I moved from Florida to Washington state in 1991, and now I live in the Seattle area.  Seattle is substantially different from Miami.  For instance, Washington legalized recreational marijuana in 2012.  Recreational marijuana is still illegal in Florida and federally.  Naturally, values and opinions vary around the consumption of marijuana; some opinions will be driven by whether its consumption is allowed by the law.

Interestingly enough, that’s not the only metric that drives opinions.  Washington legalized recreational marijuana in 2012; some stigma around it remains.  We should treat pot the same way that we treat alcohol, because they’re legally equivalent.  How many work-sponsored events have you attended with an open bar?  How many work-sponsored events have you attended with THC products?  Will you comfortably mention at work that you had a glass of wine after work?  How about a pot brownie?

However, I’ll own up to stretching the truth a little.  While pot is legal at the state level, it is still illegal at the federal level.  I don’t think that matters for most morale events, as we don’t cross state lines.

Examining the stigma

However, I don’t think the ‘federal crime’ angle is the source of the stigma.  People own up to speeding, even in work environments, without much hesitation.  It may be because recreational marijuana is indulgent; it’s a vice.  Is that enough?  One could say the same thing about alcohol, rich food, or even binge-watching a TV show.  Nope, none of that rings true.

We could speculate that the stigma around marijuana is that it has been historically associated with Mexican immigrants.  Honestly, this one sounds plausible.  However, I’m skeptical.  Growing up in the 1980s, I wasn’t aware of this association; I doubt that it was widespread.  Obviously, I have no insight into everyone’s mind, but I can only speculate.  I believe that the answer is much simpler.

Change is hard.  Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.  If you throw a baseball, it’ll generally continue to travel in that direction.  Naturally, other forces will eventually cause it to stop.  Air friction will cause it to slow.  Gravity will cause it to fall.  A bat will cause it to change trajectory.  The problem is that even if buying, possessing, and using marijuana is completely legal, we still carry that mental baggage about it being criminal.  This is true, even when it was only a misdemeanor.  We can’t stop thinking of marijuana users as criminals, even when they aren’t.

What if you did break the law?

The state of Washington legalized recreational pot in 2012.  Let’s entertain this hypothetical.  Let’s say I purchased a small amount for personal, recreational use in 2011.  Therefore, I committed a crime, no debate.  I continued to hold at least portions of that pot for a few years.  Now, let’s suppose that the police discovered this today.  Can they arrest me?

To put it in perspective, I engaged in behavior that is no longer a crime.  Literally, no one here cares about buying and using weed.  Although they don’t consider it criminal behavior today, it was viewed as such when I engaged in this behavior.  Let’s not even split hairs over details like the statute of limitations.  Am I a criminal, and can they arrest and prosecute me for it?

Let’s suppose that legislators wrote the Washington law from 2012 to be explicit about this.  Anyone who has already been convicted will not have the conviction vacated.  Your criminal record is not expunged, and you will not be released from prison.  However, they won’t charge you for any criminal (at the time) activity that may have transpired.  You may consider that matter resolved.

Just so we’re clear, I don’t definitively know if this is how the law is written (or enforced); this is merely a hypothetical scenario.  You personally may not condone the use of marijuana, but it is no longer a crime in Washington state.

Amending other laws

Naturally, laws change over time.  We didn’t give women or black citizens the right to vote initially; both were difficult fights with considerable resistance.  Gay couples may now get married.  Let’s entertain the idea of reforming immigration policy in a way that is sensible.  Here are some suggestions:

• Shorten the time to enter the United States.  It takes 4-6 weeks under normal circumstances to get a passport.  Without more insight into the process, I believe a reasonable amount of time to process the application for entry into the country is 4-6 months, not years.
• We publish the conditions under which we may decline your application.  Obviously, we’ll turn down someone with a history of violent crimes.  However, we need to apply these rules uniformly.  For instance, police tend to pull over black motorists at much higher rates than white motorists.
• If we turn you down, there’s transparency.  You know precisely why we turn you down, and if applicable, you can address that issue.  In turn, immigration must publish aggregated statistics on the number of applications turned down (versus approved) and why.

Entering the country should be much like applying for a passport.  If you submit all the appropriate documents, we will, without ambiguity, approve your application; it’s simply a question of time.  The rationale is that if we make it easy (and predictable) to enter the country, there’d be no need to enter the country without authorization.

What about the corner cases?

What do we do with the immigrants who still choose to cross the border without authorization?  First, as mentioned above, there’s little need to do that anymore, since the process is now speedy and predictable.  This makes sense; are you more likely to steal a gallon of milk if it costs $500 or $3?  Would you risk theft for a $3 gallon of milk or pay the $3?  The only ones who’d still risk entering without authorization are the people, such as criminals, whom we’d turn down when they apply.  Yes, we should deport (or prosecute) those who would not normally be approved.

What about the ones who, and I’ve heard this analogy before, cut in line in the immigration process?  What would you do if someone cut in front of you in the line at the grocery store?  Do you instruct them to get in line appropriately, or have the police haul them away, like criminals?

Many people scream that they are criminals for entering the country without authorization, even if it’s a misdemeanor.  My suggestion is to decriminalize it, like we did for marijuana in Washington state.  Those who cross the border without authorization will no longer be criminals, so the whole ‘they are criminals’ characterization no longer applies.

What about those already here in the country?  Allow them to apply for entry under the updated standard, but let them stay where they are while their application is processed.  It should only take a few months.  Furthermore, as I suggested for marijuana, establish a policy where, if you have not been detained already, you won’t be, since it is no longer a crime.

Doesn’t this mean that we’d have open borders?

No, the term ‘open border’ implies that we’re not selective about who we allow into the country.  The above suggestion stipulates that we will filter out the violent criminals.  Furthermore, immigrants, and especially undocumented immigrants, are generally better neighbors.  Specifically, the statistics show that native-born US citizens are more likely to commit crimes (even violent ones) than immigrants.  To put it bluntly, immigrants are better Americans than Americans.

Many will assert that our country can’t sustain that many people; that is incredibly one-dimensional.  You’re mentally picturing one pizza with a fixed number of slices, and you’re unwilling for immigrants to get one slice from this pizza.  What you fail to realize is that the country is bigger and better with immigrants.  What may have been a 17″ pizza without immigrants may instead be a 30″ pizza with immigrants.  You can spare a slice.  Undocumented immigrants contribute to the GDP; undocumented immigrants pay $100 billion in taxes.

Much like our mental baggage with marijuana, is there a concrete reason why crossing the border without authorization is even a federal misdemeanor?  If it’s no longer a crime, you can no longer use the despicable term “illegals” to refer to them.

Of course, you could object to immigration solely on the basis that the immigrants will poison our culture.  You may believe that the more immigrants we allow, the more it dilutes core American values.  Well, in that case, aren’t core American values defined by the Indigenous people, not European immigrants?  Incidentally, there’s a term for shunning immigrants because they’re different.  That term is not patriotism; it’s xenophobia.