Consequences of Prohibition
Drug War Issues
Politics & Advocacy
Sometime in the last few months, the notion of legalizing marijuana crossed an invisible threshold. Long relegated to the margins of political discourse by the conventional wisdom, pot freedom has this year gone mainstream.
Is reason dawning for marijuana policy?
It has been helped along by everything from the Michael Phelps non-scandal to the domination of marijuana legalization questions in the Change.gov questions, which prompted President Obama to laugh off the very notion, to the economy, to the debate over the drug war in Mexico. But it has also been ineffably helped along by the lifting of the oppressive burden of Bush administration drug war dogma. There is a new freedom in the air when it comes to marijuana.
Newspaper columnists and editorial page writers from across the land have taken up the cause with gusto, as have letter writers and bloggers. Last week, even a US senator got into the act, when Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) told CNN that marijuana legalization is "on the table."
But despite the seeming explosion of interest in marijuana legalization, the actual fact of legalization seems as distant as ever, a distant vision obscured behind a wall of bureaucracy, vested interests, and craven politicians. Drug War Chronicle spoke with some movement movers and shakers to find out just what's going on... and what's not.
"There is clearly more interest and serious discussion of whether marijuana prohibition makes any sense than I've seen at any point in my adult lifetime," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "It's not just the usual suspects; it's people like Jack Cafferty on CNN and Senator Jim Webb, as well as editorial pages and columnists across the country."
Mirken cited a number of factors for the sudden rise to prominence of the marijuana issue. "I think it's a combination of things: Michael Phelps, the horrible situation on the Mexican border, the state of the economy and the realization that there is a very large industry out there that provides marijuana to millions of consumers completely outside the legal economy that is untaxed and unregulated," he said. "All of these factors have come together in a way that makes it much easier for people to connect the dots."
"Things started going white hot in the second week of January," said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "We had the fallout from the Michael Phelps incident, the Change.gov marijuana question to Obama and his chuckling response, we have the Mexico violence, we have the economic issues," he counted. "All of these things have helped galvanize a certain zeitgeist that is palpable and that almost everyone can appreciate."
"The politicians are still very slow on picking up on the desires of citizens no matter how high the polling numbers go, especially on decriminalization and medical marijuana," said St. Pierre. "The polling numbers are over 70% for those, and support for legalization nationwide is now at about 42%, depending on which data set you use. Everything seems to be breaking for reform in these past few weeks, and I expect those numbers to only go up."
"It feels like we're reaching the tipping point," said Amber Langston, eastern region outreach director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "I've been feeling that for a couple of months now. The Michael Phelps incident sent a clear message that you can be successful and still have used marijuana. He's still a hero to lots of people," she said.
"I think we're getting close now," said Langston. "We have moved the conversation to the next level, where people are actually taking this seriously and we're not just having another fear-based discussion."
"There is definitely momentum building around marijuana issues," said Denver-based Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER (Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation), which has built a successful strategy around comparing alcohol and marijuana. "Yet we still find ourselves in a situation where change is not happening. Up until now, people have made arguments around criminal justice savings, other economic benefits, ending the black market -- those things have got us to where we are today, but they haven't been enough to get elected officials to act," he argued.
"The problem is that there are still far too many people who see marijuana as so harmful it shouldn't be legalized," Tvert continued. "That suggests we need to be doing more to address the relative safety of marijuana, especially compared to drugs like alcohol. The good arguments above will then carry more weight. Just as a concerned parent doesn't want to reap the tax benefits of legal heroin, it's the same with marijuana. The mantra is why provide another vice. What we're saying is that we're providing an alternative for the millions who would prefer to use marijuana instead of alcohol."
With the accumulation of arguments for legalization growing ever weightier, the edifice of marijuana prohibition seems increasingly shaky. "Marijuana prohibition has become like the Soviet Empire circa 1987 or 1988," Mirken analogized. "It's an empty shell of a policy that continues only because it is perceived as being huge and formidable, but when the perception changes, the whole thing is going to collapse."
Still, translating the zeitgeist into real change remains a formidable task, said Mirken. "It is going to take hard work. All of us need to keep finding ways to keep these discussions going in the media, we need to work with open-minded legislators to get bills introduced where there can be hearings to air the facts and where we can refute the nonsense that comes from our opponents. Keeping the debate front and center is essential," he said.
Mirken is waiting for the other shoe to drop. "We have to be prepared for an empire strikes back moment," he said. "I predict that within the next year, there will be a concerted effort to scare the daylights out of people about marijuana."
Activists need to keep hammering away at both the federal government and state and local governments, Mirken said. "We are talking to members of Congress and seeing what might be doable. Even if nothing passes immediately, introducing a bill can move the discussion forward, but realistically, things are more likely to happen at the state and local level," he said, citing the legalization bill in California and hinting that MPP would try legalization in Nevada again.
Part of the problem of the mismatch between popular fervor and actual progress on reform is partisan positioning, said St. Pierre. "Even politicians who may be personally supportive and can appreciate what they see going on around them as this goes mainstream do not want to hand conservative Republicans a triangulation issue. The Democrats are begging for a certain degree of political maturity from the reform movement," he said. "They're dealing with two wars, tough economic times, trying to do health care reform. They don't want to raise cannabis to a level where it becomes contentious for Obama."
The window of opportunity for presidential action is four years down the road, St. Pierre suggested. "If Obama doesn't do anything next year, they will then be in reelection mode and unlikely to act," he mused. "I think our real shot comes after he is reelected. Then we have two years before he becomes a lame duck."
But we don't have to wait for Obama, said St. Pierre. "We expect Barney Frank and Ron Paul to reintroduce decriminalization and medical marijuana bills," he said. "I don't think they will pass this year, but we might get hearings, although I don't think that's likely until the fall."
It's not just that politicians need to understand that supporting marijuana legalization will not hurt them -- they need to understand that standing its way will. "The politicians aren't feeling the pain of being opposed to remain," St. Pierre said. "We have to take out one of those last remaining drug war zealots."
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Comments
"You have to be a bloody
"You have to be a bloody fool to prefer that a pregnant woman or mean drunk or potential child molester use alcohol instead of cannabis."
So are you suggesting that pregnant women should smoke pot? That's an argument sure to win popular appeal.
I know some people switch from drinking to smoking pot and it's a good thing for them. Most just do both though.
I just don't see the argument of marijuana as an alternative to alcohol ever being one that wins us a lot of support from the general public. It's one of those arguments that will appeal mostly only to pot smokers. It will scare a lot of people that don't smoke pot and the alcohol industry won't like it all either.
no, I'm not suggesting pregnant women smoke pot, not at all
I'm suggesting that the law shouldn't be doing it's damnedest to force a woman to use alcohol to get high, if she prefers using cannabis to get high. The law is doing it's damnedest to force such a woman to use alcohol and that's insane, the effects of cannabis on fetuses, if any, are very minimal compared to alcohol. I don't know if any research has been done on the subject.
The same argument applies to mean and reckless drunks, I guess it will sound weird to you, but if they insist on violating the rights of others when drunk, they should be ordered to abstain from alcohol and only use weed if they want to get high.
When I lived in a bad part of town, both my neighbors liked alcohol and pot. They were MUCH better behaved when weed was available/affordable. One of them was a severe child abuser when he was drunk.
"I just don't see the argument of marijuana as an alternative to alcohol ever being one that wins us a lot of support from the general public. It's one of those arguments that will appeal mostly only to pot smokers." But SAFER's 2008 Colorado legalization referendum, in a first attempt, working on a shoestring budget, got 41% support with a 'safer alternative for enjoyable recreation' focused campaign. Seems to me it should appeal to people who look at things thru a public health lens, or have seen alcohol cause deaths and maimings, or who knows the role alcohol plays in child molestation, domestic violence, brawling etc, etc. Part of the campaign for legalization is to raise awareness that cannabis compares very favorably with alcohol in keeping the community safe. I'm not trying to minimize the other arguments for legalization at all, I make them constantly. This isn't about promoting cannabis as it is about persuading people it is much safer than alcohol, and we have the facts to back up that claim.
You may be minimizing public awareness of how much grief alcohol causes, and their willingness to consider whether re-legalization of cannabis can prevent some of that. I don't think we can or need to shy away from the fact that legalization will be making cannabis an accepted alternative to alcohol. That's the whole point. No more third or second class citizenship for cannabis users when alcohol is so much more of a problem child.
Re "you make some..." - thanks for the polite responses
to my posts, and constructive airing of differences of opinion. Quite a contrast to the way one guy around here approaches differences of opinion among reformers.
Everyone's got to stick to the arguments they really believe in so that they can argue forcefully and passionately.
-newageblues
In reply to Re "you make some..." - thanks for the polite responses by Anonymous (not verified)
Well, there is no sense
Well, there is no sense getting all worked up over minor differences of opinion. We're working together toward a common goal. We all agree that marijuana prohibtion does more harm than good and we need to be out there convincing as many people as possible of this fact rather than fighting amongst ourselves. And you are right about arguments. If you don't believe what you are arguing then no one else will believe it.
WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM AND LIBERTY?
Seems to me this whole issue of cannabis/drug re-legalization could be resolved almost immediately by simply reading the Constitution of the United States of America.
In reply to WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM AND LIBERTY? by Anonymous (not verified)
I get a resounding silence
when I ask drug warriors to justify their position versus the following guarantees:
"...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.."
The drug war certainly does NOT establish justice.
The drug war does anything but insure domestic tranquility.
The drug war support our enemies to the detriment of our common defense.
The war on drugs significantly harms the general welfare.
And what the drug war does to the rule of law that secures the blessing of liberty is nothing short of rape.
In reply to I get a resounding silence by aahpat (not verified)
More "promoting the general welfare".... Less dictates!
Unfortunately, the purveyors of gods & gov'ts, with their 'ends justifies the means mentality' recognise that to 'promote the general welfare' is to take the long road to their vision of reform and utopia!
'Promoting the general welfare' is legal. Proclaiming, mandating, and dictating the general welfare is illegal!
In reply to WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM AND LIBERTY? by Anonymous (not verified)
Freedom & Liberty have taken a back seat to Faith & Security
Our friends, left and right, have been fooled again by the evil authoritarians... that have taken it upon themselves to license our liberties with unlawful legislations.
A Voting Block is key to change
It doesn't appear to me positive "drug law" change is as close to a tipping point as it was around 35 years ago. Lots of things should be done to push for change and there should be no slack time for reformers. I see a voting block as extremely important (possibly necessary) but not sufficient and don't want to give a wrong impression. There certainly won't be any slack time for "prohibitionists"; most of them aren't in business to put themselves out of business and don't rely on voluntary funding. The drug abuse industrial complex has created a lot of permanent jobs.
There's been a lot of talk about polls here and I think much of it is unrealistic. Congress has no problem voting against the wishes of the majority of voters and alcohol Prohibition is about the only major federal anti-drug law that was due to strong public demand. One thing that commands more respect from candidates than money is enough votes to get elected. That's why single issue and "unnegotiable issue" voters have so much influence. They may be 1%, 5% ,10% or 20% of the voters but if how they vote decides who gets the majority or plurality of votes they have influence all out of proportion to their numbers. And if they vote for a candidate who comes in 3rd or 4th but their votes are perceived as altering who comes in first they get serious consideration as long as they vote consistently and persistently.
I think I voted straight ticket Democrat in 1972 and maybe 1974 though Peace & Freedom and/or Libertarian may have gotten a few of my votes in the general election. By 1976 the Libertarian Party was definitely ballot qualified in CA and I had a strict policy of never voting for a candidate who wanted to imprison me for no good reason if I had a choice to vote for a candidate who didn't. I've even run for office once to have a candidate in my district I could vote for with a clear conscience. Most people who want drug reform continue to vote for major party candidates and hope for crumbs. That's not influential and in the long run doesn't do as to much to keep the least desirable candidates from getting elected in particular elections as reinforce the power of anti-civil liberty voting blocks. Also, if you happen to be one of those statistics that get busted, how much does it really matter to you who represents the district you'd live in if you weren't in a prison out in the boondocks?
Ballot access laws restrict candidate choices a lot but I strongly recommend people act to the greatest extent possible to create a pro-legalization voting block. Always vote for a pro-legalization candidate if you can, make sure all potential candidates know you're going to do this and write in a candidate or make drug policy a top priority when you pick who you're going to vote for. If there is no acceptable candidate for an office don't vote for any candidate and try to get a letter to the editor published stating you're doing this and some reasons why (or get the message somewhere else that politicians and the general public will see it). Does voting this way seem unrealistic? Consider what the effect would have been if pro-legalization voters had consistently been doing this since the 1960s. I think the Controlled Substances Act would have been repealed in the 70s or at least enforced and amended so differently by then that recent decades and the present would be extremely different. Whether I'm right or wrong, there's little room to dispute that if people consistently vote for the least objectionable prohibitionist candidate they'll be consistently voting for continued prohibitionist laws and policies. Don't expect peace if you vote for war, don't say you didn't know or say you don't bear the blame.
-
We Didn't Know
http://www.mydfz.com/Paxton/lyrics/wdk.htm
voting block is key to change
"It doesn't appear to me positive "drug law" change is as close to a tipping point as it was around 35 years ago. "
I don't know. Back in the seventies we all thought marijuana would legalized in no time, but back then really about the only people for it were young people and only tiny minority of older people. I don't think the percentage of Americans for legalization ever cracked 30% in the seventies. Now were' seeing that over 40% are for it. The percentage dropped like a rock in the eighties but since the early nineties it's been climbing and now it's climbing faster than ever. And now there are a lot of older more powerful people for it. Back in the late seventies mainly only the under 30 crowd were for it. People older than that tended to be strongly against it. We just thought we were close to a tipping point in the seventies, but obviously we were wrong. Now we really are getting to that tipping point. Young people who wanted it legalized in the seventies are old enough that many are in positions of power now. Those older than baby boomers still tend to be strongly opposed to it, but that crowd is dying off and the over 30 crowd of today is far more open to legalizing than the over 30 crowd back in the seventies. We're even starting to see politicians from major political parties coming out for it and I bet we see a lot more of that. This isn't like the seventies when only young people with no real political power were for legalization. We really are getting to that tipping point now.
How to stop it
After waging every possible argument for ending prohibition to myself in the bathroom mirror for nearly 40 years now, I believe I know how to end it. Referendums will never change the laws. With almost 1 million marijuana arrests each year there just aren't enough liberal voters who are still allowed to vote to make a difference. We need something more powerful and immediate. We simply have to shift our thinking 1 degree to the left and realize that the government isn't waging war on drugs - they are waging war on the American people. Now it's a whole new ballgame.
In a war, the opponents are referred to as "enemies". Prohibition has, by definition and by default made enemies of the United States government and the American people. Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". Whenever a legislative body passes an appropriations bill funding the "war of drugs", they are literally giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. It's time to get the law on our side for a change and end this nonsense.
Rusty
Add new comment