to the people of California that Holder has declared that even if Proposition 19 passes, the federal government will continue to prosecute Americans under federal law for marijuana possession. Voters be damned.

During the Clinton and Bush administrations, California voters passed a measure allowing for the possession and distribute of medical marijuana. However, both executives at the time continued to enforce federal drug laws against these users, leading to outrage among advocates that states' rights were being trampled.

When Obama became President, he promised that the federal government would not continue this policy. Indeed, Eric Holder stated the following at the time:

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana."

Of course, that was then, and this is now. Even allowing for the distinction between "medical" and "recreational" marijuana use, it's obvious what is happening. Disturbed by falling poll numbers and a Republican resurgence, Obama and Holder are fearful of being characterized as "soft on crime." So they promise to enforce laws and waste precious resources on a matter California voters themselves may very well declare to no longer be a priority.

This should be a serious cause for concern for everyone, regardless of your position on this matter. If we cannot expect the federal government to respect states' right and wishes, democracy itself is fatally wounded.

More and more, the "change" Obama promised sounds like an empty and meaningless promise. No wonder that on November 2, yet again, the majority of voters will implicitly choose "none of the above", by not even turning out to vote.