Pot Stories for the Soul, page 5
Lenny’s Last Laugh
Fifty years ago, Lenny Bruce predicted: “Pot will be legal in ten years. Why? Because in this audience probably every other one of you knows a law student who smokes pot, who will become a senator, who will legalize it to protect himself. But then no one will smoke it anymore. You’ll see.” But Lenny’s premature ejaculation could finally become a reality in November 2010, when California voters consider ballot initiative Proposition 19 to legalize and tax marijuana for personal use.
California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano—who introduced a similar bill, not only to address the state’s economic crisis, but also to begin a discussion about how best to regulate its largest cash crop at $14 billion a year—is optimistic. He told me,This is landing in the hottest places. Milton Friedman and all these conservative economists and The Wall Street Journal said this needs to be done. There’s a big libertarian streak here, too. So it might be the perfect storm: a political will, bipartisan, populist, economic concerns, and the feds are lightening up. The best scenario would be, make it a states’ rights issue.
“Ah, yes,” I observed, “‘states’ rights—it’s not just for racists anymore.”
The State Board of Equalization estimates that the bill’s proposed $50-per-ounce sales tax could raise $1.3 billion a year. It’s a matter of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Nevertheless, lame duck Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said it’s “time for debate” on whether the state should legalize and tax the sale of, well, a weed. And that debate is now in full swing, with utterly strange bedfellows on both sides.
For example, here’s what loose-cannon reactionary Glenn Beck has to say about it:It’s about time we legalize marijuana. We have to make a choice in this country. We either put people who are smoking marijuana behind bars or we regulate it. This little game we’re playing in the middle is not helping us, it is not helping Mexico, and it is causing massive violence on our southern border. We need to—how can I say this?—do something or get off the pot.
That sounds a lot like NORML’s stance:While NORML supports cannabis medicalization and decriminalization efforts, we also recognize that these efforts fall woefully short for many Americans. The only way to fully protect our citizens from abhorrent police raids is through the legalization and regulation of marijuana for all adults.
Conversely, in Humboldt County, where the entire economy depends on the sale of their only cash crop—superb weed—growers were actually displaying KEEP POT ILLEGAL bumper stickers, concerned that legalization would drive down prices. Rumors abounded about corporate cannabis copyrights, that Philip Morris and other firms were buying acres and acres of cropland, and that Wal-Mart was on the bandwagon to sell yet another product for mass consumption. Bloggers predicted that tobacco companies would crush small farmers if the legalize-and-tax-pot initiative passed.
“If residents don’t act,” local radio host Anna Hamilton warned, “we’re going to be ruined.”
Not surprisingly, John Lovell, a lobbyist for the California Narcotics Officers Association—whose members wouldn’t benefit from having fewer people to arrest—rationalizes that “we have alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals. Why on earth would any sane person want to add another mind-altering substance to the available legal array?”
Surprisingly, Dennis Peron—coauthor of California’s Proposition 215, which legalized the use of medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation—is opposed to legalizing “recreational” use. Reciting a startling litany of medical uses for marijuana, he told me, “By definition, marijuana provides efficacy to such a broad spectrum of human maladies and conditions, from anxiety to heart disease, that one can safely say all marijuana is medical.” Thus, recreational use is a myth, and passing Ammiano’s bill or the ballot initiative would perpetuate that myth.
Peron had other reasons for his opposition to Proposition 19:It’s too restrictive. Only a five-by-five area can be cultivated, which would increase the cost of marijuana. It makes a whole new class of criminals by creating a felony for smoking with and/or furnishing marijuana to minors, including eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds. Not to mention the tax of $50 an ounce will make the product prohibitively expensive, and the taxes will be used to prosecute people.
Meanwhile, activists in two other states were also proposing pro-pot initiatives. Neither campaign would obtain enough signatures to qualify. Phillip Dawdy, coauthor of the Washington initiative, explained:This state has a “single subject rule” for initiatives, and it’s very strictly applied by the courts. So, literally, all we could do was just end criminal penalties to a straight repeal of all criminal penalties connected with marijuana, for adults eighteen and over. Since we’re not doing any taxation and regulation in our initiative, it would be kind of difficult for the feds to come in and argue federal preemption to anything we’re doing because all we’re doing is repealing state [criminal] laws; we’re not talking about the federal government and any of their laws. In the conservative eastern half of the state, marijuana legalization polled at 52 percent in favor, in an area that sends Republicans to Congress and to the legislature. It’s a cross-cultural thing, a cross-racial thing, a cross-class thing. We’re finally in the view.
And Paul Stanford, primary author of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, envisioned taking legalization one step further, agreeing with my position that there should be amnesty for anyone convicted of possessing or growing marijuana. He told me,We did look at the amnesty provision. We found that it made us lose about 15 percent of the vote. There were polls that 15 percent is crucial to being able to win. As a past marijuana felon myself, I would like nothing better than to let our people pretty much go and grow, but politically it’s just not going to fly right now at the same time. So that clause is not in there: “Get out of jail.” But hopefully, once it’s legal, then the parole boards of all different prisons will look at it in a different light.
Leland Cole, leader of the International Cannabis Clemency Project, asks this rhetorical question: “Do you really think you can legalize marijuana for some, while others remain on the inside, without making any provisions for those that have lost their liberty?” Furthermore, he points out, “Most of the people presently being held for cannabis charges in California are from one racial minority group or another, or are of poor economic status, or both. No equal protection there. This is a federal civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen.”
I may be slightly jaded, but I was shocked that 15 percent of Oregon citizens who support legalizing pot would hold such an illogical and unjust antiamnesty position—thereby allowing simple compassion to go right down the drain—as though people should no longer be arrested for pot, yet it’s okay to leave behind all those who are already living in cages.
America’s puritanical political process serves as a buffer between the status quo and the force of evolution. For instance, in order to get Republican votes for the children’s health care bill, Democrats agreed to fund $28 million to the Republican abstinence-only sex-education program.
Also, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama admitted, in the context of health care reform, that the multinational insurance conglomeration is so firmly entrenched that he would be unable to dispense with it. And so there would have to be compromises. Now, amnesty is the single-payer system of marijuana reform, and growing your own pot with no reservations is the public option.
Nationally, between 1990 and 2005, there have been more than 7,200,000 marijuana-related arrests. One out of every eighteen felony convictions resulted from pot busts. In California alone, 70 percent of the 150,000 state prisoners are currently serving time for drug-related convictions. With that in mind, I decided to return to Tom Ammiano for a follow-up. He assured me,While I understand the desire to have the initiative provide clemency for marijuana convictions, it simply cannot accomplish everything that people want.
Undoing the damage of thirty years of the war on drugs will take more than one ballot initiative. Sentencing reform is an integral part of that, and it is crucial that those in the movement see the forest through the trees. The initiative is simply the next step in the struggle for a rational public policy towards marijuana, but it will not be the last.
Meanwhile, a report by the American Bar Association’s Law Student Division claims that “chronic use of marijuana allows the user to block out pain, frustration, and confusion. The THC affects the brain’s pleasure center, providing the illusion of feeling good.” What the fuck were they smoking?
Obviously, these were not the same law students that Lenny Bruce had in mind.
A Letter to Barack Obama
Since California’s Proposition 19 was defeated, the bottom line remains, as so eloquently put by author/activist Harvey Wasserman: “[Here’s] the simple truth about America’s marijuana prohibition: Any law that allows the easy incarceration of any citizen any time those in power want to do it is the ultimate enemy of democracy. With eight hundred thousand annual arrests over an herb used by tens of millions of Americans, it is the cornerstone of a police state.”
Shortly before the midterm election in 2010, I wrote the following letter to Barack Obama, and a journalist friend faxed a copy directly to him:It seems that the theme emanating from the White House is “Eat, Pray, Be Disappointed.” And yet, whenever I feel disappointed, I always realize that the alternative was John McCain, with Sarah Palin just one Halloween “Boo!” away from the presidency, and then I always feel a sense of relief. But you promised to end the raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. They haven’t stopped.
[In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memo ordering an end to federal raids of medical marijuana dispensaries. In March 2011, there were twenty-eight such raids in twenty-four hours.]
Bob Woodward writes in Obama’s Wars about Colin Powell’s status as an adviser to you. Powell has finally changed his mind about gays in the military. As a stand-up satirist, I used to conduct an imaginary dialogue with him: “General Powell, you’re the first African American to be head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and you come from the tradition of a military family. So you know that blacks were once segregated in the army because the other soldiers might feel uncomfortable if blacks slept in the same barracks. And now that’s what they say about gays, that other soldiers might feel uncomfortable about gays sleeping in the same barracks.” “Well,” he replied, “you have to understand, we never told anybody we were black.”
And, Mr. President, that was the forerunner of the same “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that you promised to rescind, only you haven’t been acting like a commander in chief. Those who serve in the military are trained to follow orders. If they can follow orders to kill fellow humans, they can certainly follow orders to treat openly gay service people with total equality.
Not only is the current guideline counterproductive, but also this display of trickle-down immorality must, on some level of consciousness, serve as a contributing factor to enabling the antigay bullying and torturing of innocent victims. The ultimate irony is that gays in the military are fighting, being maimed, and dying unnecessarily, supposedly to protect the freedom their own country is denying them . . .
Gay rights and marijuana-smokers’ rights are both constitutional civil rights. Yet, Attorney General Holder—having been pressured by nine former DEA chiefs, plus the president of Mexico—warned that if Proposition 19 was passed, the federal government would not look the other way, as it has done with medical marijuana. Holder (who had refused to prosecute the Bush administration for promulgating torture) explained:Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens. We will vigorously enforce the [law] against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture, or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law.
In a truly free society, the distinction of whether marijuana is used for medical or recreational purposes would be as irrelevant an excuse for discrimination as whether the sexual preference of gays and lesbians is innate or a matter of choice.
Newt’s Noxious Nuttiness
What do Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich have in common? They were both pot-smokers.
“When I was a kid, I inhaled frequently,” Obama said. “That was the point.”
Gingrich said, “That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era.”
What else do Obama and Gingrich have in common? They have both flip-flopped on the issue of medical marijuana.
In 2011, the Obama administration issued a memo approving federal prosecution of anyone in the business of growing or supplying marijuana for medical patients and ordering the Justice Department to crack down on dispensaries even if they complied with state law.
But Obama had promised in 2008 that he would let states set their own policies. Could this change of position possibly be related to the fact that during his presidential campaign he received $2.1 million from pharmaceutical companies, many of which develop synthetic marijuana products?
In 1991, then-Congressman Gingrich introduced pro-medical-marijuana legislation. In 2011, he changed his position.
“What has changed is the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior,” Gingrich explained, adding that Americans who need medical marijuana will simply have to cope with the inconvenience of debilitating pain and nausea.
“[My] supporters,” he continued, “were prepared to say as a matter of value, it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug. It’s a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill, I withdrew it.”
Mixing political pandering with drug control is an established practice in the fear-mongering disinformation business. In 1998, an antidrug booklet with a foreword by Senator Orrin Hatch informed parents that among the warning signs their children are using marijuana or other drugs is “excessive preoccupation with social causes, race relations, environmental issues, etc.”
That same year in Mississippi, anyone found guilty of possessing marijuana for any reason could face the removal of a limb if proposed legislation became law. Then-Congressman Bobby Moak (R-Lincoln County) introduced a bill, which authorized “the removal of a body part in lieu of other sentences imposed by the court for violations of the Controlled Substances Law.”
Keith Stroup, then-executive director of NORML, called the measure “political posturing at its most extreme. This is a truly barbaric proposal that shocks the conscience.”
A provision in the bill mandated that a convicted person and the court “must agree on which body part shall be removed.” Yes, you would have been required to choose between sacrificing an arm or a leg. And even that seems humane in comparison to Newt Gingrich’s sponsorship of federal bill H R 41, which would require the death penalty for individuals convicted of importing illegal drugs into the United States—including marijuana. Capital punishment could conceivably apply to someone who imported more than fifty grams of pot. That’s less than two ounces.
And yet, in 1981, Gingrich introduced a bill that sought “to provide for the therapeutic use of marijuana in situations involving life-threatening illnesses or sense-threatening illnesses and to provide adequate supplies of marijuana for such use.” In 1982, he wrote the following passionate letter to The Journal of the American Medical Association:The American Medical Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs should be commended for its report, “Marijuana: Its Health Hazards and Therapeutic Potential.” Not only does the report outline evidence of marijuana’s potential harms, but it distinguishes this concern from the legitimate issue of marijuana’s important medical benefits. All too often the hysteria that attends public debate over marijuana’s social abuse compromises a clear appreciation for this critical distinction.
Since 1978, thirty-two states have abandoned the federal prohibition to recognize legislatively marijuana’s important medical properties. Federal law, however, continues to define marijuana as a drug “with no accepted medical use,” and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures.
On September 16, 1981, Representative Stewart McKinney and I introduced legislation designed to end bureaucratic interference in the use of marijuana as a medicant.
We believe licensed physicians are competent to employ marijuana, and patients have a right to obtain marijuana legally, under medical supervision, from a regulated source. The medical prohibition does not prevent seriously ill patients from employing marijuana; it simply deprives them of medical supervision and denies them access to a regulated medical substance. Physicians are often forced to choose between their ethical responsibilities to the patient and their legal liabilities to federal bureaucrats.
Representative McKinney and I hope the Council will take a close and careful look at this issue. Federal policies do not reflect a factual or balanced assessment of marijuana’s use as a medicant. The Council, by thoroughly investigating the available materials, might well discover that its own assessment of marijuana’s therapeutic value has, in the past, been more than slightly shaded by federal policies that are less than neutral.
