Opponents of Marijuana Legalization are Wasting Their Time
In strictly political terms, this is a powerful combination: fast-growing support and solid majorities among the young, who represent where the electorate is headed. (Support for gay marriage polls similarly — which is why it is becoming law in more states.) In a few years, the national discussion may well turn from whether to legalize marijuana to how to do it in the most prudent way.
The political reality of the situation ought to be obvious to everyone by now, but it actually isn't at all. To those who bitterly oppose any change to our marijuana laws, every argument for reform is pure fiction, including the notion that more than a few people dislike our current approach to pot. They'll tell you that polls showing broad support are anomalous, ballot measures that succeeded were won by manipulation, and the debate's visibility on the web is the work of "internet trolls" mischievously disrupting civil discourse.
Yet their biggest mistake of all is telling everyone that marijuana reform will be unspeakably horrible, when you can just watch how well these changes are working wherever they emerge. The good outweighs the bad so obviously that a supposedly "controversial" concept like medical marijuana has nevertheless been replicated repeatedly around the country, gaining support as it goes.
The future of the marijuana debate is, rather clearly at this point, simply a question of how to structure the production and distribution of marijuana in a way that best addresses the flaws of the current system. That's where we're headed, and people who don’t like it are still better off accepting it and taking a seat at the table than continuing to defend the failed war that's falling out of favor right in front of them.
YouTube Ignores Cop's First Place Marijuana Legalization Video Question for Obama
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:January 30, 2012
CONTACT:Tom Angell - (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc
YouTube Ignores Cop's First Place Marijuana Legalization Video Question for Obama
Site Finds Time for Questions About Dancing, Late-Night Snacks and Playing Tennis
WASHINGTON, DC-- Today YouTube ignored a question advocating marijuana legalization from a retired LAPD deputy chief of police that won twice as many votes as any other video question in the White House's "Your Interview with the President" competition on the Google-owned site. They did, however, find the time to get the president on record about late night snacking, singing and dancing, celebrating wedding anniversaries and playing tennis.
Stephen Downing, the retired LAPD police officer and a board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), had this to say about the site ignoring his question: "It's worse than silly that YouTube and Google would waste the time of the president and of the American people discussing things like midnight snacks and playing tennis when there is a much more pressing question on the minds of the people who took the time to participate in voting on submissions. A majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana to de-fund cartels and gangs, lower incarceration and arrest rates and save scarce public resources, all while generating new much-needed tax revenue. The time to discuss this issue is now. We're tired of this serious public policy crisis being pushed aside or laughed off."
The top-voted video question from Downing is as follows: "Mr. President, my name is Stephen Downing, and I'm a retired deputy chief of police from the Los Angeles Police Department. From my 20 years of experience I have come to see our country’s drug policies as a failure and a complete waste of criminal justice resources. According to the Gallup Poll, the number of Americans who support legalizing and regulating marijuana now outnumbers those who support continuing prohibition. What do you say to this growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you have delivered in your first term?" The question can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IpiATxdR4.
Downing's question came in first place for video questions and ranked second out of all questions (with the overall top spot going to a text question about copyright infringement). Many of the other top-ranking questions were about marijuana policy or the failed "war on drugs," as has been the case every other time the White House has invited citizens to submit and vote on questions via the web.
Voting in the YouTube contest wrapped up Saturday at midnight EST. In addition to the top-voted marijuana and drug policy questions mentioned above, there were a number of other similar questions that received thousands of votes but were mysteriously deleted after being marked "inappropriate."
More information about the contest and the top-voted questions can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/whitehouse. The Gallup poll referenced in Downing's winning question can be found online at http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Record-High-Americans-Favor-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the war on drugs and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. More info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.
# # #
Obama Interview Ignores Marijuana Legalization Questions
As everyone is probably pretty well aware at this point, one of the most popular activities at the White House is the practice of organizing online forums for people to vote on questions for the president, getting everyone all excited about it, and then completely ignoring the vote totals and disappointing participants with predictable answers to generic questions. It happened yet again today:
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Barack Obama in an online "conversation" with American voters on Monday, failed to answer a barrage of questions about marijuana legalization or the drug war.
Although 18 out of 20 of the most popular questions submitted by voters via YouTube were about the drug war or pot, the president in his 45-minute post-State of the Union chat didn't address a single one. [Huffington Post]
Of course, the president has answered similar questions in the past, mocking legalization supporters on one occasion and calling it a legitimate topic for debate on another. What the president has never done is actually answer such a question completely or intelligently. At this point, it's rather hard to imagine that he ever will.
And so the cycle is certain to repeat itself again and again, as one web forum after another is dominated by marijuana and drug war questions that will continue to go unanswered (though some may occasionally be acknowledged and sidestepped). The "legitimate debate" to which Obama says we're entitled is something he nonetheless refuses to actually engage in, and the frustration that drives this issue to the front of the line in every such forum will be well fed for the foreseeable future.
In the meantime, it ought to be obvious to everyone that something is very wrong when this many people keep asking the same question and the president has nothing to say.
Marijuana Legalization Question Takes First Place Again in Obama YouTube Forum
This video question about marijuana legalization from Stephen Downing, former Deputy Police Chief in Los Angeles and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, finished first place today in voting for the White House's "Your Interview with the President" contest on YouTube:
Marijuana Education Day
Saturday, January 28th, 2012
Nashville, Tennessee
Saying "Ron Paul Can't Legalize Marijuana" Is Stupid and Misses the Point of his Candidacy
A growing number of marijuana activists are embracing Paul as a pot-friendly alternative to President Barack Obama, whose Justice Department has done more to dismantle state-legal medical marijuana than George W. Bush's crew ever did.
These supporters ignore a key point: If Paul were president, he wouldn't be any better for legalizing marijuana than President Obama -- or worse than Romney or Santorum.…
Marijuana was criminalized by the feds in 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act was passed by Congress (under pressure from Richard M. Nixon's administration). Only Congress can repeal an act of Congress, just as only Congress can amend the Constitution, raise taxes, and wage war (legally).
The whole thing is a pretty embarrassing mischaracterization of the executive branch's critical role in setting national drug policy priorities. Heck, even the above paragraph points to Nixon as the protagonist in the story of how modern drug prohibition was born. Electing a president who is committed to correcting that mistake is one of the most powerful forward steps this movement can take, and this is true for several reasons that ought to be obvious:
- The president appoints the nation's top drug policy officials, including heads of the ONDCP (the Drug Czar) and the DEA, and can exert tremendous influence over their budgets and enforcement priorities.
- The president has the power to veto bad laws. If anyone is concerned about congress passing dumb anti-drug legislation in the future (a legitimate concern if ever one existed), they would be wise to support candidates who would reject our continued decent into endless drug war oblivion.
- The president can pressure congress to implement sensible reforms, including the passage of legislation to fix problems created by congress in the past. Not a walk in the park when it comes to drug policy, not even close, but technically true nevertheless, and certain to become critically important as the movement for drug policy reform continues its present momentum and exerts increasing influence over both the executive and legislative branches of government.
- The president has the loudest microphone on the planet and can use it to change the way people think about the issues facing our nation. This alone suffices to illustrate unequivocally why putting a marijuana reform advocate into the White House would be the greatest watershed moment in the history of this movement. One can't even begin to calculate all the ways in which the president's influence could be used to advance the cause of reform. I can’t believe it's even necessary to explain this, because honestly, when has anyone ever seriously suggested that the president's opinion on any matter of intense political debate was somehow irrelevant because the president lacks the powers of congress? That notion is too plainly absurd to justify further refutation.
- The mere act of electing a president who openly supports marijuana legalization or other drug policy reform positions makes a devastatingly powerful statement about the potency of those political ideas. This is known as the concept of a "mandate," wherein the electorate's choice of a certain candidate, particularly when made decisively, is seen as a message to our political culture that this candidate's platform reflects the values of the American people. When marijuana reform is included in that package, it speaks to the tone of the political climate on that issue and sends a message to congress that their constituents are ready to see real changes considered in a serious way.
All of these points, and I'm sure I missed several more, serve to illustrate why it is just stupid to even suggest that the president cannot serve as a powerful champion of marijuana legalization and other drug policy reforms. And yet, the assertions to which I respond here weren't leveled against the perceived front-runner in the republican primaries. All of these plainly farcical distortions of the president's power to influence national drug policy were directed at Ron Paul.
Ron Paul, though I know some will disagree or hope otherwise, is really a protest candidate, albeit a very popular and effective one. His goal is primarily to introduce into our political discourse ideas which he and his supporters feel have been unduly dismissed and disregarded by the political establishment. Ron Paul and his supporters already consider the campaign a success, because it's done exactly that.
His advocacy for the reform of marijuana laws ranks among the most popular aspects of his candidacy, resonating with his base of hardcore libertarian-minded supporters, while simultaneously piquing the interest of many on the left, who've been disgusted by Obama's brazen assault on medical marijuana. For anyone who cares about making long-term political progress on these issues, it makes absolute sense to cheer for the only candidate who is talking about it.
Publicly supporting politicians who publicly support marijuana reform is a necessary step towards demonstrating the political viability of the issue on a larger scale, so that future candidates for any elected office will have more reason to consider including this position in their platform. Simultaneously, the process of raising the profile of the debate over marijuana and other drug policy issues during a period of intense campaign season press coverage is an obvious and very effective way of marketing this idea to the public, increasingly support for it, and convincing future candidates to adopt it.
I really don’t know how much more completely one can misunderstand the significance of Ron Paul's marijuana advocacy than by arguing that it is pointless unless he A) gets elected President of the United States, and B) immediately legalizes marijuana throughout the nation. That is a standard so preposterous, so plainly unreasonable and bizarre, that, if taken seriously, it could call into question the importance of drug policy reform efforts in general. That's why I took this much time to respond, and why I hope Ron Paul's critics, regardless of their motives, will dispense with this particular brand of nonsense permanently.
Update: And, of course, there's also the president's power to pardon people for drug crimes. The president can just send anyone home from jail and erase their charges. That's kind if a big deal, yes?
(This article was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
How to Write a Clichéd, Unpersuasive Argument Against Drug Legalization
The American Spectator ran an anti-legalization editorial last week that was so over-the-top, I turned it into an instructional guide on bad drug policy writing. I couldn't help myself. The whole thing is over at Huffington Post. Enjoy.
Ron Paul Explains Why Other Candidates Won't Discuss the Drug War
If you've been following our coverage of the presidential candidates in New Hampshire, you'll find this to be a refreshing change in tone.
I think he's exactly right, and it's worth pointing out that you don't have to be just like Ron Paul to win points with voters by supporting drug policy reform. Paul's libertarian philosophy doesn't resonate well with many progressives, who are otherwise impressed with his drug policy positions. Any number of politicians on the left could earn enormous support, especially from young voters, just by copying Ron Paul's approach to marijuana policy and ignoring much of the rest of what he stands for.
Ron Paul is a complicated political personality, but the lessons to be learned from his politically successful advocacy of drug policy reform shouldn't be too difficult to grasp: public support for changing our drug laws creates a substantial and growing opportunity for politicians with the wisdom to capitalize on it.
(This article was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
Ron Paul's Least Controversial Idea: Legalizing Drugs
A lot of people have a lot of problems with Ron Paul, but when the poo starts flying in his direction, it's never because he wants to legalize marijuana, or even meth. That's not the debate his critics want to have with him. If anyone really believes that Ron Paul's ideas about drug policy are a non-starter with voters, they sure are reluctant to point it out.
Face it, Ron Paul's belief in changing our drug laws is easily the least controversial position for which he is known. It's the one thing no one ever challenges him on, a fact which, by itself, ought to completely bury forever the notion that politicians who support things like the legalization of marijuana are engaging in a act of overt political suicide.
No one will ever make an attack ad saying that Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, because saying that about Ron Paul would just make him more popular. You can't burn someone by reinforcing what their supporters love most. It's a principle Obama seems to have forgotten and would do well to remember before November.
(This article was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
Marc Emery Christmas Prison Blog
Marc Emery is approaching the halfway mark of his prison term. In a blog post on cannabisculture.com, "It's a Wonderful Life," he posts a few of the 3,500 letters of support he's received and reminds us that there are hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug war prisoners in the US.
