This is a three-part series on the Cannabis Community Controversy. Part 1 (Infighting in the Cannabis Community) was published on Sunday, January 8; Part 2 (Finding Common Ground) was published on Monday, January 9; and Part 3 (How We “Win” the War on Drugs) is published here. Subscribe if you would like notification emailed to you whenever articles are published by Jennifer Alexander.
HOW WE WIN THE “WAR” ON DRUGS
By establishing common ground, we can succeed at reforming these marijuana laws that criminalize marijuana users for any reason. To start with, we should start calling ourselves anti-prohibitionists instead of “medical marijuana advocates” or “legalizers.” We should be aware that we have created a false separation in our goal of ending prohibition by fighting for very specific causes, instead of fighting against prohibition overall. Realistically, the group of those that supports ending prohibition is much larger than any one group, logically-speaking; yet our solutions are going to vary greatly among us. What we need to do is convince the roughly 50% of prohibitionists that what they support (prohibition) has failed.
If alternative solutions proposed by other anti-prohibitionists conflict with our personal agenda, we would do far better to focus on the shared ground (ending prohibition) that we agree on, and submitting alternatives to the public when appropriate, but supporting it nonetheless. Often, politicians support an issue, while expressing their reservations and concerns. They know that issues continually evolve, and by remaining firm in their ultimate goals, they can always propose improvements and amendments. Or in the worst case scenarios, where we find we cannot endorse an effort, even with reservations, we could abstain from responding to avoid the appearance of a lack of support for the overall goal of ending prohibition.
While I am not in the state of Washington, and therefore won’t have the opportunity to vote on I-502, I encourage all those who support ending marijuana prohibition to support this initiative and vote yes on it. I do so with great reservation, and for me, I am far more concerned about the continued prohibition on home gardens than I am on the DUID provisions. I also believe that the DUID provisions are concerning and could result in potential fallout for both patients and regular users alike, since many factors affect THC levels in the blood, especially regularity of use. But I honestly feel that the political message sent by “ending marijuana prohibition in Washington” impacts over 300 million Americans nationwide. We need a resounding “YES!” to get the ball rolling nationwide, even if that is on flawed legislation. The first “win” for alcohol repeal was amending the Volstead Act to allow a low-content beer of only 3.2%, while retaining the prohibition on higher content beer and keeping the 18th Amendment in effect. This was certainly not the “win” that most proponents wanted, but it was definitely celebrated and quickened the repeal of the 18th Amendment less than a year later.
It doesn’t even matter if the federal government puts an injunction on the implementation of the law, or honestly if the law has negative consequences in its passage. The message across the nation will have future impacts that will resonate nationally when the news is that Washington is the first state to end marijuana prohibition. When Prop. 19 was submitted for the ballot, it instigated a national discussion even in formerly un-friendly states such as Indiana, where one Senator proposed a bill to reevaluate marijuana policy, including considering medical marijuana or even legalization through taxation and regulation. The bill passed, and the study is ongoing. There can be no doubt that passage of even a flawed measure will result in similar reconsideration of the laws nationwide.
BEING PROACTIVE, NOT REACTIVE
We need to quit worrying about how others on “our side” may or may not be affecting our individual arguments – that is a reactive position to take. It presumes that the “other side” is ultimately in control of the discussion, and that we must individually adapt to fit into that discussion. We won’t win if that is how we pursue our goals – our opponents don’t all share the same individual interests either, but they share the same cause, prohibition, and they stay focused on it from their diverse perspectives. We have to avoid speaking the prohibitionists' divisive language that defines us apart from one another, as legalizers, medical marijuana proponents, and industrial hemp advocates. Instead, we are anti-prohibitionists, fighting for the repeal of marijuana laws.
HOW WE PHRASE THE DISCUSSION AS ANTI-PROHIBITIONISTS
Some examples of how this might look:
- The legalizer for personal use: End marijuana prohibition, because marijuana users should not go to jail for their use of marijuana. Marijuana prohibition harms our children by making marijuana more accessible, and costs our nation billions of dollars that could be spent on other more important matters.
- If asked if he supports medical marijuana, he supports ending prohibition for all marijuana users, and medical marijuana users surely fall into the category of “all.”
- The medical marijuana advocate: End marijuana prohibition, because medical marijuana users should not be penalized for their choice in medicine. Marijuana prohibition harms our patients by preventing sound scientific studies to be done on the benefits of marijuana, and obstructs patients from accessing marijuana to meet their medical needs.
- If asked if he supports legalizing marijuana, he supports ending prohibition of marijuana so that patients can have access to both marijuana and sound science on the benefits, and ultimately that will only happen when marijuana prohibition is ended.
- The industrial hemp advocate: End marijuana prohibition, because industrial hemp provides alternatives to the fuel industry, the plastics industry and the construction industries – just to name a few. Marijuana prohibition harms our society by forbidding our farmers from utilizing this crop in their rotation, which improves the health of the soil and reduces their need for harmful pesticides and fertilizers. Marijuana prohibition ensures that American consumers are not able to access inexpensive, durable alternatives to cotton.
- If asked if he supports medical use or legalizing marijuana for all use, he supports ending prohibition so that producers and consumers of industrial hemp products can have access, and obviously hemp will remain illegal until marijuana prohibition ends.
And so on and so forth. When questioned about a policy that we have reservations or concerns over, instead of attacking the policy and creating division, simply state that there are different strategies advocated for ending marijuana prohibition, but that we are unified in that goal and we will continue to pursue policies that meet our constituents’ needs until we are all satisfied with the results. Ideally, this will occur in a single initiative or bill, but realistically, it is likely to come through a series of legislative changes over time. The most important message currently is convincing the public that it is time to end marijuana prohibition.
By rebranding ourselves as “Anti-prohibitionists”, we can stand together with the diverse community that share this goal of ending prohibition – without the division inherent in the various perspectives of how to craft life after prohibition. At the end of alcohol prohibition, there were those who were fighting just to have a few beers after a long day who were united with those who had previously worked to prohibit alcohol, such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement, both fighting for the shared goal of ending alcohol prohibition. Obviously, the motivation for each group in ending prohibition was quite diverse, and even opposing in many cases, but by finding the common ground, alcohol prohibition was quickly recognized as a failure and repealed.
It is time that we, in the marijuana movement, find that same common ground, and identify ourselves as anti-prohibitionists - the one area we all agree: marijuana prohibition must end. In this way, all of the various perspectives are no longer conflicting with one another, but instead providing even more support for why prohibition must end.
Comments