Public Opinion

Researchers are gaining ground in the combat against posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in an unlikely way.  Touted as “the party drug,” ecstasy, or MDMA, may just be the saving grace for hundreds of thousands of veterans suffering from PTSD.

According to a study by the Rand Corporation, in 2008 one in five soldiers returning home from Afghanistan or Iraq showed symptoms of PTSD. All in all, nearly 300,000 returning soldiers were affected. Letting individuals with PTSD go untreated is detrimental to both the individual and to society as a whole, as it has been linked to higher incidences of depression, health issues, violence, marital problems, drug use, unemployment, homelessness and suicide among veterans. And although each active military service member is provided with $400,000 in military life insurance coverage, that provides little comfort to families of a PTSD-afflicted veterans.

According to a Los Angeles Times/USC poll released Tuesday, the California Tax and Regulate Cannabis initiative has the support of 49% of voters, while 41% are opposed, and 10% are undecided. The figures are in line with other recent polls. Two weeks ago, an internal campaign poll had support at 51% and another public opinion poll had it at 49%. The bad news for initiative supporters in the latest poll is that it needs 50% plus one vote to win, and it isn't there yet. The good news, however, is that the initiative only needs to pick up one out of five of those undecided voters to go over the top. Or, as Dan Schnur, director of USC's Jesse M. Unruh institute of politics put it: "The good news for proponents is that they are starting off with a decent lead. The good news for the opposition is that initiatives that start off at less than 50% in the polls usually have a hard time." The poll also questioned voters about their marijuana use histories, finding that 37% had tried pot and 11% had smoked it within the last year. Not surprisingly, those who had smoked within the last year favored the initiative by more than four-to-one (82%). This latest poll, like previous ones, points to women, especially married women, as a key demographic. While men favor the initiative, women are split, and among married women, 49% oppose the initiative while 40% are in favor. Pollsters also asked about some of the key arguments made by supporters and opponents of the initiative. When asked whether they thought legalization marijuana could raise a billion dollars in revenue, 42% said yes, while 38% said that figure was wildly exaggerated. Voters in Los Angeles, where dispensaries spread like wildfire in the last half of the last decade, were most likely to believe that such revenues could be generated. When asked whether legalizing marijuana would worsen social problems, voters were similarly split, although such concerns especially resonated with those who oppose the initiative. Of that group, 83% think freeing the weed would increase crime and teen marijuana. Fifty-five percent of married women also think that. Attitudes toward legalization diverge sharply by age, with support much higher among younger voters. A 52% majority of voters 65 and older oppose legalization. Among voters between 45 and 64, 49% support it. But among those 30 to 44, 53% are in favor, and that rises to 61% among those 18 to 29. The next five months is going to be very interesting. But if the tax and regulate initiative is to emerge victorious at the polls come November, it has its work cut out for it. And it looks very much like the path to victory is going to have to go through mom.

A SurveyUSA poll conducted this week for a consortium of California television stations showed majority support for marijuana legalization. An initiative that would do just that, Control and Tax Cannabis California 2019, will be on the ballot in November. The poll found that 56% of those surveyed responded affirmatively to the question, "Should the state of California legalize marijuana?" That's the same number as supported legalization in a Field poll a year ago this month. In this week's poll, only 42% answered negatively, with 3% undecided. People under 35 supported legalization by a margin of three-to-one (74%-25%), with support declining to 46% among the 35-to-49 age group, rising to 49% among the 50-64 group, then declining again to 39% among those 65 and older. Among all voters under age 50, support was at 61%, while among those over 50, it dropped to 46% The poll revealed a significant gender gap, with 65% of men supporting legalization, while a dramatically lower 46% of women supported it. That means legalization supporters will have to work to win over a key demographic. There was majority support for legalization among all ethnic groups except Hispanics, of whom only 45% wanted to free the weed. Support was highest among blacks (67%), followed by whites (59%), and Asians (58%). Somewhat surprisingly, there was majority support for legalization in all regions of the state, although only barely, except for the San Francisco Bay area, where support was at 65%. In Central California and the Inland Empire, support was at 54%, and in the Greater Los Angeles area, support was at 52%. The poll was conducted Tuesday and involved interviews with 500 adults across the state. It has a margin of sampling error of plus/minus 4.4%.

Californians will be voting on whether to legalize marijuana in November. The California Secretary of State's office Wednesday certified the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 initiative as having handed in enough valid voters' signatures to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative is sponsored by Oaksterdam medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee and would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults and allow for personal grows of up to 25 square feet. It also provides for the taxed and regulated sale of marijuana by local option, meaning counties and municipalities could opt out of legalized marijuana sales. Some 433,000 valid signatures were required to make the ballot; the initiative campaign had gathered some 690,000. On Tuesday, state officials had certified 415,000 signatures as valid, but that didn't include signatures from Los Angeles County. Initiative supporters there Wednesday handed in more than 140,000 signatures. With an overall signature validity rate of around 80%, that as much as ensured that the measure would make the ballot. Late Wednesday afternoon, California Secretary of State's office made it official. Its web page listing Qualified Ballot Measures now includes the marijuana legalization under initiative approved for the November ballot. The 104,000 valid signatures from Los Angeles County put it well over the top. "This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources, and making criminals of countless law-abiding citizens. Elected officials haven’t stopped these punitive, profligate policies. Now voters can bring the reality check of sensible marijuana regulation to California." "If passed, this initiative would offer a welcome change to California’s miserable status quo marijuana policy," said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which recently endorsed the initiative. "Our current marijuana laws are failing California. Year after year, prohibition forces police to spend time chasing down non-violent marijuana offenders while tens of thousands of violent crimes go unsolved – all while marijuana use and availability remain unchanged." Proponents of the measure will emphasize the fiscal impact of taxing marijuana—the state Board of Equalization has estimated that it legalization could generate $1.3 billion in tax revenues a year—as well as the impact of regulation could have on reducing teen access to the weed. They can also point out that by now, California has lived with a form of regulated marijuana distribution—the medical marijuana dispensary system—for years and the sky hasn't fallen. Opponents, which will largely consist of law enforcement lobbying groups, community anti-drug organizations, and elements of the African-American religious community, will argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and that crime and drugged driving will increase. But if opponents want to play the cop card, initiative organizers have some cards of their own. In a press release Wednesday evening, they had several former law enforcement figures lined up in support of taxation and regulation. "As a retired Orange County Judge, I've been on the front lines of the drug war for three decades, and I know from experience that the current approach is simply not working," said Retired Superior Court Judge James Gray. "Controlling marijuana with regulations similar to those currently in place for alcohol will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business." "The Control and Tax Initiative is a welcome change for law enforcement in California," said Kyle Kazan, a retired Torrance Police officer. "It will allow police to get back to work fighting violent crime." Jeffrey Studdard, a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff, emphasized the significant controls created by the Control and Tax Initiative to safely and responsibly regulate cannabis. "The initiative will toughen penalties for providing marijuana to minors, ban possession at schools, and prohibit public consumption," Studdard said. The campaign should be a nail-biter. Legalization polled 56% in an April Field poll, and initiative organizers say their own private research is showing similar results. But the conventional wisdom among initiative watchers is that polling needs to be above 60% at the beginning of the campaign, before attacks on specific aspects of any given initiative begin to erode support. But despite the misgivings of some movement allies, who cringe at the thought of defeat in California, this year's legalization vote is now a reality. "California led the way on medical marijuana with Prop 215 in 1996,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Now it’s time again for California to lead the way in ending the follies of marijuana prohibition in favor of a responsible policy of tax and regulation."

An Open Letter From A Fresno, CA Medical Marijuana Patient by Tommy Hawkins Jr. From the Fresno, CA KMPH (FOX) website's community bulletin board:

A seldom-discussed but significant weak link in the drug war infrastructure is the ability of any defendant to have their fate decided by a jury. Although the threat of draconian sentences leads the vast majority to plead out and accept an agreed-upon punishment, those who choose to fight it out before a jury of their peers have an opportunity to escape the drug war's icy death-grip. It's a high-risk/high-reward strategy that could become more effective as public support for the war on drugs continues to decline.

A not guilty verdict in San Diego this week highlights the difficulty of securing convictions against medical marijuana providers:

SAN DIEGO COURTS — A Navy veteran who was the manager of a medical marijuana dispensary was acquitted of five charges of possessing and selling the drug illegally yesterday, a verdict that emboldened medical marijuana activists and was a setback for San Diego prosecutors who have aggressively pursued medical marijuana cases. [San Diego Union Tribune]

Meanwhile, in Baltimore, the acquittal of an accused street dealer shows how aggressive drug war tactics have eroded public trust in police:

Only two witnesses testified at the two-day trial – Correa [the arresting officer] and a crime lab technician who tested the drugs and concluded they were indeed heroin and cocaine. Defense attorney Marie Sennett told jurors in her opening statement that the case rested solely "on the word of the officer."

And, Sennett added, "Unfortunately, that's not enough."

The jury agreed and acquitted Walker-Bey on all charges of possessing drugs and possessing drugs with intent to distribute. [Baltimore Sun]

In a climate of increased public skepticism surrounding the efficacy of the war on drugs and the fairness of the criminal justice system, outcomes like these will hopefully become more commonplace. When the jury refuses to play along, even the virtually unchecked prosecutorial powers that have done so much to fill our prisons with drug offenders can be overcome. There's no reliable formula for spotting jurors who might be reluctant to convict in a drug case, and it only takes one to complicate the process dramatically. Provided they don't, for example, write a blog about legalizing drugs, getting on a jury can be as simple as dressing appropriately and affirming their willingness to uphold the law.

The power of juries to reshape the drug war landscape can already be seen in California, where prosecutors learned years ago that medical marijuana cases aren't nearly as open and shut as federal law would suggest. The Ed Rosenthal saga, in which the jury revolted after the verdict and got the conviction thrown out, gave federal prosecutors an early taste of what lay ahead if they tried to win the war on medical marijuana in the courtroom.

Such events go a long way towards explaining why DEA agents so often raided dispensaries and confiscated profits, while declining to press charges against anyone. Every medical marijuana trial is a guaranteed public relations nightmare and there's no upside if you can't even count on a conviction. I've long suspected that the threat of uncooperative juries may in fact have been the most significant factor in enabling California's medical marijuana industry to survive and expand during the Bush Administration. With little confidence in their ability to make an example of anybody, the Feds just broke stuff instead, while leaving the industry almost completely intact.

With marijuana legalization now rapidly approaching majority support among the American public, it just seems inevitable that prosecutors will have a harder time getting groups of 12 random people to send someone to jail for marijuana. And if that happens, even a little, the implications are far-reaching. The criminal justice system is pathetically dependent on plea-bargaining in drug cases, and would grind to a halt rather quickly if more defendants insisted on taking their case to trial.

I'm beginning to fantasize here, obviously, but I do think it's important to start looking at some of the ways in which growing public support for our cause can manifest itself in contexts besides just the ballot box. The drug war is vulnerable on all fronts and the harder we work to expose and exploit its countless weakness, the more efficient and decisive our victory will be.

For more on the rights of jurors, visit the Fully Informed Jury Association.

Software developers study anti-patterns. The practice can be applied to advocating social change, i.e. fighting the drug war.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal interview with new drug czar Gil Kerlikowske is generating discussion due to Kerlikowske's statement that we must move beyond the "war on drugs" analogy. But Gary Fields's piece also included a dubious assumption that shouldn’t escape notice:

Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

This is controversial? There is no evidence of that. In fact, everywhere you look, you'll see a changing political climate with regards to drug policy:

1. Obama made repeated statements in favor of various drug policy reforms on the campaign trail, including support for medical marijuana, treatment over incarceration, needle exchange, and fixing the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity. In a hard-fought campaign, these were among his least controversial positions.

2. Support for legalizing marijuana is surging in America, currently polling as high as 52%. Since taking office, Obama's biggest controversy with regards to drug policy was his statement in opposition to legalizing marijuana.

3. A recent Zogby poll found that 76% of Americans believe the war on drugs has failed. This view was held by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

The idea that there's anything controversial about moving towards a more moderate drug policy is just false on its face. The opposite is true. Americans are tired of the "tough criminal justice approach" and they elected a president who said he'd bring a new perspective to this issue.

If anything, it would have made more sense to say these policy shifts will most likely make our drug policy less controversial. Certainly, that's what Kerlikowske expects by making these conciliatory remarks. He's pandering to the growing public sentiment that the drug war is getting out of hand. Seriously, why on earth would anyone expect controversy over this? To the contrary, people find it reassuring, which is exactly why the White House is framing it this way. I thought that was obvious.

Thus, with this one seemingly harmless quip, "likely more controversial," the WSJ ends up missing the entire point of the story and utterly misdiagnosing what Kerlikowske represents. Public attitudes about the war on drugs are changing, thereby forcing our political leadership to begin implementing certain popular reforms while generally reframing the entire issue.

Any questions?