Monday’s memorandum by the Obama administration that the federal government will cease wasting law enforcement, prosecutorial (and correspondingly court) budgets on arresting and raiding medical marijuana dispensaries and patients came as the next logical step in what has primarily been a textbook organizing campaign from below.
The history is instructive on how small steps lead to big change, and is worth study by all who clamor for progress on many fronts: from bringing about national health care to ending the US embargo of Cuba to immigration reform to overhauling an entire economic system, to each and every “issue” one might advocate.
Much of my work as a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s was in the realm of reporting on US drug policy and the movements that sought to repeal or reform it. In that I had a front row seat to the debates and discussions – always passionate, often rancorous – between advocates and organizations that worked to change those laws. There were natural tensions between, for example, those who saw drug prohibition itself as the cause of so much harm, violence and injustice and concluded (as I do) that repeal of prohibitionist laws against all drugs – including those which are addictive or cause clear risks to their users - is a necessary step for any society that yearns to breathe authentically free. Others, representative of tens of millions of Americans who use marijuana recreationally or medically, simply wanted to establish their own right to do so in peace, without much regard to the related societal harms on people that were not demographically like them.
Conferences would be held and those matters of philosophy and strategy would be argued strenuously but meanwhile the drug war marched on as a literal war – with its own armaments, POWs and death toll – by the US government against its own people and against many in other lands.
In the mid-1990s, some forward-thinking advocates of drug policy reform concluded that the big, central matter – whether recreational drugs should be legalized or not – was simply too big and confusing a matter for so much of the public to tackle all at once. Even the matter of legalizing relatively harmless marijuana was overwhelming in terms of public opinion. As the Gallup poll graph above recounts, in 1996 only 25 percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana, with 73 percent opposed. Any organizing strategy under such overwhelming negative numbers that chose polarization over organizing was doomed to fail.
And so some pioneering voices and organizers set about on a path of incremental change. They chose to hit hard upon a brittle crack in the drug war artifice: that even if three-quarters of Americans did not then want cannabis legalized for everyone, a critical mass had grave misgivings about policies that persecuted people who were ill – with glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, MS and other ailments - and needed the plant as medicine.
The debates today over health care and other matters seamlessly echo those that took place among drug policy reform advocates in the mid-90s. Those who embarked on a strategy of incremental change were often vilified by natural allies who said that such a step-by-step path did not move fast or far enough. In some cases, entire organizations were shattered and splinter groups formed in their place, competing for the same supporters and funding. We all know how that story goes. Friendships in that milieu of drug policy reform, too, were lost in the divisions, egos and hard feelings. There have always been, and perhaps always will be, those who argue that by urging incremental change a movement abandons its core principles. But in the end, history moves one step at a time, and more often than not it is those who walk rather than sprint that emerge triumphant.
Thirteen years later, those who enacted the incremental strategy have proved correct, indeed, prophetic. In 1996 – over the objections of some pot legalization groups and individuals – citizens in California and Arizona placed medical marijuana referenda on their state ballots. The California measure – legalizing the possession of up to eight ounces or 18 plants of grass - passed with 56 percent support. In Arizona – thought to be a more “conservative” state – a measure allowing physicians to prescribe medical marijuana won 65 percent of all votes (there, the state legislature quickly repealed the new law, so citizens put it on the ballot again two years later and repeated their victory).
Shifting from mere activism and advocacy to a referendum strategy also forced significant swathes of drug policy reform movements to enter a new phase: that of community organizing. Referenda in most states require the collection of signatures, which means advocates had to get out of the circle jerk cycle of endless meetings and internal debate and go out there, door to door, to recruit from the general public. Once they got the proposed laws on the ballot that meant campaigning for votes. This marked a paradigm shift in what had been a self-marginalized reform movement: a wake up call
In 1998, again by pursuing this strategy of community organizing, the states of Oregon, Washington and Alaska followed suit with similar measures. Maine followed in 1999. In 2000, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada voters did the same. Since then, Montana, New Mexico, Michigan, Rhode Island and Vermont became medical marijuana states, and Maryland allowed medical use as a defense in court. Four of those states – California, Colorado, New Mexico and Rhode Island – have legalized clinics and dispensaries where cannabis can be distributed legally to the patients who need it.
During these years – and the battle has been particularly focused in California – the federal administrations of George W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton before him disrespected those expressions of democratic will and sent the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and federal prosecutors to raid medical marijuana clinics, arrest, fine and imprison providers and patients alike. And looking up again at that Gallup graph you can see how during those years public opinion on the larger question of legalizing marijuana for everybody that wants it has taken a fast turn toward outright repeal of prohibition.
The community organizing phase – that of referenda on the state level – quickly gave birth to a bona fide civil resistance movement: one in which tens of thousands of Americans openly committed nonviolent civil disobedience against federal law to implement the new state laws allowing distribution of medical marijuana to patients. The federal raids against cannabis dispensaries and patients provoked the public conscience and demonstrated the fundamental immorality and ineffectiveness not just of US enforcement against medical marijuana but also of pot prohibition overall. And public opinion on the wider question moved markedly toward legalizing marijuana.
In the Western states, according to Gallup, an outright majority of 53 percent of citizens now favor marijuana legalization compared to 46 percent against. Well, that makes perfect sense: that is precisely the cluster states that led the charge on the smaller matter of medical marijuana and where community organizing and civil resistance have garnered the most support and attention: thus, there is a causal effect of such organizing and resistance on public opinion.
With that shift in public opinion came a leading presidential candidate in 2007 and 2008 who pledged to end the raids of medical cannabis dispensaries in states that make them legal, and just ten months after his inauguration, President Obama has now made good on that promise, one that wasn't his idea but, rather, of his organizer's ear being able to hear the din that had been caused by the organizers from below. And with that paradigm shift in federal policy, expect to see public opinion continue to break steeply in favor of repealing the prohibition altogether.
The history textbooks will note forevermore, when looking back at how the United States repealed pot prohibition (something that will likely now come in most of our lifetimes) that it was the strategy of incremental change that opened the floodgates to fundamental change. The same will be said of how the US embargo of Cuba was ended (granting Cuban-Americans the right to travel there inexorably will extend that freedom to all US citizens). The same will be written of immigration policy. And – if you can weed through the griping about whether this year’s health care reform goes far enough or not – I think a similar path of incremental steps to change will provoke a very similar dynamic toward wholesale change. Short of revolutions – which happen when incremental change is made impossible by the authoritarian nature of regimes - that is how change usually happens.
There have been many, many unsung heroes and heroines of these organizing and resistance battles that in thirteen short years have changed public opinion on marijuana prohibition – often at considerable risk and sacrifice to their own freedom and safety – but a very special place in history will be reserved for Ethan Nadelmann, today the director of the Drug Policy Alliance. It is fitting that he is profiled favorably in the current issue of Newsweek. Back in the early 1990s, it was Nadelmann who coalesced and gave narrative to the disparate voices and advocates who sought to launch a strategy of incremental change, and not
...
> Monday¹s memorandum by the Obama administration that the federal > government will cease wasting law enforcement, prosecutorial (and > correspondingly court) budgets on arresting and raiding medical > marijuana dispensaries and patients came as the next logical step in > what has primarily been a textbook organizing campaign from below.
> The history is instructive on how small steps lead to big change, and is > worth study by all who clamor for progress on many fronts: from bringing > about national health care to ending the US embargo of Cuba to > immigration reform to overhauling an entire economic system, to each and > every ³issue² one might advocate.
> Much of my work as a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s was in the realm > of reporting on US drug policy and the movements that sought to repeal > or reform it. In that I had a front row seat to the debates and > discussions always passionate, often rancorous between advocates and > organizations that worked to change those laws. There were natural > tensions between, for example, those who saw drug prohibition itself as > the cause of so much harm, violence and injustice and concluded (as I > do) that repeal of prohibitionist laws against all drugs including > those which are addictive or cause clear risks to their users - is a > necessary step for any society that yearns to breathe authentically > free. Others, representative of tens of millions of Americans who use > marijuana recreationally or medically, simply wanted to establish their > own right to do so in peace, without much regard to the related societal > harms on people that were not demographically like them.
> Conferences would be held and those matters of philosophy and strategy > would be argued strenuously but meanwhile the drug war marched on as a > literal war with its own armaments, POWs and death toll by the US > government against its own people and against many in other lands.
> In the mid-1990s, some forward-thinking advocates of drug policy reform > concluded that the big, central matter whether recreational drugs > should be legalized or not was simply too big and confusing a matter > for so much of the public to tackle all at once. Even the matter of > legalizing relatively harmless marijuana was overwhelming in terms of > public opinion. As the Gallup poll graph above recounts, in 1996 only 25 > percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana, with 73 percent > opposed. Any organizing strategy under such overwhelming negative > numbers that chose polarization over organizing was doomed to fail.
> And so some pioneering voices and organizers set about on a path of > incremental change. They chose to hit hard upon a brittle crack in the > drug war artifice: that even if three-quarters of Americans did not then > want cannabis legalized for everyone, a critical mass had grave > misgivings about policies that persecuted people who were ill with > glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, MS and other ailments - and needed the plant as > medicine.
> The debates today over health care and other matters seamlessly echo > those that took place among drug policy reform advocates in the mid-90s. > Those who embarked on a strategy of incremental change were often > vilified by natural allies who said that such a step-by-step path did > not move fast or far enough. In some cases, entire organizations were > shattered and splinter groups formed in their place, competing for the > same supporters and funding. We all know how that story goes. > Friendships in that milieu of drug policy reform, too, were lost in the > divisions, egos and hard feelings. There have always been, and perhaps > always will be, those who argue that by urging incremental change a > movement abandons its core principles. But in the end, history moves one > step at a time, and more often than not it is those who walk rather than > sprint that emerge triumphant.
> Thirteen years later, those who enacted the incremental strategy have > proved correct, indeed, prophetic. In 1996 over the objections of some > pot legalization groups and individuals citizens in California and > Arizona placed medical marijuana referenda on their state ballots. The > California measure legalizing the possession of up to eight ounces or > 18 plants of grass - passed with 56 percent support. In Arizona > thought to be a more ³conservative² state a measure allowing > physicians to prescribe medical marijuana won 65 percent of all votes > (there, the state legislature quickly repealed the new law, so citizens > put it on the ballot again two years later and repeated their victory).
> Shifting from mere activism and advocacy to a referendum strategy also > forced significant swathes of drug policy reform movements to enter a > new phase: that of community organizing. Referenda in most states > require the collection of signatures, which means advocates had to get > out of the circle jerk cycle of endless meetings and internal debate and > go out there, door to door, to recruit from the general public. Once > they got the proposed laws on the ballot that meant campaigning for > votes. This marked a paradigm shift in what had been a self-marginalized > reform movement: a wake up call
> In 1998, again by pursuing this strategy of community organizing, the > states of Oregon, Washington and Alaska followed suit with similar > measures. Maine followed in 1999. In 2000, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada > voters did the same. Since then, Montana, New Mexico, Michigan, Rhode > Island and Vermont became medical marijuana states, and Maryland allowed > medical use as a defense in court. Four of those states California, > Colorado, New Mexico and Rhode Island have legalized clinics and > dispensaries where cannabis can be distributed legally to the patients > who need it.
> During these years and the battle has been particularly focused in > California the federal administrations of George W. Bush and William > Jefferson Clinton before him disrespected those expressions of > democratic will and sent the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) > and federal prosecutors to raid medical marijuana clinics, arrest, fine > and imprison providers and patients alike. And looking up again at that > Gallup graph you can see how during those years public opinion on the > larger question of legalizing marijuana for everybody that wants it has > taken a fast turn toward outright repeal of prohibition.
> The community organizing phase that of referenda on the state level > quickly gave birth to a bona fide civil resistance movement: one in > which tens of thousands of Americans openly committed nonviolent civil > disobedience against federal law to implement the new state laws > allowing distribution of medical marijuana to patients. The federal > raids against cannabis dispensaries and patients provoked the public > conscience and demonstrated the fundamental immorality and > ineffectiveness not just of US enforcement against medical marijuana but > also of pot prohibition overall. And public opinion on the wider > question moved markedly toward legalizing marijuana.
> In the Western states, according to Gallup, an outright majority of 53 > percent of citizens now favor marijuana legalization compared to 46 > percent against. Well, that makes perfect sense: that is precisely the > cluster states that led the charge on the smaller matter of medical > marijuana and where community organizing and civil resistance have > garnered the most support and attention: thus, there is a causal effect > of such organizing and resistance on public opinion.
> With that shift in public opinion came a leading presidential candidate > in 2007 and 2008 who pledged to end the raids of medical cannabis > dispensaries in states that make them legal, and just ten months after > his inauguration, President Obama has now made good on that promise, one > that wasn't his idea but, rather, of his organizer's ear being able to > hear the din that had been caused by the organizers from below. And with > that paradigm shift in federal policy, expect to see public opinion > continue to break steeply in favor of repealing the prohibition altogether.
> The history textbooks will note forevermore, when looking back at how > the United States repealed pot prohibition (something that will likely > now come in most of our lifetimes) that it was the strategy of > incremental change that opened the floodgates to fundamental change. The > same will be said of how the US embargo of Cuba was ended (granting > Cuban-Americans the right to travel there inexorably will extend that > freedom to all US citizens). The same will be written of immigration > policy. And if you can weed through the griping about whether this > year¹s health care reform goes far enough or not I think a similar > path of incremental steps to change will provoke a very similar dynamic > toward wholesale change. Short of revolutions which happen when > incremental change is made impossible by the authoritarian nature of > regimes - that is how change usually happens.
> There have been many, many unsung heroes and heroines of these > organizing and resistance battles that in thirteen short years have > changed public opinion on marijuana prohibition often at considerable > risk and sacrifice to their own freedom and
>> It is by winning those step-by-step incremental victories through >> proven methods of community organizing and civil resistance - that more >> fundamental change is made possible, indeed, likely to come faster than >> many dreamed just thirteen years ago. And whether your priorities are in >> the realm of drug policy, or health care, or foreign policy or anything >> else, there is something vital to be learned from this particular lesson >> in civics.
> Well, it's certainly "High Time"
Not yet. Medical cannabis can make symptoms go away but the price is that getting high is very expensive. That is many medical users have to use a lot of cannabis to keep their symptoms under control but to the high they would have to use about twice or more. Most are happy to be symptom free.
> >> It is by winning those step-by-step incremental victories through > >> proven methods of community organizing and civil resistance - that more > >> fundamental change is made possible, indeed, likely to come faster than > >> many dreamed just thirteen years ago. And whether your priorities are in > >> the realm of drug policy, or health care, or foreign policy or anything > >> else, there is something vital to be learned from this particular lesson > >> in civics.
> > Well, it's certainly "High Time"
> Not yet. Medical cannabis can make symptoms go away but the price > is that getting high is very expensive. That is many medical users have to > use a lot of cannabis to keep their symptoms under control but to the > high they would have to use about twice or more. Most are happy to > be symptom free.
> later > bliss
the price will probably come down, when grass is legal for all adults. And hemp will be in the farmer's rotation of crops. and more. -- money; what a concept!
> > >> It is by winning those step-by-step incremental victories through > > >> proven methods of community organizing and civil resistance - that more > > >> fundamental change is made possible, indeed, likely to come faster than > > >> many dreamed just thirteen years ago. And whether your priorities are in > > >> the realm of drug policy, or health care, or foreign policy or anything > > >> else, there is something vital to be learned from this particular lesson > > >> in civics.
> > > Well, it's certainly "High Time"
> > Not yet. Medical cannabis can make symptoms go away but the price > > is that getting high is very expensive. That is many medical users have to > > use a lot of cannabis to keep their symptoms under control but to the > > high they would have to use about twice or more. Most are happy to > > be symptom free.
> > later > > bliss
> the price will probably come down, when grass is legal for all adults. > And hemp will be in the farmer's rotation of crops. > and more.
and this just in'
In article <hdms9u$ip...@news.albasani.net>, "NYFD" <poor george b...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
> The United States' first marijuana cafe opened on Friday, posing an early > test of the Obama administration's move to relax policing of medical use of > the drug.
> The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified > medical marijuana users a place to get hold of the drug and smoke it -- as > long as they are out of public view -- despite a federal ban.
> "This club represents personal freedom, finally, for our members," said > Madeline Martinez, Oregon's executive director of NORML, a group pushing for > marijuana legalization. "Our plans go beyond serving food and marijuana," > said Martinez. "We hope to have classes, seminars, even a Cannabis Community > College, based here to help people learn about growing and other uses for > cannabis."
> The cafe -- in a two-story building which formerly housed a speak-easy and > adult erotic club Rumpspankers -- is technically a private club, but is open > to any Oregon residents who are NORML members and hold an official medical > marijuana card. Members pay $25 per month to use the 100-person capacity > cafe. They don't buy marijuana, but get it free over the counter from > "budtenders". Open 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., it serves food but has no liquor > license.
> > > >> http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3544/medical-cannabis-victory > > > >> -t > > > >> ex > > > >> tbo > > > >> ok-case-organizing-and-resistance > > > >> The Medical Cannabis Victory: A Textbook Case of Organizing and > > > >> Resistance > > > >> October 20, 2009 > > > >> By Al Giordano
> > > snip
> > > >> It is by winning those step-by-step incremental victories through > > > >> proven methods of community organizing and civil resistance - that > > > >> more > > > >> fundamental change is made possible, indeed, likely to come faster > > > >> than > > > >> many dreamed just thirteen years ago. And whether your priorities are > > > >> in > > > >> the realm of drug policy, or health care, or foreign policy or > > > >> anything > > > >> else, there is something vital to be learned from this particular > > > >> lesson > > > >> in civics.
> > > > Well, it's certainly "High Time"
> > > Not yet. Medical cannabis can make symptoms go away but the price > > > is that getting high is very expensive. That is many medical users have > > > to > > > use a lot of cannabis to keep their symptoms under control but to the > > > high they would have to use about twice or more. Most are happy to > > > be symptom free.
> > > later > > > bliss
> > the price will probably come down, when grass is legal for all adults. > > And hemp will be in the farmer's rotation of crops. > > and more.
> and this just in'
> In article <hdms9u$ip...@news.albasani.net>, > "NYFD" <poor george b...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
> > First U.S. marijuana cafe
> > The United States' first marijuana cafe opened on Friday, posing an early > > test of the Obama administration's move to relax policing of medical use of > > the drug.
> > The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified > > medical marijuana users a place to get hold of the drug and smoke it -- as > > long as they are out of public view -- despite a federal ban.
> > "This club represents personal freedom, finally, for our members," said > > Madeline Martinez, Oregon's executive director of NORML, a group pushing > > for > > marijuana legalization. "Our plans go beyond serving food and marijuana," > > said Martinez. "We hope to have classes, seminars, even a Cannabis > > Community > > College, based here to help people learn about growing and other uses for > > cannabis."
> > The cafe -- in a two-story building which formerly housed a speak-easy and > > adult erotic club Rumpspankers -- is technically a private club, but is > > open > > to any Oregon residents who are NORML members and hold an official medical > > marijuana card. Members pay $25 per month to use the 100-person capacity > > cafe. They don't buy marijuana, but get it free over the counter from > > "budtenders". Open 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., it serves food but has no liquor > > license.
|
