Marijuana Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?

As voters in several states head to the polls today to decide Governor and city council races it seems appropriate to ask: “Why are most politicians still inexplicably silent on marijuana law reform?”

The recent legislative hearings on cannabis regulation in Massachusetts and California notwithstanding, the fact remains that these debates are the exception, not the rule. In fact, voters in Maine and Colorado will decide on marijuana law reform ballot proposals today (Note: Check back here tonight for the results.) precisely because their elected officials outright refused to vote on the issues when they were put before them.

In short, prominent politicians continue to run away from sensible marijuana law reforms at the same time that the public is demanding them. Two longtime NORML allies, former High Times editor Steve Wishnia and former NORML Board Member Richard Evans, recently explored this phenomenon and offer some insight and possible explanations:

Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
via Alternet.org

Almost every voter under 65 in this country has either smoked cannabis or grew up with people who did. Among its erstwhile users are the last three presidents, one Supreme Court justice and the mayor of the nation’s largest city. The pot leaf’s image pervades popular culture, from Bob Marley T-shirts to billboards for Showtime’s Weeds.

So why is actually legalizing it still considered a fringe issue? Why haven’t more politicians — especially the ones who inhaled — come out and said, “Prohibition is absurd and criminal. Let’s treat cannabis like alcohol”?

… One reason for the lack of urgent political pressure, says Deborah Small of Break the Chains, is that the people most likely to get busted for pot are the ones who “don’t have a political voice” — young people of color from poor neighborhoods.

… Washington State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles says that many legislators, particularly in the state’s more conservative rural areas, “buy into the cultural stereotypes about marijuana,” such as the idea that it’s a gateway to harder drugs. The Seattle Democrat, who is sponsoring a bill to reduce the penalty for less than 40 grams of pot from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction, says … that law enforcement has largely opposed her decriminalization bill.

Writing locally in the Massachusetts Daily News Tribune, Evans questions why none of the state’s major party candidates have reached out to the 65 percent of state voters who elected last year to decriminalize marijuana possession statewide.

The Senate race and marijuana prohibition
via The Daily News Tribune

Odd, isn’t it, that all the U.S. Senate candidates, and the people who ask them questions trying to elicit their positions on issues people care about, seem to have forgotten that in the last election, a whopping 65 percent of the voters went for marijuana decriminalization?

If that many voters care about the marijuana laws, why do these candidates, who claim to have their fingers on the public pulse, ignore the subject?

… Politicians report little “noise” on this issue, mistaking silence for indifference, not fear. People are justifiably fearful about writing a letter, showing up on a mailing list, even sending an email with the “m” word in it. They have to be very careful about their jobs, their drivers licenses and the kids in school whose parents will talk. But put them in the privacy of a voting booth, and stand back!

… No living person is responsible for the marijuana prohibition laws. They were conceived three generations ago in a cultural and racial climate far different from our own, and very different from that to which we aspire.

Are we ready for a serious, sober discussion about repeal, without the usual winks, smirks and puns? Can we handle it? Will someone lead it?

And finally, speaking of “serious discussions,” it doesn’t get much more serious — and mainstream — than the persuasive and well-articulated arguments from longtime NORML-ally Jessica Corry, who has an amazing ability to tongue-tie both probitionists and Fox News hosts within three minutes! I’m just glad that she’s on our side.

Watch-On-The-Web: Important Medical Marijuana Case Before California Supreme Court

Supreme Court to Hold Special Outreach Session at UC Berkeley Law School

Live TV Broadcast of Oral Arguments on Nov. 3 in Cases Involving Medical
Marijuana, DNA Evidence, and Sex Offender Law

[UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer attended today's oral arguments and filed this report:

In a remarkable turn of events, both sides  at today's California Supreme Court Hearing on the Kelly case agreed that the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Health and Safety Code 11362.77  are unconstitutional when applied to limit patients' right to a compassionate use defense under Prop. 215.  

Instead, they discussed how  the Kelly decision  could be recast so as not to invalidate 11362.77 when used for other purposes: for example, to protect card-holding patients from arrest when they are within the limits.

Michael Johnsen from the Attorney General's Office admitted that their "position had evolved"  since the Kelly case was first argued, when they had tried to claim that the limits in 11362.77 were constitutional.  Asked by the court why they should even be hearing the case in that event,  Johnsen said that the court should narrow the Appellate Court decision so as to not throw out 11362.77 altogether.

"I have never had the pleasure of getting up in an appellate argument and saying I agree with everything my opponent said," remarked defense attorney Gerald Uelmen.

Patrick Kelly was originally charged with growing 7 plants and 12 ounces, an amount above the SB 420 limits.  His defense argued that he could not be convicted for exceeding the limits, because Prop. 215 guarantees patients the right to have whatever amount is reasonably related to their medical needs.   The Appellate Court agreed that the limits were an unconstitutional amendment to Prop. 215, and struck down the entirety of 11362.77 as unconstitutional.

Today, both sides agreed that 11362.77 was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly's case, but that it should be preserved in other situations, where it provides useful guidelines for arrest.  The court's final decision will be forthcoming in 90 days.]

San Francisco—For the ninth year in a row, the California Supreme
Court will reach out to hundreds of students at a special oral argument
session from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at the
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, at Booth Auditorium,
2778 Bancroft Way, Berkeley.

The educational program is designed to improve public understanding of
state courts and is being held in collaboration with the School of Law.
Law students, university faculty and staff, and dozens of high school
and middle school students are expected to attend.

California Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Berkeley Law Dean
Christopher Edley, Jr., will make opening remarks, followed by a
question-and-answer session between law students and the justices.

LIVE TELEVISION BROADCAST

California Channel, a public affairs cable network, will broadcast oral
arguments in all five cases to be argued before the court. The network
reaches 6.5 million viewers across the state and will offer a satellite
link to facilitate coverage by other stations. There is no direct link to the webcast yet, but it will be available online at The California Channel under the ‘Live Web’ section, as well as on your local cable TV provider in CA.

11:00 a.m. (Pacific): People v. Kelly (Patrick K.) (and related habeas corpus matter), S164830 concerns the Legislature’s authority to impose quantity limitations on users of “medical marijuana.”

(more…)

The Other ‘L’ Word: Lying

Former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey “Lies” To Beat The Band About Cannabis…Then Again, What Else Is New?

In the media rush to cover the DOJ memo on the Obama administration’s redirecting federal law enforcement efforts away from arresting and prosecuting state compliant medical cannabis providers CNN’s Lou Dobbs interviewed former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey and Cato Institute’s Tim Lynch…

Checkout Tim’s on-point rebuttal of McCaffrey’s usual double-speak, and that of others like blogger Joe Campbell, who’ve simply called out McCaffrey as, in Mr. Campbell’s view, “a liar”.

Any long time observer of Mr. Caffrey’s m.o. when being interviewed is to tell some whoppers to an unquestioning media, but in these recent videos McCaffrey, again, wrongly claims that no one gets arrested for cannabis; no one goes to jail or prison for cannabis-related offenses; that he didn’t lose in the seminal case Conant vs McCaffrey; cannabis is de facto legal in the United States, etc…Geesh! I guess when the hundreds of cannabis consumers who call the toll-free number (888-67-NORML) or email NORML this week post arrest looking for legal information and assistance, we”ll just inform them, ‘Don’t you know, according to Barry McCaffrey, cannabis is de facto legal, and that you didn’t really get arrested.’

Makes one wonder how honest and credible McCaffrey has been for the last nine years as a paid, on-air military consultant for NBC News when his track record for anti-pot prevarications (I’m in DC…and therefore not suppose to use the word ‘lie’) are so obviously refuted. If he’d so obviously twist the truth about cannabis, would he mislead an audience or interviewer about America’s military and defense contractors?