Is it Change yet?
This does seem like the time to pick on Obama. The media is full of stories about unfulfilled promises and bungled initiatives. Our foreign policy today is hardly different from Bush’s - we’re still in Iraq and now we’re also in Afghanistan and there’s trouble on the horizon in Yemen. Guantanamo is still open. Our Anti-terrorism policy, according to the New York Times Magazine story a couple of weeks back, is still run largely by Bush appointees and the policy hasn’t changed. The Patriot Act is still here. The health care effort was bungled and now its passage is doubtful. He’s angered the Right and he’s angered the Left just as much. So what about us drug policy reformers?
Typically after a Presidential election US Attorneys appointed under the outgoing administration submit letters of resignation and the new administration replaces many of them with new ones. Well, in the spirit of change Mr. Obama did not accept the resignations of the US Attorneys and appoint his own people. The result? We still have Bush appointees overseeing prosecutions in all of the federal districts. No change in the Justice Department.
With 14 states now having passed medical marijuana laws there has been a demand for some scientific research , done here in the US, into the medical uses of marijuana. Currently the drug is Schedule One - (no medical use, high potential for abuse) and cannot be possessed even for research except for a highly controlled crop of poor quality pot grown in a government-run facility in Mississippi. The only agency with access to that marijuana is The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) and Shirley Simson, a NIDA spokeswoman told the New York Times recently: “As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use. We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”
The DEA’s own administrative law judge ruled that NIDA’s monopolization of marijuana research is not in the public interest and ordered the government cannabis be made available to legitimate medical researchers, not just NIDA.
Former DEA Deputy Administrator Michele Leonhart chose to ignore the DEA’s own administrative law judge’s ruling.
So who did Obama pick last week to be the new head of the DEA? Bush-era appointee Michele Leonhart. No change at the DEA.
Before his election, when he was seen by many as the bringer of serious drug policy reform Obama told the Washington Post “Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources - it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us,, even when it’s inconvenient - especially when it’s inconvenient.”
Back in May of last year, after some awful comments by the Presidents new Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowski and his laughing at and dismissing the number one most popular question to come to his own website (Remember that?) I wrote on this blog that “For drug policy reform advocates it looks like the honeymoon with Obama is quickly coming to a close.” Now I think we can safely say the honeymoon is over.
Culture Change
The culture surrounding marijuana in America is changing. January 17th‘ the New York Times’ “Ethicist” column, a weekly piece in which readers write in seeking advice about ethical dilemmas in their lives, ran a question from a parent regarding the ethics of his sons lying about his marijuana use on an insurance application. The son told the truth about his occasional marijuana use and was denied coverage. Should he have lied?
The ethicist’s answer was that “Some problems are simply not amenable to an honorable individualist solution…” He noted that the insurance company was wrong in asking the question in the first place because the information is “medically insignificant.” The reader stated that the insurance company agent, in a phone call to the son suggested he reapply in a year, implying that if he lied about his marijuana use then he would probably be granted coverage. It seems that everyone involved, the parent, the son, the columnist, and even the representative of the insurance company understood marijuana use was not a health problem. So why is this question still asked?
The following week’s Times ran a short essay from a reader who had survived her kayak capsizing in icy waters in Maine. She was rescued by a lobsterman and his sons who took her to shore in their boat. Describing being pulled from the water and given a blanket she mentions that “a joint was offered…” No more, no other comment, just a normal act of hospitality, the sharing of what they had with the boats new passengers. The old lobsterman sharing some marijuana with his two grown sons as they headed back to shore, pausing en route to rescue a couple of drowning kayakers. Nothing unusual in that is there?
This growing acceptance of marijuana use leads one to wonder why about 700,000 people are arrested for the drug each year, the vast majority for simple possession. Even government surveys where a government worker asks citizens if they have used an illegal drug (!) reveal tens of millions of marijuana users. Considering the circumstances of the survey and who is asking you to voluntarily confess to a crime the actual numbers must be much higher. Still those we elect to represent us are silent on the topic and, for the most part, the laws remain in place.
There are some small improvements here and there. Fourteen states have passed laws permitting marijuana use for medical purposes though the restrictions are so severe in most of them as to make it basically unobtainable. Seattle’s new city attorney Pete Holmes is dismissing all marijuana-possession cases. His refusing to prosecute will soon lead police to stop making arrests for possession…what’s the point if charges will be dismissed?
So why aren’t our elected representatives moving more rapidly and definitively to stop persecuting citizens for exercising their basic right as an adult? Why should they risk fines, jail time, embarrassment, and a criminal record for indulging in an act as harmless as smoking marijuana? Clearly it can only be a matter of time. After all, they tell us responding to the will of the people cannot be done overnight. We were promised that we’ll be withdrawing our troops from Iraq… that we’d be closing Guantanamo… that we’d have health care reform… that we’d have campaign finance reform… that our taxes would be lowered… blah… blah… blah…
