Making
Pot Legal: We Can Do It -- Here's How
12 February 2008 - AlterNet
By Paul Armentano
This month marks my 13th year working for marijuana
law reform. During this time I've witnessed many successes and
many more signs of progress. Nevertheless, it remains frustratingly
clear that despite sincere efforts and millions poured into
campaigns, very little headway has been made toward attaining
the larger, essential goals of the movement -- specifically,
abolishing the criminal laws that result in the arrest and prosecution
of more than half a million Americans every year for possessing
even small amounts of herb and establishing a framework for
regulating legal access to marijuana to adults.
Is either one of these goals achievable? Certainly.
Is either goal realistic? Not until we as a movement instigate
significant shifts in both public attitude and political opinion.
Identifying the problems
For several decades, various organizations have pushed for
the establishment of a legal and regulated market for adult
cannabis use in the United States. Yet, despite extensive educational
efforts and millions poured into various legislative campaigns,
it's consistently been shown in opinion polls and at the voting
booth that only between a third to 46 percent of Americans endorse
legalizing the personal use of cannabis for adults.
As a result, the marijuana law reforms that have been enacted
over the past several decades have been limited in scope. Specifically,
these legal reforms fall into two distinct categories: "decriminalization"
(exempting adult cannabis users from incarceration, but not
necessarily arrest, under specified circumstances) and "medicalization"
(exempting certain state-authorized medical marijuana patients
from state-specific criminal sanctions). To date, 12 states
-- almost one-third of the U.S. population -- have enacted limited
versions of "decriminalization." Twelve states have
also adopted various versions of "medicalization."
Both of these concepts -- unlike legalization -- enjoy majority
support from the public, with national polls consistently finding
that roughly 60 percent of Americans back "decriminalization"
and nearly eight out of ten support the medical use of pot under
a physician's supervision. But political support for these reforms
has been historically weak, limiting the extent of their implementation.
In order to effectively move the debate forward, there has
to be a clear sense of why -- despite years of public outreach
-- we have failed to persuade a majority of the public that
broader pot law reforms are needed. In addition, we must also
identify why -- despite years of lobbying -- we have failed
to persuade a majority of politicians that even incremental
reforms are needed.
Changing the political landscape
All hot-button political issues -- most notably the struggle
for "gay rights," immigration reform, and reproductive
autonomy -- have faced significant political opposition, particularly
from "conservative" or "right-wing" legislators.
Similar political antipathy (e.g., opposition from religious
or so-called "pro-family" organizations) has obstructed
sensible federal marijuana law reforms. Why are political leaders
typically unwilling to embrace marijuana law reform as a core,
civil rights issue, and what must be done to change this? Below
are four suggestions.
Media complacency
Mainstream media coverage of the cannabis issue is often inaccurate
and rarely criticizes government policy. Alarmist stories about
the alleged dangers of pot often get widespread coverage while
evidence that refutes these claims is minimized or ignored.
Finally, news reporters typically give greater credence and
coverage to government officials espousing the need to maintain
the "status quo" while granting far less weight to
experts who disagree.
To combat this media bias, pot reformers must do a better job
providing consistent and resonant messages to reporters, as
well as establishing long-lasting, personal relationships with
key journalists and opinion makers. Advocates could consider
dedicating resources for print and media advertising campaigns
to offset the federal government's anti-drug advertising budget,
which annually spends some hundred million dollars in taxpayers'
dollars and matching funds to buy television and radio commercials
warning about the alleged dangers of pot.
Law enforcement opposition
The law enforcement community is a multifaceted and persuasive
lobby group that holds tremendous sway with politicians. More
than any single interest group, cops are the most vocal opponents
-- in the media and as witnesses at government hearings -- of
all aspects of marijuana law reform. In addition, law enforcement
typically continues to oppose pot liberalization policies even
after such policies have become law -- thus making their implementation
that much more difficult (and, often times, less effective).
For example, legislation passed last year in Texas allowing
police to ticket, rather than arrest, minor marijuana offenders
has thus far been implemented in only one county -- despite
having been passed nearly unanimously by state politicians.
The drug law reform movement must engage in greater and more
active outreach within the law enforcement community. While
some groups are already engaging in such efforts, these actions
too often rely on the recruitment of retired members of law
enforcement and the criminal justice community. Only by recruiting
active members of law enforcement can we begin to build necessary
credibility and support among politicians, and provide a persuasive
counter to the lobbying activities of various state and federal
criminal justice associations.
Victims of pot prohibition lack
a public face
While there are countless victims of marijuana prohibition
-- over 10 million Americans have been arrested for violating
U.S. pot laws since 1990 and an estimated 45,000 of them now
sit in state or federal prison -- there are few if any publicly
recognized "poster children" that embody the excesses
of the government's war on weed. Without parading the images
and stories of sympathetic victims of various ages, races, and
economic strata before the public, most Americans are unlikely
to be convinced that the country should amend its pot laws.
Marijuana law reform is often presented by the activist community
as a broad political concept (e.g., "Hemp can save the
planet!"). It is not. At its core level, it is an effort
to bring civil justice to millions of Americans who have been
targeted, persecuted, and in many cases, have had their lives
ruined for no other reason than the fact that they chose cannabis
rather than alcohol to relax.
The harsh penalties associated with a minor marijuana arrest
are rarely attacked as extreme or counterproductive. These sanctions
include probation and mandatory drug testing, loss of employment,
loss of child custody, removal from subsidized housing, asset
forfeiture, loss of student aid, loss of voting privileges,
loss of adoption rights and the loss of certain federal welfare
benefits such as food stamps.
Thousands of Americans suffer such sanctions every day -- at
a rate of one person every 38 seconds. Our movement must do
a better job of humanizing this issue to the public by emphasizing
the personal stories and tragedies endured by the millions of
individual Americans who have suffered unduly and egregiously
under criminal prohibition. We must also do a better job of
recruiting high-profile celebrities and human rights advocates
to publicly speak out on these victims' behalf.
Victims of pot prohibition lack
sufficient political or financial resources
Criminal marijuana enforcement disproportionately impacts citizens
by age. According to a 2005 study commissioned by the NORML
Foundation, 74 percent of all Americans busted for pot are under
age 30, and one out of four are age 18 or younger. Though these
young people suffer the most under our current laws, they lack
the financial means and political capital to effectively influence
politicians to challenge them. Young people also lack the money
to adequately fund the drug law reform movement at a level necessary
to adequately represent and protect their interests.
Marijuana enforcement also disproportionately impacts citizens
by race. According to NORML's 2005 report, adult African-Americans
account for only 12 percent of annual marijuana users, but comprise
23 percent of all marijuana possession arrests in the United
States. In some jurisdictions, such as New York City, minorities
comprise more than 80 percent of all individuals arrested for
pot offenses. However, despite the law's disproportionate impact
on minorities, marijuana law reform is seldom portrayed as a
racial equality issue.
The marijuana law reform movement must do a better job of engaging
with organizations working toward racial equality to properly
convey to politicians and the public that this issue is about
racial justice and fundamental fairness. Additionally, reformers
must do a better job allying with organizations that speak on
behalf of youth, particularly urban youth -- who are most at
risk of suffering from the lifetime hardships associated with
a marijuana conviction. Finally, reformers must reach out to
the parents of young people and urge them to become active members
of the cannabis law reform movement, which needs the majority
of parents to join its ranks as both financial contributors
and as political advocates in order to gain the political support
necessary to bring about a change in the country's pot laws.
Changing the public's mindset
A strong majority of Americans -- nearly 75 percent -- say
that they oppose jailing pot offenders, yet fewer than 50 percent
support regulating cannabis so that adults no longer face arrest
or incarceration for engaging in the drug's use. Why this apparent
paradox? In large part, this ambivalence may be a result of
the shortcomings of the drug law reform movement.
Though historically reformers have been effective at presenting
persuasive arguments critical of prohibition's failings, we
as a movement have devoted far less time and resources educating
the public to the numerous societal benefits offered by the
alternative: allowing states the option to restrict, tax and
regulate the use and sale of marijuana in a manner similar to
alcohol. The focus must change. It is time for the drug law
reform movement to move beyond offering criticism and begin
providing solutions. If our solution is a model of legalization
-- with state-mandated age controls and pot sales restricted
to state-licensed stores -- then we must begin to consistently
and repeatedly articulate the details and advantages of this
alternative to the public.
Finally, in order to move public support for such a regulated
system above 50 percent, the marijuana law reform movement must
adequately identify those demographic groups -- such as parents
of teenage children and/or women -- that tend to voice lower
support for legalization as compared to other populations, such
as "twenty-somethings" or college educated males.
(Notably, a 2006 poll by NORML found that, among all age groups
polled, the least amount of support for regulating pot was among
those aged 30 to 49!) Once these groups are properly identified,
reformers must create distinctly tailored messages and talking
points to effectively target their unique concerns. I've listed
three of these concerns, as well as suggestions for how best
to respond to them, below.
Legalizing cannabis like alcohol
will increase teens' access and use of pot?
One of the great ironies of prohibition is that criminalization's
proponents allege that the existing policy is one of drug "control."
In fact, prohibition is just the opposite.
Cannabis prohibition is responsible for driving the production,
sale and use of marijuana underground. Under the current system,
clandestine marijuana suppliers produce pot of unknown quantity
and sell it in an unrestricted market to customers of any age.
By contrast, a regulated and restricted system would limit the
supply of cannabis to young people, while bringing the production
and sale of pot for adults within the framework of an above
ground, readily accountable marketplace. As reformers, we need
to stress to parents that it is only through the implementation
of marijuana legalization that they can begin to regain the
sense of control that they have lost under the existing anarchic
regime.
Legalizing cannabis like alcohol
will send a public a message that pot is "OK"
Of all the concerns commonly expressed by the public, fears
that marijuana regulation will imply that pot is "OK"
may be the easiest to respond to. Why? Because compared to the
use and abuse of other legal intoxicants -- most notably alcohol
and tobacco -- the responsible use of marijuana is, by typical
societal standards, "OK." Pot lacks the dependence
liability of tobacco or booze and, unlike alcohol -- or even
aspirin -- marijuana consumption is incapable of causing a fatal
overdose. According to government survey data, the majority
of Americans who use pot do so intermittently -- not daily --
and most voluntarily cease their habit by time they reach their
early 30s. (Compare this use pattern to most people's use of
cigarettes, a habit that often continues unabated throughout
one's lifetime.) Of course, inhaling marijuana smoke over time
may be associated with certain pulmonary risks, such as wheezing
and chest tightness. However, most of these adverse effects
can be mitigated by vaporizing cannabis -- a practice that heats
marijuana to a temperature where active cannabis vapors form,
but below the point of combustion.
It is time for marijuana law reformers to embrace rather than
dispute the notion that the responsible use of cannabis by adults
falls well within the ambit of choice we permit individuals
in a free society. Reformers shouldn't be afraid to educate
the public as to the relative safety of cannabis, particularly
when compared to the use of other common intoxicants. Recently,
a regional education campaign comparing and contrasting pot
use with alcohol launched by the group SAFER (Safer Alternative
for Enjoyable Recreation) resulted in a majority of Denver voters
electing to do away with minor marijuana law enforcement within
the city's limits. The enactment of a similar marijuana "image
enhancement" campaign by reformers on a national level
would arguably result in a significant increase in public support
for broader legalization.
Legalizing cannabis like alcohol
will lead to an increase in incidences of drugged driving
According to a 2007 Zogby poll of over 1,000 registered voters,
only 36 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "Should
marijuana be legally taxed and regulated like liquor, tobacco
or gambling?" By contrast, 44 percent of these same respondents
voiced support for legalization "if police had a roadside
impairment test for marijuana like they have for alcohol."
In other words, the public's concern about traffic safety significantly
impedes their support for broader cannabis legalization. Reformers
need to address this public concern by offering potential solutions
to mitigate incidences of driving while impaired by cannabis.
For example, the marijuana law reform movement should encourage
the development of educational or public service campaigns targeting
drugged driving behavior. Such campaigns should particularly
be aimed toward the younger driving population age 16 to 25
-- as this group is most likely use cannabis and report having
operated a motor vehicle shortly after consuming pot. Reformers
should also encourage additional funding and training for DREs
(drug recognition experts) to better identify drivers who may
be operating a vehicle while impaired by marijuana. Finally,
the development of cannabis-sensitive technology to rapidly
identify the presence of THC in drivers, such as a roadside
saliva test, would provide utility to law enforcement in their
efforts to better identify potentially intoxicated drivers.
Reformers' endorsement of these and other traffic-safety specific
campaigns will increase support among the public (and arguably
law enforcement) in favor of regulating cannabis by assuaging
their concerns that such a policy would potentially lead to
an increase in drugged driving activity.
The long-expressed goals of the marijuana law reform movement
to end the arrests of responsible adult pot smokers and enact
a regulated system of cannabis access and sales are achievable.
However, these goals will continue to remain unattainable unless
this movement begins to better address the political and public
hurdles that have plagued it for more than 30 years.
There are some good replies to this at its US source,
Alternet.org at
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/76698/?page=entire
