The 420 holiday–by all appearances a national feast–got off to an early start here in MA with Extravaganja in Amherst over the weekend. Which is only fitting, since a recent headline in the Daily Collegian proclaimed that the “Marijuana Legalization Bill With Origins in the Pioneer Valley has Hearing on Beacon Hill.” Now that may have been easy to miss, what with all the hullaballoo over healthcare and casinos; but if you didn’t come across it, more’s  the pity, because it’s high time that the Green-Rainbow Party join the Libertarians and more than a few right-thinking Democrats in advocating total legalization of the kindly herb.

Crowd at Hempfest 2009, Boston Common, September 21 2009

Time to Align Ourselves on the Right Side of History

I’d love to see the party  go on the record…

in supporting the movement to “tax and regulate.” And I hope that each of our candidates will do the same.  The California Greens are standing foursquare in support of the referendum on the ballot on the west coast, and I was very pleased indeed to find a post from Dave at GreenChange this morning urging readers to flood the governor and other elected officials with statements supporting legalization.  Just as I was a few days ago when I read that the “Head of American Federation of Teachers Randi Weingarten supports legalizing pot”. She’s joined by Barney Frank. And by Democratic Jim Webb of Virginia. They’re hardly alone: “According to the poll by Angus-Reid Public Opinion , support for marijuana legalization now stands at 53% nationwide…. in May [2009], a Zogby poll reported support for legalization, taxation, and regulation of marijuana at 52% nationwide…. in the Angus-Reid poll, among Democrats marijuana legalization garnered 61% support, with 55% of independents agreeing, and even 43% of Republicans.” And this obviously ain’t just kids packing the bong–surprise, surprise–the elderly are catching the odd buzz themselves. And, golly–back in Califonia, ” Calif. suburban moms back legalizing marijuana, pollsters say.” Who knew?

Well, actually, pretty much all of us. I’m guessing that with very little effort, everyone reading this could easily cop a bag. Even if they have no idea just how easy it would be.  And if they don’t, their kids assuredly do, even if they never go near the stuff. It’s that ubiquitous. Meaning that prohibition isn’t just expensive as hell, results in serious jail time for those who grow what others enjoy, and creates out of an otherwise law-abiding segment of the population an entire class of outlaws; it has about as much of an effect as the papal ban on birth control.  Why perpetuate a farce?

The Failure of Leadership to Date, and the Opportunity for a Visionary Party and Candidates

But I won’t go into the arm’s-length catalog of reason for legalizing weed. It’s one of the very, very few issues–gay marriage is another–on which I feel that the preponderance of evidence and decency and plain common sense tilts so heavily to one side that discussion seems almost beyond the point–those opposed aren’t likely to swayed by argument, and so far as I’m concerned really have no freaking clue what’s going on beyond their front curb. But whether smart politicians and strategically-oriented political parties should take the lead on the issue is a real question; there are issues upon which discretion can be the better part of valor. But I’m more than comfortable in suggesting that publicly advocating wholesale legalization isn’t just the right thing to do, isn’t just the economically sensible thing to do–it’s the smart thing to do.

I think an editorial published in the Georgetown TownOnline sums up the moral obligation:

In Massachusetts, there is no expectation that the legislature will join the mix, as marijuana law reform has long been perceived as the third rail of politics: touch it and you’re dead. Why that perception endures after fully 65 percent of voters declared their support for decriminalization, representing 349 cities and towns out of 351, is baffling.

When politicians shrink from an issue, citizens must lead, as they proudly did in the abolition of slavery, ending the Vietnam war, and, in Massachusetts, with marijuana in 2008. By passing the initiative, voters not only protected families from unnecessary entanglement in the criminal justice system, and stopped wasting law enforcement resources, but legitimized debate on this subject…. Prohibition’s collapse is unstoppable. Preparing to replace it will be the test of leadership in the new decade.”

Additionally–it’s another point upon which a party and candidates can genuinely differentiate ourselves. Terry Francis makes the point that weed is in fact a very real issue on which people are looking for alternatives:

“But Coakley’s position on medical use of marijuana is not enough for voters like Franklin. With Coakley defeating Capuano (and fellow candidates Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca) in the December primary, reformers find their options limited, at least when it comes to the two major parties.

`At least on this one issue, drug policy reform, the two parties are offering us two negatives,’ Franklin told the Advocate recently. `With so many people complaining about the two- party system, it is surprising that more don’t vote for the alternatives offered by hard-working non- or third-party activists… I’m going with the alternative.” Northampton attorney Dick Evans, who drafted the bill, says that

“What baffles me about the Senate race is that all the Dem and Rep candidates pretended not to have noticed that the [decriminalization] initiative passed, only a year ago, by a margin of 65 to 35. Is that not a sufficient group of voters to appeal to?… What’s going on, I fear, is simply that politicians are spineless on this issue, so they hide behind a cloak of cluelessness. And it is a real cloak.For their entire adult lives, they have bought into prohibitionist doctrine, which blinds them to the most obvious truths, including the fact that, like it or not, [marijuana] is ineradicable. Any day now, a candidate will come along who will have not only the courage but the political instinct to reach out to those 65 percent of voters and earn their support,” he predicted.

Tapping a Fresh Audience

I suppose I need not point out that the kids aren’t exactly flocking to the barricades when it comes to any number of other issues covered on GMG. Hell, I wouldn’t have been at that age either–I had plenty more enticing things to chase than corporate money trails. Nor that the GRP looks way too much like me and not nearly enough like my kids. So what are they doing? What’s getting them off? I think I got an inkling at last autumn’s Hempfest here in Boston (slideshow here)–where I’ve never seen so many gathered at once.

Funny, too, that my son, a student at UMass, just finished paper on legalization. He randomly polled a few dozen students. 17 out of 20 favored legalization. They are our constituents. They are our future. Let’s be responsive.

There’s a ready and waiting audience out there for whoever’s willing to seize the day.

A Novel Case for Legalization: The Sustainable, Relocalization Effect

As for the bill that was the subject of debate in March–it’s rough, elementary, but the author says he wants to use it to get the discussion started. The advocacy team have plugged in their own arbitrary numbers–$2000 for a grower’s license, and weed to be taxed according to which of three levels of potency a given batch falls into. The sponsors highlight the obvious economic incentive–not that the moral, constitutional, and social benefits to ending this idiotic prohibition aren’t sufficient:

The bill’s selling point is potential tax revenues. It proposes levying $150-$250 per ounce of weed, depending on the THC potency, and would require growers to pay $2,500 and retailers to throw down $2,000 annually for state licenses. Massachusetts currently faces a $2.75 billion deficit for the 2011 budget. Richard Evans, MassCann’s attorney and the bill’s author, testified that, based on projected figures from California (which is also considering weed legalization for state budget purposes), legalization in Massachusetts would bring in $500 million in new revenue.

There’s also something about “import fees.” That caught my eye, because there is a downside to legalization. While a good deal of weed smoked in the United Sates is being grown by virtual slaves of hardcore cartel gangsters–who could be out of business with one “yea” vote in DC–there’s been a lot of effort expended by legitimate growers and sellers over the years–not to mention all the botanists developing such astonishing new strains. What happens to them? Writing in The Nation recently, Alexander Cockburn saw Humboldt Country laid to ruin as economies of scale allow the sun-soaked Mexican hillsides to swamp California with high-grade product of their own. Another article notes that  

The prospect of legalization has some Humboldt County growers so worried that an estimated 100 industry insiders met with community leaders last week to discuss the possibility of a “post-pot” economy. `The legalization of marijuana will be the single most devastating event in the work force on the North Coast,’ organizer Anna Hamilton reportedly said at the meeting. She estimates that the price of outdoor marijuana could drop to as little as $500 a pound and result in the loss of 15,000 to 30,000 jobs.

Massachusetts is however an entirely different story. With the right checks in place–prohibitive “import” fees, residency requirements for licensed growers–MA could easily supply its own wants… and keep it in house. (Around here, indoor growing has traditionally been the preferred and more lucrative method, but once farmers don’t have to worry about being spotted, there’s no reason hardier strains can’t be cultivated through the summer months). Since federal statues would still apply the risks of transporting weed across the country will render out-of-state weed more expensive, even taking into account tax stamps. Of course, this is just one option. Another? Keep the revenooers out of it altogether! I’m not yet certain what the ideal plan is, but I’d much rather see us start planning for the inevitable than having the same old dreary arguments about legalization. It’s here, it’s everywhere, and it’s woven into the very fabric of contemporary culture. The question isn’t “if”–it’s when and how.

You want to save money on stupid prosecution and make money taxing what is already an extremely widespread and sophisticated business sector basking in its tax-exempt status? Take organized crime out of the picture? Protect the citizenry’s right to privacy? Create jobs?

You want a sustainable, genuinely local economy—and a test case for creating one from scratch? Here’s your issue.

And here’s Peter Tosh.