The Case for Maryjane

On November 2, Californians have an opportunity to challenge the 73 year old federal prohibition on marijuana. Proposition 19 is a ballot initiative that will allow California residents, over the age of 21, to cultivate and consume marijuana. It makes specific provisions for personal transport (up to one ounce) and personal growing (up to 25 sq. ft.) as well as allows municipalities to create tax policy and licensure rules for commercial cultivation and consumption. While the Department of Justice has promised to continue enforcing existing drug laws, while state and local officials echo the federal support of the ban, and while Mexican officials are unconvinced of its effect on drug cartel violence, Prop 19 must be passed if California and the nation are ever to progress towards a sensible drug policy.

It is a straw man to argue that legalizing marijuana will not reduce cartel violence in Mexico and along its border with California. Of course it wouldn’t, at least not in any significant way. According to the law’s authors, violence and illegal activities surrounding growth and distribution are due to its legal status. Establishing regulated sales outlets would, it is reasoned, put the street dealers out of business. While there is credence to this logic, the fact is putting the bad guy out of business is neither necessary nor sufficient to passing Prop. 19. Certainly patrons would much prefer to engage in the legal purchase of legal substances. On the other hand there are still illicit transactions regarding prescription drugs, cigarettes and alcohol. Laws are broken regardless of the level of control of the substance because not everyone who uses a drug has permission to do so .

In essence, reducing crime is not the principal argument in favor of legalizing marijuana. By which I mean that illegal activities and violence along the Mexican border (or in Mexico) may or may not go away. What will go down is the number of people made criminals by engaging in otherwise innocuous behavior. To attack consumers of the product with the same fervor as those who cultivate and distribute it is, and always has been, misguided. A college senior who is experimenting for the first time is very different from a hardened cartel criminal. As Prop. 19 stipulates that international marijuana trade remains illegal, millions of dollars spent on consumption enforcement can be at least transferred to trafficking enforcement, at best saved altogether.

Some crime will be reduced, by definition, while violent crime and illegal trafficking may or may not budge. That is the honesty pill we supporters must swallow. The honesty pill that opponents must swallow is that legalizing marijuana may not effect consumption rates as dramatically as they’ve let on, or at all. Marijuana is the most used drug in the U.S. By percentage of population, it is used more in America than in Holland where it is legal and where studies have shown that even modest changes from strict prohibition have no effect on consumption rates. Strict laws do not entail strict obedience. The net effect of the Prohibition Era was that purveyors of illegal alcohol became millionaires; millionaires who paid no taxes on their illegal earnings. Why would anyone pay $3 for a glass of whiskey (at a time when a glass cost twenty cents)? Because no one else around had any whiskey to sell him. And dammit if he was going to give it up! A further result of Prohibition was a terrible decline in quality and safety of the illegal whiskey. Once imported, from Canada say, whiskey was thinned and cut with chemicals to stretch profits, $10,000 worth of Canadian whiskey would be stretched and marked up to $60,000 or much, much more. The same is true, the markup anyway, with marijuana. One kilogram is worth about $80 wholesale, the street value is upwards of $7,000. What legal, regulated good or service can boast an 8,650% retail markup? None, and neither would marijuana once the illicit factor is removed. While pricing itself may or may not go down, we can be assured that at least some of the marijuana revenue will benefit California and not just criminals.

The compelling reasons to legalize marijuana come down to these considerations. First, decriminalization of behavior that is consistent with, yet statistically less harmful and far and away less addictive than alcohol consumption. Second, it takes dollars out of the hands of criminals, if not forcing them into legitimate enterprise or at the very least providing them with legitimate competition. Finally, two words: tax; revenue. In a state as cash strapped as California, we cannot afford to sneer at any potential revenue source when it is nearly impossible to create new tax revenue. All opposition to Prop 19 has been rooted in moralistic, dystopian conjecture; the kind carted out every time the conservative status quo is challenged. It has been funded by special interest. What possible gain can the U.S. Chamber of Commerce expect from continued prohibition? Politicians are trying to protect their jobs. Prohibition of marijuana has not worked. There is no clear path to make prohibition work.

California needs to end the prohibition of recreational marijuana use and lead the country toward a sensible drug policy. Step one is Prop. 19. Next is a review of municipal licensing and tax revenues, leading to further policies to enhance revenues or protect entrepreneurs. No doubt the federal government would focus its attention on medical dispensaries and recreational clubs or weed bars, as the feds are likely not going to waste their resources on a guy growing a couple plants in his back yard. Then the real challenge begins. California must refine it drug policies to provide protections from the government. Other states will begin to pass similar laws. Court cases will be brought against Prop. 19, but cases will also be brought against existing federal laws at the same time. That is the process in this country. That is how we go from moralistic, unreasonable  prohibition to a drug policy that makes sense.

Share

What "Dr." Laura Did

As my Facebook friends know, I was... less than pleased to hear the following comments made by Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her radio show: 



Even more disconcerting, however, was her "apology" in which she made no attempt to walk back her blatant racism. I hope that I don't have to use scare quotes any more in this post, but I digress. Schlessinger apologized for saying an offensive word eleven times during an on air phone call. To be totally fair, it was the word itself that drew much of the criticism. But the focus on the N-word from the caller, the media and Schlessinger herself drew away from what to me seemed much, much more offensive.

Without going into the etymology and societal mores surrounding the history and use of the word 'nigger,' we can agree that it was at least insensitive, if not wrong for Schlessinger to use it eleven times during her conversation with an African American caller. The apology was justified, at the very least for her crassness but also because she did not offer any solutions to a person asking for her help. That said, she was right in the sense that she wasn't calling anyone a nigger, rather she was making a dubious point about who can and who can't use this particular word.

Hers was a tired, hackneyed complaint about moral equivalence. If a white person can't say, 'nigger,' why is it that a black person can? The answer has more to do with the nature of language and conversational convention than rights and equality. There is context and intention, understanding and uptake and so many factors that have absolutely nothing at all to do with racial worth. But as I've said before her focus, and the media's focus, on this word is at most ignorance.

At 3:48 Schlessinger says, "Don't take things out of context. Don't NAACP me." And that was the real beginning of her racist rant. About the only piece of advice she has for the caller is to not marry outside her race if she can't have a sense of humor. She goes on to say:

I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop. But it seems to have grown, and I don't get it. Yes, I do. It's all about power.

Here Schlessinger is correct. It is all about power. It is about her disdain for African Americans declaring power over a derogatory word. The world makes better sense for her when only White people say 'nigger' pejoratively. There is something out of whack when a comedian uses it with humor or friends use it amicably. It's about the Grand Concession of electing a black president. With Obama in the White House racism, or at least sensitivity to racism, is over, right?

Schlessinger's entire attitude is one that embraces the marginalization of African Americans. Because she doesn't specifically hate or express superiority doesn't absolve her from her bigotry. She wholeheartedly accepts that Whites are "us" and Blacks are "them" and We Whites are put upon because Them Blacks are so dang sensitive. Them Blacks are always taking things out of context. Them Blacks are the real racists nowadays. No, no and no. Race relations is very much a hot button issue still in America. We should still be talking about our racist history and legacy. That conversation, however, has to be rooted in wisdom with the goals of healing and harmony. Schlessinger, with her marginalizing commentary, does not deserve to be the one to lead this conversation. She has a lot more to learn from it than contribute to it.

Faux Tolerance

Following a discussion on Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against Prop. 8, I found a pastor who describes herself as "tolerant," saying she does not believe ALL gays are going to hell, however: 

Marriage by a pastor is completely different  [from marriage by a judge] and should be taken much more seriously then [sic] it is by people of God. Marriage is a covenant and you can't understand marriage if you don't truly know the meaning of covenant. Marriage by a pastor is a lifelong, unbreakable contract between 3 entities. A man, a woman, and God. [sic] So if the government is telling me I have to perform a marriage for people who don't understand this, then YES I am against that. 

Only one paragraph after averring a position of tolerance (at least one or two gays  might make it into Heaven) we have one of the most intolerant declarations possible, and ultimately my biggest criticism of modern American Christianity. Reading between the lines we see that 1) only marriage before God is lifelong and can be taken seriously and 2) the only marriage God will bless is one between a man and a woman, as done by a pastor.

As to matter one, we know that even marriage declared before God is no more lifelong than baby teeth. If books like Eat, Pray Love can be any kind of indicator, any marriage can only last as long as interest. Boredom, it would seem, is cause enough to leave behind the person to whom you've pledged your life and go on epic journeys of narcissism. But that's another story.

As to the second matter, having been amongst the ranks of militant evangelists, I fully understand the idea that my concept of what God will and won't do is the only correct one. I imagine telling the author that the Unitarian church in my town is led by a lesbian who would gladly perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Unfortunately, I already know the conclusion of that line of reasoning and I am aware that I cannot change her ideas on the matter. That is up to her conscience.

In that regard I'll allow that the author at least thinks she is tolerant, though clearly she is not. But it wasn't tolerant evangelicals who lobbied so vocally against same sex marriage. It wasn't tolerant evangelicals who screamed about how awful marriage equality was for children. And it certainly wasn't tolerant evangelicals who convinced her that she would be forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. That simply cannot be the case in this country. So by the author's utter complacence and willingness to be proselytized against a fundamental right of two loving adults, she is completely and utterly intolerant. I have said before that apathy is the worst enemy of equality because when people are on the wrong side of progress, they're just plain wrong. Apathy is much harder to combat because there is no passion to stir. It seems now that I have to update that statement. Lip service, or "faux tolerance," embraces ignorance and entails discrimination. Faux tolerance is far worse than apathy.

Tweet

Share