War of the Words
A common source of frustration for MPP – and for most folks in the marijuana policy reform movement – is being mischaracterized as “pro-pot” or “pro-drug” by the press. Not only are these labels misleading and politically charged, they’re completely inaccurate.
Most of us who wish to end marijuana prohibition do so because we see the policy’s utter futility and its legacy of failure and waste. Our argument isn’t that marijuana is fun; it’s that marijuana prohibition is a disaster, and that perpetuating it is inhumane and irresponsible. That’s true whether you use marijuana or not, and whether you approve of marijuana use or not.
I don’t think reporters mischaracterize us on purpose. Reporters pride themselves on their ability to approach topics with a healthy dose of skepticism. But most of them haven’t given marijuana policy as much thought as, say, the pro-choice movement, which you’ll rarely – if ever – see referred to as “pro-abortion.”
And it isn’t just the small papers and local news channels. A few weeks ago, CNN Headline News’ “Showbiz Tonight” called MPP a “pro-pot group.” And just last week, a reporter with the Washington Post used the same label to describe us in a story about Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.
I’m not bringing this up to bash anybody. When I contacted the Post reporter to request a correction to the online version of her story, she was prompt in responding to me, and I believe that she and her editor gave my request sincere consideration based on their point of view. But they declined to change the story.
It makes sense that defenders of marijuana prohibition like to characterize critics of our current policies as being pro-marijuana or as encouraging marijuana use. They have a much better chance defeating this straw man than if they were to engage in an honest debate about properly assessing marijuana’s relative dangers to individuals and to society and developing effective policies designed to mitigate those dangers. It’s very difficult to defend prohibition in that light.
It can certainly get wearisome countering these same mischaracterizations in the press, but it’s also an opportunity. Although I failed to get the Post article corrected, I did get in touch with the paper’s ombudsman, who agreed that the phrase “pro pot” was “simplistic” and posted a note to the Post staff advising them about my complaint and her opinion.
So who knows? I’d like to think that pointing out the problem at least caused some folks over there to think about marijuana policy for a moment or two.
Tagged with: drug war and drug warriors and MPP by the author
8 comments
It will take until a few reporters get chemo and find out that it is indeed medicine and prohibition is refusing them the legal right to use said medicine. Then they will be motivated.
If you don’t want to be branded as “pro-pot,” then I suggest you change your name and focus.
Bloomdude…are you talking to MPP???
On the “war of words” subject, here’s rant I use often in message-boards and forums. Feel free to copy/edit/paste.
Legalize Marijuana or Repeal Prohibition?
============================
Personally, I prefer the latter because when people hear the “L-word” it evokes horrific images–propagandized by grandstanding prohibitionists–of Cannabis vending-machines alongside lockers in the halls of our nation’s schools, aggressive advertising campaigns targeting young people, every third driver on the highway with cotton-mouth and blood-shot eyes looking at everything but the road, and a surge in chemical dependence amongst the masses and so on. All these are myths fabricated by the people whose careers are dependent on the ever-growing bureaucratic, law-enforcement, and corrections infrastructure which has a 70-year track record of failure with no end in sight.
Alcohol Prohibition was bad policy back in the 1920s and Drug Prohibition is even worse policy now.
People wrongfully assume that it was first outlawed because of the “will of the people.” It was not. Harry J. Anslinger, a disgruntled—and racist—Treasury agent after repeal of alcohol Prohibition desperate for job-security, pushed it through Congress with negligible debate. Witnesses opposed to his agenda were screened out of what few hearings there were. There was NO floor-debate whatsoever. A bureaucrat’s bureaucrat, he was head of his fiefdom for over 30 years.
I realize many people have their opinions and do not wish to be confused by the facts but, for those interested in learning more of the facts, I recommend these sites:
http://jackherer.com/chapters.html
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/histdrug.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
So are we to deduce that if the “Marijuana” Policy Project is just a very specific name for a general anti-drug prohibition organization, that MPP supports legalization of heroin in, say, Nevada, as well as legalization of marijuana in that state?
When you sponsor statewide legislation that will bring marijuana distribution into regulated markets, you are pro-pot.
What’s wrong with that?
More and more people support the pro-pot side! Stop acting ashamed or as if your pot use–you do use cannabis, right?–is a legitimate stigma.
Come to the Boston Freedom Rally
Sat. 9/20/08 — HIGH NOON
BOSTON COMMON
No Cuffs for Cannabis!
Support Decriminalization/VOTE decriminalization
YES on QUESTION 2
I don’t get it. Why be ashamed of being pro-pot? Glad to say that I mostly support the other group out there fighting for this issue who aren’t ashamed of being labeled “pro pot”. I’ve worked in newsrooms, I think it’s sad that you complained but didn’t get anything in the paper. Like that’s going to make the editor think differently. They don’t care! And your response only reinforces their original belief that being “pro-pot” is something to be ashamed of. It’s not, unless you are pro-pot like McCain, Bush, Clinton, Obama who all have supported prohibition policy that is “pro-pot”. Prohibition has only led to more use of pot, so they are also “pro-pot” but dishonest about it. Instead of complaing why not give them what ever newspaper wants? You know a good quote. Lambasting the “pro-pot” phonies like Obama and McCain.
And why is MPP not talking about Obama’s terrible record on cannabis reform? Only putting out videos that make people think he is supporting us when in fact he is not and his people have said that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Znv41SIJU
I’m getting a lot of feedback from folks who disagree with my post or who even took offense to it. I’ve tried to respond personally to those who contacted me about it, but I thought it might be a good idea to post a quick comment to see if I can clarify my point.
For the record, I’m a marijuana user, and I’m certainly not ashamed of it. But I don’t believe that whether you or I enjoy marijuana or not is a very compelling argument for why we must end prohibition. Actually, there are plenty of MPP staffers who don’t use marijuana, and I promise you they are every bit as committed as you or I to reforming our crazy marijuana laws. The issue isn’t whether marijuana is good or bad, but that prohibition is far far worse. And it doesn’t just affect marijuana users — it affects everybody.
The bottom line is that MPP doesn’t care whether you or I use marijuana, as long as we do it responsibly. We only believe adults ought to be allowed to make that decision for themselves. That’s why it’s inaccurate and misleading to label MPP “pro pot.”
To be honest, I think that folks who value freedom ought to appreciate that — we don’t need MPP’s approval for the choices we make about marijuana any more than we need the federal government’s. We don’t need to be ashamed of those choices, but we don’t need to be congratulated for them either. We just need laws that protect our right to make them.
As far as the presidential election’s concerned, I can only tell you that whoever our next president is, we’re clearly going to have a long way to go to get that person right on this issue, and MPP will be pushing hard to do so.
I understand that some people will disagree on all this, but I hope we can agree that the more important task is taking this fight to the folks who would rather arrest marijuana users than get serious about establishing effective marijuana policies. — Dan
I’ve gotten some reasonably good traction using a war analogy to explain it to people.
There are lots of reasons to think that the debacle in Iraq isn’t serving the interests of the American people, but it doesn’t mean that you support terror or aren’t patriotic.
In much the same way one can see that the militarization of criminals and police, the decay of the inner cities, and the jailing of productive and benign members of society are related to what is a failed policy on substance use in the US.
It frustrated me at times being at MPP because people would assume that I thought drugs were completely harmless and that there is no such thing as abuse or addiction. Believe it or not, in an ideal world I would have actually rather been working for the ONDCP creating materials to educate people so they can make informed decisions about their health.
The war on drugs though makes that impossible. It sets drugs up as a great evil to be battled. That means instead of working on helping people to see drugs as a complex choice that adults may or may not choose to have as a part of their life, they are spreading misinformation that means anyone with any direct experience with marijuana ends up dismissing everything they say since millions of people have gotten high and clearly a large number of them managed to do just fine with the rest of their lives.
Anyhow, try the patriotism analogy. Most people can use that as a way to understand the straw man fallacy a bit better.
Leave a Comment