Yeah, I’ve already come out on this issue. But I’d really like ALL of our candidates to come out swinging for the fences when it comes to legalization. Not simply because it makes sense economically, nor because it’s the right thing to do, or even simply because prohibition (and fines) is a total freaking joke that continues to screw kids–like mine, again, goddamnitall–but because it makes sense politically.
Here’s an excerpt from a short article by Josh Green, writing in The Atlantic under the heading, “Do Marijuana Ballot Initiatives Help Democrats Win?”:
Acting on a tip from an Obama official, I found a few Democratic consultants who have become convinced that ballot initiatives legalizing marijuana, like the one Californians will vote on in November, actually help Democrats in the same way that gay marriage bans were supposed to have helped Republicans. They are similarly popular, with medical marijuana having passed in 14 states (and the District of Columbia) where it has appeared on the ballot. In a recent poll, 56 percent of Californians said they favor the upcoming initiative to legalize and tax pot.
The idea that this helps Democrats is based on the demographic profile of who shows up to vote for marijuana initiatives–and wouldn’t show up otherwise. “If you look at who turns out to vote for marijuana,” says Jim Merlino, a consultant in Colorado, which passed initiatives in 2000 and 2006, “they’re generally under 35. And young people tend to vote Democratic.” This influx of new voters, he believes, helps Democrats up and down the ticket.”
Key line, which I’ll repeat over and again: “the demographic profile of who shows up to vote for marijuana initiatives–and wouldn’t show up otherwise. You know, the ones who haven’t exactly been flocking to the GRP…
For goddsakes, let’s not let the Dems reap the advantage on this. We need to be VOCAL.
#
But with my saying that, positions on renewable energy, worker’s rights, public transportation, reforms for democracy, the war (how state politics interacts with it), and other stuff I can’t think of right now, should be up there.
My guess is that some of the hesitation around legalization for the campaigns has to do with how it can fit in and strengthen the basic message and the relevant talking points.
Paraphrasing what I think is the overall message:
Beacon Hill is corrupt. Corporations and special interests rule the day. We have crises in joblessness, with our broken budget, and in our failing healthcare system that pay-to-play Beacon Hill refuses to deal with. Their answer is casinos, which will not solve our problems and actually worsen our jobs and budget situation. If we combine green jobs initiatives and shift to a Medicare for All healthcare system we can create good wage and secure jobs while improving our health and getting control of our budget.
So marijuana might not gel with the health thing (smoking isn’t healthy!?), and if its talked about from the jobs and revenue angle, some may ask, “Why are you against casinos and not marijuana? Shouldn’t we be free do both, even if neither is intrinsically good for people?”.
Some legalization advocates try too hard by making it sound as if marijuana could solve all our problems, from taxes, to jobs, to health, etc. Not the message I think we should adopt.
We can talk about it as a justice and fairness issue, which is kind of what the overall campaign message is about anyway. Legalize marijuana because its not fair to waste money on harassing and imprisoning people for victimless crimes. Current policies empower drug gangs rather than communities and discriminate against minorities and the poor. Law enforcement ought to be putting their time and resources into lowering violent crime and going after white collar criminals who more seriously impact our quality of life.
When talking about it as a jobs/revenue issue we don’t have to say its some magic solution, but just a part of an overall program of creating local jobs and generating a source of revenue for health/jobs/community development.
Then there’s talking about it from a freedom perspective, which is probably the most difficult given the current message. Free to smoke but not to gamble? And this angle is probably what convinces most young people.
Here’s my crack at it, for all of our issues: People who have economic security, who are not subject to the financial whims of others, who have a real say and political voice, are truly free and independent. When people can express themselves how they wish and experience life in the way they see fit, we have a more free and diverse society. Gambling has serious social costs, and creates indebtedness, whereas marijuana has less serious social costs (even greater ones under prohibition) and ought to be available to people safe and legally.
#
Well, I’d love to see something on the GRP Issues page–I wouldn’t want it associated with the candidates per se, however, without each of their expressed approval. But consider this a request for them to endorse, at least the concept–because I believe that current MA bills in support of medical weed AND legalizing weed are seriously flawed, and the situation in Oakland–which just authorized industrial-scale pot farms–actually worries me. But WE can be the party that actually develops a serious plan for legalization that protects small growers, distributors, and ensured locally-monitored production–AND local revenues. It isn’t evey day that you get to start a whole new industry off on the RIGHT foot (which I don’t think California is). And, yes, consider my signing on to volunteer to do just that. Wanna help?
As for health–well, you know the stats on alcohol vs weed-related sickness and death each year. (I don’t suppose the fact that I haven’t seen a doc in two decades is at all relevant. I know, anecdotal evidence actually isn’t. but still.) (In re the harm of ingesting a hit or two of smoke–well, maybe I’m after the wrong substance. You don’t smoke shrooms….hmmmm).
As for these two questions:
My answer is: I’m not, and yes.
I’m NOT against casinos and for marijuana. Precisely because that WOULD represent a contradiction in my culturally-libertarian mind. There’s a hell of a lot I disapprove of in my countrypeople’s behavior, but that doesn’t give me the right to restrict it in any way. I’m no Savonarola.
It’s not my prerogative nor that of politicians to tell people what’s “good for them”–or, at least, to create legislation based on the same. I’m a grown man with children and grandchildren of my own, thank you–I’ll decide what I want to do with my dollars and my body. Educate me, by all means, give me what you can to assist me in making an informed decision (but please don’t cherry pick your evidence–whether it comes to weed OR casinos!)–but don’t tell me that any consensual act between two adults, from playing blackjack to copping a blunt, is subject to someone else’s idea of what’s “good for me.” I don’t want to live in a damn nanny state.
I extend the same rights and courtesies to gamblers that I expect them to extend to those who enjoy the kindly herb. (Or wine. Or sitting around all day eating potato chips and swigging HFCS). It ain’t my job–nor that of a political party–to transform consciousness or culture. I just want to get some folks elected or be able to be able to create a bloc capable of introducing or influencing legislation.I’m not wise enough for anything more, and I haven’t met anyone yet who is. Politicians who preach frighten me.
My position: Free to smoke and free to gamble. If you have a contradiction here, well, that’s YOUR contradiction. I can’t resolve it for ya. But let’s not sacrifice the rights of potsmokers because it would seem to contradict another “message.”
#
I was exploring the rhetoric and messaging for campaigns that are already underway, rather than the merits and reasons for marijuana legalization by itself.
The possible “contradictions” are held by the GRP campaigns, not me.
Here’s what I actually think. (Now I am going to start to sound like a ideologue rather than a pragmatic strategist of electoral politics.)
I am a social anarchist and anti-authoritarian at heart. I cannot say no to people taking chances with their personal possessions. But asking me what I think of casinos is almost like asking me what I think of people being free to be anorexic. Sure, I suppose it ultimately ought not be prohibited by the state, its within a person’s right to do what they want with their body and/or personal possessions. I just do not think its something with much positive, productive or creative possiblities; or has a compelling connection to forms of systemtic oppression which I think urgently need to be fought.
(Its frequency however might suggest that our social arrangments are unjust and restrictive, they’re coping mechanisms to deal with an insane society.)
Casinos are a political issue because incumbent politicians in Massachusetts do not want to raise revenue with taxes or cut out subsidies and tax breaks for powerful interests (they are willing to cut money from basic services on the other hand). What I can oppose is the state sponsoring, protecting, and explicitly endorsing a private entity having a monopoly on gambling which depends on fleecing the poor and creating a class of problem gamblers to exist as a profit making enterprise. (What of the lottery then? Well its non-profit at least, but I don’t think it should be relied upon as a regular and consistent part of the budget, thats what progressive taxation is for)
Marijuana legalization does touch on a serious systematic oppression, the racist and authoritarian drug war that is used as an excuse to coerce, incarcerate, and disempower whole classes of people and communities. Fuck that shit. And there are too many obvious productive and creative things that come out of marijuana, and its constitution lends itself to more decentralized and anti-statist means of distribution.
#
Marijuana Legalization: this Green-Rainbow Party candidate is for it.
It’s time for marijuana to be legalized, removed from the black market so that production and trade can be regulated and taxed similarly to the manner in which alcohol is made available to consumers. Let’s allow our communities’ entrepreneurs to apply for licenses so that they may expand their business and profit from the sale of marijuana and related paraphernalia, and let’s collect fair and reasonable excise taxes on it.
I invite readers who arrived this page directly from my web site to follow the postings and conversation that precede my comment on this thread, particularly the discussion about whether a position like mine, being in favor of marijuana legalization, is inconsistent with opposition to casino development. I have stated previously that I am opposed to the casino development proposals in Massachusetts and remain so. This opposition is grounded in the belief that casinos result in net job loss and that as tax revenue sources they are regressive. I have no problem with anyone who wants to gamble, but large big-business casino development is community busting and is a lousy basis for a jobs and tax policy.
I hope the discussion continues; I’m happy to be on record in support of marijuana legalization. When elected to represent the 4th Berkshire District I will advocate for it. Those interested in learning more about the issue can visit the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition at http://www.masscann.org.