- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 30,606
Legalizing Marijuana Won’t End the War on Drugs
Put the pot debate back on facts and focus the war on drugs on supply.
By Jamie Chandler and Skylar Young March 14, 2014
The success of any political movement depends on how well activists engineer consent. They must get a majority of the public to support their idea so that politicians jump on it and pass laws that make it a reality. Propaganda drives this process. It’s the number one way to sway public opinion. People don’t know much about politics, especially complex issues, so they tend to buy the hype.
We’ve got tons of recent examples of this. Birthers play on our tendency to believe conspiracy theories: As recently as 2010, 25 percent of the public doubted that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Terms like “death panels” and “Obamacare” keep support for the Affordable Care Act low: Nearly 54 percent oppose the law.
Propaganda isn’t a bad thing. Edward Bernays, considered the father of public relations, said it’s an essential part of a democratic society; but it does keep people from accurately perceiving issues.
Marijuana proponents are exceptional political marketers. Their Pot-aganda has convinced the public of the myths that marijuana hasn't killed anyone, isn’t addictive and that medical marijuana is a wonder drug for treating epilepsy. They’ve also labeled opponents as morally judging pot smokers, which helps their message seem more credible.
Facts indicate otherwise. Marijuana is addictive; it’s a gateway drug and marijuana-related fatal car accidents have tripled since 1999. Smokers inhale about 65 percent of pesticides found in marijuana buds and much of the evidence on medical marijuana and epilepsy is anecdotal.
The biggest problem with pro-marijuana rhetoric is that its proponents seem to believe that legalization will end the war on drugs – naïve assertion that shows proponents fail to understand the complexities of why national drug isn’t working.
President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971, but his policy focused on supply. He targeted major drug cartels, and invested in drug treatment programs. President Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, shifted the policy to demand. His “get tough” and “zero tolerance policy” approaches locked up countless people for nonviolent drug offenses.
Reagan expanded funding for law enforcement, but cut it for drug treatment, prevention and education programs. Drug addicts became the enemy, and the 1980s crack epidemic made matters worse. “Zero tolerance” grew, and that was partly driven by implicit racism. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 created mandatory sentencing standards that dramatically increased the African-American prison population. Penalties for crack possession far exceeded those for cocaine. Politicians associated crack with low-income blacks and coke with middle-class whites.
Demand-side drug policy has remained the norm for the last 30 years and part of the reason is that it helps politicians reap electoral gains. Even today, President Barack Obama supports the drug war. Yes: he’s made some pot-friendly remarks, but he likes the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. Although the Bush administration practically defunded the program, Obama allocated $2 billion back to it with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He wanted to convince the public that he was tough on crime. The program has a troubled history. It ties drug arrests statistics to funding: the more arrests, the more money. Most of the money goes to drug tasks forces that have a record of disproportionally arresting poor black men for possession.
The first step to fix this problem is for Congress to pass S. 1410: Smarter Sentencing Act of 2014. The law would provide funding to reform sentencing rules, mitigate prison overcrowding and racial disparities and better identify dangerous drug offenders.
The bill has been stalled in committee for a year. And while it stands a decent chance of passing the Senate – some Republicans announced this week that they’re coming around to favoring it – it has zero chance of passing the GOP-controlled House. Republicans also like “tough on crime” policies.
Legalizing marijuana isn’t going to fix national drug policy. Drug cartels will make money by shifting their focus to harder drugs or looking for new markets into which to smuggle pot. If we want to reform national drug policy, we’re going to have to shift its focus back on supply, and push politicians to do a lot more than jump on the pro-pot bandwagon.
The most important thing is we need to get the marijuana legalization debate off spin and on substance. If we don’t design drug policies around the lessons learned from the failure of the war on drugs, we’re just going to get more shoddy policies that don’t benefit the common good.
.http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...egalizing-marijuana-wont-end-the-war-on-drugs...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The people who wrote this article gets todays ass clown award. Enjoy it you have earned it both for the awful and often conflicting ideas presented as well as the obvously unedited story you posted.
So much of the stuff grown has no pesticides you ninny.
This is so wrong that im glad you think "Propaganda isn't a bad thing." as this is the best description for this statement. the focus for the last forty years has been supply side with a little demand side thrown at children. It has failed miserably at makeing any sorta dent in supply and has not cut the demand at all.
Put the pot debate back on facts and focus the war on drugs on supply.
By Jamie Chandler and Skylar Young March 14, 2014
The success of any political movement depends on how well activists engineer consent. They must get a majority of the public to support their idea so that politicians jump on it and pass laws that make it a reality. Propaganda drives this process. It’s the number one way to sway public opinion. People don’t know much about politics, especially complex issues, so they tend to buy the hype.
We’ve got tons of recent examples of this. Birthers play on our tendency to believe conspiracy theories: As recently as 2010, 25 percent of the public doubted that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Terms like “death panels” and “Obamacare” keep support for the Affordable Care Act low: Nearly 54 percent oppose the law.
Propaganda isn’t a bad thing. Edward Bernays, considered the father of public relations, said it’s an essential part of a democratic society; but it does keep people from accurately perceiving issues.
Marijuana proponents are exceptional political marketers. Their Pot-aganda has convinced the public of the myths that marijuana hasn't killed anyone, isn’t addictive and that medical marijuana is a wonder drug for treating epilepsy. They’ve also labeled opponents as morally judging pot smokers, which helps their message seem more credible.
Facts indicate otherwise. Marijuana is addictive; it’s a gateway drug and marijuana-related fatal car accidents have tripled since 1999. Smokers inhale about 65 percent of pesticides found in marijuana buds and much of the evidence on medical marijuana and epilepsy is anecdotal.
The biggest problem with pro-marijuana rhetoric is that its proponents seem to believe that legalization will end the war on drugs – naïve assertion that shows proponents fail to understand the complexities of why national drug isn’t working.
President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971, but his policy focused on supply. He targeted major drug cartels, and invested in drug treatment programs. President Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, shifted the policy to demand. His “get tough” and “zero tolerance policy” approaches locked up countless people for nonviolent drug offenses.
Reagan expanded funding for law enforcement, but cut it for drug treatment, prevention and education programs. Drug addicts became the enemy, and the 1980s crack epidemic made matters worse. “Zero tolerance” grew, and that was partly driven by implicit racism. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 created mandatory sentencing standards that dramatically increased the African-American prison population. Penalties for crack possession far exceeded those for cocaine. Politicians associated crack with low-income blacks and coke with middle-class whites.
Demand-side drug policy has remained the norm for the last 30 years and part of the reason is that it helps politicians reap electoral gains. Even today, President Barack Obama supports the drug war. Yes: he’s made some pot-friendly remarks, but he likes the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. Although the Bush administration practically defunded the program, Obama allocated $2 billion back to it with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He wanted to convince the public that he was tough on crime. The program has a troubled history. It ties drug arrests statistics to funding: the more arrests, the more money. Most of the money goes to drug tasks forces that have a record of disproportionally arresting poor black men for possession.
The first step to fix this problem is for Congress to pass S. 1410: Smarter Sentencing Act of 2014. The law would provide funding to reform sentencing rules, mitigate prison overcrowding and racial disparities and better identify dangerous drug offenders.
The bill has been stalled in committee for a year. And while it stands a decent chance of passing the Senate – some Republicans announced this week that they’re coming around to favoring it – it has zero chance of passing the GOP-controlled House. Republicans also like “tough on crime” policies.
Legalizing marijuana isn’t going to fix national drug policy. Drug cartels will make money by shifting their focus to harder drugs or looking for new markets into which to smuggle pot. If we want to reform national drug policy, we’re going to have to shift its focus back on supply, and push politicians to do a lot more than jump on the pro-pot bandwagon.
The most important thing is we need to get the marijuana legalization debate off spin and on substance. If we don’t design drug policies around the lessons learned from the failure of the war on drugs, we’re just going to get more shoddy policies that don’t benefit the common good.
.http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...egalizing-marijuana-wont-end-the-war-on-drugs...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The people who wrote this article gets todays ass clown award. Enjoy it you have earned it both for the awful and often conflicting ideas presented as well as the obvously unedited story you posted.
what does this even mean?
So much of the stuff grown has no pesticides you ninny.
This is so wrong that im glad you think "Propaganda isn't a bad thing." as this is the best description for this statement. the focus for the last forty years has been supply side with a little demand side thrown at children. It has failed miserably at makeing any sorta dent in supply and has not cut the demand at all.
NSFW:
Last edited:
