Marijuana Gaining Acceptance Everywhere But White House
By Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
While there is a constant buzz of cannabis law reform these days in America, largely at the local and state level, unfortunately these strong winds of change do not largely penetrate the Capital Beltway.
This is made clear in a candid interview with Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Deputy Director Tom McLellan in the November 15 edition of The New Republic’s webpage. In a blunt and critical tone, McLellan is interviewed by University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack for an informative TNR series entitled The Treatment.
While reasonable people can reasonably differ, what personally vexes me is that Mr. McLellan, a longtime veteran of government-provided addiction treatment services (mainly at the Veterans Administration for an astounding 27 years), clearly has an immense compassion, sense of service and commitment to helping his fellow humans who’ve become addicted to drugs find a path back to sobriety and functionality, which is a professional field of public health that I respect immensely. However, I’m terribly disappointed by what appears to be Mr. McLellan’s political tin ear on the subject of cannabis law reform–notably his disdain for patients having legal access to medical cannabis.
I commend NORML supporters to read the entire Treatment interview, below is the applicable excerpt where cannabis is discussed:
Marijuana use, medical and otherwise
Pollack: …. California does a medical marijuana ballot initiative, to take a random example. States do things that are contrary to the general tenure of the policy of this office and maybe to federal policy at large. Attorney General Holder has basically said: “California has made a decision. We’ve got scarce resources, and we’re not going to get in the way of that.”… How do you negotiate that federal/state set of issues?
McLellan: A very tough question. I’m still very new at this. And I don’t speak entirely for the office, so I’ll give you my personal reactions. In the narrow scope of things, the idea of being judicious about the use of your federal prosecutorial resources is first of all the Attorney General’s call and second of all probably smart. You’ve got a rapist and a marijuana user. Who are you going to go after? OK.
But, I’m disappointed that it was done with such drama, and that ONDCP and DoJ did not better-coordinate the policy’s release and answer questions about it side by side. For the first 3 or 4 days, the policy was spun in the media as a stalking horse for legalization and political activists claimed it meant all these things that it didn’t. That happened in part because we didn’t have a clear, coordinated message across the government. This administration, certainly including ONDCP and the Department of Justice, opposes marijuana legalization and believes that it’s worth it to try to reduce availability of marijuana. Normally we work well together on that and a bunch of other issues. We just didn’t work very well together on this one, in my opinion.
The issue of marijuana has been interestingly framed by legalization activists. It’s been framed as, “Marijuana’s not bad for you. In fact, it’s really medically good for certain people.” That was extremely cleverly done, because we could debate that all day long with existing evidence. How bad is marijuana? Is it as bad as alcohol? Does it even have some medical benefits for people that have nausea or glaucoma and all that?
Well, that’s not what’s at issue. What’s at issue is: there are efforts being made to increase the availability, and thus the use, the penetration if you will, of marijuana use. In order to show that availability expansion efforts are sensible and that we should reverse policies and laws and everything else, it seems to me the argument to be proven is, “It’s good for you.” That should be the standard, rather than “Marijuana’s not that bad.” Name for me another substance that you would say, “It’s not that bad, so let’s reverse state laws. Let’s increase availability to a product that really is targeted to young people.” For that, you should have to prove that it’s genuinely good, not just “not that bad”.
And our position is very simple on this, and I think, frankly, you can’t refute it. Marijuana is not good for you. You have to get that one exactly right. I didn’t say, “Marijuana’s not that bad.“ I said, “Marijuana’s not good for you.” And more people using marijuana is not good for society. And I believe these to be facts, by the way….
It is possible to reduce availability, not eliminate, but reduce availability. It’s already been done. It is possible to prevent abuse of marijuana, and it’s possible treat marijuana and other drug addictions. If you do those things, you have a better socially functioning society.
The other artful thing that’s been done by advocates about marijuana is that it has been pitched on one side of the base, “You know, marijuana’s not that bad for you. OK? And by the way, the only alternative to legalization is mass incarceration, which is really bad and it’s really expensive and all that.”
It’s a beautifully crafted, misleading argument. Our argument’s entirely different. Nobody wants mass incarceration of marijuana users. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph–what a waste of money that is. But, marijuana’s not good for you. So we need policies that keep marijuana illegal, are sensible, and that reduce availability and use of marijuana. And those policies–unlike the current legalize and tax proposals being floated –could generate revenue for the public. A city or state could generate a lot of revenue through fines for marijuana users.
Pollack: In my own public health work, I don’t really do that much with marijuana. It’s striking to me that marijuana is such a touchstone of drug policy debate.
McLellan: It’s the center of the universe. Yeah (laughs). With all the really serious problems that we’ve got facing us–prescription drug use probably among the top, and you know, name the other drugs, why we’re spending this time on this nonsense about medical marijuana and legalization. It’s the damnest thing to me. I can’t get over it. It’s almost as though there were a contingent of people out there really eager to keep it at the front of the newspapers. Well, it isn’t us. We don’t want it there.
Pollack: There’s a culture war in which marijuana is one of the key fronts.
McLellan: People make a living debating this on stage. You know? That’s hard for me to believe, that there’s a living to be made going around debating about marijuana’s benefits and why you ought to legalize drugs and crap like that. It’s just like a silly discussion to me.
Well….A few personal observations:
-- Mr. McLellan certainly is ‘old school’ when it comes to endorsing the existing drug war dynamic that when his fellow citizens use illegal drugs to ’save’ them they are best arrested and drawn into the criminal justice system;
-- Like his predecessors at ONDCP, notably former drug czars McCaffrey and Walters, McLellan mocks medical cannabis and the public’s mass acceptance of it as one of the choices that a physician and patient can employ as a safe, non-toxic medicine;
-- Mr. McLellan claims that the current administration does not want to necessarily incarcerate cannabis consumers en mass (how charitable!);
-- Mr. McLellan appears genuinely amazed if not chagrined that there are citizens who exist that disagree with the prohibition of cannabis; that there are actual organizations of citizen-stakeholders advocating for alternatives to the self-evidently failed status quo of cannabis prohibition, complaining that some ‘make a career’ of advocating for obviously needed policy changes.
I suggest Mr. McLellan pause for a moment, look around his ONDCP office, and fully realize that he, and tens or thousands of anti-drug bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel employed by the federal government (ie, ONDCP, DEA, NIDA, Customs, TSA, Border Patrols, VA, SAMSHA, NDIC, EPIC; and hundreds of government organs funded by the taxpayers, like CADCA, NFIA and Partnership for a Drug-Free America) are careerists as well….However, unlike reformers, who employ privately donated dollars (maybe $15-$20 million donated in total to all drug policy reform groups annually), Mr. McLellan and his other career prohibitionists employ tens of billions annually of taxpayer’s money.
Calling the kettle black does not get one far in Washington, DC.
-- Maybe most disturbing, and a notion I’ve never heard advanced before by any drug policy official or law enforcement representative, Mr. McLellan believes that there is to be more revenue collected by arresting nearly a million cannabis consumers a year than by actually taxing the commercial cultivation, sales and consumption of cannabis (and of course the windfall enjoyed by society when billions of taxpayer dollars are no longer wasted annually trying to enforce a clearly unenforceable prohibition via mass arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations and probation services).
NORML supporters and cannabis law reform advocates in general need to realize that while there is a discernible cannabis law reform zeitgeist these days to be sure, unfortunately, existing at the top of government management charts, are government employees who are still very resistant to any real degree of cannabis law reform, and who favor arresting cannabis consumers en mass rather than taxing them like the consumers of alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical products.
Ugh.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
As a national organization which is supposed to provide a service to the American people in exchange for tax money , the DEA has instead proven itself to be just one more example of government self-perpetuation. In my lifetime, about half a century, I have never seen a single government agency proclaim itself to be obsolete or at the very least, voluntarily reduce funding. What we get instead is an entity that exists solely to exist. In the face of mounting evidence that Cannabis Sativa has enormous potential to alleviate human suffering, the DEA steadfastly refuses to budge even one iota in its antiquated claims that marijuana should remain a schedule 1 drug with no medicinal use. I have personal experience with this barbaric system, having been incarcerated and forced to endure an uncaring legal system because I chose to use natures medicine instead of a pharmaceutical. I suffer from daily debilitating pain in my leg muscles and have been on doctor prescribed hydrocodone and other pain medications for years. Long term use of these drugs can damage your liver, so after several years of this, I chose what I considered a safer alternative. It worked just fine and was actually cheaper, even at black market prices, until I was caught with a small amount (fortunately a misdemeanor) and had to pay a large price to keep my freedom. Now, I have been branded a criminal for trying to alleviate my pain. Does anyone see a problem with this? It is my right to decide what goes into my system and no one, government or otherwise, should be able to tell me different. I take 2 to 4 pain pills a day (and one acid reflux pill) so I can function. The cost of these drugs is quite high and I know they are not good for me but I have no other choice. I have read how the AMA recently reversed its position and even when a consortium of thousands of doctors endorses this natural medicine, the DEA steadfastly refuses to change their stance. This is disgusting. It is so obvious to everyone they are only looking out for themselves. Why aren't they ashamed?
Recently I saw a picture of a large bale of cannabis hanging from a helicopter in California. What you don't see is the fact they are raining seeds down from the air as they transport it over our forests. Next year, when there are even more plants on the ground I am sure it will be the cartels or some other group that will be blamed for the increase. Give me a break please.
Signed,
I am not a criminal.
Now I have heard everything.
Mr McLellan says: "...it seems to me the argument to be proven is, “It’s good for you.” That should be the standard, rather than “Marijuana’s not that bad.” Name for me another substance that you would say, “It’s not that bad, so..."
Ok, how about McDonald's cheeseburgers and cokes? ...no one in their right mind would say that McDonald's cheeseburgers and cokes are "good" for you. So, let's make them illegal ! ...after all, the overwhelming evidence states that eating such food can indeed lead to all kinds of health complications as well as an early death. If we did that, then Mr McLellan's follow-up premise would make sense and could interchangeably be stated as:
'I didn't say, “McDonald's cheeseburgers and cokes are not that bad.“ I said, “McDonald's cheeseburgers and cokes are not good for you.” And more people using McDonald's cheeseburgers and cokes is not good for society . And I believe these to be facts..."'
Yes indeed Mr McLellan, you are right -- McDonald's cheeseburgers and cokes are NOT good for society! That is a fact. But it is also a fact that the fast food industry has lobbyists with Congress in their pocket and a ton of money at stake. Same with Marijuana -- bureaucrats with a vested interest (ie, ONDCP, DEA, NIDA, Customs, TSA, Border Patrols, VA, SAMSHA, NDIC, EPIC; and hundreds of government organizations funded by the taxpayers, like CADCA, NFIA and Partnership for a Drug-Free America) in maintaining status quo and "careerists" like Mr McLellan who continue to throw up horsepucky reasons to sustain their paychecks by maintaining a senseless prohibition while presenting faulty logic as "fact" in order to justify it.
Quote: "A city or state could generate a lot of revenue through fines for marijuana users." and "Mr. McLellan believes that there is to be more revenue collected by arresting nearly a million cannabis consumers a year than by actually taxing the commercial cultivation, sales and consumption of cannabis"... If it is taxed, even though it will generate mountains more money than it will through civil fines, there is no gurantee the money will go to law enforcement. So they will never be for eliminating a law that gurantees a source of revenue for law enforcement.
The only message marijuana prohibition has sent to me is that our Government is bereft of reason, and as such, lacks credibility. These laws are rooted in intolerance, racism and religious bigotry.
This all stems from the Temparance groups of a century ago. Take a good look at the photos from the time - and face it: If you saw that bunch coming up the road in Fallujah, you'd call in an airstrike to kill it with fire faster than you could spit...
C- Sativa is a fast growing plant that needs little fertilizer or pesticide. As a source of fibre for paper production, or fuel, or fodder it would be unsurpassed by anyother plant. We can by material and paper made from the plant, but cannot grow it in this country. However even scientific research into this plant is illegal .
C- Indica is the "recreational" version of the plant, and is a multi-billion dollar crop, both in street value, and "prohibition". What would this clown do without the demand for that? Prohibition of tabacco would make more sense, and people wouldn't pay 200 $ for a baggy of that stuff.
What is of most concern is his faith in the "fact that it is bad", something a catholic told him?
Let me remark on one short section, as spoken by Mr. McLellan, "it seems to me the argument to be proven is, “It’s good for you.” That should be the standard, rather than “Marijuana’s not that bad.” Name for me another substance that you would say, “It’s not that bad, so let’s reverse state laws."
I don't think we need to prove that marijuana is good for us, though I believe that it is in many ways. He defends this argument by asking us "What other substance...It's not that bad, so let's reverse the laws?" Well, that is what is so unique about the marijuana laws, which are very strict, without ever having proven any significant harm. If say, playing tennis were a felony, we'd have another example!
Tennis DOES cause demonstrable harm (muscle soreness and strains, joint problems (!), falls which sometimes cause broken bones, sunburn, skin cancer , the expense, the time "wasted" playing, etc.). Now if it were illegal , would we need to do more than show that it "isn't that bad, and so the laws should be changed?" I say the state must show EGREGIOUS harm, in excess of that caused by many other common human activities, which frequently cause more harm. I could, perhaps, accept the prohibition of marijuana if every similarly harmful/harmless activity and substance were similarly prohibited. In other words, to rationally prohibit marijuana, we'd have to also prohibit tobacco , alcohol , tennis, roller blades, ice skating, bike riding, swimming, surfing, motorcycles, sugar, hotdogs, butter, cream, football , baseball , dancing etc., to name just a few, all of which demonstrably cause far more harm, including (in many cases) many more deaths than marijuana. Those activities have redeeming benefits ? Well, so does marijuana.
It really makes me sick that so many with a huge vested interest in maintaining prohibition simply parrot anti-drug dogma (the creative ones try to come up with new dogma), with as little regard for the scientific facts as the Pope! In fact they demand that you take what they tell you on faith! Every issue has at least two sides, but these guys don't even recognize that there is another side, because if they did, they'd have to admit to certain facts which contradict their claims, which would not stand the test.
The fact is that science shows that marijuana causes very little harm of any kind, and no serious harms. It does not cause any serious problems with health or highway safety, and it does not cause "anti-motivational syndrome," nor is it a "gateway drug," either. If the state cannot show that marijuana causes any serious harm, to be consistent, it would need to prohibit almost everything we do, because almost everything we do causes some harm, and frequently far more harm than marijuana. Marijuana is among the LEAST harmful things that people do.
We don't need to prove that playing poker, or Monopoly, football, watching TV, or laying on the beach is good for us - to justify doing them - these things are all just fun, without doing much harm, and that is enough. No one demands that we prove these things are "good for us," before being permitted to engage in them. No, that they are enjoyable and do little harm is enough. And so any rational person must agree is the case with marijuana.
If the drug warriors must create a whole separate set of stricter standards for making marijuana legal , which excludes everything else which causes much greater harm, they don't have a leg to stand on.
if they could tax it.it would be legal they dont care about the americans.just their money if they could get rich off it it would be sold at any convience center and store just like cigaretts.i dont smoke pot or cigaretts.but i dont think its as bad as most of these quack doctors are prescribing their patients.alot of these drugs the doctors are prescribing are far more stronger than pot.thats just my opinion.
I agree with the position of McClennan on marijuana as I don't believe marijuana is good for the individual or society . His analysis of the arguments by the legalization lobby is very clear and perceptive. As it says, the drug mainly targeted to young people and consumed by young people, and is particularly not good for young people, especially for their health and education , and it would still be illegal for young people, but legalization sends the wrong message. Alcohol and tobacco are still used much more by young people because they are legal for adults, and legalizing marijuana would increase use of a drug that is not good for them.
When he suggests fines as an alternative for revenue collecting, it does not mean that more could not be collected from legalization, but money is not everything. The harm to society is the primary consideration. The cost of treatment for addiction and health costs have to be weighed with revenue costs. To draw a comparison, millions of speeding tickets (around 66 million) are issued each year to otherwise law -abiding citizens who are caught driving over the speed limit. We don't have a lobby arguing to raise the speed limits because the war on speed has failed, and law enforcement are paid to catch speeders (which is often where marijuana users are caught as well). The speed limits are beneficial even if they are widely broken, and the fines for the tickets generate revenue. Raising the fines for marijuana use could generate revenue and lead to more treatment, so it is a direct response to the misleading argument of the lobby that so many are being incarcerated for marijuana possession, when that is not happening. Adults can pay a fine (tax), generate revenue for the state, but the message that marijuana is not good for you still applies.
There was a time when the Federal government impossed draconian speed limits on the interstate highway system. There were also intense efforts to have those rules abolished. The people won that fight.
I am not certain where you live but in my home state of Florida an adult can very easily go to prison for simple possesion of marijuana .They also face a mandatory 1 year suspension of driving privilege even if the offence did not involve driving.
For people who desire a substance for recreational use marijuana is by far the least destructive and I feel that legalisation would benefit society in a reduction of the abuse of other substances ( alcohol and prescription drugs )
Sugar, red meat and a host of other socially accepted poisons put into their bodies are not good for them. Should they be put in jail also?
The latest "addiction" statistics are at less than 10% of the people that use marijuana ,and the level would remain constant with legalization because it is a mental addiction,not a physical one.
The "treatments" you speak of are for what? The only people that seek treatment for marijuana addiction are the ones ordered by courts to seek it,or job requirements because they failed a piss test. If marijuana was legalized,most of today's "treatment" patients wouldn't exist.
Only 11% of the people arrested for marijuana are arrested for trafficking,sale,or cultivation,the other 89% are in for simple possession.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2009/11/chart-of-the-day /
There is the link where you can see the statistics for yourself.
Lynn,the man is protecting his rice bowl spewing his crap,and
he is required by congressional mandate to do so.regardless if he is telling the truth or giving factual statistics.
He notes that people are making a living advocating for legalization,well,he makes his living advocating prohibition. And if marijuana is legalized,his bureaucratic empire loses 1/2 their budget ,because over 1/2 their budget is used fighting legalization,
interdiction and arresting pot smokers.
The fact that marijuana advocates will be out of a job when they succeed also should give you a hint as to which of the two sides is most likely to win. Advocates for legalization are working out of sheer enthusiasm for their goal,while prohibitionists are working to keep kining their pockets with the drug war funds.