Obama: (Reefer) Madness to Tackle Legalization?

Two themes emerge in response to my 3/28/09 post. Below, a shot at summarizing. Let's call the competing views Camp Yes, as in President Obama should have tackled the marijuana issue during his recent online town hall meeting, and Camp No representing those who believe he was wise to shrug it off.

Camp Yes
Barack Obama, along with at least two of his Oval Office predecessors, was a pot smoker (and cocaine snorter) in his younger days. "Youthful mistakes," declaim all three. (Why don't they, and multitudes of other public figures, just say they did it, they enjoyed it, they outgrew it. Or they calculated the risks of continued use vis-à-vis their upward mobility, and switched back to booze?) This president's drug use did not slow his march toward global eminence (any more than Michael Phelps's kept him from the gold). But if young Barry had been busted? For starters, you wouldn't know the man's name today. Camp Yes asks the president: Why not use your understanding of what a drug bust would have done to your own future to do right by tens of millions of unlucky others?

Countless Americans suffering from terminal illness and/or excruciating pain find relief not from commercial pharmaceuticals, and their sometimes ghastly side effects, but from cannabis. Patients risk arrest for purchasing, growing, or possessing this analgesic, naturally occurring medicine. The president's compassion for the sick and dying surely dictates action. Real change, Mr. President. Now, not later. Justice delayed is in fact justice denied.

Hemp is a self-renewing, eco-friendly product with virtually endless industrial and commercial applications. The manufacturing of hemp products should be legalized posthaste, its growth encouraged.

A casualty of the drug war has been our civil liberties, along with our faith in a system of governing that guarantees one's right to the pursuit of happiness--as defined not by the government but by the individual. As adult Americans, we enjoy sovereignty over our own bodies, and that includes what we choose to put into them.

It is the economy, stupid. Marijuana is the largest (untaxed) cash crop in 12 states, among the top three in 30 states, and far and away the country's most valuable crop. At an annual value of over $35 billion, marijuana outstrips the combined value of corn and wheat. Its legalization, taxation, and regulation would provide many jobs and help grow the economy, not insignificantly.

Legalization would deliver a devastating blow to Mexican drug cartels, and to street traffickers who sell to kids.

Presumed opposition to marijuana reform is speculative, grossly overstated, and "overfeared." The president was therefore shortsighted, politically, in dismissing the question of legalization. Further, his disregard of the vast online community that helped put him in the White House merely salted the wound.

Camp No
The president's refusal to consider the marijuana issue was smart politics, the only thing he could have done in that situation. Obama is simply too new to the job, too busy with the economic crisis, too exposed politically. Pot legalization is a third-rail: Put a finger to it and Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin winds up in the White House in 2012.

The subject of the Town Hall was the economy, stupid. If the president and his team are able to turn the economy around, and to win credit for it both here and abroad, he will have ample political capital to tackle controversial subjects like major drug policy reform. In his second term.

It's not his job. Congress makes law, the president executes it. Congress must muster the wisdom and courage to craft a bill, pass it, and put it on the president's desk. Consensus? He'd sign it.

The president did not diss his online supporters. He was simply having a little harmless fun with the question, actually helping to neutralize the exaggerated political baggage associated with pot.

Many in Camp No thought I should (a) cut the president some slack, (b) develop a sense of humor, and (c) recognize the limits of what a new president, even one as gifted as Barack Obama, could possibly accomplish in less than a hundred days (assuming he had opted to embrace marijuana reform in the first place).

For the record, I'm an Obama partisan. Like many others I was transfixed by his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Who is this guy? Is he for real? His March '08 speech on race (reacting to the Jeremiah Wright controversy) was, for me, the definitive political statement on the subject, honest, eloquent, inspiring. Many of his other speeches--and, yes, the sheer size of the crowds he drew--in Germany, in Portland, on election night in Chicago, at the inauguration filled me with awe and pride. I watched the returns on election night with dear friends, champagne mixing with tears and goosebumps (even as we understood our collusion with one another in setting unrealistically high expectations of the man).

I've borne witness to 13 presidents (12 within memory), from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Barack Hussein Obama. I believe we've just said goodbye to the worst in U.S. history, and hello to one who could turn out to be among the best. No other president in my lifetime has offered greater hope across a wide range of social and economic issues--including meaningful and comprehensive drug policy reform--than this man. His earlier statements on marijuana decriminalization and the "utter failure" of the drug war combined with his decision to put a halt to DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries bode well for reform.

The drug war rests on a constellation of harebrained laws, most of them enacted by earlier generations of frightened, ignorant, often racist lawmakers. It has been fueled by nonstop lies and propaganda, and kept alive over the years by a succession of eight U.S. presidents in concert with one generation after another of federal, state, and local law enforcers.

Dismantling the decades-old, massively bureaucratized and financed drug war machine is a daunting task. Knowing this, given all he's currently facing, shouldn't we cut Obama some slack?

On reflection, yes.

I believe if we do our part, continuing aggressively to advance the populist cause of drug law reform--calling, writing, phoning, visiting our lawmakers at the state and national level--the president will do his part.

But cutting him some slack does not mean letting Obama off the hook by indulging his tendency toward "extreme moderation." He is our chief executive. He has authority. He has a bully pulpit. He has the constitutional power of Executive Order. And he has a duty to take seriously issues important to his constituents, and vital to the health and safety of his country.

Comments

[Eclectic Radical]

I've been doing quite a bit of thinking on this topic, there had been an interesting discussion spun off the president's reaction to the marijuana question on a couple of other blogs, and this article brought it fresh into my mind again. I had to put my own thoughts down at length.

http://eclecticradical.blogspot.com/2009/04/crime-corruption-and-fascism-war-on.html

[moldy]

Yeah, this piece calmed me down a lot so thanks Mr. Stamper! An excellent sanity check for me.
It's just that I was busted 43 years ago and I thought it would be legal by 1970. I even voted for McGovern as I knew tricky Dick was afraid of hippies, gays, and non whites. Turns out Nixon has a lot of blood on his hands for ignorring the Schaffer report. He knew what he was doing and it worked. I just wish he was still alive to see Obama in the white house.

[Truby]

In any event, there was Anslinger's testimony, there was the industrial testimony -- there was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.

The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."

Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana.

[Truby]

Continued:
The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."

That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

Quoted from:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm

[The Ghost]

The Gift of Prohibition :

http://www.cripsandbloodsmovie.com/

[clarryr]

I would recommend the legalize drug movement to get a world-class spokesperson to advance their cause. For instance, Al Gore with his global warming campaign, or Michael Moore with the Sicko movie. I would not expect a sitting President or Senator to take up your cause until there is a MASSIVE public cry for it.

[MorpheusXNYC]

Good point.

If Woody Harrelson is the biggest public face of pot/hemp legalization (Bill Maher's pro-marijuana stance withstanding) then they need anew spokesperson.

Someone mature, solid, well respected, above reproach and not connected with comedy would help, as they tend to be easily dismissed.

[ConnieInCleveland]

How about a few who have already spoken, yet they are ignored today?

"Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica." - Abraham Lincoln (from a letter written by Lincoln during his presidency to the head of the Hohner Harmonica Company in Germany)

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington, U.S. President

"We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption."
- John Adams, U.S. President

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marihuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marihuana." - Jimmy Carter, U.S. President

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded" -Abraham Lincoln

[clarryr]

I haven't heard much from Lincoln or Jefferson or Adams or Carter on the telly lately or in the news pushing your cause. I guess you didn't get the spokesperson part of my suggestion.

[bngood40]

Legalizing all drugs thru government control is the only way that the Drug problems of this country are ever going to be solved. Instead our elected officials keep dancing around the issue while the drug cartels keep increasing their wealth , arsenals and members. There is a tipping point at which time we will all be affected by the strength of the drug lords and their ability to bring down a nation.Users are never going to stop using drugs because the drugs are in control not the user. The U.S. has poured trillions of dollars into fighting the illegal drug problem of our nation for almost a century and every year the problem gets worse. If the people of this country do not push the legislators for legalization and control by the government the same way that alcohol was seized and controlled then we are allowing the beast to grow from an iguana to a tyrannosaurus rex.

[The Ghost]

The FDA can reschedule recreational drugs at any time. Let the states decide.

[PlaceboStudman]

they can, but they won't give up that power and the money that comes with it without a federal mandate

[The Ghost]

Time for the Citizenry to throw a mammoth sh*t fit!

[wietog]

YES! YES! YES!

[JakeMontero]

Good to see another missive for the stoners.

[Z-Liberator]

Marijuana is not a drug, it is a herb like St. Johns Wort or Gingko Biloba. Drugs are manufactured agents like Meth, Cocaine, Alcohol. That is why this issue seems to be a big joke. The legalization of a herb? I thought god made it legal when he planted it in every country in the world including Iceland to the deserts of Egypt and has been used in all of human history. What a joke! It is time to support Marijuana lobbyist like NORML, MPP and LEAP.

[redstrat]

So lets stop calling it the propaganda inspired name "Marijuana" and start calling it by its real name Cannabis

[Z-Liberator]

Ah so true!

[Coinyer101]

YES WE CANNABIS!!!!

lol

[fishgirl26]

I find it interesting that most people that are for legalization seem to possess enough smarts to write clearly and plainly about why legalization should occur. If we were just a bunch of stoners wanting to legalize marijuana (like the right thinks) then would we be able to function like this if the drugs were so bad. Look around at about 10 people....more than likely someone in that group of 10 uses marijuana recreationally. Some day people will realize that this is not just a movement of a bunch of stoners wanting to get high but a valuable way to produce something that is not only good for people (instead of nasty chemical pharmacuticals!) but great for industry too. Hemp is a renewable resource, lets use it!

[redstrat]

Its all the effect of the stereotype they have pounded again and again into everyone's head that people who smoke pot always end up as "stoners". The Misconception is also an effect of prohibition, those who are smart enough and lucky enough to not get caught usually are those who you would never guess use cannabis. Some people only see the cannabis users as the stoners portrayed by the news and hollywood. We need to loose the stereo type, and even the propaganda term marijuana, lets call it what it is Cannabis, the herb. Just like calling little people "midgets", lets give this issue some respect.

[anandakos]

Ooops! I don't think you want to "loose" the stereotype. That would amplify its effects.

You want to LOSE it.

Gimme that old timey spelling, gimme that old timey spelling ....

[redstrat]

What if a hard core republican came out to in favor of legalization based on less waste, less govt, it sure seems like a republican platform. Wouldn't it be funny if they took on this issue, for a change. Impossible I know but sure would turn some heads. It might actually sound like they were really in favor of smaller govt. and less wastefull spending, as well as civil libreties. Doesn't anybody in washington hear the masses of people who really are for this, and if the lies and distortions were cleared up how many more poeple might actually get behind this.

[Z-Liberator]

If that was so, I would switch allegiance!

[PlaceboStudman]

Actually, that is happening with marijuana, and a number of issues such as Die with Dignity and Gay Marriage in California (before Prop 8, which there is already a petition to include an initiative to overturn being circulated), with Governor Schwarzenegger. While his economic policies are sadly entrenched in Neo-con belief, his social stances, in allowing or at least not standing in the way of social progress makes him seem like a Demcrat or Libertarian

[The Ghost]

The Gubernator is a pragmatist. That's why he's an Alien in his own party.

[redstrat]

It might truely signal and end to to politics of fear, the real american terrorists

[anandakos]

RedStrat,

Well, the honest answer is that the Libertarians have been squeezed out of real influence in the GOP. It's no longer the "Grand Old Party", it's "God's Only Party". At least to the members.

[liveinhope23]

People who possess any critical thinking skills at all understand that the whole criminal status of drugs is an effective bugaboo for sanctimonious politicians (think Erik Cantor et als) who rely on the knee-jerk reactions of uninformed and unintelligent voters on these issues - much like stem cell research, GLBT issues, flag burning etc., etc., ad nauseum. In short, people who have no interest in truth - just hyperbole.
If bodily harm is the issue, then we need to immediately criminalize alcohol and tobacco (and probably fast food and guns while we're at it). Fair is fair - you can't have it both ways. Prohibition does not work. It never has. All Prohibition gave us was Al Capone and an enormous criminal sub-culture - much as it is doing now. Legalize it and in one fell swoop you do away with all of the Mexian drug war violence, purge thousands of people from prison who should never have been there in the first place, add billions to the economy and let seriously ill people take whatever they want to feel better. An added benefit is that we stop spending billions of dollars and untold hours of police work on a completely un-winnable war. Adults are competent to make their own decisions. Common sense is LONG overdue.

[midpointpolitico]

Another way to look at the issue through the prism of bodily harm is this: why add one more thing to that list. You are right all the things you mentioned are harmful to the human body but unfortunately due to huge lobbies getting rid of them would be impossible.

The Alcohol Industry Lobby is formidable what do you suppose the Marijuana Lobby would look like in 20 years?

[AntiSocialite]

Lobbies are an entirely different subject, they can be dealt with in other ways.

[Sarah Katherine]

See, that's the thing that makes this prohibition ridiculous. Cannabis is like Alcohol and cigarettes in that it is a mild drug. But it is very unlike both in that it is not deadly.

Not only is it not harmful, but the science is showing that it cancer. There are many studies with extremely compelling evidence. The latest came out April from Spain showing marijuana shrinks brain cancer tumors, kills cancer cells.

Studies have even shown that heavy pot smoking over the course of a life does not have a correlation with lung cancer. They deduced that although bad things were going into the lungs when pot was smoked, it must be that cancer-curing effect that was to blame for the lack of harm to the lungs, throat or mouth as they had expected to find.

Wikipedia is a battleground for different camps, but if recent edits are still there, I encourage you to go to the "Medical Cannabis" page ~ the very second section has oodles and oodles of science. It could get erased at any moment, as in the US, there are powerful forces which seek to keep anything positive regarding marijuana underground.

Why? People will loose money. To keep selling us their pharmaceudicals, cannabis needs to be kept on par with heroin in terms of being downright evil. And they have been doing a great job. But it's only a matter of time before an argument that holds no water must loose to rationality and science.

[anandakos]

Live In Hope,

Legalizing cannabis would hurt the cartels, but it wouldn't finish them off. They'd still have the huge profits from cocaine, which I think we can all agree is emphatically not "almost harmless" as is cannabis.

[sparafucilli]

Obama. Stay away from this, at least for the first term, or the POT in POTUS will become derogatory.

[PlaceboStudman]

Sure, and he, and those like you who tell him to stay away from this will have the blood of those who are lost, some by suicide on your hands, because the federal government did not act fast enough to legalize marijuana, therefore allowing states the excuse to deny sick and dying patients the access to even medical marijuana because "federal law supercedes state law". It will only be when marijuana is legalized that states will not have the lame excuse of blaming the federal government, and will have to answer to their own constituents when attempting to deny medicine to the sick and dying

[AntiSocialite]

C'mon PlaceboStudman, don't you think you are treading a little too far into hyperbole-land here? I know it's an important subject to you, as it is for me, but in the end I just sat down and asked myself: Do I think that this issue would be particularly helped by the presidents use of the bully-pulpit? My answer was no, for a few different reasons... all of them rooted in subjectivity with no real way of measuring their validity. That said, I see your point but also think that the reverse, where enough states legalize marijuana that it severely undercuts the government's scheduling and conviction rationale, is a far more plausible situation. This situation has the added benefit of possibly attracting right wing support from fervent state's rights activists. You are right that this subject needs to be tackled soon, but it also seems that you are also failing to be realistic about the process.

[JimR]

Yeah, nice rhetoric, but you know damn well that the VAST majority of marijuana users use it for the sole purpose of getting stoned.

[rtb61]

Personally I found his attitude and comment to be grossly offensive, To say that people who empathised with young adults wasting the lives in prison for petty drug crimes were all drug addicts themselves was disgusting. The tens of millions who suffer as a direct result of the illegality of drugs or the billions of dollars wasted on a civil war between governments and their own citizens is nothing to laugh at or joke about. Added to that is the history of the US government forcing this idiotic legislation upon every other country in the world is obscene. A huge mistake and one for which he had better apologise quick smart or suffer a major internet backlash. One thing US democrats had better learn and remember, their net supporters are driven by policy not by one eyed barracking for a political party.

[JimR]

Careful, or the image you present of legalization supporters will be that of thin-skinned, angry activists who are to be feared. How much do you think that will help the cause?

[pogo]

Dick Cheney and I are concerned that Obama's presidency will make Americans less safe from themselves. President Bush protected us from ourselves by ensuring that toxic, super-expensive pharmaceuticals continued to be our only choice for relief from debilitating illnesses, and that our friends in the liquor industry could continue to provide us-without that pesky legal competition- with a social stimulant that never causes any misery or death. The libs always want to change stuff. Ain't life grand out here in the suburbs?