As California voters prepare to vote on Proposition 19, which would bring a much-needed end to nearly 100 years of failed marijuana prohibition in that state, it's important to pay attention to the arguments that proponents use to persuade the electorate to vote in favor of taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol (T&R). How an issue is framed can make or break it, as seen by efforts to reduce penalties for crack cocaine and peyote.
On August 3, President Obama signed a bill into law that reduced the federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1. This was done by reducing the penalty for crack cocaine, not by increasing the penalty for powder cocaine.
Years in the making, this law was signed with barely a whimper from the usual prohibitionists. How can it be that Congress and the president reduced the penalty for crack in 2010, but it's inconceivable that they'd do the same for marijuana in 2010? The answer is that the lobbying campaign to reduce the crack disparity appealed to politicians' core values.
The crack penalty wasn't reduced by analogizing important arguments in the marijuana policy debate, such as "crack is safer than alcohol" or "crack has medicinal value." Rather, because people who have been sentenced to five-year, mandatory-minimum prison sentences for crack are overwhelmingly black, the debate was framed as one of racial justice. Then, once that ball got rolling, others joined in by saying that reducing the crack penalty was about fundamental fairness, e.g., let the punishment fit the crime (which meant reducing the crack-cocaine penalty rather than increasing the powder-cocaine penalty).
Regarding peyote -- a drug that can cause hallucinations far exceeding those of the best marijuana in the world -- Congress and President Clinton enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which included an amendment that allowed people who have at least 25% Native-American blood to use peyote legally. The peyote amendment passed with a non-controversial, unanimous voice vote on the floor of the U.S. House, and by a vote of 97-3 on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
The peyote vote wasn't won by arguing that "peyote is safer than alcohol" or "peyote has medicinal value" either. Rather, the argument was framed as being about religious freedom, as protected by the First Amendment.
And with medical marijuana, we have won and will continue to win our ballot-initiative campaigns not by running TV ads featuring a budding marijuana plant, but rather by featuring patients and family members of patients. This is because the debate isn't about a plant, but about compassion -- compassion for cancer patients, AIDS patients, MS patients, and chronic-pain patients who are being forced to choose between suffering without marijuana or breaking the law with marijuana.
Because no one has succeeded in enacting a T&R law in the history of the world (including in Holland, where wholesale cultivation of marijuana is still illegal), we don't yet know what "frame" we should be using to win the T&R debate.
Because a disproportionate number of the more than 800,000 people who are arrested for marijuana offenses each year are young men of color, it could be that the T&R issue should be framed as one of racial justice. In June, the Drug Policy Alliance released a report showing that in California's 25 largest counties, blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of whites.
Or, looking at the success of MPP's marijuana-decriminalization initiative in Massachusetts -- which passed with a stunning 65% of the vote in November 2008 -- it could be that the T&R issue should be framed as being about public safety (letting police focus on violent crimes) or fairness (we shouldn't be saddling young people with lifelong criminal records just for marijuana). Both of these arguments resonated with Massachusetts voters, as exemplified by these two TV ads we ran.
There are also people in our movement who believe we'll win the T&R debate by emphasizing that marijuana is safer than alcohol (which it is), and therefore, adults should be able to choose the safer substance.
And while the financial argument has been gaining a lot of traction since the U.S. began its "Great Recession" two years ago, we won't win the T&R debate solely by framing the issue around saving money on enforcement costs and generating new tax dollars. I got a sense of this when I debated Asa Hutchinson, the former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, on national TV on March 20, 2009.
In that debate, Hutchinson made an admission that I had never heard before from a leading prohibitionist. He said, "If your motivation is to bring revenue to the government, legalize, regulate it. But if your motivation is to reduce the usage, to save teenage lives, to reduce dependence, to strengthen our culture, then the cost is worth it and the revenue should not be a motivation." In other words, he said that when you're fighting a holy war, the financial cost of the war is irrelevant.
In the months and years ahead, those of us in the marijuana policy reform movement should aim to win the T&R debate by using some combination of the aforementioned five arguments -- racial justice, public safety, fairness, marijuana's relative safety, and the potential to generate tax revenues while reducing costs for law enforcement. As to which of these arguments will prove to be the most salient, perhaps the November 2 election in California will provide guidance.
"If your motivation is to bring revenue to the government, legalize, regulate it. But if your motivation is to reduce the usage, to save teenage lives, to reduce dependence, to strengthen our culture, then the cost is worth it and the revenue should not be a motivation."
That Hutchinson quote is really the key to framing the debate. And, indeed, all those goals are achievable through and by Prop 19, and similar legislation. Cannabis 'usage' is moderated through truth. Cannabis is appropriate for some, and not for others, but unless recreational use it is brought out of the shadows, there is no way to have an intelligent discussion about it, nor exercise any societal oversight upon it.
Putting cannabis sales in the hands of responsible vendors accountable to the public good saves teenage lives from criminal interference.
Reducing dependence is also a matter of education and communication. By no longer stigmatizing users, it becomes easier for those who may have grown dependent to come forward and talk about their issues, and get help.
Strengthening our culture is a no-brainer. We do so by telling the truth to each other and acting upon that truth. The Prohibition War is a house of cards, built upon propaganda, lies, and contradictory legislation. It maybe held together with hundreds of rolls of cellotape, but it is not, by any means permanent.
Lastly, I'm surprised you didn't mention the case of O Centro, the Brazilian ayahuasca-using religion (the UDV) that has just last month finally settled its case with the DOJ...and which IS allowed to use a Schedule I substance (DMT) contained in ayahuasca for religious purposes. Unlike the NAC, there is no "racial" requirement for participation.
Maybe we would learn something if we asked why religious use of cannabis has so miserably failed as a framing strategy.
What I can not understand concerning Marijuana legalization is how easy it is for prohibition supporters to want to continue this expensive, dangerous and unjust policy. They want to protect the children, but are willing to allow Mexican cartels and others to produce and distribute marijuana to children potentially exposing children to pesticides and other toxins absorbed during smuggling.
They are concerned with public safety yet they are willing to allow gangs and criminals fight, in the streets, over the lucrative illegal marijuana trade. They are concerned about harder drug use and do not understand that marijuana is not a gateway drug, the gateway to other drugs are the gangs and dealers that will sell anything to anyone for the right price without conscience.
This is a common sense issue concerning liberty and opposing the federal government's control over the private lives of its citizens. How can we justify the continuance of a failed policy that causes more harm than that which it attempts to prohibit. Yet it is still here, still a nuisance and still ineffective.
The racial issue was the reason cannabis was initially prohibited and it is still a reason why the majority supports it. Americans have been programmed to believe that minorities need to be subjugated and will allow for harsh and unjust penalties in order to feel safe. Even minority communities will support these policies while not truly understanding the detrimental impact those policies have on them as a whole.
At any rate, I wish the movement luck and hope they are able to rectify this long standing wrong, and hopefully they'll be able to get some relief for the thousands of victims of prohibitionist serving time in American prisons
I could actually go on for several pages listing the authorities that have acknowledged that cannabis is medically efficacious. But I think the above amply demonstrates that the only people trying to scam the public on the subject of medical cannabis are those that claim that medical cannabis is a 'scam' or a 'stalking horse'.
The only reason that these 'vague' medical cannabis laws have taken root is because it's the only way to get the needed medicine to the patients because of the idiotic and cruel Federal laws that prohibit doctors and scientists from making medical decisions, instead leaving it to politicians with a political agenda.
Bayer Pharmaceuticals has made a substantial investment in GW Pharmaceuticals. GW Pharmaceutical's entire existence is to make whole plant cannabis compounds and sell them to sick people by prescription. Oh well, one of the nice things about the ignorance of the masses in this case is that GWP's stock is cheap. The $10,000 I've invested in their stock will make a substantial contribution to my retirement after the know nothings are finally shown to be incorrect. Steenkin' filthy rich is really not out of the question. I've put my money where my mouth is. There is simply no doubt that the endocannabinoid system is essential for keeping human beings healthy and happy. I do think that Bayer knows what is medicine a lot better than know nothing laymen or politicians with a political agenda.
New Jersey's legislature codified into State law that cannabis is medicine this year.
The DC City Council voted unanimously to codify cannabis as medicine earlier this year.
Maine's voters last year approved an expansion of their medical cannabis law and authorized licensed dispensaries to meet the needs of their patients.
The American Medical Association this year recommended that cannabis be moved to Schedule 2 and be recognized as medicine.
The British Medical Association recognizes cannabis as medicine.
The California Medical Association has recognized cannabis as medicine for over a decade.
The American College of Physicians recognizes cannabis as medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Virginia
I do apologize for not being clearer on Mr. Randall's lawsuit, which was indeed against the US Government. I can see now how a reader might think that I meant that it was Virginia being sued, though it's not very likely that the Feds would have started the Compassionate IND program because of a lawsuit against a single State.
The Oregon Board of Pharmacy actually did move cannabis to schedule 2 earlier this year acknowledging that cannabis is medicine. They don't need to wait for their lawmakers to approve their action.
The governments of Holland, Canada and Israel have all recognized cannabis as medicine and provide their patients directly. Germany has just joined them, but in Germany the doctors will write prescriptions that will be filled by licensed pharmacies.
Rhode Islands legislature codified into State law that cannabis is medicine, and overrode the Governors veto of that bill. They had no regrets because after a year or two they voted for and passed an expansion of the program including authorizing dispensaries. They once again had the supermajority needed to override yet another veto from the know nothing Governor.
But I understand the German Constitutional Court forbid the arrest of people for small quantities of cannabis a number of years ago.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/feb/18/iowa_board_pharmacy_recommends_m
Fixed that for you.