The science was on their side, the opposition had weak arguments at best, and the support seemed to be pouring in from across the country, but somehow Amendment 44 suffered a blow last night, with 40% of the population turning out in support. Is the state of Colorado that conservative? Apparently not, since a Democrat was elected governor last night, although Gay Marriage also failed to pass. So why did Amendment 44 fail? Because they failed to correctly define the solution to drug prohibition, and thus failed to properly legalize.
It all started off so well. According to the Wikipedia article and the Summit Daily News, SAFER gathered about 130,000 signatures when 68,000 were required last august. It was going to be the beginning of the end of the failing War on Drugs. The problem is the measure doesn’t stop the flow of drugs, it just makes it illegal to walk around with up to an ounce in your pocket if you’re above 21. Fair enough, but doesn’t the right to resist unlawful search and seizure protect you from that? Yes it does. And that’s exactly the problem with Amendment 44. The problem with Amendment 44 is to the general public and the untrained (read: Republican) eye, it seems like just a bunch of stoners who just want to get high.
To start, you have to break down the cannabis industry into three sectors: the producer, the vendor and consumer. Fair? Okay, let’s move along. Under Amendment 44, these three sectors exist in degrading factors of legal risk. Production assumes most of it, since they’re the ones growing the plants. The vendor assumes some risk, since they’re the distributer, but they can just be sure to carry an ounce or less on them at all times (not a problem since most people probably just buy 1/4 or 1/8 ounces or less anyway) and the consumer goes on about his business with no fear of legal repercussions for his actions. Alarmist prohibitionists would probably state that the grower would be thriving under these conditions of reduced risk to the vendor and consumer, and to a certain degree, they probably would not be wrong.
The problem with most efforts to legalize pot is that they’re too subtle. The creators and supporters seem to believe that in order to do create change you have to inch your way toward it and, at the last minute, pull a fast one on the conservative right, giving way to more comprehensive and progressive laws down the road. Unfortunately, 70 years of prohibition in America and almost 100 years of it in Canada is not something you can overturn gradually. I believe it’s something that has to be done with one swift kick.
Nevada’s Question 7 offered the most well rounded solution available in the US. If it had passed (NORML says 44% voted in favor) it would have turned the grower, seller, and consumer into exactly what we’re all born and bred to be: taxpayers. No risk to the grower, no risk to the seller, and no risk to the consumer. In fact, the University of Nevada at Las Vegas did a study (link to PDF) and found that $28 million in tax revenue could be harvested in the state of Nevada alone under this program. Think of all the things a state government can do with $28 million.
If this American election has taught us anything, it’s that subtle efforts don’t work and robust ones require a lot of grassroots support. Civil Rights weren’t won by Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Malcolm X alone.
Tags: 2 Comments
2 responses so far ↓
Amendment 44 failed, because the electorat’s behaviour has a secular tendence for conservative positions. Even the Revolutions in History, if you look at them carefully (but you have to search and look caefully), should have come to failure, if there weren’t conservative values/lobbies behind and to whom there was something to win. Why do intelectuals change the world? Essencially, through words. Not by votes. Ceptic view, ah?
I can say confidently that the Republican party is not the stone wall that you might think it is. I am from the south–the DEEP south (pardon the pun). Actually, I am from and still live in the most conservative state in the union and have a long history with the Republican party (one of my jobs is to find out what techniques will work in elections). I can tell you that a convert of maybe half of the Republican party is not out of reach–even in my state. Most of the rest of us Republicans are exactly as you said–ignorant–to the facts concerning marijuana and do not ever want to listen to them. As conservative as I am on most issues, even social ones, it is highly unlikely that I am the only Republican who is in staunch opposition to the party’s prevailing opinion on ONLY ONE ISSUE– marijuana. Simply put, and coming from a convert myself, the Republican party is the key to victory in this rhealm and should be assaulted with facts over and over again. Just like in civil rights, facts can’t be ignored.