What's in a Word?: Decriminalization v. Legalization

It turns out, a lot. Legalization would mean that marijuana is not prohibited but taxed and regulated like alcohol.  Decriminalization empowers police to issue a simple citation, similar to a speeding ticket, rather than processing a misdemeanor arrest. Decriminalization also increases the discretion of prosecutors to reduce charges to a civil infraction for minor marijuana possession.  The Sensible Marijuana Policy initiative calls for the decriminalization of marijuana in Miami Beach, Orlando, Tallahassee, Jacksonville Beach and Atlantic Beach. 

 

The distinction between legalization and decriminalization is simple.  No state has now completely legalized marijuana. California voters will decide on a measure in November that will legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational purposes for those 21 and up.  Decriminalization now has a thirty year history in the U.S., with twelve states having enacted some form of decriminalization either through the legislative process or statewide ballot initiatives.  Massachusettes voters enacted decriminalization, limiting sanctions to a $100 civil fine, by statewide citizens' initiative in 2008. Marijuana is now decriminalized or has been declared to be the lowest police priority in Denver and Breckinridge, CO, Ann Arbor, MI, Seattle, WA, Missoula, MO and Columbia, MO.

 

Still, the difference between legalization and decriminalization is difficult for a few to discern.  In 2004, as a Senate candidate, President Obama told students at Northwestern University, "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws. But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana." When video of his remarks appeared on the website of The Washington Times in January of 2008, the Obama campaign asserted that he had "always" supported decriminalization. It was a statement too candid to last. Later that day, Obama issued a second statement saying he thinks "we are sending far too many first-time non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time" but "does not believe that we should treat offenses involving marijuana with a simple fine or just by confiscating the drug."  Campaign spokespeople also explained the apparent reversal as a result of Obama's confusion over the meaning of the word "decriminalization." The Orlando Sentinel attributed the reversal to the odd paradox that is perpetually at work in government: Marijuana is an issue of such dire importance that more than 800,000 Americans must be arrested and prosecuted each year but there can be no rational and honest discussion about the efficacy of marijuana policy.  The program the Sentinel called "wasteful, cruel and fraudulent" continues to constitute "a truth Obama won't dare tell." 

 

The difference between legalization and decriminalization is also not apparent to at least one law professor.  On June 17, the Miami Herald Bob Jarvis, a constitutional law professor who teaches at Nova Southeastern University, said he was ``stunned'' and doubted the viability of the proposal.``Even if it got enough votes to pass, I would assume at some point in that timeline federal officials would say, `What the heck are you doing here?' '' he said.  What is truly stunning is that a professor of law would make statements to the press regarding a proposed charter amendment without having read the language of the petition.  As of July 5, Professor Jarvis has not responded to the CSMP's inquiry as to whether he had reviewed the petition or perhaps had confused the terms "legalization" and "decriminalization."  In the three decades that states and cities, America's laboratories of democracy, have maintained decriminalization, the federal government has never questioned their right to impose a lower punishment for minor marijuana possession.  So we ask Professor Jarvis again, are you sure that you have not confused legalization and decriminalization?  If so, it is understandable.  Even a President may be so bamboozled.