MPP RESPONDS TO JON GETTMAN'S 'ELECTION DAY BLUES'

by Bruce Mirken

We at the Marijuana Policy Project are puzzled by Jon Gettman's attempt to make the most successful election yet for marijuana law reform look like a crushing defeat (The Cannabis Column #18, "Election Day Blues," Nov. 4). We have great respect for Gettman's heroic work on rescheduling marijuana, and we welcome an energetic discussion of strategies and tactics. And we certainly make no claim to having all the answers. But we do think that such discussions should be based on facts, not assumptions, suppositions, or speculation.

Here is the actual scorecard on what Gettman terms the "complete and total failure" of our reform strategies in this year's election:

**Seventeen out of 20 marijuana reform initiatives on state and local ballots passed (including 14 of 16 in which MPP was actively involved), most by overwhelming margins. These wins came on the heels of another MPP-backed initiative win in Detroit, where voters passed a medical marijuana ordinance by a wide margin in August.

**Although Alaska's Measure 2 was not successful, the 44% support it received was the highest-ever vote percentage for a statewide measure to completely end marijuana prohibition.

**Montana not only became the 10th state to legalize medical marijuana, it did so by an astonishing margin. In one of the reddest of the "red states," medical marijuana outpolled President Bush by three percentage points.

**In Vermont, where a small group of Republicans in the state House of Representatives had stalled that state's medical marijuana bill—and succeeded in weakening it before final passage last spring—MPP went after these opponents while working to protect the bill's supporters. We succeeded in defeating three bad incumbents and protecting three good ones. The defeats helped flip control of the Vermont House from the Republicans to the Democrats and sent a clear message that opposing medical marijuana is politically risky.

**For the first time, the voters of a major U.S. city—Oakland, California, population 400,000—went on record in support of replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of regulation, and did so by a massive 65% to 35% margin.

If this is a "repudiation" of our strategies and priorities, we can only wish for more such repudiations in the future.

That said, we agree heartily agree with Gettman when he writes, "The medical marijuana issue is not a suitable substitute for a straightforward debate about marijuana legalization." In fact, we have sought to stimulate such a debate at every opportunity—through the campaigns we've supported in Nevada and Alaska (in addition to supporting the Measure 2 campaign, MPP funded the litigation that brought about the Alaska court rulings permitting personal possession of up to four ounces of marijuana), through a direct challenge to White House Drug Czar John Walters to debate the issue (covered in Deroy Murdock's nationally syndicated newspaper column), and through a column by our executive director in the Sept. 24 Chicago Sun-Times, to name just a few examples. Our 2002 Nevada campaign landed the issue of marijuana prohibition on the cover of Time magazine. MPP has done more than anyone to stimulate the national debate that Gettman claims we are somehow trying to avoid.

That debate will continue: Due to our efforts, the legislatures of both Alaska and Nevada will almost certainly debate marijuana prohibition this year—an historic first that will again stir national discussion. And we have already identified a dozen members of Congress who are sympathetic to broader reform of federal marijuana laws—not just medical marijuana. We do not face an either/or choice between working on the federal or state and local levels: We will pursue any avenues that are promising.

Gettman is absolutely right about the need for "support from social, professional and business leaders." But somehow he missed the fact that MPP and the many local groups with which we work have been leaders in recruiting precisely that sort of support. Alaska's Measure 2 was endorsed by an impressive array of doctors, nurses, researchers, and other prominent citizens. Oakland's Measure Z was supported by the California Nurses Association, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, three members of the California legislature (including Don Perata, the president pro tem of the California Senate), and a wide array of city council members, school board members, and other local officials. Others who have lent support to reform efforts by joining MPP's advisory board include actor Jack Black and best-selling health author Dr. Andrew Weil.

Our various state medical marijuana proposals have been endorsed by, among others, the city councils of New York City, Buffalo, and Albany; the Medical Society of the State of New York; the Associated Medical Schools of New York; the New York State Nurses Association; the New York State Association of County Health Officials; the New York State Hospice and Palliative Care Association; the American Academy of HIV Medicine; the Rhode Island Medical Society; the Rhode Island State Nurses Association; AIDS Project Rhode Island; the Chicago Tribune; the Chicago Sun-Times; all but one of the Montana newspapers that chose to make an endorsement regarding the medical marijuana initiative; and such prominent Americans as television host Montel Williams and former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders.

Yes, there is more work to be done in this area, but we are proud of what we've accomplished so far.

Regarding medical marijuana, it is disturbing to see Gettman borrowing John Walters' rhetoric almost word-for-word to accuse MPP of "exploit[ing] the medical issue to enhance their power and funding to fight for marijuana legalization." Is it "exploitation" to protect patients from arrest? This year alone our efforts have established legal protection for patients in two states, Vermont and Montana, and we are proud that these successes will keep some seriously ill patients out of jail. Would Gettman rather we let them face arrest?

The notion that any thoughtful reformer would pursue medical marijuana as a foot-in-the-door for full legalization is, frankly, ridiculous, since all evidence suggests that such a strategy wouldn't work. Medical access to morphine, cocaine, and methamphetamine has done precisely zero to move those drugs toward legalization for nonmedical use. Medical and nonmedical marijuana use are separate discussions, and voters have no trouble figuring that out.

But there is a reason why Walters and his fellow prohibitionists are so rigidly opposed to medical marijuana: When you approach a substance as a medicine, you are compelled to take a clear-eyed, factual look at its risks and benefits. These facts utterly debunk the case for prohibition, and promoting discussion of them is always in the interest of reformers. We make no apology for seeking to put the real facts about marijuana in front of the public, the media, and policymakers.

Gettman's most inflammatory claim, that we design strategies to further MPP's "organizational interests and the careers of their key personnel" rather than to advance reform, seems based on nothing more than the notion that any strategy he disagrees with must have been developed with nefarious intent. This is truly logic worthy of Walters, Bill Bennett, and their ilk. I've watched our staff—from the executive director all the way down to the newest intern—put in sweatshop hours week after week, for far less money than they could make in the for-profit sector, in order to advance the cause of sane and humane marijuana laws. If that's what careerism looks like, this movement needs more of it.

Finally, we would urge Gettman to do a bit of homework before dismissing state and local reforms as a strategy for stimulating change at the national level. Virtually every political movement which has had achieved success in America has pursued state and local reforms as an integral part of a national strategy. To cite one obvious example, abortion-rights proponents worked successfully to change state laws for years before the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Roe v. Wade. One of the most liberal abortion laws in the country was enacted in California six years before Roe, where it was signed into law by a governor who later made something of a name for himself: Ronald Reagan. These state laws laid the groundwork for national protection for abortion rights.

And ever since Roe, anti-abortion activists have been pursuing their own state-by-state strategy to reimpose as many limits on the practice as they can—again with significant success. The anti-tax movement later championed by Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush got its start with another state initiative, California's Proposition 13, in 1978. In recent years, opponents of same-sex marriage have successfully pursued a state-by-state strategy while also pushing for federal action. The list is nearly endless.

It is particularly odd that Gettman cites with alarm the record number of marijuana arrests in 2003 while insisting that state-level reforms are "impotent" and suggesting that we should concentrate on national efforts. Surely he knows that federal officials make only one percent of all marijuana arrests, while the other 99%—nearly three-quarters of a million last year—were made by state and local cops acting under state and local laws. Going after the laws that generate 99% of all marijuana arrests strikes us as eminently sensible.

In reality, state medical marijuana laws are almost entirely responsible for bringing national attention to marijuana's beneficial effects and the absurdity of its Schedule I status. These state laws, along with the efforts of our federal lobbyist, Steve Fox—the only full-time federal marijuana lobbyist on either side of the issue—generated the first-ever floor debates and votes on pro-medical marijuana legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. As noted above, we hope to spur a debate on the broader question of marijuana prohibition during the next session of Congress.

It is also worth noting, since Gettman accuses MPP of ignoring the "national solution" of rescheduling marijuana, that MPP does, in fact, pursue this angle as well. In 2003, we successfully lobbied Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John Kerry (D-MA) to write a letter to the DEA in support of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst's application to establish a marijuana production facility to grow high-quality marijuana for medical research. Had Kerry defeated Bush, it seems almost certain that the university's application would have been approved. This would have opened up opportunities to conduct research on marijuana, clearing the way for FDA approval and eventual rescheduling.

Of course, we didn't win everything this year. In addition to the defeats of marijuana initiatives in Oregon and Alaska, we did not succeed in defeating the handful of U.S. House members we had targeted for opposing legislation to protect patients. But every single one of the 157 members who cast at least one vote in favor of our amendment to stop the DEA's raids won reelection without that vote being raised as an issue against them, while we successfully served notice that those who vote to continue arresting and jailing the sick will have to explain their actions.

The progress we have made is real, and we will work to continue it in 2005. There is a solid chance of passing medical marijuana legislation in a number of states, including New York and Illinois. We will continue our work on behalf of marijuana regulation in Nevada and Alaska, and to preserve Alaska's landmark court ruling. We will continue to support other promising state and local efforts. We will continue educating the national media about the futility and destructiveness of marijuana prohibition. And we will continue the difficult but essential effort to push Congress to make change on the national level.

It won't be easy, we won't win every battle, and we certainly don't claim that we will never make a mistake. But we do think an honest look at all the facts shows that we have made historic progress this year. We won't rest until marijuana prohibition is relegated to what Ronald Reagan once called "the dustbin of history."

For more information about the Marijuana Policy Project, please visit www.mpp.org.

Bruce Mirken is director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, based in Washington, D.C.