Oh My High
09-08-2007, 02:14 AM
For all that stoners gripe about the politics of marijuana, for all the nihilism about marijuana "will never be legal", there is usually one fact which eludes consideration: marijuana can be legalized. I don't believe in the cotton industry conspiracy theory and I don't believe the police are against marijuana for the reason its prohibition gives them lots of money, but that's another discussion. I do believe change is possible and that right now may be an unique moment in political history.
For starters, politics is a weird beast in such that minority opinions often hold majority opinions hostage. Like the NRA with gun control. Most people are not single-issue voters and so they don't particularly care when a candidate votes on an issue which they don't harbor strong feelings. I like gun control but if someone votes for gun control, great, but that doesn't get them my vote. However, special interest groups like the NRA will rally the troops and come out in DROVES to block a candidate who votes for gun control. So, even though the majority favors gun control, the small minority of anti-gun control supporters win. Arguably, the same thing happens with marijuana. The vast majority of people support its legalization but are mostly apathetic and so the small minority of church-attending religious freaks come together to overwhelm any pro-marijuana candidates. (It has been said that the irony of democracy is special interest groups are precisely what makes democracy not work).
I may be wrong, but I do believe the political atmosphere is ripe for marijuana to make significant advances forward in legalization.
1. The Democrats will win the 2008 election. They took over both houses of Congress in 2006 and right now is not a good time to be a Republican. Bush, jr. has been arguably the worst president in American history, for too long, which leaves it politically impossible for any Republican candidate to win. In fact, I heard in the news media that polls suggest Democrats express much higher satisfaction with their choices of candidates than Republicans whom have a rather gloomy opinion of theirs. Not only will a Democrat be elected president but I think Democrats will pick up some more seats, continuing the trend from 2006.
2. Every Democratic candidate is on the record for supporting stopping the federal raids on medical marijuana patients. The level of support varies between candidates but nonetheless it's all on the positive. This suggests medical marijuana may possibly be an unofficial national platform issue. Most notably, Hillary Clinton is the front-runner and she actually voted to end the raids, so it's reasonable to guess she may be serious. (Obama, on the other hand, said it's a "low priority"). I don't think it's a stretch to assume supporting stopping the raids is predictive of supporting medical research of marijuana. (Except for Ron Paul, Republican candidates almost universally oppose marijuana as basically the work of the devil.)
3. If I have my history correct, when marijuana was banned very few people knew it existed and even less people smoked it. It wasn't until the 1950's when its popularity grew and restrictions were rather lax; thus, during the 1960's hippies openly smoked weed on college campuses and at Woodstock. Then came Reefer Madness and the 1980's "War On Drugs." Hard drugs were perceived to have been at "epidemic levels" and of course poor little Mary Jane got shafted. My point is there was an over-reaction and as with many over-reactions there may be a subsequent correction taking place. This is demonstrated by the growing trend for states to legalize medical marijuana and municipalities to decriminalize minor possession, and the American Medical Association advocating smokeless marijuana delivery systems should be developed (American Medical Association -- Medical Marijuana ProCon.org (http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosOrg/AMA.htm)). In a way, it's like the gay movement: it's still tough but now easier to be out of the closet. As I said earlier about minorities controlling majorities, the minority is hopefully shrinking.
4. Professor Craker won his lawsuit against the DEA to allow him to grow experiment-grade weed for other researchers. It's now up to the DEA to either accept the decision, reject it, or wait for a long time. From my understanding, if they reject it they must provide clear legal reasoning which outweighs the affirmative decision. I believe the DEA knew they had no legal basis when they first got Craker's application, as they first "lost" it, then denied it because the re-application was a photocopy, then waited years to deny the re-re-application, then presented weak arguments during the lawsuit. If the DEA does reject, Craker can still appeal through the courts and that would take several more years, unfortunately.
But that would complete the Perfect Storm, if the lawsuit can remain alive in the appeals process long enough for an administration change. The ironic good news is it's been seven months since Craker won his lawsuit and so the DEA is probably waiting until Bush is about to leave office to make their decision. They know, legally speaking, they're fucked. But the longer they wait, the less time the lawsuit would spend in the appeals process under an unfavorable administration.
This is all speculation but it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. ;)
For starters, politics is a weird beast in such that minority opinions often hold majority opinions hostage. Like the NRA with gun control. Most people are not single-issue voters and so they don't particularly care when a candidate votes on an issue which they don't harbor strong feelings. I like gun control but if someone votes for gun control, great, but that doesn't get them my vote. However, special interest groups like the NRA will rally the troops and come out in DROVES to block a candidate who votes for gun control. So, even though the majority favors gun control, the small minority of anti-gun control supporters win. Arguably, the same thing happens with marijuana. The vast majority of people support its legalization but are mostly apathetic and so the small minority of church-attending religious freaks come together to overwhelm any pro-marijuana candidates. (It has been said that the irony of democracy is special interest groups are precisely what makes democracy not work).
I may be wrong, but I do believe the political atmosphere is ripe for marijuana to make significant advances forward in legalization.
1. The Democrats will win the 2008 election. They took over both houses of Congress in 2006 and right now is not a good time to be a Republican. Bush, jr. has been arguably the worst president in American history, for too long, which leaves it politically impossible for any Republican candidate to win. In fact, I heard in the news media that polls suggest Democrats express much higher satisfaction with their choices of candidates than Republicans whom have a rather gloomy opinion of theirs. Not only will a Democrat be elected president but I think Democrats will pick up some more seats, continuing the trend from 2006.
2. Every Democratic candidate is on the record for supporting stopping the federal raids on medical marijuana patients. The level of support varies between candidates but nonetheless it's all on the positive. This suggests medical marijuana may possibly be an unofficial national platform issue. Most notably, Hillary Clinton is the front-runner and she actually voted to end the raids, so it's reasonable to guess she may be serious. (Obama, on the other hand, said it's a "low priority"). I don't think it's a stretch to assume supporting stopping the raids is predictive of supporting medical research of marijuana. (Except for Ron Paul, Republican candidates almost universally oppose marijuana as basically the work of the devil.)
3. If I have my history correct, when marijuana was banned very few people knew it existed and even less people smoked it. It wasn't until the 1950's when its popularity grew and restrictions were rather lax; thus, during the 1960's hippies openly smoked weed on college campuses and at Woodstock. Then came Reefer Madness and the 1980's "War On Drugs." Hard drugs were perceived to have been at "epidemic levels" and of course poor little Mary Jane got shafted. My point is there was an over-reaction and as with many over-reactions there may be a subsequent correction taking place. This is demonstrated by the growing trend for states to legalize medical marijuana and municipalities to decriminalize minor possession, and the American Medical Association advocating smokeless marijuana delivery systems should be developed (American Medical Association -- Medical Marijuana ProCon.org (http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosOrg/AMA.htm)). In a way, it's like the gay movement: it's still tough but now easier to be out of the closet. As I said earlier about minorities controlling majorities, the minority is hopefully shrinking.
4. Professor Craker won his lawsuit against the DEA to allow him to grow experiment-grade weed for other researchers. It's now up to the DEA to either accept the decision, reject it, or wait for a long time. From my understanding, if they reject it they must provide clear legal reasoning which outweighs the affirmative decision. I believe the DEA knew they had no legal basis when they first got Craker's application, as they first "lost" it, then denied it because the re-application was a photocopy, then waited years to deny the re-re-application, then presented weak arguments during the lawsuit. If the DEA does reject, Craker can still appeal through the courts and that would take several more years, unfortunately.
But that would complete the Perfect Storm, if the lawsuit can remain alive in the appeals process long enough for an administration change. The ironic good news is it's been seven months since Craker won his lawsuit and so the DEA is probably waiting until Bush is about to leave office to make their decision. They know, legally speaking, they're fucked. But the longer they wait, the less time the lawsuit would spend in the appeals process under an unfavorable administration.
This is all speculation but it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. ;)