As Proposition 215's tenth anniversary approaches, a recent spate
of coordinated moves by the DEA and California police have made
it painfully clear that neither side of the medical marijuana 'debate'
has learned much about youthful pot use, the distinctive historical
phenomenon which had so clearly induced Richard Nixon to start a 'war'
on drugs 37 years ago and then later forced him to ignore the
unexpected recommendation of his own Presidential
Commission that pot be decriminalized so its medical uses could be
studied.
Because the drug war's survival as policy as has always depended on
protecting it from objective evaluation, federal disinterest was
to be expected; however, the same shouldn't have been true of
reformers, who- nevertheless- continue to reject data that could help
them salvage some of the the promise implicit in Prop. 215 when it
passed in 1996.
But don't hold your breath...
Some day, there may be an attempt to account for the lives destroyed
and misery produced by Nixon's two critical drug policy decisions, but
because he couldn't possibly have known the extent of the carnage, we
probably shouldn't be too tough on him. However, what about the legions
of 'true believers' and cravenly complicit functionaries who have
allowed an improbable policy that was failing miserably at such high
human and social cost, to avoid scrutiny year after year?
As if that weren't enough, the gyrations of the drug policy 'reform'
movement in response to recent federal provocations suggest they are as
clueless as ever. I've been monitoring their e-mail discussion lists
since they were surprised by a series of raids coordinated with a
media campaign in
San Diego last week. I'm more amazed than ever at how little
they gleaned from carefully worded posts in which I'd suggested that a
federally inspired campaign focused on youthful male users (ABYM)
had been signalled by the rash of negative reports from 'Oaksterdam'
two years ago; and how that campaign had since evolved into an effort
to deny business licenses to 'dispensaries' all over the state.
There's a lot going on, the dust is still settling, and there's
at least some hope that recent government moves may hint at some
federal insecurity in the background. For example; the otherwise
inexplicable 'historical'
report by Professor Burnham of a June 17 dinner honoring six former
drug czars at which they also claimed the war on drugs had been
'won.' Why was there only one write up (in Burnham's home town
newslaper on June 30)? Why no immedate interest from mainstream media?
Who had gone to all the trouble to plan such an elaborate event and
then let it pass almost unnoticed?
For that matter, why re the feds being so aggressive in San
Diego? Do they simply assume the Medical Board of California will
go along with their demands that physicians be disciplined fot
recommending pot? Don't they realize that following the Board's
punishment of Dr. Mikuriya, such a strategy could involve risks for
them?
What is most clear to me is that the feds have been forced to concoct a
myth to justify their aggressive pot prohibition. As new information
appears, the myth has required subtle amendments, which–– over time––
have made it considrably less than coherent. Reform has developed its
own myth, which because it agrees with the main points of the federal
fairy tale, has been a major factor in their own perennial failure to
change policy.
Since it's also very clear is that neither side knows the truth about
our modern pot market, both may be terribly embarrassed if the
public were to find out before they do...
