The New Republic Calls for Marijuana Legalization
Jacob Sullum | August 26, 2005, 10:40am
The drug policy scholar Harry Levine has done some digging in The New Republic's new online archive and uncovered evidence that liberals used to get upset about marijuana arrests. For those of us who have become accustomed to a New Republic whose editors are at best indifferent to the injustices perpetrated in the name of a Drug-Free Society, even as annual marijuana arrests have reached record levels, these reminders of a time when they cared about such things are poignant. Below are a few samples, but the articles are worth reading in full.
From an April 1967 article by John Sanford: "The worst thing that can happen to a person who smokes pot is prison, not addiction. The worst thing about marijuana is the laws against it, which should be repealed."
From a May 1967 editorial, headlined "The Indecent Society": "After 30 years of federal antipot legislation, and 10 years after federal penalties were raised to ferocious levels, no one has shown that marijuana is more hazardous than martinis."
From a June 1967 editorial, headlined "Keep Off the Grass?": "The federal Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and state laws patterned after it should be repealed, pot reclassified as nonnarcotic, penalties for possession and sale imposed by the federal Narcotic Control Act of 1956 removed. That, at least, would be a start."
From a November 1970 article by John Kaplan: "Although the present debate over the safety of marijuana is important, the forest of alleged facts should not obscure the question whether or not it should be legalized....The pertinent question here is whether the harm done by a drug approximates the harm done by laws attempting to suppress it....For those who do not appreciate the harm the marijuana laws are doing, misinformation about the drug's dangers makes the resolution of the social policy issue that much more difficult. Exaggerated warnings, rather than convincing people to lay off, feed a growing cynicism about authoritative statements."
saw-whet | August 26, 2005, 1:26pm | #
OK, this is a long post and probably worth skipping. (I skip almost all long posts.) Sorry for the length.
Anyway, yeah, I remember when things changed, around 1975. Young people began to realize that they really weren't liberals at all. Being a liberal at that time meant uncritically standing up for the little guy and his causes and getting the government to pay for it. You know, Welfare, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Civil Rights (OK, a noble cause), Native American Land Claims, Boycotting Grapes or was it lettuce. Nope, they weren't liberal, just compassionate.
And I saw my friends, one by one, joining the Assembly of God church and becoming suburban child raisers.
The term 'Liberal' really hasn't changed, at least not to me. I run into them every now and then. They're usually Black social activists, main causes: urban homesteading and removing the scourge of drugs from their inner city neighborhoods.
Nope, what changed is their cherished belief system and lifestyle that still really isn't theirs but that they uncritically accept because...well, I guess it's different for each person. My point is that my generation is remarkable for its avoidance of individual examination, substitution of followership for reason and general lack of good ol' pellucidity. (There, I got it in.)
1970: Liberals have fun; they get laid and get high, or at least attempt to. 1990: Conservatives have money; they own big houses and are secure, or at least that's what they aspire to.
My generation: one-time alternative lifestyle seekers now supporters of marijuana prohibition and tough penalties. Believer's Chapel, SUVs and Rush Limbaugh. Blech!
But yeah, liberals don't support legalization. This isn't the last time I say it: don't hold your breath, it ain't gonna be legal in our lifetimes.
ME | August 27, 2005, 3:24am | #
Attention all drug warriors,anti-legalisationists, and people who say "Maybe we could loosen up on pot but the hard drugs must be banished from society" (so mostly just John)
NOW HEAR THIS (or actually read this)
I shall make the following proposal to address your objections. Such objections are made on grounds of:
Fear-of-harm-to-people-other-than-informed-consenting-adults arguements:
-"children will have easier access"
-"the cost of a habit to an addict is crippling and people will commit crime to support their habits"
-"Some people will drive while intoxicated from these substances and they will pose a threat to others"
-"I think these substances have a mystical power to turn people into mindless violent maniacs like those zombies in
Dawn of the Dead who will roam the earth and kill us all. The DEA told me so."
- Miscelaneous concerns regaurding informed consent, production hazards, etc.
Paternalistic arguements:
-"We should protect people from their own informed decisions to do unhealthy stuff"
Focusing on the first kind of objection, I propose the followong for "hard drugs":
Centers for legal use of hard drugs shall be established. A person who wants to use such drugs recreationally could enter after showing proof that he/she is at least 18. Upon entering the person shall sign a consent form to the effect that he/she shall be restrained from leaving during a time while he/she has a drug-induced increased propensity for violence. The person would also give up his/her car keys before entering and not get them back while he or she is too intoxicated to drive. Also the person would not be allowed to take the drugs out with him/her.
The person could then go to the vendor selling his or her drug of preference (I imagine them as heroin bars, ecstacy clubs, cocaine cafes, etc). Before entering the vendor, the user would be given detailed information about the drug and its effects and consent to assume the risks involved.
Private vendors would lease out space in this facility and compete with eachother in the normal way. This competition, and the fact that sellers would not have to incur extra costs avoiding law enforcement, would make the price of drugs low enough so virtually all users could support their habits with non-criminal activity. The rent paid by vendors would pay for security and maintence of the center. Somewhere within this closed off area there would be a medical facillity to handle overdoses.
Also:
- No more "drug war exception to the bill of rights"
- If someone commits a crime and it seems somehow drug-use-related, make that person get help in eliminating or controlling his/her drug use
in addition to the normal penalty imposed for that crime.
- Repeal manditory minimums for drug crimes.
- Enforce laws against use outside the center (assuming they must still exist) solely or primarily by undercover operations with cops posing as buyers or sellers (though very few would buy illegally under this system anyway). No more Plan-Columbia-type operations.
I am going to go to sleep now; and when I wake up, if anyone has noticed and commented on this post, I'll see what people think of the Bruce Compromise system. Sorry for the ridiculously long post.
