America: Legalize It!
Gallup just released a poll showing a large majority -- 58 percent -- of the American public now thinks marijuana should be fully legalized for adult recreational use. This is somewhat stunning news. The "somewhat" part is that this is really only a continuation of a decades-long trend towards acceptance in public opinion. The "stunning" part is how quickly it is now happening. In fact, it might be fair to say that we may only be a year or two away from marijuana legalization reaching a political "tipping point" from which there will be no going back. I wrote earlier this year that gay marriage can now be seen to be over this "tipping point" -- it's hard to now imagine going back to the days of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense Of Marriage Act. Legalizing marijuana hasn't hit this point of no return yet... but it certainly can be glimpsed on the horizon.
The road to full acceptance for marijuana legalization has been a long one, reaching back even further than the 1960s. One of the main demographic shifts which has helped grow public acceptance for legalization is the fact that the Baby Boomers -- who grew up with Vietnam and the counterculture raging around them -- are now either nearing retirement or have already retired. There are very few people left in America who could not have very easily procured some marijuana when they attended high school, to put this another way. Growing up with weed all around has changed the public's opinion dramatically, over time.
Now, of course, the world has changed in other ways. If, back in 1968, you had told a random hippie that 45 years in the future two American states would have legalized weed for adults, their response would have doubtlessly been: "Far out, man." Or that senior citizens were using marijuana as medicine for a variety of ailments in forty percent of the states, for that matter.
It is newsworthy that poll after poll is showing majority support for legalizing marijuana. It's even more newsworthy how fast it is happening, spurred on (no doubt) by Colorado and Washington states passing legalization referenda. Within one year, support for legalization in the recent Gallup poll jumped 10 points. That's pretty astonishing, for an issue that has divided America for so long.
But we still aren't really at the tipping point, no matter how encouraging the polls may be. There are two things which may not be required for us to get to that tipping point, but would certainly hasten it along. The first would come from popular culture, and the second would come from the world of politics.
I've been saying it for years, and now it's almost accepted fact: Will And Grace did more for gay rights than any other cultural phenomenon. Having a gay character on a hit sitcom on primetime television -- and, importantly, having him be a real human character and not just a caricature of a stereotype -- showed a lot of Americans how very ordinary being gay could be. How acceptable the concept truly was, to put it another way. The legalization movement could use just such a boost. Not on cable television, but on a network show that perhaps had a minor character running a mom-n-pop marijuana dispensary right next to where the lead character worked. Maybe make this minor character fiscally conservative, constantly bitching about high taxes, to challenge preconceived notions. But nothing really in-your-face (as on the show "Weeds") about marijuana itself, rather someone to more subtly show the normality of such people. On network primetime television, every week.
Getting that to happen might take some doing, however, because the American government has been running a propaganda effort against drugs since the 1930s. In modern times, this doesn't take the form of now-hilarious movies (Reefer Madness) or even "this is your brain on drugs" television ads, but by the Office of National Drug Control Policy offering cash to network shows to insert storylines about how evil all drugs -- including marijuana -- truly are. If this sounds too Orwellian, then you just haven't been paying attention at all during the entire War On Drugs.
The real change which pretty much has to take place to say we've truly reached a tipping point on marijuana legalization, however, is going to have to come from politicians. My hope would be that it come from Democrats, but I could also see the libertarian Right win over the Republican Party on the issue, too. Back in 2010, when California had Proposition 19 on the ballot (which would have done what Colorado and Washington did, two years later), pretty much every Democratic politician either in office or running for office in California came out against legalization. Back then, I tried to predict what would happen if Proposition 19 had passed, and I concluded:
Politically, at least in today's conventional wisdom, Democrats are terrified to support any commonsense drug policy change, for the most part. This comes from 30 years of being demonized by the Republicans as being "soft on crime," so it's understandable (but not really excusable) for Democratic politicians to be timid in this area. No statewide Democratic candidate in California has come out in favor of Proposition 19. In fact, not only have they all come out against it, but Senator Dianne Feinstein (who isn't even running this time around) is co-chair of the "No on 19" effort. This is going to be a political movement where (to paraphrase the old bumpersticker) the people are going to have to lead, and the political leaders will reluctantly follow, eventually.
But maybe, just maybe, if Proposition 19 passes and California doesn't descend immediately into anarchy as a direct result, and if Democrats see that they held a governorship and a Senate seat that they could easily have lost, and if the offspring of Prop. 19 starts appearing on ballot initiatives in other states in the near future... maybe the Democrats will start to see marijuana legalization in a different light. I could see a day not too long in the future where Democrats are actively promoting legalization state laws in an effort to boost their own popularity among the ranks of voters (especially young voters), because it is smart politics to do so.
So I was amused when I read in today's Washington Post that others are finally reaching the same conclusion:
So far, most politicians have stuck with support for the status quo, or perhaps the status quo plus various exemptions and loopholes. With 58 percent of all respondents and 65 percent of Democrats favoring legalization, however, there's now a very good chance that a fair number of ambitious Democratic politicians are going to sign up for full legalization as a way to differentiate themselves in Democratic primaries.
The article (titled "Looks Like Democrats Have A Weed Fight Coming") goes on to focus mostly on what it means for Hillary Clinton, but the point is a valid one for all Democrats, really. The people are (increasingly) leading on the issue of marijuana legalization. When Colorado and Washington fully implement their sales laws at the start of next year -- and Western civilization doesn't collapse as a direct result -- then there are going to be a lot more people rethinking previously-held positions. When the arguments about all the bad things that could happen if weed were legal can be refuted by simply pointing to two states where none of that scary stuff happened, we will have achieved a "paradigm shift" on the issue.
Back in 1976, Peter Tosh wrote a catchy little reggae ditty called "Legalize It," which contained the lyrics:
Doctors smoke it,
Nurses smoke it,
Judges smoke it,
Even the lawyer too.
So you've got to legalize it,
And don't criticize it.
The last three United States presidents have admitted to smoking pot. Vice President Al Gore was reportedly a big fan of weed at one point in his life, as was young Barry Obama. Supreme Court justice nominees have admitted to toking up. In other words, it is now as pervasive as Tosh would have had us believe back in the mid-1970s. But although we've moved from Bill Clinton claiming to have "not inhaled" to a man who was once a member of the "Choom Gang" in the Oval Office, they've all stuck to the "youthful indiscretion" line. You know how this goes: "like all who have grown up as a Baby Boomer or afterwards, of course I 'experimented' while in school, but I then saw the light and haven't twisted up a single joint since then." Sooner or later, however, this will have to change to: "I wasn't thrown in jail for smoking pot when I was young, and I simply don't see why anyone should be so threatened for doing what I once did -- I was lucky never to fall afoul of the law, but no one should have to live with that fear."
The real tipping point won't come until Democratic candidates for office feel that they gain more support than they lose among the voters by supporting legalization. We've already seen that happen on gay marriage. In 2008 -- only five short years ago -- both Democratic candidates for the White House refused to support the concept of gay marriage, because they were afraid to do so. By 2012, Barack Obama had famously "evolved" on the matter. Looking forward, it's easy to see that supporting gay marriage is now the "safe" position for a Democrat to take -- and, increasingly, will become the safe position for Republicans, too.
So we'll know when the tipping point on legalization is reached. It'll probably take a few more states voting for legalization before it happens, but eventually we will get to the point predicted back in that 2010 article by one of my favorite marijuana advocates, Tom Angell (who, at the time, was the official "Yes on 19" spokesman). Back then, he summed the situation up perfectly: "The pervasive political thought among Democrats is that supporting marijuana reform is politically dangerous -- but eventually they'll realize that supporting such reform means that they won't be punished at the polls as a result, but that they may in fact be rewarded."
Fifty-eight percent of Americans would now likely agree with that sentiment. Politicians, please take note.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Not to mention that rational fiscal conservatives should be all over ending the costly and ineffective war on drugs.
Gallup just released a poll showing a large majority -- 58 percent -- of the American public now thinks marijuana should be fully legalized for adult recreational use.
So, what you are saying if that the majority of Americans want something or don't want something that the Political Partys should get behind it, regardless of the Party agenda...
Is THAT what ya'all are saying?? :D
Michale
Not to mention that rational fiscal conservatives should be all over ending the costly and ineffective war on drugs.
Just think how much money we could save if we end the costly and ineffective other "wars", too??
I mean, if the goal is to save money and not risk trying and failing, let's end the pursuit of terrorists.. Just THINK how much money we could save!!
Hell, why stop there. Let's just legalize everything and disband all state, local and federal police agencies!!! We would save so much money and eliminate all the ineffective bumbling of cops all over the country.
As much as it pains me to say, there are some good arguments for legalization of marijuana...
But because it's too hard or to expensive to enforce is NOT one of them...
Michale
The legalization movement could use just such a boost. Not on cable television, but on a network show that perhaps had a minor character running a mom-n-pop marijuana dispensary right next to where the lead character worked.
What about That 70s Show ?
-David
"But because it's too hard or to expensive to enforce is NOT one of them...
Michale"
Why shouldn't it be?
I will now make the economic case as to why the war on drugs is too difficult to enforce, is incredibly expensive and produces results counter to its stated goals.
What is the goal of the War on Drugs? The argument begins with harm reduction on a societal and personal level. Drugs, at least according to this argument, are harmful. They cause physiological damage to the human body, encourage behaviors that are harmful to society as a whole, and cause economic damage as people spend their often limited resources on supporting illegal organizations that otherwise could be spent on the legitimate and legal economy. Therefore, drugs must be banned, and both dealers and users prosecuted in order to end the harm that drugs are causing.
Now a great case study for this is.....
Prohibition!
(If you're too lazy to do historical research you could always just the Wire and Boardwalk Empire, both of which deal heavily with Drug related issues)
So the above argument was applied to Alcohol, and it turned into a colossal failure. Is Alcohol harmful? Hell yes! Did banning it solve that problem? No, in fact it made many of the problems worse.
So step by step, lets tackle personal harm. Illegal Alcohol, by it's very nature, was an unregulated product. No consumer protection, no FDA oversight (not sure if the FDA was around at the time, but you get the idea), and no accountability for the persons selling substandard products. This led to all kinds of nonsense, but the basic idea is that making Alcohol illegal increased the level of personal harm in the drug.
Societal Harm, in Prohibition there was in fact a rise in Crime, both violent (think mobsters killing each other and civilians) and non-violent, (smuggling Alcohol). Whereas pre-Prohibition, a violent drunk could and would cause all sorts of headaches for police and society. Those problems are compounded, not diminished, when everyone in the chain leading up to the guy getting drunk have a vested interest in avoiding police actions, or any other collective societal action that attempts to reduce the harm that man could and would cause. Is the owner of a speakeasy going to call the cops to deal with this man in his establishment? Of course not, because then his entire business would be ruined. When you make a Drug illegal, all the societal protections for consumers and sellers disappear. Congratulations, you've created Deadwood! (also an awesome show)
Economic harm, in the pre-prohibition era, Bars and distilleries operated legally. They paid their taxes, were overseen by current forms of consumer protections, and in turn plowed their money back into the local economy as they didn't have to launder their money to buy groceries or what have you. When these operations were made illegal, they stopped paying taxes and their money was removed from the legitimate economy (at least without having to jump through corrupt middlemen and institutions willing to launder money) This situation is definitively worse than what came before.
Now to apply this to the current war on drugs. I don't have to I just did! All of the current arguments apply. Don't want drugs cut with rat poison to kill people? Maybe we should have inspectors. Don't want people and organizations to purse extra-legal methods of dispute resolution? Maybe they should be able to go to the cops, instead of resorting to physical violence. Don't want giant murderous cartels to be making money? Remove their reason for existing, and tax and regulate these giant industries.
The war on drugs has been pursued for pretty much the entirety of the 20th century. It has proven, and I say proven, to be tremendously expensive. It costs tons of money to pay narcotics enforcers, it costs tons of money to house drug convicts. It costs barrels and barrels of money. We didn't "risk" trying and failing. We tried. We failed utterly.
And I haven't even touched on how difficult these laws are to enforce, and how demand for Drugs doesn't really change with their illegality or legality. Drugs are here to stay, they've been around since the dawn of human civilization, and they will be around till we go extinct. All we can do is decide how our society integrates Drugs. I say we go with the method that is cheaper and reduces harm.
Why shouldn't it be?
Because it sets a bad precedence...
As to the rest, you are talking to a cop..
Well, at least a former cop, but there really isn't any such thing as a "former" cop. Just like there really isn't such thing as a "former" Marine. Once a cop/Marine, always a cop/Marine... But I digest..
I have seen first hand the damage and destruction wrought by supposedly "harmless" drugs..
You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..
And if you have walked in my shoes and seen what I have seen, I can guarantee you that you would feel exactly the same way..
Personally, I think the best solution laid out was the one in Stephen Coonts UNDER SEIGE...
But that's just me...
Michale
I have seen first hand the damage and destruction wrought by supposedly "harmless" drugs..
Specifically Marijuana alone? I seriously doubt that. Alcohol does just as bad and to more people than even the worst drugs. Similar stuff was said about alcohol in the lead up to prohibition. Alcohol was illegal once.
You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..
Under the same logic, maybe you should not drink that beer?
Specifically Marijuana alone? I seriously doubt that.
Doubt all you want...
And despite all the Leftist "studies" that say different, marijuana use DOES lead to harder drugs...
Under the same logic, maybe you should not drink that beer?
One small, but important distinction.
Beer is legal...
A small little difference that makes ALL the difference in the discussion..
Michale
And despite all the Leftist "studies" that say different, marijuana use DOES lead to harder drugs...
To be more accurate, CAN lead to harder drugs..
Doesn't always, obviously. Our POTUS was a full blown druggie and look how he turned out..
To the empirical chagrin of this country...
Michale
See but that's the whole point Michale, Beer isn't legal because it isn't harmful and Marijuana is. It's entirely arbitrary. Marijuana is objectively less harmful than Alcohol. You claim anecdotally that Marijuana is a gateway drug. But I would ask is it a gateway drug because of what it does to someone physiologically or because merely acquiring it ties one into a whole illegal marketplace? To put it simpler, if you could get Marijuana at the 7/11 would it still be a gateway drug? Or would it be an ok drug, like that Alcohol we all enjoy.
See but that's the whole point Michale, Beer isn't legal because it isn't harmful and Marijuana is. It's entirely arbitrary.
Perhaps it is..
But I am just an old fashioned cop at heart. I leave the those who really gives a rats ass about it.
It's illegal and that's that as far as I am concerned..
To put it simpler, if you could get Marijuana at the 7/11 would it still be a gateway drug? Or would it be an ok drug, like that Alcohol we all enjoy.
We're well on our way to finding out, wouldn't you say??
The problem is, if *I* am right, there is no going back. And the consequences will not be pleasant...
That's the problem with many things that the Left (and ya'all) push..
Ya'all simply cannot concede the possibility that ya'all MIGHT be wrong.
And ya'all refuse to comprehend the consequences OF ya'all being wrong..
Michale....
But I would ask is it a gateway drug because of what it does to someone physiologically or because merely acquiring it ties one into a whole illegal marketplace
I would say it's because of the entire drug culture and the peer pressure that goes along with it..
And THAT culture will not change simply because the drug is made legal..
And THAT is where the majority of the problems lie..
Michale
Most who try marijuana tried alcohol first. Which is the real gateway drug?
One small, but important distinction.
Beer is legal...
A small little difference that makes ALL the difference in the discussion..
Only if you completely ignore the discussion. The point is alcohol was legal then illegal, now legal. Marijuana was legal once, now illegal but quickly heading toward legal. If you were consistent, then:
You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..
This would apply to alcohol.
The problem with cop logic is with many things you only see a slice of of the whole. With heroin or meth that is probably a pretty wide slice. Marijuana only, a very narrow one comparable to alcohol consumption...
Only if you completely ignore the discussion. The point is alcohol was legal then illegal, now legal.
Key words there being "NOW LEGAL"...
The discussion is legality..
Beer is legal. Marijuana has, heretofore, been ILLEGAL...
The discussion is legality..
The problem with cop logic is with many things you only see a slice of of the whole.
And your wealth of LEO experience tells you this??
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.. :D
Michale
To re-iterate:
Ya'all simply cannot concede the possibility that ya'all MIGHT be wrong.
And ya'all refuse to comprehend the consequences OF ya'all being wrong..
What if you are wrong?
Why won't ya'all address that??
Michale
Ya'all simply cannot concede the possibility that ya'all MIGHT be wrong.
And ya'all refuse to comprehend the consequences OF ya'all being wrong..
What if you are wrong?
Why won't ya'all address that??
Bit of a conflict with what you posted before:
You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..
So, are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong or do you refuse to be convinced regardless of the evidence? Can't have it both ways...
The problem is, if *I* am right, there is no going back. And the consequences will not be pleasant...
Meh, that's what they say about climate change and you seem to refute that. Double standard?
Sure I might be wrong. But considering that prohibition is a direct historical comparison. I'd say I'm on incredibly safe ground. Unlike say, comparing different political time periods (CW zing! :-P), the number of parallels and similarities are staggering. You could take a history of Prohibition, find and replace the word Alcohol with Marijuana, and it would not only be readable, it would make sense.
So then, as a cop Michale, tell me how prohibition and all the lessons it taught (or failed to teach rather) doesn't apply to Marijuana? I'm excluding the harder drugs, even I admit that's a whole 'nother ball game. (Though you should really watch the Hamsterdam sub plot in season 3 of the wire, very interesting, though very fictional)