One of the more discouraging arguments from pro-cannabis individuals on why they don't support and/or don't care about Proposition 19 is that it doesn't matter if we end cannabis prohibition in California, because California law has no effect on federal law or policy.
It's true that passing Proposition 19 won't directly change federal law. But that doesn't mean it won't have an effect. Obviously everything is pure speculation at this point, but here are some points worth considering.
The Federal Government Can't Maintain Its Factually Incorrect Policy Stances for Much Longer
At this moment, the federal government still refuses to recognize any legitimate medical use for marijuana by continuing to place on the DEA's Schedule I (drugs that are considered to have a serious safety risk, a high risk of abuse, and no medical application.) To give you a point of reference, among drugs on Schedule II (drugs with a risk of abuse but medical applications) are opiates (including laudanum), methamphetamine, and cocaine. In 2009, even the American Medical Association called for marijuana to be removed from Schedule I, citing evidence of therapeutic value and the extreme difficulty in conducting further research on cannabinoids and their effects while it is listed as a Schedule I substance. Since then, several studies have come out showing cannabis does not cause cancer, and may, in fact, slow or even reverse it. Other studies have shown it to have anti-inflammatory effects that are helpful in treating multiple sclerosis. It is no longer remotely arguable that marijuana has therapeutic applications.
The Federal Government Cannot Maintain Its Inconsistent Policies Concerning Marijuana Versus Tobacco and Alcohol
But let's be honest, medicinal use is a separate debate, and one that's being largely won as more and more states adopt medical marijuana laws in defiance of the federal government. What's really at stake here is personal freedom. Whether or not you yourself use marijuana, or, if you do, why you use it or how much you use it, there is an argument to be made that what you do to yourself, especially in the privacy of your home, is no one else's business, certainly not the government's. The same programs that teach our children outdated, inaccurate, biased, or outright false information about drugs also talk about the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes in particular have become drastically more taxed, restricted in where you can smoke them, and socially demonized over the last fifteen years. Note that although we tell our children that these are drugs too, these drugs are not on any schedule. They are used widely socially and recreationally under individual state law and supervision. No one pretends (anymore, anyway) that cigarettes or alcohol have medicinal or therapeutic benefits. The main criterion for appearing on the DEA's Schedule of controlled substances is "potential to abuse," and yet, two of the most arguably abused drugs in our country and the world are noticeably, suspiciously absent.
The States' Rights Component of California Versus the Feds Will Make Interesting Political Bedfellows
Should this Proposition pass in November, it could bring surprising political bedfellows from the political Right, considering the traditional conservative stance in favor of states' rights and less government . Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was among the dissenters on Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government's right to override individual states' medical marijuana laws. Many conservatives already believe the Commerce Clause has been too broadly interpreted to empower the feds with rights that should be reserved to the state or local governments.
Like Proposition 215 Fourteen Years Ago, This Could Be a Clarion Call to the Rest of the Country
If California successfully ends cannabis prohibition, and there is not a corresponding health and public safety catastrophe, the rest of the country will be less likely to continue to approve the spending of billions of dollars, the imprisoning of its youth, the trampling of its civil rights, and the violence caused by a massive black market constantly squaring off against law enforcement. Support for ending marijuana prohibition is growing in many places, not just California, and this may be the catalyst for a widespread demand for change. Politicians and policy makers may fear the specter of being labelled "soft on crime" less, in turn feel more emboldened to speak out against the failed policies of the war on drugs.
No comments:
Post a Comment