From Salon -- April 9, 2010
Making the case for marijuana
It's time for reformers to play up the safety claim for pot: It's less dangerous than alcohol
BY DAVID SIROTA
When choosing between frugality and security, history shows that America almost always selects the latter. To paraphrase President Kennedy, we'll pay any price and bear any burden to protect ourselves.
No doubt this was why the economic case against the Iraq invasion failed. To many, the war debate seemed to pose a binary question: debt or mushroom clouds? And when it’s a scuffle between money arguments and security arguments (even dishonest security arguments), security wins every time.
Call this the Pay-Any-Price Principle -- an axiom that has impacted all of America's wars, and now, most poignantly, its War on Drugs. When faced with criticism of budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, law enforcement agencies and private prison interests have successfully depicted their cause as a willingness to pay any price to jail dealers of hard narcotics.
Of course, data undermine that storyline. In 2008, the FBI reported that 82 percent of drug arrests were for possession -- not sales or manufacturing -- and almost half of those arrests were for marijuana, not hard drugs.
Fortunately, these numbers are seeping into the public consciousness. Gallup's latest survey shows record support for marijuana legalization, as more Americans see the Drug War for what it really is: an ideological and profit-making crusade by the Arrest-and-Incarceration Complex against a substance that is, according to most physicians, less toxic than alcohol.
Considering both the public opinion shift and the facts about marijuana, this should be the moment that drug policy reformers drop their budget attacks and flip the security argument on their opponents -- specifically, by pointing out how safety is actually compromised by the status quo.
The good news is that some activists are making this very case.
Last week, students at 80 colleges asked their schools to reduce penalties for marijuana possession so that they are no greater than penalties for alcohol possession. It's a request with safety in mind: According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, alcohol use by college kids contributes to roughly 1,700 deaths, 600,000 injuries and 97,000 sexual assaults every year. By contrast, "The use of marijuana itself has not been found to contribute to any deaths, there has never been a single fatal marijuana overdose in history (and) all objective research on marijuana has also concluded that it does not contribute to injuries, assaults, sexual abuse, or violent or aggressive behavior," as the group Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation notes.
"It's time we stop driving students to drink and let them make the rational, safer choice to use marijuana," said one student.
Now the bad news: Not every reformer is on message.
In California, where polls show most citizens support cannabis legalization, the New York Times reports that backers of a legalization ballot measure "will not dwell on assertions of marijuana's harmlessness" but "rather on [the] cold cash" pot can generate for depleted state coffers.
The problem is not these advocates' facts -- California officials confirm that legal marijuana could generate more than $1 billion in tax revenue. The problem goes back to the Pay-Any-Price Principle.
By downplaying the argument about giving society a safer alternative to alcohol, California's legalization advocates are letting drug warriors reclaim the language of security, to the point where even liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign now trumpets her opposition to the initiative on the grounds that "she shares the [safety] concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials."
A career politician, Boxer understands that if this battle reverts to the old tax-revenue-versus-safety fight, voters will choose safety. In other words, she gets the Pay-Any-Price Principle.
To maximize this opportune moment for drug policy changes, every reformer must appreciate that principle, too -- and finally confront it head-on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with you on this one. Too much time, energy, and money is spent trying to keep this substance illegal. Too many good people are in jails and prisons for this benign offense.
Not all conservatives are against the legalization of Marijuana. Not the Libertarians, like me.
Wow, Casey, be careful. It's not like you to take such a liberal position on anything. If you keep this up, I won't be able to recognize you.
You are so wrong. I am a Libertartian. I believe in personal freedom. Less government; more freedom. REAL Libertarians are fiscal conservatives, but have more liberal views on social issues.
You just thought that because RG keeps lumping me in with Republicans and conservatives.
That's very good, Casey. I'm glad to hear you are liberal on social issues. So am I.
But don't think that less government necessarily means more freedom. Every system has a power structure, and usually the people in power are in a position to oppress and keep down those people who have little or no power. In a capitalist system, the wealthiest individuals and corporations have the real power. They have the power to underpay and overwork their workers, provide them with no health benefits, poor education, etc.
The government steps in to try and give workers some basic rights and benefits so that workers and their families can also have a chance at the good life. The government is the Great Equalizer since it's the only institution with enough power to rein in the corporations and wealthy families.
Any economic system where the people at the bottom don't have certain basic economic protections is not worth the paper it's written on, and can't survive very long because too many people are faring too badly under such a system.
I happen to be a filthy capitalist pig. I love capitalism. I want our system to survive.
But, as a student of the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution in Russia, the Nazi Revolution in Germany, etc., I am realistic enough to know that, if too many people are suffering economically, our beloved economic system cannot survive. It will collapse, and something a lot worse will replace it. Therefore, I welcome government programs that try to spread the wealth. The more people who thrive economically under our system, the stronger and more long-lasting our economic system will be.
"The government is the Great Equalizer since it's the only institution with enough power to rein in the corporations and wealthy families."---CJP
Yes. the government can be the great equalizer---keeping us equally poor. I think that countries that have had that attitude and belief have shown us that. The government is not a generous entity, giving only enough to barley get by (see welfare, unemployment, other social programs) The idea of "sharing the wealth" is a Marxist idea. Didn't work. doesn't work, and as Thatcher said, "eventually you run out of others people's money".
Our standard of living in this country is far better than that of other countries---even for the poor.
Look. No one wants to go back to the days of no labor laws, etc. That stuff is good. However what we don't need is government intervention into all aspects of our lives, as it is begining to do. (ie: no salt in NYC resturants, taking over all student loans---stuff like that)
I think that you are falling for The Big Lie. No one has had a better system than the US. Our system has allowed more wealth and growth for every citizen. We have never had a class system that has essentially dictated to you from birth where you will go in life. (even in England they have had that, Asia as well)Anyone can make it with hard work and determination. (as many immigrants have shown us)
As a student of historic revolutions it is best to keep in mind that in France and Russia you had a monarchy that didn't care about the rest of society, and Germany was a result, to a great extent, of the Treaty of Versailles, which made Germany ripe for a terrible regime to step in with small improvements that seduced a whole country into promises of a better life. It was not Capitalism, or wealthy corporations (job providers) that caused the above to move toward disasterous situations. I don't know where, other than in Marxist thought it has been taught that corporations and wealthy families caused the above)
The government is not the force of all good and perfection, history will clearly show that. It is not very good at running much, as many government entities will show. The problem is, once you surrender your life, business, and eventually freedoms to the government, you never really can get them back.
You will never find the perfect society. It doesn't exist and never has. Personal responsiblity and morality is what makes a society great---not government. (see the former USSR for many abuses and coruption in government as an example---great equalizer? I think not!)
CJP life isn't fair. (JFK)You do your best. You live a good and charitable life. Greed is what has hurt us most, and as Jefferson said, "it will be personal greed that will be the only thing that will threaten this system" (paraphrase) Pretty much on target. The government cannot regulate and regislate greed. You find much of it within the government itself.
Did I fail to mention that during the Hilter's climb into power, it was his solution that the government would take care of everyone. (the "savior")The citizens handed over their rights and freedoms in exchange for what they thought would be more security and prosperity for all. More jobs, more government programs, equality; "sharing the wealth". Hitler's base was Socialism. More government. That ended well....
hello
Post a Comment