Legalization

guest column by Dr. Douglas Young, Prof. of Pol. Sci. & History at Gainesville College, Gainesville, GA The news of Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps smoking pot should re-energize the marijuana legalization debate because America should be a free marketplace of ideas where ALL perspectives joust. Yet to even consider legalization is often unacceptable in polite company. But, because all public policy should be rationally debated, let's at least look at some legalization arguments. I wish no one used any recreational drug (and I avoid them all). But if we must outlaw everything potentially dangerous, then we need a federal 30 mph speed limit and a ban on fatty foods greasing the obesity epidemic killing over 300,000 Americans annually (CBS News). Somehow we survived legal marijuana until 1937. It actually helped finance our revolution, clothe the Continental Army, and provide the paper for our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Washington and Jefferson grew it, and the latter even risked smuggling it out of Europe. In fact, before 1870, hemp oil ranked second only to whale oil in creating light around the world. During World War II, the feds pushed hemp production to make rope for the war effort. Dope got banned because federal cops wanted to keep their jobs (alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933), cotton farmers wanted to end hemp competition, and whites linked pot to Mexican immigrants and black jazz musicians. Louis Armstrong never performed without it, and a later user, Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, still calls joints "herbal jazz cigarettes." But Caucasians feared white girls would "go crazy" on dope and become intimate with minority males. So, to avert "Reefer Madness," the weed got outlawed instead of the cancer sticks, liver poison, and "Mother's Little Helper" pills preferred by the ruling class. Today over 12 percent of federal and state inmates are doing time for pot, costing taxpayers over $1 billion annually (In These Times). A record 872,000 Americans were arrested for it in 2007 alone -- 89 percent just for possession (the FBI). In fact, an attorney on "The O'Reilly Factor" revealed a few years back that there were more lifers in California prisons for pot than for murder, rape, and kidnapping combined. So pot-smokers get locked up with and brutalized by our most violent felons. How's that for "rehabilitation"? Then their criminal records deny them student loans, good jobs, and even voting rights. Does our abuse of drug-users resemble how we used to mistreat the mentally ill? The medical evidence shows drug addicts are unwisely self-medicating a dopamine deficiency in the brain. They need treatment, not an 8 x 10 cell. How do you think future generations will judge us? William F. Buckley, Jr. noted that 400,000 police can't go after violent crimes and theft due to the endless "War on Drugs." There's also epidemic vice squad corruption with drugs since their price is so inflated precisely because they're illegal. Psst: The folks most against legalization -- are drug dealers! Why not tax our biggest cash crop and let cops chase violent felons? Doesn't prohibition fuel the forbidden fruit syndrome? The 1920s' alcohol ban criminalized a huge percentage of decent Americans, created organized crime in the US, and corrupted thousands of police and officials (even President Warren Harding and Chief Justice William Taft secretly drank). Though none is healthy, is pot remotely as bad as alcohol or cigarettes? CBS News reported that half of US hospital beds are filled by folks with alcohol-related problems, and we have 110,000 alcohol-lubricated deaths every year. Also, the Justice Department admits that alcohol was the only drug found in 36 percent of all convicted criminals and is a factor in over 40 percent of murders. Cigarettes are as addictive as heroin (former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop), do far more bodily harm than any opiate (addiction medicine specialist Dr. Drew Pinsky), and kill 430,000 Americans a year (CDC). My hygienist says they can even cause teeth to fall out in your thirties. Though pot is psychologically addictive for some, no one ever overdosed, got cancer, or died from marijuana. Nor do people get violent on it (as Bill Maher says, "Forgetting to kill your wife on pot, okay"). Also, studies show most pot-smokers do not graduate to harder illegal drugs. Legalization doesn't mean more pot smoking. In Holland, where marijuana is tolerated, just 12 percent of Dutch aged 15-24 said they used pot in 2005. But, in nearby France, where it's illegal, 24 percent of French youths admitted smoking it that year. And, in the U.S., almost 28 percent of Americans 18-25 said they used marijuana in 2004-5. Yet, with effective health classes and ad campaigns, U.S. tobacco and alcohol consumption have gone way down in recent years. Better education can lower pot use as well. Though 12 states have passed referenda liberalizing marijuana laws, the feds keep vetoing our constitutional democratic states' rights. Ultimately, either we're for less government or we're not. Is it really state business what consenting adults do in their own home? Must we have a national nanny state with Big Brother jailing citizens for a weed? And wouldn't our libertarian Founding Fathers be appalled at this gross encroachment on our privacy rights? Let's at least debate returning to our roots and finally standing up for freedom for a change. Exactly why not?

Mark Kleiman has an interesting post observing the rapidly evolving political climate surrounding marijuana policy reform. He points to recent polling data and observes correctly that we're entering new territory in terms of public attitudes and political opportunities.

Of course, this is a Mark Kleiman post, so there's guaranteed to be something in there that I can't quite wrap my head around. Kleiman condemns the alcohol model, which he says "would provide a strong incentive for the marketing effort to aim at creating and maintaining addiction." He estimates that rates of marijuana addiction would double if it were sold like alcohol, so he proposes this instead:

So I continue to favor a "grow your own" policy, under which it would be legal to grow, possess, and use cannabis and to give it away, but illegal to sell it. Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales. But there wouldn't be billboards.

That beautifully-crafted policy has only two major defects that I'm aware of: it wouldn't create tax revenue, and no one but me supports it…

Well, I'd favor this over our current policy without hesitation, but is Kleiman serious that he only sees two significant flaws in his plan? What about the fact that marijuana would still be sold by criminals? It's the biggest cash crop in America and its distribution (absent for medical use in some states) occurs exclusively on the black market. Even under a "grow your own" model, marijuana entrepreneurs will proliferate. And when their door gets smashed down in the middle of the night, they still won’t know if it's an armed robbery or the DEA. People will still get shot and killed over an otherwise completely non-lethal drug.

Can anything be done about that, Mark?

A bill to tax and regulate the production and sale of marijuana will go before the California legislature. At a press conference at his San Francisco offices -- going on right now -- California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano announced he was introducing legislation to do just that. The bill comes as the state is in the grip of a strong economic downturn and a severe fiscal crisis. Estimates of tax revenues that could be generating by regularizing the status of California's leading cash crop range from $1.5 billion to $4 billion a year. A poll by Zogby International, released last week, found majority support on the west coast for the proposed reform. I am currently at the press conference, and will post a more detailed report later today. Phil's report, including pictures from the press conference, is online here. Check back Friday morning at the same URL for a full-length Drug War Chronicle feature story.

A new CBS/NYT poll finds that 41% of Americans agree that marijuana use should be legalized. While legalization still fails to garner majority support, it’s clear that we’re headed in the right direction. Notice that only 27% supported legalization in 1979:

LEGALIZING MARIJUANA
Like 30 years ago, a majority of Americans do not think the use of marijuana should be made legal, but the percentage that thinks it should be has grown. Now, 41% of Americans support legalizing marijuana use, compared to just 27% who felt that way in 1979.

SHOULD MARIJUANA USE BE LEGALIZED?

CBS/NYT CBS/NYT
Now /1979
Yes 41% 27%
No  52% 69%

There is a huge generation gap on this issue. More adults under 45 (49%) approve of legalizing marijuana use than oppose (45%), while just 31% of adults over age 45 approve of it; six in 10 are opposed.  

The generation gap is particularly encouraging, confirming a popular theory among reformers that if we simply wait not-so-patiently, we’ll eventually win when our opposition literally drops dead.

These numbers reveal that we’re well within striking distance of achieving majority support for legalization. Moreover, we’re comfortably within the range in which meaningful reform to our marijuana laws will produce significant and vocal approval from the public. If there was ever a time when our political climate was fatally non-receptive to this idea, we have moved beyond that.

Keep in mind that the 41% result was arrived at without any particular political context. That’s just the number of people who generally walk around believing that marijuana should be legal. It’s possible to build that number significantly when the question is framed around an actual policy proposal, such as in Massachusetts where 65% of voters supported decriminalization. Because our arguments are strong, we benefit from the debate.

Legalization initiatives were unsuccessful in Nevada and Colorado in 2004, but I’d like to think that in the current change-focused political climate, it’s quite possible that similar measures would be victorious. For one thing, the departure of drug czar John Walters means we’re unlikely to face the same vicious opposition we’ve become accustomed to, as I simply do not envision Obama’s White House undertaking a regional propaganda scare-tour the next time we try something big.

The fact is that we’re moving in exactly the right direction, though not nearly as fast as any of us would prefer. We must be patient, so long as our patience doesn’t take the form of inaction. We’re entering a period of remarkable political opportunity for our cause.

Nubia Legarda is a Students for Sensible Drug Policy activist from El Paso. Legarda hasn't visited her family in neighboring Ciudad Juárez for months because of the drug trade violence ravaging many of Mexico's cities -- her reason for joining SSDP last year. Texan Terry Nelson is a 30-year law enforcement veteran who worked for the US Border Patrol, the US Customs Service, and the Department of Homeland Security. He is now a leading spokesperson for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Amidst the hysteria surrounding this week’s events in El Paso, I neglected to mention that Mayor John Cook got caught calling us all "potheads" because we oppose the drug war:

ABC-7 obtained an excerpt from the mayor's e-mail, which was sent to Margie Velez, the former office manager for former Senator Phil Gramm in El Paso.

It states: "I can tell you that all the pot heads have sent their e-mails and they are encouraging the reps to stand by their decision. But why does the silent majority remain silent? We have certainly attracted attention to our city, but I don't think the attention is positive." [ABC7]

It’s hilarious on multiple levels, beginning with the delightfully bad press it earned him. He’s literally calling people potheads for supporting a city council resolution that advocates "an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics." With few exceptions, it’s gonna reflect poorly on you if you resort to name-calling against people who asked for an honest and open discussion.

But the best part is when he asks for the "silent majority" to come save him from the stoners. Leaving aside the question of whether that "silent majority" even exists anymore (which is doubtful), the mayor’s agenda from day one has been to prevent discussion. If Mayor Cook wanted to give drug war supporters a voice, why the hell did he veto a debate on our drug policy? He torpedoed the discussion, only to then complain that certain views weren’t being heard. That is just classic.

Pete Guither lists a couple of the worst arguments we hear from our opponents. There are basically an infinite number of stupid reasons to oppose drug policy reform ("My girlfriend was smoking all this weed and making out with hippies and we broke up"), but Pete's right that the worst arguments are often regurgitated repetitively, so it's worth taking note of the common ones. Fun too, if you like banging your head against a wall.

I wrote yesterday about El Paso Mayor John Cook’s veto of a city council resolution calling for a debate on our drug policy. Today, Former El Paso Mayor Bill Tilney came out in favor of the vetoed resolution.

As a former mayor, I understand the position taken by Mayor John Cook, when he decided to veto the resolution at the last moment. [link] The City of El Paso is dependent in many ways on both the Texas state government and the United States federal government for funding of many important projects. Tweaking their noses could have unpleasant consequences. U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who has done a great job as the region's representative, was chief of the Border Patrol for many years. Given the fact that he was involved in the "war on drugs" and interdiction here along the border, he may have reservations about launching a national debate at City Council. Nevertheless, given President-elect Barack Obama's philosophy of "Yes, we can change," this seems a propitious moment to give El Paso center stage at the national level. Also the simple truth that the last three presidents have experimented with illegal drugs, like cocaine or marijuana, makes it a most apropos time to initiate a national debate. [Newspaper Tree]

It just gets better from there. Read the whole thing. It’s wonderful to see conversations about our drug policy bubbling up in new places without the involvement of the usual familiar faces. If this is a sign of the direction we’re headed, that can only be a good thing.

One of the least impressive arguments you’ll ever here from drug war supporters is that we have to keep drugs illegal otherwise all the drug offenders will move on to other more horrible types of crime. Check out how LEAP’s Howard Wooldridge rips it apart in a Wall Street Journal LTE:

I learned something about how drug prohibition generates crime during my 18 years of police service. Eighty percent of my property-crime case load was caused by addicts needing money to pay sky-high prices for crack, etc. Legal crack would cost an addict about a dollar per day, as would heroin and amphetamines.

Ronald Shafer (Letters, Dec. 30) worries about what drug dealers would do without their prohibition-generated jobs. The one million teens who sell drugs would begin flipping burgers and mowing yards. Serious thugs will rob banks where we will capture or kill them. Or was Mr. Shafer suggesting to continue prohibition as a jobs program for bad guys?

It’s really just that simple. People like to sell drugs because it’s ridiculously easy and profitable, not because they’re all born criminals. I can’t say for sure what all of them will do if we regulate them out of business, but I can tell you what they won’t do: sell drugs on the street to anyone with a $5 bill. And that’s the point.

We’re the only people entering this discussion with a plan to actually stop people from selling drugs on the sidewalk in our communities. Our plan may not be perfect, but the alternative is a proven disaster.

President-elect Obama’s Change.gov website has opened a new round of questions, providing us yet another opportunity to push drug policy reform into the political mainstream. We won the last round of voting, making a marijuana legalization question the top vote-getter on the entire site.

Simply click here and create an account. Scroll through to find drug policy-related questions and vote them up. You can also submit your own. This time, the questions are broken into categories, so I assume the top question in each will get a response. Currently, there’s a drug war question in 2nd place in the "national security" section, so please start by voting for that (it’s our best chance). The "additional issues" section has several good ones as well and I'm sure there are questions in other categories that I've missed.

Keep in mind that you can vote against questions as well, so feel free to use the down-vote in a way that reflects your personal political priorities. Finally, please send your friends the link and encourage them to participate as well. Seeing consistent support for drug policy reform on his own site might give Obama exactly the cover he needs to maybe actually do something.