Cannibis and the California Medical Association

Daniel Shane posts:

The Los Angeles Times ran a story this morning about a group advocating decriminalization of marijuana. That group happened to be the California Medical Association.

An excerpt:

The federal government views cannabis as a substance with no medical use, on a par with heroin and LSD. The CMA wants the Obama administration to reclassify it to help promote further research on its medical potential.

But Washington appears to be moving in the other direction. As recently as July, the federal government turned down a request to reclassify marijuana. That decision is being appealed in federal court by legalization advocates.

I find striking parallels between the pro-legalization and anti-tobacco movements; interestingly, the parallels move in completely opposite directions.

Take big tobacco. As Fritschler and Rudder note in Chapter 2, “it took more than fifty years from the point when scientists first presented credible evidence that smoking was a health hazard to the time when the issue was placed into play in the policymaking arena” (12). Policy entrepreneurs fought to bring a legalized evil into Congressional debate in the hopes that legislators would criminalize - or at least regulate - the industry.

In trying to overturn (rather than set) federal law, marijuana advocates face the opposite battle. Their policy entrepreneurs, however, still turn to the same avenues as did the anti-tobacco crusaders. First, the states. Anti-tobacco launched large-scale civil suits, led by attorneys general in states such as Mississippi. Pro-legalization leaders placed Proposition 215 on California’s 1996 ballot (and successfully passed it). Activists decriminalized marijuana in Alaska, Oregon, Colorado, New York, and several others, though federal law still illegalizes the drug. (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6331).

Much like the attorney general did in Mississippi’s anti-tobacco trial, CMA cited economic reasons for its advocacy. As the Recession continues to impact state and federal budgets, the CMA has – like groups such as FAMM – turned to arguments about inefficient and unnecessary government spending.

The Los Angeles Times wrote: “The CMA’s new stance appears to have as much to do with politics as science…[they cite] increased prison costs, the effect on families when marijuana users are imprisoned and racial inequalities in drug-sentencing cases.”

Next, anti-tobacco turned to the White House. FDA head David Kessler recognized his need for President Clinton’s support. President Clinton only lent that support once he learned his tobacco swing states “would be willing to see tobacco controlled.” (142)

President Obama enjoys no such guarantee. The Times article notes how “opinion polls show state voters…are divided on the question of total legalization…51% opposed and 46% in favor.” If the legalization movement continues mimicking anti-tobacco, even if it is fighting in the opposite direction, it will have a much tougher time winning approval from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.