Marijuana's Tipping Point?
Has marijuana legalization reached the tipping point, where positive change is now all but inevitable? That question might have been seen as wildly optimistic even just last week, but over the weekend the respected New York Times editorial board fully endorsed legalizing recreational marijuana at the federal level, in a piece aptly entitled: "Repeal Prohibition, Again." This has already shifted the debate so dramatically that some are now comparing it to the impact of Walter Cronkite coming out against the Vietnam War (after which, President Lyndon Johnson famously said: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America"). While I'm cautiously optimistic and certainly think it will further the conversation, I have to say I think it might be just a little too early to declare this moment in time to be marijuana's tipping point. I think we're fast approaching that moment, but I don't think we've gotten there quite yet.
The Times editorial is certainly a positive contribution to the marijuana legalization debate. Even more so, as the current editorial will just be the first of a reported six-part series of editorials which examine the issue from more than one angle. That, right there, is a measure of respect that has been sorely lacking in most of rest of the media. It guarantees that various facets of the federal "War On Weed" will be examined, which should provoke a more in-depth level of political conversation than before. A conversation which has been, up until now, mostly only conducted by activists and mostly only at a local level (such as changing one state's laws). Yesterday's political talking-head television shows were forced to confront the issue, although for the most part this was nothing more than a competition by the pundits as to who could come up with the wittiest bon mot, rather than any sort of serious discussion of the issue.
The Times editorial series is going to force the political conversation to move beyond the "Rocky Mountain high" and "munchies" jokes, though. Sure, it's fun to crack wise about stoners and weed culture, but after these cheap laughs get stale the seriousness of the subject is still going to need to be addressed. Most average Americans are unaware (to pick just one easy example) that the federal government considers marijuana to be more dangerous than crystal methamphetamine. That is a pretty indefensible stance to take, but it is exactly the way the federal government has treated marijuana for the past four decades. Which is why this conversation is long overdue.
The federal government still considers marijuana to have "no accepted medical value," even as the number of states which have legalized medical marijuana climbs. Almost half of the United States now allow medicinal marijuana, and that number rises to over 30 if you add in states which have legalized some specific form(s) of marijuana product for medicinal use (differing states have differing restrictions). So why does the federal government refuse to accept this widespread medicinal use? It has become an untenable (and laughable) legal position to take.
The voters in two states have already openly defied the federal government, by legalizing recreational marijuana for adult use. Two more states may follow, later this year. Four states isn't much, but many other states are waiting until the 2016 election to put marijuana legalization on the ballot (since the electorate in a presidential election year should be much more favorable for such measures). Perhaps a tipping point will be reached after Oregon and Alaska follow the lead of Washington and Colorado, or perhaps we will get there in 2016 if five or ten more states join in the movement.
In the realm of federal law, perhaps the tipping point will be when marijuana is moved from the ridiculous "Schedule I" designation it currently has (the part about "no accepted medical value"). Attorney General Eric Holder has evolved considerably on the issue of marijuana law in the past year or so, and has even said he'd be open to changing the Schedule I designation, but he also indicated it would be better if Congress approved this change. However, according to the Controlled Substances Act (the law that created the schedules), Holder himself can reclassify anything on the list, with no more authority necessary than his own signature. Perhaps if Congress refuses to act, Holder (or his boss, President Obama) will make this necessary change on his own. That, more than a Times editorial, might more accurately be called marijuana's tipping point.
The Times goes further, though, and essentially calls not just for rescheduling marijuana, but de-scheduling it entirely. After all, alcohol and tobacco aren't on any "dangerous controlled substance" list -- they are treated differently by the federal government. What the Times is calling for won't fully happen until marijuana is legally treated the same as alcohol, and added to the responsibility of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Such a sweeping change, however, isn't likely until well after the political tipping point has been reached (to put this another way: the politicians are probably not going to lead on this issue, they're going to follow).
Depending on how you define "tipping point," we admittedly might already be there. Public opinion polls show -- for the first time -- that a slim majority of the American public is ready to legalize all marijuana use for adults. It was voted into being in two states already, and they've both now fully implemented their new laws. Chances are pretty good that it'll pass in Oregon and Alaska this year as well (also in Washington D.C., barring any political shenanigans from the House of Representatives).
In a very short time, marijuana activists have gone from being cautiously optimistic that change is coming to being almost expectant that change is not only possible but actually probable (if not downright inevitable). I, for one, am not quite there yet. Eric Holder still has a lot left to do to rein in the federal anti-weed culture, especially over at the Drug Enforcement Agency (and among certain federal prosecutors).
By 2016, it is going to be interesting to see how national politicians react, on both sides of the aisle. Democrats, especially, since the issue is fast gaining political heft. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton duked it out for the Democratic nomination in 2008, remember, neither one of them endorsed gay marriage equality. They felt it was too politically risky to go that far out on a limb. In 2016 it is inconceivable that the Democratic presidential nominee will not fully support marriage equality. That's a fast transition. But in 2016, will any of the Democratic candidates fully support what the Times has now called for: the end of marijuana Prohibition? Or will they be too timid, and try to couch their answer in "well, I'm kind of for medicinal marijuana..." language? Will Democratic candidates be challenged on the issue from left and right? Rand Paul may stake out a claim to be the most pot-friendly candidate in the race -- which may eat into the Democrats' natural advantage with younger voters. A Democratic candidate might be forced to come out as pro-pot, just to shore up a key part of the Democratic base.
Such a nebulous concept of a tipping point can be debated endlessly. Some might say the real tipping point was the vote in Colorado and Washington in 2012. Some might identify Holder's change of heart last year as the real tipping point in the federal War On Weed. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic when I say I'm waiting for further action from Holder, or more states to jump on the bandwagon -- why I think the tipping point will likely happen sometime in 2015 or 2016, in other words. A tipping point, for me, means that from that point onward the movement acquires such rapid downhill momentum that nothing can stop it. To give an example, I identified what I saw as the tipping point on gay marriage before the Supreme Court ruled last year on the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases -- because I thought that no matter which way they ruled, change was still inevitable at that point.
Marijuana legalization may suffer some setbacks, however. So far, the experiment in Colorado and Washington seem to be going quite well, and the sky has not noticeably fallen in either state. Other states are jealously eyeing the massive tax receipts the two states are pulling in, and are also paying close attention to the boost it has given their tourist industries. But that's not to say it's going to pass everywhere it gets onto the ballot, or that unforeseen problems may indeed develop which perhaps might require different rules or regulations.
Maybe we are at a tipping point. Maybe the Times editorial series is going to drag the discussion of legalizing marijuana out of the realm of cheap comedy and give it that "what serious people think" respectability (which is so necessary for the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy to offer their thoughts on any subject, sad to say). The thing about tipping points is that after they are reached, things start happening very quickly. Think about it: the Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage happened only a little over a year ago. Within another year (or two, at most), the Supreme Court will issue another ruling which will make it the law of the land in every state -- it's almost inconceivable to think otherwise, at this point. That is blinding speed, in the political world. Could marijuana legalization happen as fast? Yes, it could -- and the Times article certainly will move the debate a giant step forward. But somehow I just can't believe that we've arrived at the tipping point. Call me pessimistic (or realistic) if you will, but while I do think that point is fast approaching, I just don't think we're quite there yet.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
http://sjfm.us/temp/4cw.jpeg
:D
Michale
As long as there are old killjoys, the problem is not solved. There are still generations of geezers, old goats, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that reefer madness – and they just have to die.
If you quote me, you’re lying.
"Rand Paul may stake out a claim to be the most pot-friendly candidate in the race"
Do you think he'll still be meth-friendly too?
Fundies can be quite resistant to reason. In KY, they won't let us have casinos (guess which party is blocking for them). Did you know that you can gamble on horses in KY? Buy a lottery ticket? But you can't go to a casino unless you drive across the river to IN or OH and leave you tax money there. I don't think that the pot posse is up to the job of persecuting the faithers like the Gay Mafia. I think you're right about the tipping point being down the road.
Your memories gone and so is your life
But losing out just never felt so right
Mota!
Has marijuana legalization reached the tipping point, where positive change is now all but inevitable?
I certainly hope so, for purely selfish reasons.
Michale [1] -
OK, that was funny, have to admit.
John From Censornati [2] -
Every year that goes by, the older generation gets smaller through attrition, and the generation that went to college in the 1960s becomes the "older generation." Patience, patience...
:-)
LizM -
But I thought BC was pretty much Amsterdam... at least, from what I've heard? I've heard legendary stories about Vancouver...
Do tell!
:-)
-CW
Guy walks into a bar and announces to the bar at large, "All lawyers are assholes!!"
A guy at the end of the bar says, "Hay!! I resent that!!"
First guy asks, "Why?? Are you a lawyer??"
The guy at the end of the bar says, "No. I'm an asshole!"
Ba daa daa.....
:D
Michale
Would a President Rant Paul (R) predator drone a suspected pot store robber?
Liberty!
Yer right, CW...
The Silly Season is upon us! :D
Michale
"So far, the experiment in Colorado and Washington seem to be going quite well, and the sky has not noticeably fallen in either state. Other states are jealously eyeing the massive tax receipts the two states are pulling in, and are also paying close attention to the boost it has given their tourist industries. But that's not to say it's going to pass everywhere it gets onto the ballot, or that unforeseen problems may indeed develop which perhaps might require different rules or regulations."
That's one really good paragraph!
I predict the most effective political push back to the "the sky is not falling argument" will come in the form of ad campaigns "speculating" on increased traffic fatalities. Spreading a carefully implied false meme that legalization of Cannabis somehow equates to legalization of and/or tolerance for driving under the influence of Cannabis.
Who would do such a cynical thing? Hah! The enforcement and incarceration industries for starters. They have money to burn on this issue, but a lot more money to lose to marijuana reform.
To claim that the "sky is not falling" is to ignore the negative impact of legalization..
I would list them all, but it is clear that there are none so blind as those who will not see...
Basically, if no one acknowledges the negative impacts, then said negative impacts simply do not exist...
Such is the reasoning..
Michale
Chris,
I'm afraid I wouldn't know a thing about that.
I was just saying that I wouldn't mind if we moved on to even more interesting topics. This one just doesn't interest me, hence the reference to my selfish reasons.
I'm just missing not being able - for reasons I still don't understand - to comment on my favourite geopolitical pieces at HP and I'm hoping to be able to do that here even if only on a tangential basis.
Chris, I noticed that this made the front page of the AOLfaceHuffbook thing! Congrats, I guess. Does that happen very often? They call everything "trolling" on the internets these days. I wonder if your article qualifies as "trolling" the prohibitionists?
. . . and soon the world will love you sweet leaf.
Marijuana reparations are in order. Inevitable.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/the_case_for_marijuana_reparations_the_profits_from_drug_legalization_should.html
Quantum be upon you. The Singularity is near.
A pirate walks into a bar..
Bartender says, "Hay buddy, you know you got a wheel in yer pants??"
Pirate says, "Arrrrrr. It's drivin' me nuts!"
Ba Daa Daa...
Michale
TheStig [10] -
Thanks for the kind words! That wasn't one of those paragraphs I agonized over, it just got set down as I thought it...
Michale [11] -
Do tell! What are these negative aspects you speak of? I remind you, keep to your own rules: facts only, please, not scaremongering. Facts from data on the ground in Colorado and Washington, in other words, not "this is your brain on drugs" propaganda.
LizM [12] -
Can't speak to the HuffPost comments, of course, but I do point out that I have apologized before this year about the hyper-focus on marijuana (or as you non-USA types might say, "cannabis"), but we seem to be approaching a tipping point on what I consider a civil rights issue, and therefore I am going to keep writing about it. Hey, at least we've backed off from having a weekly article on marijuana rights progress!
Seriously, though, for DECADES marijuana reformers have "fought the good fight" and lost -- knowing that their chances of success were slim to none. Ever since CA passed medical marijuana into law back in 1996, optimism has reared its head. And now that CO and WA have legalized it recreationally, there's a tidal wave building. So, look for future articles on the subject, as I consider it to be one of the bigger political shifts that have happened in my lifetime down here in the US.
:-)
John From Censornati [13] -
Really? I've all but given up "googling myself" so I rely on you people to keep me abreast of such developments. Thanks for letting me know!
As for Ozzy/Black Sabbath quotes, I prefer the opening to that song:
"[Cough... cough... cough... cough...]"
Heh.
:-)
[14] -
Nice article, but at this point I'd be happy with getting the right to vote back to everyone affected by felony marijuana charges in the past 50 years or so...
Michale -
Pretty soon, we're all going to have to learn a lot of "a guy walks into a smoke shop" jokes... that's my prediction, anyways...
Heh
-CW
Do tell! What are these negative aspects you speak of? I remind you, keep to your own rules: facts only, please, not scaremongering. Facts from data on the ground in Colorado and Washington, in other words, not "this is your brain on drugs" propaganda.
I could list all the people who have died...
I could cite that homelessness has skyrocketed in CO and marijuana use was the cause...
But, as has already been shown, such evidence is not accepted....
So, we'll just have to agree to disagree that legauana marilization is not the problem-free no-consequence Utopia you claim it to be.. :D
Michale
Pretty soon, we're all going to have to learn a lot of "a guy walks into a smoke shop" jokes... that's my prediction, anyways...
I wasn't sure if the Pirate joke might have been to off color... :D
But I thought it was hilarious!! :D
"Yer easily amused. Base clear..."
A1C Russel Morvant, 18th SPS, Kadena AB, Okinawa
:D
Michale
A man died and went to heaven. At the pearly gates he met up with St Peter. Behind St Peter there was an immense wall covered with clocks..
The man asked, "What are all those clocks??"
St Peter replied, "Those are Lie Clocks.. When you tell a lie, the hands move...
St Peter motioned to a single clock. "This clock here is Mother Teresa's clock. As you can see the hands have not moved. This indicates that Mother Teresa has never told a lie..
St Peter motioned to another clock. "This clock is Abraham Lincoln's clock. It's hands have moved twice indicating that Lincoln told two lies in his life.."
"Where is Obama's clock??" the dead man asked..
St Peter replied, "Oh, that clock is in Jesus' office.. He uses it as a ceiling fan...
Baa daaa daaa.....
:D
Michale
Chris,
So, look for future articles on the subject, as I consider it to be one of the bigger political shifts that have happened in my lifetime down here in the US.
Thanks, Neil, for the warning. :)
Michale [17] -
You mean the guy that jumped off the balcony? Please include a cite which admits what his blood alcohol content was, if you cite that one.
As for the rest of it, I'm waiting for links...
I'm not going to agree to anything before I see evidence...
[18] -
You see any of NBC's pirate show? "Blackbeard" or whatever it's called? Whaddya think? Inquiring minds want to know...
[19] -
OK, this one's going to date me, but still...
Three passengers were in a small airplane flight which ran into rough weather. At some point, the pilot came back to the cabin and announced "This plane's going down, and I'm taking one of the three parachutes"...
He did so, and opened the door and jumped out. Two parachutes remained.
The three passengers were Henry Kissenger, a Boy Scout, and a priest. [Note: please update this joke as you see fit with whatever name you feel is appropriate, but this is how I heard the joke originally back in the 1970s]
Henry Kissenger jumped up and declared "I am the smartest man in the world, and my life is incredibly important, therefore I must take one of the remaining parachutes and save myself, for the betterment of the entire world!"
He grabs a pack, and jumps out the door.
The priest turns to the Boy Scout and says: "Son, I have lived a full life. I am older than you, and therefore your future is much more important to God and therefore I beg you to take the remaining parachute and save yourself."
The Scout turns to the priest and says: "Father, relax. We can both save ourselves. The smartest man in the world just jumped out of the plane with my backpack."
Heh.
LizM -
Hey, I promise, when it's been fully legalized, I will stop writing articles about it. How's that?
:-)
Should only take a few years, don't worry!
-CW