Issue 3.2: The Puritans Are Coming

First, regarding your question over "puritanism". I would consider any marijuana policy that attempts to inhibit marijuana usage, to dissuade users or even encourage them to use less, to concede the fundamental point that the ill or positive effects of marijuana are unrelated to attempts to legalization. Were they not the only successful (while entirely dishonest) programs, I would be opposed to medical marijuana as well. Too often those who would work for decriminalization or better come, hat-in-hand, sorry to bother you nice people but this drug isn't so bad, really, or it's not as bad as these other ones. Every time a NORML lawyer proudly boasts that he personally has never smoked pot, someone should ask him why, make him justify the idiotic dissonance that proudly claims never to have used a harmless product as a badge of credibility. Marijuana has harmful effects. It has positive effects. Neither are reasons for it's

Your first point is significant. Regarding marijuana policy, there is a certain elitist complacency regarding moral or ethical arguments about legalization. Of course it remains settled among this elite constituency, but its continued criminal status suggests that something more important is holding it back. I don't think it's the opinion of a non-elite majority, either; there already exists a plurality in favor of legalization and a significant majority in favor of decriminalization programs.

The problem seems to lie in the attitude that you expressed, that the issue is minor or meaningless. The President gave the same glib response in the online town hall. As long as those who have an ethical commitment to decriminalization continue to roll their eyes when asked to make any movement on the issue, it will remain illegal.

Not to be moralistic about the political issues you choose to support. There are many reasons not to focus on it, the implausibility of real change in policy being foremost among them, but I don't think that implausibility is the problem; it's a simple coalition building issue. This debate has always been framed around three poles- 1) the libertarian "lost liberty" argument to libertarians, 2) the leftist "social justice" argument regarding the race and class of drug war victims, and 3) the "it's-not-as-bad-as-____-which-is-legal" argument.

In turn: The first argument has proven, on this and any settled "violations" of abstract liberties to be completely unconvincing. At best it can be said to be good for recruiting libertarians, though I'd be skeptical of that as well. The second argument fails just as routinely, either because of a latent racism among those opposing the change, or more likely because the "victims" are still criminals; it makes more sense to argue for color-blind enforcement of existing laws than to succumb to a lobby of self-identified criminals. The third appeals to a prohibitionist instinct which has only increased calls for the criminalization of tobacco.

All of these attempt to create coalitions out of existing supporters, and their worst excesses only damage forward progress. There has been no movement, that I'm aware of, where drug companies or agribusiness has been brought on board to capitalize the market. Too often this is dismissed as a dangerous mix of market/consumer capitalism in order for traditional leftism to prevent the co-optation of another issue (they were sure this was going to be the one to bring down the fat-cats). The rare potential for a legitimate liberal unity between free-markets and free people exists here, and it's too easy to dismiss it as an impossible situation while doing nothing to raise it's profile or advance the realm of the politically possible to include that which already has popular support.

But actual legalization wasn't really the issue. Whatever steps toward decriminalization are taken in the next decade, they're not going to prevent hideous violence.

Regarding your criticisms of the "Buy Canadian" program, I'd like to know what evidence you have of this "rule breaker" category that all pot dealers/users fit into. You're absolutely applying a stereotype- justify it. Marijuana use is commonly categorized according to market demand, for quality, for certain strains, and toward locally grown product; this is simply suggesting an attempt to make those claims more uniform, inject social-consciousness reasoning in a population with a noted affinity for social justice issues, and increase the amount bought from non-violent drug producers. The size of the drug market even small changes in buyer's attitudes causes a significant and immediate change in behavior.

Number 2, fine, it's easily dismissed as pointless. But unlike the tremendous majority of protests, this is one area where increased awareness is 1) possible and 2) helpful. So how is your rejection not glib knee-jerking? If you agree that the problem in Juarez is caused in some part by the marijuana trade, and a problem, what solutions would you propose?

UPDATE: Also, notice how you find the attraction of marijuana policy debates so mysteriously strong, and yet it's the first issue you've chose to post or respond to.