Absurdities Of The Drug War
Posted on March 26th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Freddie’s frustration with Obama’s dismissive response to the large number of online questions about marijuana legalization is understandable, but it seems to me that legalization arguments will never gain much traction if advocates for it are constantly having to mention how they are not like the drug’s stereotypical users or regard the drug’s use as some grievous personal failing. Instead of coming across as a stronger argument, the standard “I’m in favor of legalization, and I’m the farthest thing in the world from a pot smoker!” argument ends up making the argument for legalization less compelling. This is because this kind of argument unintentionally reproduces the stigma against the drug and effectively endorses one of the key claims that supporters of criminalization make. While it is true that there are a great many practical and principled reasons why Americans of all stripes should oppose continued criminalization, for legalization to take hold as something more than a marginal issue that has the sympathies of more than relatively marginal political forces there would need to be a much larger constituency that regards criminalization as an intolerable imposition on one of their preferences.
Opponents of Prohibition in the ’20s and early ’30s were not called “wets” simply to dismiss or mock them, but to describe accurately that they wanted to be able to drink alcohol legally. A significant cultural obstacle that marijuana legalization faces is that even many leading advocates of legalization will decry the drug as unusually unhealthy and there are relatively few people who would use the drug once legalized who do not already use it. The irony of legalization is that it would probably lead to such a small increase in use of the drug that there is no large, untapped base of support to make support for continued criminalization a political liability. Criminalization is unusually irrational in this case, but there are not enough people directly inconvenienced or hassled by the criminalization of the drug to make politicians pay any price for supporting the status quo. On the other side, there is a fairly large number of people who remain committed to defending that status quo and penalizing politicians who entertain supporting legalization.
Filed under: politics
10 Responses to “Absurdities Of The Drug War”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I thought I had resisted the temptation to do that, but perhaps not. Oh well.
I should have been more clear. You did avoid doing that for the most part, but I suppose my larger point is that “stoners” are a large part of the constituency in favor of legalization. One of the reasons why it is so easy for politicians to dismiss concerns about criminalization is that there is not enough resistance to the idea that something “stoners” want can be and is worth taking seriously as a matter of personal preference. I can’t think of another situation whether advocates of legalizing something are so embarrassed by the people who use the thing they want legalized.
Then again, there are many, many pot-smokers who would not self-identify as stoners.
True, but I think that detail should be part of the regular response.
“I can’t think of another situation whether advocates of legalizing something are so embarrassed by the people who use the thing they want legalized.”
[legalization of] Prostitution comes immediately to mind, though perhaps a distinction should be made in that case between the [icky] thing/activity itself whose legalization some might foolishly advocate, and those pillars of the republic who might in repeated moments of weakness fall to the blandishments of the purveyors of said icky things/activities. Senator Vitter, your wife is calling.
The irony of legalization is that it would probably lead to such a small increase in use of the drug that there is no large, untapped base of support to make support for continued criminalization a political liability.
That’s probably a good description of the current political situation. And if pot’s just decrminalized I agree that there might not be much of an increase in use. But if it’s full-on legalized I could see marijuana cultivation and retailing turning into a gigantic Madison Avenue-backed industry. In that scenario I’d imagine pot use would increase significantly. It’s a big cash crop in several states as it is; I’d imagine that a legal pot industry might wield a lot of political and economic clout in certain parts of the country.
This is because this kind of argument unintentionally reproduces the stigma against the drug and effectively endorses one of the key claims that supporters of criminalization make.
It’s always turned me off simply because it seems so dishonest and insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Woody Harrelson, I believe you should be able to smoke a few joints every once in a while (or, even, to smoke a lot of joints all the time). But, for God’s sake, don’t insult my intelligence and pretend that your fight for marijuana legalization is motivated by your concern over America’s shocking lack of quality hemp-based yoga pants and messenger bags.
I would point out, as an individual who became a very regular pot smoker in adulthood, that it’s not the health effects that often prevent people from using the (honestly) wonderful drug, it’s the pain and hassle of scoring.
Legalization would make it much easier (and safer) to obtain the drug. Since, as all us stoners know, it’s access that limits smoking, not price, there are likely to be a lot of new users who aren’t even considering it now, because they don’t know how to get it.
It’s somewhat frustrating that the debate is still, in so many regards, stuck where it was 30 or 40 years ago. IMO, the debate should be on what distribution system is best for the country or, more to the point, which group you want to empower with the profits from the drug trade. We, as a nation, have chosen to empower criminals which is probably the least optimum solution.
The other three options are we could empower the government to distribute the drugs, we could empower businesses to sell the drugs or, the approach I favor, is we could empower non-profit agencies specifically set up for drug manufacturing/distribution with all resulting “profits” being poured back into rehabilitation programs and drug education programs.
As a conservative I don’t want to empower criminals, nor do I want to empower our government. And because drugs are different than apples or candy or cars I think we should treat them differently than other products. Removing the profit from drug sales is the least bad option.
As a bonus we won’t fund terrorist, narco-terrorits, drug cartels, gangs, police corruption, etc. It’s time to have a serious debate and get past the legalize, decriminalize debate.
I don’t understand your reasoning as to why you think this “marginal” issue and its “marginal” political forces can’t or won’t be taken seriously by the public and the government. All surveys and studies I’ve ever come across state that there are more marijuana users in this country than there are gay and lesbians, and yet as much as you are opposed to gay marriage it is being taken seriously and becoming legal one state at a time. I really see no difference with marijuana use, and see things like Obama’s DOJ decision, and Michigan’s and Massachusetts’s voter-approved laws as more small steps towards increasingly more rational drug laws.
As for that “larger constituency that regards criminalization as an intolerable imposition on one of their preferences”, I think it already exists. When half of our yearly drug arrests are for marijuana, and most of those are for only possession, the numbers will add up to at least 6,000,000 arrests for marijuana possession this decade. In fact, in every year since 2003 more people have been arrested for marijuana possession than for violent crimes. If that’s not “enough people directly inconvenienced or hassled by the criminalization of the drug to make politicians pay any price for supporting the status quo”, then I’d like to know what number of people would be enough?
For what it’s worth I sense the ground shifting on the whole issue of drug use. The reasons are various. Changing demographics, a growing public recognition that demand is creating all sorts of problems for us in Mexico or Afghanistan, Bush admin over-reach raiding the homes of cancer sufferers, a bloated prison population and street crime which can be traced to a failing war on drugs, and so on. Gradually the light is coming on that morality is a poor basis for tackling this issue. Obviously pot is a soft drug with all kinds of medicinal benefits. It’s openly sold in some states. It’s going to happen at the state level to begin with watched at a distance by a federal govt that will be non interventionist on the matter. I’m expecting to see major moves in the direction of legalization and use over the next few years. Once there is widespread legalization of marijuana can it be long before this whole issue is opened up.