Personal Marijuana Use

That's the question everyone's asking this week thanks to this piece from Joshua Green at The Atlantic. The idea is that putting marijuana reform initiatives on the ballot could bring greater numbers of young, left-leaning voters out to the polls in November. With marijuana initiatives up for a vote in six states this year, we'll have an interesting opportunity to evaluate how other campaigns are impacted by the pot vote.

[image:1 align:left]Whether the theory amounts to much is hard to predict and will be difficult to measure even after the polls close in November. But the fact that we're even talking about this is significant. Our political culture is fascinated with the idea that niche demographics can be mobilized in a cynical effort to shape the balance of power in Washington. Karl Rove's successful use of gay marriage bans to bring out conservative voters in 2004 is still widely regarded as an ingenious ploy that may have clinched the election for Bush.

The mere notion that state-level marijuana reform efforts can impact national politics is a healthy dose of leverage and legitimacy for our movement. When political pundits begin speculating about our ability to bring out voters, that sends a message to politicians in a language they understand. For decades, the Democratic Party has remained shamefully silent on marijuana policy -- despite overwhelming support for reform within its base – all because party leaders persist in clinging foolishly to the 1980's mentality that any departure from the "tough on drugs" doctrine is political suicide. What now?

Will the Democrats continue defending the arrest of their own supporters, even when doing so threatens to compromise their candidates in close races? Will the Republicans make a show of fighting back against legalization, even when doing so threatens to alienate the party's growing libertarian wing? What happens next is anyone's guess, but it's becoming clear that the surging marijuana legalization debate is pinching political nerves and creating opportunities for anyone clever enough to capitalize on it.

[image:1 align:right caption:true]Via NORML, check out these comments from a medical marijuana businessman who opposes Prop 19:

"I'll give you two reasons," Craig said. "One is big tobacco. Did you know that Phillip Morris just bought 400 acres of land up in Northern California? The minute marijuana becomes legal, they'll mass produce and flood the market. And of course, they'll add the same toxins they put in regular cigarettes to get you addicted, and very little THC, so you'll have to buy more... In short, they're going to ruin weed." He gestured around his beloved shop, with every flavor of every strain, in its purist form, selling for at-cost prices. "I like the way things are now."

I'll bet he does. But while you're making money and having a great time, thousands and thousands of people are being arrested. Conspiracy theories about Phillip Morris don't even begin to justify the war on marijuana, and anyone who advances such mindless speculation – while simultaneously lining their own pockets – is a first-rate jackass.

He even tries to bring children into the debate:

"Two, legalization will mean more fifteen-year-old kids smoking pot. Smoking pot mellows you out, makes you lazy. When you're twenty-one, twenty-five, you can make your own decisions. But California doesn't need its fifteen-year-olds lazier than they already are."

Seriously? Well, let me ask you something, sir. Does your dispensary sell marijuana to 15-year-olds? Do your customers resell your product to young teenagers? I imagine you would insist that this isn't the case, and I can't fathom why you think things would be any different if regulated marijuana retailers were allowed to serve all adults instead of just those with a doctor's recommendation.

Let's not forget: Prop 19 is about so much more than just how marijuana will be grown and distributed. It's about stopping the arrest and persecution of marijuana consumers and reducing the violence and chaos of prohibition. Concerns about how it might affect the market are understandable, but people were nervous about Prop 215 as well, and it's clearly become a miracle for patients and a huge step forward for reform in general.

The bottom line is that anyone who currently sells marijuana in California, medical or otherwise, should be thrilled with the prospect of dramatically reducing arrests for marijuana possession and the vicious consequences that go along with it. All other concerns are secondary to ensuring the freedom of adults to enjoy cannabis without fear of arrest, and Prop 19 will do exactly that. Those who object, those who would fight to continue the war, are enemies of justice. Patients should never purchase medicine from anyone who lobbies to continue the disease of prohibition.

[image:1 align:left caption:true]Skip Miller is the chairman of DARE America and, as you might guess, he's terrified of what could happen if marijuana becomes legal:

Do we really want to make it easier to get stoned?

Cut through the smoke and that's really what California voters will be deciding in November with Proposition 19, which would make this the only state to fully legalize marijuana — a drug with proven negative health consequences.
…
The concern with marijuana is not based on my personal disapproval or bias but upon what science tells us about the drug's effects. The science is clear: Marijuana is associated with physical and mental illness, poor motor performance and cognitive impairment. [San Jose Mercury News]

So according to Skip Miller, science compels us to keep marijuana illegal. Yet, as SAFER points out, his website takes a very different tone when it comes to alcohol:

Take a minute and think how often adults drink alcohol: a cold beer at a baseball game, a glass of Chardonnay with a piece of broiled fish, a gin and tonic on a warm day. Social drinking is an acceptable and pleasurable activity for millions of Americans. It relaxes you, curbs stress, and chases away inhibitions… [DARE.org]

Wait, what!? Although the statement goes on to acknowledge the problems associated with alcohol abuse, there's no question that DARE is going out of its way to defend recreational drinking. And I agree with every word. Teaching young people that there's nothing wrong with responsible drinking is important, even though I find it ridiculously weird that DARE, of all places, would seek to do that.

All of this just serves to highlight the mind-blowing prejudice and hypocrisy that underscores DARE's position on marijuana policy. If alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly by millions of adults, despite all the mayhem associated with it, then of course the same must be true of marijuana. On the other hand, if the potential for negative outcomes trumps the rights of responsible users, then why on earth is DARE applauding "acceptable and pleasurable" alcohol instead of insisting that science compels us to start arresting people for possessing it?

When pressed, the architects of this brainless disparity typically resort to some desperate nonsense about alcohol being accepted and familiar in our culture, as though marijuana just arrived on a boat sometime last year. These same idiots actually are the last remaining obstacle to broader social and legal acceptance of marijuana, and if only we could take away their precious beer, we'd find them at the bargaining table within 48 hours.

Paul Armentano calls out California Senator Diane Feinstein for opposing marijuana legalization and points out the flagrant dishonesty of her attack against Prop. 19.

[image:1 align:left caption:true] Valerie Vande Panne has an excellent piece in the Boston Phoenix on the rising popularity of synthetic marijuana products. This is some of the most thorough coverage I've seen on the issue. A must-read if you're following the Spice/K2 controversy.

Mark Kleiman says California can't legalize marijuana. Pete Guither says yes, it can.

Marijuana policy groups have issued a unified statement opposing Michele Leonhart's nomination to head the DEA. She embodies everything that's wrong with U.S. drug policy, and Obama's nomination makes a mockery of all the "new approach" rhetoric we've heard from his administration.

"The U.S. State Department has no effective way to measure the success of its billion-dollar program to help Mexico and Central America fight drug traffickers," according to a new report from the GAO. Well yeah, it's hard to measure success when you haven't had any. Sounds to me like the problem isn’t that success is hard to measure, but rather that failure is hard to admit.

Confusion abounds following last week's release of a RAND study on the ramifications of legal marijuana in California. In particular, RAND's discussion of rock-bottom prices has growers panicking and the suggestion that use could increase dramatically has opponents chomping at the bit. But, as Pete Guither helpfully explains, the whole thing is just a bunch of wild speculation.

Just look what passes for scientific analysis at RAND when it comes to marijuana legalization:

However, a simple calculation suggests that, if someone believes that marijuana is causally responsible for many crashes that involve marijuana using drivers, legalization’s effect on crashes could be a first-order concern for them. [...]

There is no empirical evidence concerning an elasticity of fatal accident rates with respect to marijuana price, prevalence, or quantity consumed, and, as we have underscored repeatedly, there is enormous uncertainty concerning how legalization might affect those outcomes.

However, 50- or 100-percent increases in use cannot be ruled out; nor can the possibility that marijuana-involved traffic crashes would increase proportionally with use. So it would be hard to dismiss out of hand worries that marijuana legalization could increase traffic fatalities by at least 60 per year…

Nor can we entirely rule out the possibility that legalizing marijuana could somehow cause the earth to stop spinning on its axis, resulting in the incineration of a hundred nations, while others are left buried beneath sheets of ice.

I'm exaggerating, but the point is that when RAND says legalization might double marijuana use and lower the ounce price to $38, they're just babbling because the media is stupid enough to listen. Even RAND admits that their analysis is subject to so many intangible variables as to render futile any effort to quantify legalization's practical impact. The problem is that they went ahead and proceeded to announce various arbitrary computations that sound provocative and mean absolutely nothing.

So, for what it's worth, let's just establish a couple principles that might help sort out some of the confusion here:

1. Marijuana will never cost $38 per ounce in California as long as it remains illegal everywhere else and sells for up to $500. Prop 215 didn't reduce prices by 80% and neither will Prop 19.

2. Marijuana is already way too available in California for any policy change to dramatically impact rates of use. No one is sitting around in Los Angeles waiting for legalization so that they can find a way to buy some weed.

3. If marijuana were a significant cause of traffic fatalities, California's highways would already be stained with blood. See point #2.

Update: Dave Borden has convinced me that I've been at least somewhat unfair to RAND, insofar as a big part of my frustration here results from the way the media presented the research. It's true that the study's authors were careful to explain that there remains considerable uncertainty about the practical impact of legalization. There are issues that I think could have been handled much better, but I wouldn't want to set a standard that prohibits inquiry, simply because so much remains unclear.