Legalization

Public Opinion: In Gallup Poll, Support for Legalizing Reaches All-Time High; Over 50% in the West Are in Favor According to the most recent Gallup poll, 44% of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, while 54% oppose it. The 44% figure is the highest since Gallup began polling on the issue nearly 40 years ago. In 1970, only 12% of respondents favored legalization. That figure climbed to 28% in 1977, then declined slightly and reached a plateau with support holding at around 25% for the next two decades. But in the past decade, public opinion has begun to shift, with support hitting 34% in 2002, 36% in 2006, and now, 44%. Conversely, opposition to legalization is now at an all-time low. It was 84% in 1970, 66% in 1977, and around 73% for most of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton eras. But beginning in about 1996, opposition began to decline, dropping to 62% in 2002, 60% in 2006, and now, 54%. A related question—whether marijuana should be legalized and taxed to raise revenues for state governments—won similar support levels in the Gallup poll. Some 42% of respondents said they would favor such a move in their state, while 56% were opposed. In the West, however, support for tax and legalize has gone over the top; 53% favor such an approach. Looking at various demographic groups, support for marijuana legalization is highest among self-described liberals, at 78%. Only 26% of conservatives and 46% of moderates supported legalization. Similarly, 54% of Democrats, 49% of independents, and 28% of Republicans supported legalization. There is also a clear generational divide. Half of those under age 50 support legalization, compared to 45% aged 50 to 64, and only 28% of seniors. Support for legalization has swollen among certain demographic groups since the last Gallup poll on the issue in 2005. The number in favor of legalization jumped more than 10 points among women (+12), young people (+11), Democrats (+13), liberals (+15), moderates (+11), and residents of the West (+13). If these rates of increase in support for legalization continue over the medium term, the world as we know may indeed end in 2012.

Daily marijuana legalization protests in the Central Square in Keene, New Hampshire, led to one arrest Saturday for marijuana possession and one Sunday—but the victim in that arrest was later found to be smoking chocolate mint in his glass pipe and released without charges. The demonstrations began last Tuesday with a couple of dozen people gathering at 4:20 p.m. to toke up as an act of civil disobedience and call for marijuana law reform. After Saturday's arrest, the protests continued, with about 100 people showing up Monday. By Tuesday, the protests had spread to Manchester. The protests are being led by Free Keene, a local affiliate of the libertarian New Hampshire Free State Project. The project's stated goal is to persuade 20,000 libertarians to move to New Hampshire in a bid to shift the politics of the low-population Granite State. Arrested Saturday was Richard Paul, 40, one of the protest organizers. Paul was arrested after police patrolling the square saw him smoking a joint. Protestors shouted at police, yelling "Leave him alone!" and "This is how they did it in Nazi Germany!" After the arrest, about 50 protestors followed Paul and police officers to the police station, where they shouted through the door and sat in a circle smoking marijuana. No more arrests were forthcoming, though. To confuse police at the protests at the square, some smokers smoked things other than marijuana. That was the case Sunday, when police arrested a protester identified only as "Earl" for puffing on a glass pipe. Embarrassingly for police, that substance turned out to be not marijuana but chocolate mint, and Earl was quickly released. Protests continued this week in Keene and have now spread to Manchester. In the latter town, protestors sparked up in the presence of police, but failed to provoke any arrests. Perhaps the cops have better things to do. And that's precisely the point.

As President Calderon's leadership continues to drive Mexico deeper into the abyss of cyclical drug war violence, his predecessor Vicente Fox is looking for real solutions instead of hollow, tough-guy rhetoric. And it sounds like he found the answer:

Mr. Fox says a thirst for riches propels the street violence. So legalizing drugs — as Holland has done — could have the same effect that ending Prohibition had in the United States in 1933: Removing the incentive for criminals.

But if the domestic market in Mexico collapsed because of legalization, the export market might become even more valuable. Any move toward legalization would work only if done in concert with the United States, Mr. Fox said. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

Those are strong words coming from the man who was leading the Mexican drug war just three years ago. Fox knows as well as anyone how powerful prohibition has made the cartels and he's rapidly becoming the nation's loudest voice for reform.

It's almost become a cliche at this point, but the observation that Mexico can’t change the direction of its drug policy without U.S. backing is probably correct. It's awfully hard to just come out and tell the Americans, "Hey, you guys are on your own now. We're not fighting anymore. Good luck locking down your borders and convincing everyone to stop buying drugs." Even if drug sales in Mexico were tightly regulated, the fight over lucrative smuggling routes will continue. You can regulate marijuana sales in Tijuana, but the government can't be arbitrating trade disputes between international drug organizations or issuing permits to dig tunnels under the border.

Nevertheless, the present hopelessness griping the country could form the framework for a massive popular movement to end Mexico's war against the cartels. Everyone already knows the whole mess owes its origins to American drug demand and it may be only a matter of time before a politically significant portion of the Mexican population stops supporting politicians who take drug war orders from the U.S. State Department. The next presidential elections in Mexico will likely bring about the most interesting drug policy dialogue that's ever taken place there.

No one knows what's going to happen next, but I can guarantee you that the current strategy of fighting it out in the streets isn't going to change the game. As hard as it is to imagine a combined U.S. and Mexican withdrawal after decades of aggressive interdiction efforts, it stands to reason that the one viable policy solution will eventually emerge. With leaders like Vicente Fox beginning to speak out, that moment may come sooner than we expect.

I have an invited comment online at JURIST, explaining why the resignation of Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora won't change much. (Hint: It's Prohibition.) JURIST, which is published at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, is "the world's only law school-based comprehensive legal news and research service," according to its FAQ. It's also free, archives included. I've already added it to my Google Reader.

It's sad how often opposition to simple reforms is characterized by fundamental factual ignorance. Here's T. Michael Andrews, a former senior policy adviser at the Department of Homeland Security, freaking out about something that hasn't actually happened:

Mexico's recent decision to legalize hard drugs, including methamphetamines, cocaine, LSD and heroin, sends the wrong message to its citizen and to the international law-enforcement community.
…

Mexico's recent decision sends up the white flag in its commitment to stopping drugs from imploding in its country and says yes to continued trafficking into the United States. [Arizona Daily Star]

The thing is, drugs aren't legal in Mexico. They're just not. This isn't a matter of opinion. All they did was get rid of criminal penalties for possessing (not selling) very small amounts. It's usually referred to a decriminalization and even the U.N. is down with it.

It's possible, of course, that Andrews is merely trying to sensationalize the issue by conflating decriminalization with the more-controversial concept of legalization. But he straight-up insists that "Mexico will now become the vacation destination for all drug users," as though they're on the verge of opening coffeeshops for heroin.

I honestly doubt whether this guy even understands how Mexico's new drug law works, which means the Arizona Daily Star made a bad call by giving him a forum for complaining about it. You can send them a polite note by clicking here.

Purple Clouds in the sky take your consciousness so very high Over the feindish Master Eye Capturing all, truth justified Purple Clouds Illigalized Decriminalized Unjustified Lies!

Oakland marijuana activists are moving forward on a possible 2010 marijuana legalization initiative. Led by Oaksterdam University's Richard Lee and former Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op head Jeff Jones, proponents today filed a proposed ballot measure with the California attorney general's office that would allow people aged 21 and over to legally possess up to an ounce of pot and grow their own on garden plots no larger than 25 square feet.

marijuana

"California's laws criminalizing cannabis have failed and need to be reformed," said Lee. "Cannabis is safer than alcohol," says Lee. "Cannabis doesn't cause overdose deaths or make people violent like alcohol. It makes sense to regulate cannabis like alcohol, instead of prohibiting it completely." The initiative would also let cities and counties decide whether or not to tax and regulate cannabis sales and commercial cultivation. If a city or county decides not to, sales and cultivation within area limits would remain illegal, but possession and consumption of small amounts would be allowed. To make the November 2010 ballot, organizers must gather 434,000 valid voter signatures by December. That will be the first major test of the initiative's viability. Another indicator of the measure's support will be if major funders step up to back it. When the Chronicle wrote last month about initial planning for the initiative, drug reform organizations were apprehensive that the proposed initiative was too soon, that the polling numbers weren't high enough, and that a loss could take the steam out of the legalization push for years to come. This week, the Chronicle will be revisiting those groups to see where they now stand. The Drug Policy Alliance said Tuesday it would have preferred to wait until 2012, but hopes it wins. "The momentum to end decades of failed marijuana prohibition just keeps building," said Stephen Gutwillig. "While the Drug Policy Alliance would prefer such an initiative to appear on the ballot in 2012, when public support will likely be even greater than it is now, we'd of course like to see it win. There's simply no denying the intense groundswell for change."

1. Argue that marijuana should be legal. Being right will give you an immediate advantage. This argument won't guarantee success by itself, but you can't win without it. There has never been a documented instance of someone looking intelligent while arguing that marijuana should be against the law.

2. Try not to say anything completely insane. It's clear that Calvina Fay has come unhinged when she claims that, "about 60% of everybody out there using drugs is involved in abusing children." Such statements will cause viewers to associate your position with derangement. Similar lapses can be observed at other points in the debate when Calvina is speaking.

3. Be the last person to talk. Notice how Rob Kampia concludes the debate with a series of correct statements. Speaking last will help prevent viewers from becoming confused by your opponent's ideas. If the moderator offers your opponent the final word, draw attention away from their comments by transitioning between the following series of facial expressions: surprise ? skepticism ? amusement.

Marijuana Policy Project has launched a TV ad campaign in support of taxing and regulating marijuana in California:



Unfortunately, while the ad will appear on several networks, KABC in Los Angeles and KGO and KNTV in San Francisco actually rejected it:

At KABC in L.A., the ad was rejected for purportedly encouraging marijuana smoking. [MPP's Bruce] Mirken spoke to station manager Arnie Kleiner, who didn't return a call from the Huffington Post. "His feeling wasn't that the ad was promoting a change in the law, but that it was promoting marijuana smoking," said Mirken, adding that Kleiner told him, "I'm not going to advocate the smoking of marijuana. Marijuana is illegal." [Huffington Post]

As anyone viewing the ad can plainly see, it doesn’t endorse marijuana smoking in any way. The ad argues that the existing marijuana industry could be used to generate much-needed revenue for the state, which has nothing to do with whether or not one happens to personally like marijuana or think it's a good thing for people to do. The kneejerk assertion that all efforts to reform marijuana laws are equivalent to an endorsement of drug use is really as intellectually barren an argument as you'll ever find in the marijuana policy debate. It's a desperate cop-out and an instant indicator that you're dealing with someone whose comprehension of the issue is not fully formed.

Similarly, the argument that you can’t talk about changing marijuana laws because "marijuana is illegal" is just a paralyzing absurdity. Even the Governor of California is interested is debating marijuana legalization, so obviously the existence of current marijuana laws does not create an invisible barrier to intelligent discourse about public policy.

Fortunately, the marijuana debate has progressed to a point at which such petty obstructions serve only to embarrass those responsible. A recent poll shows that 56% of Californians support marijuana legalization, thus any public entity that endeavors to conceal or trivialize the argument takes a substantial risk of alienating its own patrons.

Nevertheless, the ad will air on many stations in California and it's thrilling to see the reform argument marketed to the mainstream. The Governor asked for a debate and that's exactly what he's going to get.

This letter in the Montgomery Advertiser is a mind-numbing illustration of the vivid imaginations that local anti-drug activists can frequently be found to possess:

Assume the government legalizes pot. It will be taxed (federal and state) and regulated for THC content. Do drug cartels just fold their tent? Hardly. Simply offer a more potent product at a lower cost -- tax-free, of course. Higher THC content is the goal of all serious pot smokers -- check out any issue of High Times, or the myriad of Internet sites offering more potent seeds.

Note to prohibitionists: the second you find yourself arguing that no one will buy legal pot, you've gone off the rails badly. If you wanna talk about the advertisers in High Times, what about the ones that make money hand over fist selling legal herbs that merely look like pot? Legal pot will be an extremely popular product among people who like pot. You don't have to worry about that.

And if you find yourself arguing that drug cartels can stay in business despite sudden widespread competition by simply improving their product and lowering their prices, maybe you should stop to consider how ridiculous that sounds. If they do that, they'll go broke overnight, hence you just accidentally stumbled across the exact reason why legalizing marijuana will annihilate the black market for pot.

It really shouldn’t be necessary to explain that drug cartels thrive on astronomical black market inflation. Everything they are and everything they do revolves around the massive drug monopoly that prohibition bestows upon them. If you take that away, they are nothing.

But if the fundamentals of black market economics continue to escape anyone, I suppose we could always just agree to legalize potent pot as well.