The War on Drugs and Marijuana Policy Reform Are Anything But Peripheral Issues
By Brad R. Schlesinger | 06/14/2012 | Drugs, Elections 2012, Health Care, Issues, Safety | 14 CommentsTo understand why the War on Drugs persists, one has to journey deep inside the prohibitionist mind. During a discussion about marijuana on CNN, talking head LZ Granderson hoped he wasn’t going to have to discuss the issue much in the context of the 2012 election, saying “We have way too many important things to talk about.”
When the host of the segment wondered whether some people would fail to support President Obama based solely on the issue of marijuana, Granderson called those voters idiots, saying, “If you are voting on one single issue, especially one issue that is so peripheral, you are an idiot, I don’t want to mince words here.” He continued, “If you’re basing your vote on who’s going to be president about whether or not they let you roll up a blunt then you’re just an idiot and I hope you don’t have the right to vote anyway.”
Over at the Huffington Post, StopTheDrugWar Associate Editor Scott Morgan dispenses with this logic:
“To call it a ‘peripheral’ issue makes a mockery of the millions of Americans who’ve had their lives turned upside down by a marijuana arrest. It’s an insult to innocent victims of rampant racial profiling brought on biased and brutal drug enforcement practices. It dishonors the memory of the tens of thousands who’ve lost their lives at the hands of violent cartels to whom we’ve handed a huge stake in the lucrative American marijuana trade.
On a daily basis, the war on marijuana destroys families, ends lives, destabilizes communities and diverts limited resources away from the people who need them and into an endless cycle of drug war devastation. Either that, or it prevents all these horrible things, as its defenders continue to claim. In either case, the question of how we as a society choose to deal with marijuana is more than just a serious issue, it’s a matter of life and death. Of course it is. There’s no such thing as a multi-billion dollar question that isn’t worth asking.”
As Morgan states, public opinion for both medical marijuana and full legalization is robust– especially among independent voters, the pivotal voting block. In fact, support amongst independent voters actually exceeds that of the general population. Polling shows 57% of independent voters support legalizing marijuana, while 79% believe that the federal government should respect state medical marijuana laws. Those politicians wishing to emerge victorious this fall must win over the support of independent voters– and based on the numbers above, legalizing marijuana seems like a pretty good place to start.
There’s also another flaw in this kind of condescending reasoning typically used to marginalize those pushing drug policy reform. Deciding how to vote based on the issues of marijuana legalization and drug policy reform, contra Granderson’s contention, is not simply focusing on a single issue. Rather, marijuana legalization and the broader drug war is inextricably linked with a basket of other issues: criminal justice and mass incarceration, cartel violence, SWAT raids and militarized police, whittling away of the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties, racism, foreign policy, public health, economics, and state budgets. The uncomfortable truth is that drug policy bleeds into all other aspects of American politics, whether people like Granderson want to acknowledge it or not.





Leave Your Comment →
14 Comments
Mike Parent
06.14.2012
LZ would change his tunes if he “Strolled” some parts of NYC. Perhaps if he was treated like a criminal just because he was black, during a Stop and Frisk by the Police. Is there anything more important than freedom, politically? When you’re stopped/Frisked you have had your freedom to move about freely stolen from you. Add to that, trumped up charges and property Theft (Seizures), w/o due process, tactics used daily in the WoD, also steal our rights. To trivialize that is idiotic, as is his hairdo. (jmho)
Brad R. Schlesinger
06.14.2012
@bradschlesinger
That’s a really good point. The war on drugs seems to be perfectly tolerated by those who have never experienced it up close and personal.
Jillian Galloway
06.14.2012
Taxpayers spend $40 Billion-a-year on a prohibition that *doesn’t* stop people using marijuana. Are we all so rich that this colossal waste of money is no big deal?
Dan Richards
06.14.2012
@danrich
I love the use of the race card here, it shows how small the minds are of the ones supporting the legalization of pot. Because pot as is any drug are universal, and every cop knows that. What they target are the ones not only using, but the distribution of the drugs. And in that, they can draw profiles based on who does the most distribution of particular illegal drugs, from the most likely to the lower averages. That does not always mean race, but types of people based on a lot of factors.
Second, here in Oklahoma the drug use per-capita is higher than any place I have been. And thus with that, manufactures and users are high. Also are the amounts of shootings and other issues. Plus the fact that most of the people you have to work with, are lazy and cannot carry their own weight, making work much harder on those that don’t do drugs.
A few years ago, a woman was arrested for pimping her daughter for drug money. Her daughter had been use for this from age 5 to 9, just so her mother could get high. I don’t care, a drug is a drug, and used illegally I will not support.
kevinhunt
06.14.2012
@kevinhunt
Dan, the small minds are the ones that think 75 years of prohibition has reduced use or availability. You can’t prove that marijuana is more harmful than legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Oklahoma has the harshest penalties for weed out of all the 50 states. You are telling me that OK has the highest drug use of anywhere that you have been. What does that tell you about prohibiton?
Brad R. Schlesinger
06.14.2012
@bradschlesinger
Research (see links below) shows that people admit to buying drugs from someone of the same race/ethnicity as themselves. And since the majority of drug users are white, whites then represent the majority of drug dealers/sellers. Whites should then represent the majority of arrests according your reasoning because they are involved in distribution. But they are not. Blacks are arrested at far greater rates for a confluence of reasons that are not considered to be race-neutral.
And the only reason that shootings happen is because of prohibition. Those aren’t drug users shooting at each other. They are competing distribution networks vying for market share. Black market economies do not have legitimate outlets for resolving disputes so they are resolved through violence, force, and intimidation. You don’t see beer companies shooting it out in the streets with each other, do you?
A women is pimping her daughter out to feed her drug habit while we have drug prohibition. Don’t you think that is a sign that it is not working, I mean drugs aren’t legalized and that is happening. Also, drug prices are artificially inflated due to prohibition, because of the supply-side risk premium and the uncertainties and lack of protections in illicit markets. If drugs were legalized, the prices would significantly fall and for those people who are addicted, it would be easier for them to obtain their drugs without having to resort to say crime or pimping one’s daughter out.
http://www.kcba.org/druglaw/pdf/beckettstudy.pdf
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10ResultsTables/NSDUHTables2010R/HTM/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.19A
Craig D. Schlesinger
06.15.2012
@craigschlesinger
So trying to end one of the most racist, destructive policies the government perpetuates is playing the race card? Its not possible for someone to be opposed to the drug war and NOT be a drug consumer at the same time? Small minds indeed.
Lucas Eaves
06.14.2012
@lucaseaves
Portugal experimented the decriminalization of all drugs in 2001, replacing prison sentences by therapy. Ten years after, this experiment is reported to be a success with a decrease in drug users. With America’s overpopulated jails, the decriminalization of marijuana could be a interesting option and should only be seen as peripheral.
Lauren Moore
06.14.2012
@laurendimitra
It could work. Or, it could work for a while, just as it did in holland, and then draw too many tourists, who are only there to smoke up, and cause a decrease in tourism because the people who would visit for culture do not want to involve themselves in growing seedy areas of town- just like Holland, who is now beginning to slowly repeal their blanket legalization.
kevinhunt
06.14.2012
@kevinhunt
Give Holland about two years. The marijuana tourists pay for everything there. Once the government sees how the revenue drops, they will re-think the policy. The major reason that they barred foreigners from buying at the coffee shops was because neighboring governments were complaining about weed crossing the border.
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.24.2012
@bradschlesinger
Holland never legalized marijuana, it is just tolerated.
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.24.2012
@bradschlesinger
Portugal’s decrim regime eliminates criminal penalties for use and possession and replaces them with administrative hearings, not mandated treatment. The administrative hearing usually involves medical personnel that advocates treatment, but it is not required or mandated, it is up to the individual if they so choose.
See, http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
Malcolm Kyle
06.14.2012
Prohibition insures Job Security for the sheer incompetent, vast corporate profits for the greedy and unconscionable, and absolute power for the despicable authoritarians that now pervade the corridors of both our main political parties, happily providing unlimited funding for millions of ruthless criminals and terrorists.
Every single Prohibitionist is a willing servant of tyranny and hate, having but one sole purpose – to make the rest of us suffer their putrid legacy of incalculable waste and destruction. Hand in hand with a Corporate controlled, propaganda-spewing mass-media machine, they continually connive to ensure that the inevitable consequences of their ‘not fit for purpose’ policy (the vast increase in corruption, mayhem, economic and moral decay) are all attributed to the prohibited substances themselves rather than the actual obvious and historically proven cause: the very prohibition of these substances.
Brad R. Schlesinger
06.15.2012
@bradschlesinger
Here, here.