Marijuana Policy

When you're seeing a discussion like this on the McLaughlin Group, you know marijuana reform has gone mainstream:



On a program that's frequently characterized by fervent debate and hostile exchanges, often to the point of being unbearable, the guests actually seem to be largely in agreement about moving beyond marijuana prohibition. Wow. We've come a long, long way.

Another short video from Mike Gray, for Common Sense for Drug Policy. This one is from Todd McCormick's recent THC Expo in Los Angeles -- as Mike describes it, the "[l]argest marijuana merchandising exhibit in US History," "draw[ing] crowds and exhibitors from all over the world to the Los Angeles Convention Center." This could not happen if marijuana were not basically accepted by society, or a large part of it, despite the retrograde laws that still see thousands arrested daily. View the first video in the series, "Retirees Demand Marijuana," here. In case anyone doesn't know who Mike Gray is, by the way, you should know that he's a distinguished filmmaker and author, whose credits include the late 1970s Jane Fonda-Jack Lemmon-Michael Douglas movie The China Syndrome, as well as extensive work on the Star Trek: The Next Generation series. In drug policy he is well known as author of the book Drug Crazy, possibly the best introduction to the madness of the drug war yet written. (Mike's a member of our advisory board too.)

Even in a time of Democratic ascendancy, conservative voices for legalization remain important. This video of Milton Friedman discussing marijuana prohibition, posted by MPP, was brought to my attention in an email recently. Check it out, as well as the second part of it at MPP-TV. Check out this interview with Friedman about legalization of all drugs too.

Oh man, look what's happening in Los Angeles. Yeah, I'd say we have all the evidence we need to conclude that the federal government can't do a damn thing to prevent states from implementing their own drug laws. Obama's position on medical marijuana may be better than Bush's was, but it almost makes no difference when the people take matters into their own hands.

If California voters were to legalize marijuana by referendum, does anyone seriously think the Feds are going to stop them?

In case anyone forgot, the U.S. Dept. of Justice is still trying to extradite famous Canadian marijuana activist Marc Emery for selling marijuana seeds to American customers. But they want everyone to know that the case has nothing to do with his political views:

"We've been very clear it had nothing to do with Mr. Emery's political stand," said Emily Langlie of the U.S. District Attorney's Office in Seattle. [Forbes]

Seriously? Then what the hell did former DEA boss Karen Tandy mean when she said this?

"Today's arrest of Mark (sic) Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and the founder of a marijuana legalization group, is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement."
…
"Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on." [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

There's no way to spin it and I can't imagine why they'd even bother trying. The DEA said it was political, so it's political. Lying about it now serves no purpose other than to tacitly acknowledge that political prosecutions are a bad thing.

The war on marijuana is considerably less popular than it was even a couple years ago when the crusade against Emery began. Now that the debate over marijuana laws is rapidly gaining acceptance in the political mainstream, the DEA's petty motivations for targeting Marc Emery have become such an embarrassment that federal prosecutors would rather lie shamelessly than admit what they're doing.

Under no circumstances will the prosecution of Marc Emery bring glory or even respect to the drug war trophy-hunters that undertook this obscene vendetta. The guy sold goddamn pot seeds on the internet and making a really big deal of out it will serve only to remind everyone that marijuana grows on trees.

A precisely two minute YouTube ad for the Showtime program "Weeds" offers "A Brief History of Weed." The video begins with medical marijuana use documented in China in 2727 BC -- about 2,300 years too early for the Buddha image they use to represent it, but that's nitpicking. Flamethrower imagery at 1:06, representing the beginning of federal marijuana prohibition, is very effective, and post-Prop. 215 marijuana storefront footage is downright exciting. Check it out -- check out the Weeds season premiere on June 8th too. (Via The Daily Dish blog's "Cool Ad Watch.")

In discussing strategies to reduce drug war violence in Mexico, Attorney General Eric Holder made this troubling remark:

In the interview, Mr. Holder said he was sending an additional 100 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the southern border to crack down on the so-called straw gun purchases — in which one person submits to the federal background checks to obtain guns for someone else — that fuel much of the southbound smuggling. And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade, Mr. Holder said he was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases. [New York Times]

It's a disturbing comment that provoked curiosity from Pete Guither and Eric Sterling, but the back-story helps to qualify exactly which type of marijuana offenders we're talking about. From a meeting with prosecutors in Baltimore:  

The officials who met with Holder today quizzed him on a variety of local concerns. For example, Barbara LaWall, the Pima County, Ariz., attorney, said that federal prosecutors in her state were refusing to take cases involving cross-border marijuana seizures of 500 pounds or less.

The result, she said, has been no convictions for hundreds of smugglers caught with about 490 pounds of marijuana. [Baltimore Sun]

So when Holder says he's "exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases," he's responding to complaints that major traffickers are currently being allowed to walk. Obviously, he's dreaming if he thinks lowering the threshold will intimidate traffickers who've already made it clear that they fear nothing. Our failure to prosecute cases under 500 pounds just shows how ridiculously outmatched we are and any attempt to rectify the situation will only serve to further prove that point.

Regardless, Holder's comment shouldn’t be read as a declaration of war against American marijuana users. He's not saying there will be an effort to increase arrests. They are aiming to put more people in prison for pot, however, rather than continuing to systematically pass on cases involving hundreds of pounds.

If Holder wants to reduce Mexican drug war violence, he needs to reduce the drug war itself, not the thresholds for marijuana prosecutions. Believe me, Americans would be happy to grow their pot at home and defund the marijuana cartels entirely.

Over and over again, you hear that same justification, "Well, politicians can't publicly support legalizing marijuana or they'll get voted out of office." It's the first thing casual observers point out to me when I tell them I work on this issue. Everyone's gotten so used to saying it and yet no effort is ever made to support the argument. The idea that "marijuana reform is political suicide" survives on little more than its own presumed legitimacy.

Thus I was disappointed, but not at all surprised, to find Joe Klein at Time magazine saying this same stuff in an otherwise positive piece on marijuana reform:

…the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio.

It sounds so familiar and yet it makes no sense. Talk radio doesn’t rule our politics. If it did, the top questions in Obama's online forums would be about his citizenship, not about legalizing marijuana. Heck, Obama wouldn’t even be president.

Where is Joe Klein getting this stuff from? Obama openly supported several reforms to our drug policy on the campaign trail and no one, not even Rush Limbaugh, said a harsh word about it. Obama was "caught" on video advocating marijuana decriminalization in 2004 and he got elected president. Once in office, Obama ordered the DEA to respect state medical marijuana laws and it's easily one of the least controversial things he's done.

I challenge Joe Klein or anyone else to prove that supporting marijuana policy reform is politically risky. I can only think of two instances that even approach validating any of this: 1) Michael Dukakis's failed presidential bid in 1988 in which he was successfully portrayed as "soft on crime," and 2) The controversy that arose following Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders' statement about considering drug legalization. That was 15 years ago.

It's 2009 and reforming marijuana policy is the most popular idea on the president's own website. Voters are passing state marijuana reform initiatives by incredible margins. Polls show that a majority of both democrats and republicans agree that the drug war is a failure.  

Either show me one good example of a modern politician paying a price for supporting marijuana reform, or stop claiming that this issue is politically risky.

Mark Kleiman, who we've often criticized for generally supporting drug prohibition, deserves credit for his recent discussion of the merits of a "grow-your-own" marijuana policy. Kleiman's main concern with legalization is that a legitimate marijuana industry will be incentivized to market their products and work to sustain high usage levels within the population. His solution is to let people form co-ops and grow their own pot.

In response, Pete Guither has an ingenious post noting that marijuana genetics are remarkably diverse, thus creating inevitable consumer demand for a variety of options. Indeed, the war on marijuana and the exhausting, often redundant debate surrounding it have largely obscured the fascinating psychopharmacological diversity of the plant itself.

Experienced marijuana consumers delight in exploring the unique psychoactive properties of particular strains and individual users often develop preferences for certain varieties when they're available. This is especially true with regards to medical use, wherein it's widely understood that some strains are better for specific symptoms than others. Potency is just one of many factors that impact the popularity of a given strain. Sativa strains, for example, are known for being more energetic and stimulating, while indicas are typically more relaxing.

Explaining all of this to people who hate marijuana will surely just freak them out even more, but it still bothers me that the discussion of marijuana tends to present the drug as a one-dimensional substance when, in fact, it is anything but. There are many things worth knowing about this plant that won't fully be revealed and understood until we end the vicious war against it.

So far, Obama's favorite thing about being president is getting to read all the marijuana-related questions on his website. If it weren't, then he'd surely have stopped inviting us to submit questions, right? He loves you. Each and every one of you.

That's why WhiteHouse.gov is now accepting your questions on the economy. It's broken down into several categories, but multiple sections are utterly dominated by marijuana reform questions. Apparently, Americans' #1 economic concern is that marijuana is illegal.

As we've done several times now, let's make damn sure the new administration sees the potency of our movement by keeping drug policy reform questions in top position. The site also encourages you to vote against questions you're less interested in, so feel free to do that too.

The point isn't that marijuana laws are necessarily the top economic issue right now, but rather that the drug war went over budget a long, long time ago. It's one bad program that needs to go immediately if we're serious about making responsible decisions in tough times. Filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders was bad enough when we still had the money to do it. Those days are behind us and no excuses remain for the political culture that has long championed the grand fiasco that now festers before our eyes.

At this moment of grave economic uncertainty, the obligation of our leaders to justify their programs and expenditures has never been greater. Unless or until Obama can come forward and confidently defend every damn dollar that is poured into the war on drugs, these questions will continue to dominate every public forum he holds.