Marijuana Legalization: The Pay-Any-Price Principle

Share386

Marijuana Legalization: The Pay-Any-Price Principle

Saturday 10 April 2010

by: David Sirota, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: ilmungo / Flickr)

When choosing between frugality and security, history shows that America almost always selects the latter. To paraphrase President Kennedy, we'll pay any price and bear any burden to protect ourselves.

No doubt this was why the economic case against the Iraq invasion failed. To many, the war debate seemed to pose a binary question: debt or mushroom clouds? And when itís a scuffle between money arguments and security arguments (even dishonest security arguments), security wins every time.

Call this the Pay-Any-Price Principle -- an axiom that has impacted all of America's wars, and now, most poignantly, its War on Drugs. When faced with criticism of budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, law enforcement agencies and private prison interests have successfully depicted their cause as a willingness to pay any price to jail dealers of hard narcotics.

Of course, data undermine that story line. In 2008, the FBI reported that 82 percent of drug arrests were for possession -- not sales or manufacturing -- and almost half of those arrests were for marijuana, not hard drugs.

Fortunately, these numbers are seeping into the public consciousness. Gallup's latest survey shows record support for marijuana legalization, as more Americans see the Drug War for what it really is: an ideological and profit-making crusade by the Arrest-and-Incarceration Complex against a substance that is, according to most physicians, less toxic than alcohol.

Considering both the public opinion shift and the facts about marijuana, this should be the moment that drug policy reformers drop their budget attacks and flip the security argument on their opponents -- specifically, by pointing out how safety is actually compromised by the status quo.

The good news is that some activists are making this very case.

Last week, students at 80 colleges asked their schools to reduce penalties for marijuana possession so that they are no greater than penalties for alcohol possession. It's a request with safety in mind: According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, alcohol use by college kids contributes to roughly 1,700 deaths, 600,000 injuries and 97,000 sexual assaults every year. By contrast, "The use of marijuana itself has not been found to contribute to any deaths, there has never been a single fatal marijuana overdose in history (and) all objective research on marijuana has also concluded that it does not contribute to injuries, assaults, sexual abuse, or violent or aggressive behavior," as the group Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation notes.

"It's time we stop driving students to drink and let them make the rational, safer choice to use marijuana," said one student.

Now the bad news: Not every reformer is on message.

In California, where polls show most citizens support cannabis legalization, The New York Times reports that backers of a legalization ballot measure "will not dwell on assertions of marijuana's harmlessness" but "rather on (the) cold cash" pot can generate for depleted state coffers.

The problem is not these advocates' facts -- California officials confirm that legal marijuana could generate more than $1 billion in tax revenue. The problem goes back to the Pay-Any-Price Principle.

By downplaying the argument about giving society a safer alternative to alcohol, California's legalization advocates are letting drug warriors reclaim the language of security, to the point where even liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign now trumpets her opposition to the initiative on the grounds that "she shares the (safety) concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials."

A career politician, Boxer understands that if this battle reverts to the old tax-revenue-versus-safety fight, voters will choose safety. In other words, she gets the Pay-Any-Price Principle.

To maximize this opportune moment for drug policy changes, every reformer must appreciate that principle, too -- and finally confront it head on.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

Copyright 2010 Creators.com 

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

8diggsdigg   

»

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

Well Ms. Boxer is horribly

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 15:03 — TommyB (not verified)

Well Ms. Boxer is horribly misinformed and the legalization advocates really are missing a huge opportunity with the increased security to be had through legalization. The real security, as well as financial security, lies in the legalization of marijuana, and as counter intuitive as it may sound, the taxation and regulation of ALL drugs. These gangs and dealers are not fighting and killing over the drugs themselves, they're fighting over the enormous profits to be made when control of these substances is put squarely into their hands via an underground market. Remember Al Capone?Same thing.
I know I'm sounding like a broken record when it comes to TO articles regarding drug policy but anyone interested in an in-depth discussion/analysis of this issue should hear it from people who have actually lived this policy nightmare-check out L.E.A.P., Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. They know what they're talking about. Forget the politicians for a moment.

There is another, glaring

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 16:48 — Enku (not verified)

There is another, glaring security reason to support legalization.
The drug "cartels" in Mexico are destabilizing the entire Norther region of that country, which is a definite security threat to the US (not to mention human rights concerns of Mexicans, which US politicians don't seem to care about at all).
Prohibition leads to violence and undermines both "the border" and our security.
I agree with the commenter above - LEAP is a great resource.

It's obvious that in giving

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 18:08 — Anonymous (not verified)

It's obvious that in giving control of cannabis to criminals, the government has opted for an insecure approach that's also very expensive. The current approach guarantees violence because there is so much demand for the product. In this sense the Pay-Any-Price Principle is not rational. We're paying the maximum and not getting security, rather, the cartels are becoming like private militaries who will stop at nothing to deliver their goods. Can America get one thing right? It's too soon to tell.

The Pay-Any-Price Principle

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 18:14 — Brian (not verified)

The Pay-Any-Price Principle does not always hold. If it did, we'd already be spending more to fight global warming than we pay for military defense, because it is a much bigger threat, and the threat is much more likely to occur than another country invading the United States. In fact, the main argument of opponents seems to be that it will cost too much to fight global warming. Yet so far, the deniers are winning in this country - no climate change bill has yet become law.

But maybe that is because the way most people frame the issue, it is the fact that we are dependent on other nations for oil that is the big threat, when in reality, that is a tiny threat compared to the consequences of letting global warming get out of control. So politicians who want to fight global warming are missing the chance to use its true threat to our safety, just as the people trying to end prohibition in California.

The whole prohibition on

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 18:16 — Anonymous (not verified)

The whole prohibition on cannabis, I believe, has it's origins in eliminating competition for the US plastics industry, and perhaps the cotton industry. So American taxpayers have spent billions protecting the profits of Dupont and others, putting people away for decades to maintain the ruse of marijuana as a dangerous "gateway" drug. Perhaps by now the people who don't live in fear every second of the day can begin to see they've been duped again on behalf of corporate profits. I suppose once big employers move to offshore and outsource, there's really no reason for people to go along for the ride anymore.

Americans will benefit from

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 18:30 — Mg (not verified)

Americans will benefit from legalization of marijuana in other ways. Hemp uses vastly less water to cultivate than cotton, produces a fiber that is superior to cotton, and fixes nitrogen in the soil, unlike cotton. Also, hemp oil has many uses and is more nutritious than cottonseed oil. Currently America imports all such products, so their use is legal here, but we pay the most we can possibly pay. But this isn't the Pay-Any-Price-Principle as described. Rather, it's yet another taxpayer subsidy for the chemical and agri-business industries.

As far as marijuana is

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 19:16 — Anonymous (not verified)

As far as marijuana is concerned, I would say, legalize, regulate, and tax. It's also bound to give the economy in certain parts of the U.S. a needed boost, and if Mexico followed suit (though that's their choice not to), they would have more jobs for their own citizens, and get their violence better under control. I don't want a pot dealer living next door, I don't want to smell it at the park, I don't want in the schools, but I think these things can be dealt with through regulations and the same things that bring us smoke-free premises. It's like alcohol - though actually safer - and in Mexico, they're seeing a much worse than the U.S. ever saw under Capone and prohibition. Barbara Boxer's a good senator, but I think she's wrong, and even kind of surprised, given that she's in heave ho California where pot is their number one agricultural product.

More than 50% of our prison

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 19:21 — RoughAcres (not verified)

More than 50% of our prison population comes from drug offenders - 85+% of whom are convicted of simple possession.

It's big business, at $24K+ per head per year. Lots of shiny new prisons in sparsely populated states (boosts population numbers & reps. in Congress, too). Lots of shiny new prison jobs and construction jobs in sparsely populated states. Lots of law enforcement officer jobs in the cities.

Good luck reforming the laws.

Call the plant by its proper

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 19:58 — Adoregon (not verified)

Call the plant by its proper name. Cannabis.

The prohibition of cannabis is patently bogus.

Run this logic stream through your biocomputer:

For law to be just and for justice to be, both must be impartial.

The Controlled Substances Act is not impartial.
It prohibits cannabis while giving a free pass to alcohol and tobacco. Impartiality demands all substances be judged by identical scheduling criteria.

Alcohol, a substance potentially lethal in one sitting, is both legal and ubiquitous. Google alcohol poisoning deaths. So much for protecting public safety.

Cannabis is virtually non-toxic no matter how much you consume, yet it is prohibited and its users persecuted and prosecuted. It is flat-out safer than alcohol, tobacco and most pharmaceuticals.

How does current law and federal intransigence make any sense?

As is to be expected, the federal government, through the DEA, is protecting the turf of the corporate alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical pushers.

The freight train is coming and it's coming first to Cali.

To any law enforcement and elected officials who think cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol, I offer this modest challenge.

Let us meet at a mutually agreeable venue.
Let this meeting be televised.
Every three minutes I will consume a bong "hit" of the most potent organic sensimilla cannabis available.
Every three minutes my opponent will consume a "shot" of their choice of distilled alcohol (minimum 90 proof).
We will continue in this way for six hours.

I think this will demonstrate the safety of cannabis versus alcohol once and for all.

Any takers??????

Marijuana and Hemp are not

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 21:07 — Jaijaii (not verified)

Marijuana and Hemp are not the same thing, if smoked one gets you high and the other will not, unless you have a HUGE quantity. So, let's start with using Hemp in all the categories it can be of value, then we can consider the nice lady we love to call Mary. Let us take a look at the big picture, were already taking it slow when it comes to decisions of progress, let us at least take one small step for common sense and one giant step for the economy!

Interesting, we can legalize

Sat, 04/10/2010 - 23:43 — Anonymous (not verified)

Interesting, we can legalize drugs, tax the sales and balance the budget. Then just think of the budget surplus when we legalize child prostitution. Is that all it takes, an argument that its taxable and that's good for government budgets. I'm sure the statistics on injuries and deaths have been twisted a bit. A friend of mine in northern California killed himself and his daughter when he misjudged a turn and went off a hill. His wife was the only survivor and testified he was stoned when it happened. So lets all you junkies out there tell us nobody gets hurt on weed.

Federal marijuana

Sun, 04/11/2010 - 03:50 — Reverend Unruh (not verified)

Federal marijuana prohibition is a fully unconstitutional religious prohibition based on Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.

Here is a nice book on the history, I highly recommend it,

Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/abel.htm

Marijuana is completely harmless and a very useful medicine. From FOXN,

Are You Cannabis Deficient?
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/10/are-you-cannabis-deficient/

It is a states rights issue. From our constitution,

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

From my church,

Cultivation and enjoyment of Cannabis sacrament is a fundamental human right provided by God and protected by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is our opinion that Cannabis is the original sacrament of Hebrew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Rasta and more, and fulfills the prophesies to ‘raise up for them a plant of renown…’

http://www.thc-ministry.org/

Reverend Lauren Unruh
THC Ministry
Pleasant Hill, Ca

Just as the state regulates

Sun, 04/11/2010 - 03:55 — Sam DV (not verified)

Just as the state regulates drugs like pseudo ephedrine, so should it regulate marijuana. We trust the mechanism of the state to impede the purchase of large amounts of pseudo ephedrine, which can be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and we can trust it to impede the purchase of mass amounts of marijuana, which can be used in the manufacture of...wait what can you make with marijuana? Why isn't it already legal?

Excellent article, David!

Sun, 04/11/2010 - 15:13 — Roy B. Scherer (not verified)

Excellent article, David! Thanks.
We're up against well-entrenched ignorance and prejudice, carefully maintained by the Fed's decades-long propaganda campaign. Eventually, we'll win, but it's already taken way too long.

Hemp has nearly endless

Sun, 04/11/2010 - 22:45 — Anonymous (not verified)

Hemp has nearly endless possibilities as a cash crop, including paper, textiles, livestock feed, medicines, nutrition, body care and more. See
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html
and it's very easy to grow.

They won't legalize pot

Sun, 04/11/2010 - 22:51 — radline9 (not verified)

They won't legalize pot because there is too much money to be made while it is illegal, and the politicians in Washington get paid off to not legalize it. Also, pot raises your consciousness and politicians definitely can't have that.

"State Patrol Check Point

Tue, 04/13/2010 - 17:33 — Mary Jane LaVigne (not verified)

"State Patrol Check Point Ahead: Drug Dogs in Use" -A highway sign eastbound on I 80 just outside of Lincoln, Nebraska. What is happening here?

via truthout.org

Posted via web from Steve's posterous