Over at Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington asks the question that most MSM seem to prefer to ignore, but has lost none of its relevance , urgency, or impact on the daily lives of Americans[ though the Boy King does help keep the war fatigue levels high enough to distract some]. Why aren't the Dem frontrunners bringing up the failed War on Drugs, already denounced by individuals all over the political spectrum(even the right) including William Buckley and Milton Friedman.
Huffington calls the silence on the issue a "disconnect" since the Democratic primary candidates are courting the black/Latino vote, but saying little about an issue that hits home for those communities. There are many ethical as well as political and economic reasons for us to change course in the War on Drugs. Given the strong national desire for new policies, we haven't heard what those policies could be from the candidates.
My interest , besides highlighting Huffington's post, was to take on the pro-prohibition frames contained in an example of an establishment institution, the WSJ Editorial Page.
Before we enter a discussion that involves framing issues, let's be sure to define the terms discussed; in this case, the War on Drugs is a linguistic term that has substitutes including, but not limited to, the War on Cannabis and the War on Minorities. Since all pro-Drug War arguments are incapable of acknowledging that fact, they simply continue to use misinformation/bigotry to attempt to frame their (losing) position in terms of "crime" and "morality", as well as the classic binary 'legality' argument: x is wrong because x is illegal. In more religious districts, the logic can be taken one step further without much dissent: if x is illegal, then x is also immoral, so anyone who commits action 'x' is immoral and a criminal. Thus, the debate degenerates into the lowest common denominator if the pro-Drug War mouthpiece is lucky. After decades of this game, it's wearing thin on the American population.
So let's reference the WSj featured editorial linked to in Huffington's blog entry..
To be sure, Mr. Friedman wasn't the only critic. William Buckley's National Review declared a decade ago that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war, bolstering its case with testimony from the likes of Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif. But today discussion of the war's depressing cost-benefit ratio is being mainly conducted in the blogosphere, where the tone is predominantly libertarian. In the broader polity, support for the great Nixon crusade remains sufficiently strong to discourage effective counterattacks.
To this I would add LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), which has worked to publicly counter DEA spin/talking-points on the War on Drugs, as well as NORML, MPP, and many others, of course. But the editorialist makes the correct observation that the blogosphere is reporting much more factual information regarding this policy failure than the MSM. Unfortunately, he goes on to parrot the talking-point that the American people support some sort of Nixonian crusade. Well, to cut to the chase, there are lots of prison contractors, employees, DEA employees, Sheriff Departments, and firms in the prison-industrial complex that rely on taxpayer dollars.....but I wouldn't go so far as to call them the "broader polity". Instead, I'd call them useless bureaucracy. Economists would call the amount of money spent on this entire morass a 'welfare-loss'.
To be fair to the English language, as well as the Zogby poll I linked to earlier, it is important here that we emphatically debunk this idea of a "broader polity" that wants to imprison every black person that possesses personal amounts of cannabis in their home, because that's essentially what the Nixonian vision was: the extreme. It equated cannabis with heroin, and to this day even still tries to, laughable as the result may be. The WSJ editorialist attempts to make the stealthier pro-Prohibition argument that was chosen as a new 'framing' after the reefer madness 'framing' began failing miserably in 60s-70s. Let me show you how he does it
To be precise, the question should be do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?
A large percentage of Americans will probably say no, mainly because they are law-abiding people who maintain high moral and ethical standards and don't want to surrender to a small minority that flouts the laws, whether in the ghettos of Washington D.C. or Beverly Hills salons.
So in order to enact cannabis reform, a potential medicine, we are required to accept the legal sales of drugs like meth? No thanks, pal. I consider those who clamor for legal sales of meth (ahem..ted haggard?) to be immoral, whereas there is nothing inherently immoral about supporting the reform of laws that outlaw a medicine/recreational herb. It's really that simple- cannabis reform does not need the 'poison pill' of any supplemental drug policy reform. By debunking that silly idea/smear, I think progressives can lead on this issue, with the support of libertarians who may or may not eventually realize that only cannabis/hemp are priorities for declassification under the Controlled Substances Act.
Ah, the binary logic of the Prohibitionist...too simple for even economists like Milton Friedman to accept when it comes to analysis of an issue that requires more than a military solution. And when I say military, I refer to the individuals and tactics used by DEA/law enforcement personnel that enforce these draconian laws. These include military-style raids on legal cannabis Medicinal dispensaries in LA County(in addition to the illegal one) and everyday tragedies and losses of rights, like the grandmother shot in her home in Atlanta, GA.
Back to the whole point of the diary, in case you were starting to wonder if I forgot what it was : let's hear some arguments from the candidates themselves, give some support to the grassroots via leadership, and take on cannabis reform for many good reasons. Dkos user xxdr zombiexx said it here in this diary best: cannabis reform is an umbrella issue, not a wedge issue. Let's not cede this ground to the rethugs anymore. They've been holding their ground with bad arguments for too long now.
I'll follow the WSJ editorialist's lead and disclaim that I am a cannabis user, under the guidelines established according to California Proposition 215 and Senate Bill SB 420. Unlike the WSJ editorialist, I do not think that "beer before dinner is sufficient to my mind-bending needs". I choose to not drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes/cannabis due to health reasons, instead choosing to vaporize/eat any cannabis consumed. End of disclaimer.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS AN AWARENESS DIARY
This isn't meant to pit Dems against each other, but point out that leadership is needed on the issue, as grassroots support continues to build.
DISCLAIMER #2: In previous dkos comments, I have praised Gov. Richardson for quietly working to help push through a stalled bill in New Mexico that will legalize a medicinal cannabis program, which is reportedly going to his desk in the near future.