cannabisnews.com: Campaign for Michigan Pot Proposal is Almost Kaput





Campaign for Michigan Pot Proposal is Almost Kaput
Posted by FoM on November 26, 2001 at 07:39:29 PT
By Dawson Bell, Free Press Columnist 
Source: Detroit Free Press
News from the war on the war on drugs: Michigan's homegrown repeal of prohibition on marijuana, after spending most of the year collecting signatures for a ballot proposal in 2002, is more or less kaput. Organizer Greg Schmid extended the deadline twice in an attempt to rally his motley band of volunteer circulators to meet the 300,000 signature target but admitted last week they won't make it. 
Schmid theorizes that many of the group's volunteers have signed petitions they've neglected to turn in. (Insert obligatory stoner joke here.) The same thing happened when they tried to collect signatures for a ballot proposal in 2000. Undaunted, Schmid says he's ready to join a national coalition that has a track record of some success and perhaps the ability, notably absent in the Michigan-based group, to raise enough money to mount a real campaign. The national group, California-based Campaign for New Drug Policies, wants to sell Michigan voters on the so-called "treatment not incarceration" method for drug users. Schmid says they'll also go after Michigan's mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers. The natural tendency is to dismiss Schmid's optimism about this new venture for what it is, more rodomontade from a Saginaw lawyer whose skills as a political strategist fall somewhere between Don Quixote and Mr. Magoo. But we won't. In part, because Schmid (a lifelong non-drug user) also has the endearing qualities of charm and good humor shared by his political mentors. In part, because it would be nice if he and the drug law reformers succeeded. Recognizing that this is an issue about which reasonable people can disagree (and about which many people seem impervious to reason) consider this: It's not working. We were fighting the war on terrorism for all of about four weeks before national opinion leaders began to grow restive about our "lack of progress." In the war on drugs, our progress after four decades can be measured by interviewing anyone between the ages of 15 and 25. Ask them how long it would take to track down some reefer. For terrorists, it will probably pay to be patient. For the war on drugs, it's hard to understand why our patience hasn't run out. It's hypocritical. Trying to make young people (the target audience in the war on drugs) distinguish between the drug sold at the corner store -- alcohol -- and the drug that earns a trip to the police station -- marijuana -- is futile. Of course, credible arguments can be made that both should be avoided. And significant evidence exists that neither is ruinous in moderation. But it strains credulity to believe that kids can be convinced that one is worse than the other simply because it's illegal. It's ridiculously expensive. Never mind arguments that drug laws put a bunch of people in prison that don't belong there. Contrary to the claims of the legalization crowd, there are almost no first-time users in prison, and most of the dealers that are locked up did a lot of other bad stuff (like use weapons and assault people). But that doesn't mean that a completely outsized portion of police, prosecutorial and court time isn't tied up with low-level drug offenses, for which the end result is little deterrence and an enormous loss of productivity for everyone involved. That said, the odds against Schmid and the reformers are almost impossibly long. Most people, with some justification, associate drug use with degradation, degeneracy and shattered lives. Politically, it is not persuasive to argue that the degradation is in significant part voluntary. Nor is it possible to avoid the inherent pitfalls of mounting a campaign in which the natural constituency, those most directly affected by drug laws, are criminals. It may be a catch-22 (they wouldn't be criminals if the laws were changed), but you never see United Drug Convicts on the endorsement lists in winning campaigns. Maybe the folks from California can figure a way around those obstacles. Or maybe, like Magoo, they refuse to recognize them. Either way, we say have at it.Source: Detroit Free Press (MI)Author: Dawson Bell, Free Press Columnist Published: November 26, 2001Copyright: 2001 Detroit Free PressContact: letters freepress.comWebsite: http://www.freep.com/Related Articles & Web Site:PRAyeshttp://www.prayes.com/Cities Pass On Issue of Legalizing Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11004.shtmlLocals Sign On To Legalize Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10694.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment