We’ve got a Montana NORML Facebook Fan named Sean who regularly engages us in online discussions of strategy and policy regarding marijuana. He took the time recently to publish some of  his core criticisms. I welcome rational debate, and I promised him a reply. Here it is.

I’ll try to address each of his concerns using his section headings. First, you should read his post.

1. “Medical marijuana is needlessly divisive.”

Sean seems to believe that Montana NORML either devised or at least supports the idea that medical marijuana is the best way to get to legalization (or decriminalization).  I voted for I-148 in 2004, and we informed Montana NORML supporters about its substance and progress, but we did not initiate the strategy or gather signatures or otherwise have anything to do with the initiative. I’m not trying to distance myself from the hard work done by those on the ground or the funders who made it happen, I’m just stating a fact.

But I have often wondered if there were downsides to the medical approach, such as:

• The state medical marijuana laws seem to be getting more restrictive with each passage (compare California’s to New Jersey’s). Will “medicalization” of marijuana eventually become “pharmaceuticalization” and make adult spiritual/social/personal use even harder to legalize?
• Will people get their “medical cards” and then become ambivalent about efforts to make marijuana legal for any adult?

I understand and share some of Sean’s concerns that medical marijuana is “needlessly divisive”. The line that brings me around though, coined by MPP I believe, is: If we must have a war on people who use marijuana, shouldn’t we at least remove the sick and dying from the battlefield?

Sean goes on to say that the “fabrication” of a “medical” usage is “ludicrous”. I’m not sure how he explains away the mountain of scientific evidence of marijuana’s medical benefits in a variety of ailments; he even acknowledges the existence of FDA-approved Marinol, the active ingredient of which is synthetic THC.

2. “Commercialization and regulation are not good for anyone but medical MJ businessmen.”

Sean mischaracterizes my position that marijuana should be responsibly regulated as somehow meaning that the plant should be a “vehicle for venture capitalists”.

Then he tries to create a conflict between my statements about regulating marijuana and national NORML’s.  I’m not saying marijuana is the same as alcohol (marijuana is much safer), but I think alcohol’s general regulatory model makes sense for marijuana: adults only, no driving under the influence, advertising restrictions, licensed producers and retailers, etc.

I particularly like the beer & wine regulatory model because it is legal to create your own at home, and that’s an essential ingredient of future legal marijuana policies for me. Like beer and wine, most people won’t want to go through the trouble and will prefer to simply buy marijuana at a licensed retailer. Regulations could ensure that marijuana is organic (or not), as well as purity and potency.

He makes some good points about capitalist profiteering often resulting in low quality, characterless products, but I don’t think this is inevitable with commercialization. Take the recent surge in microbreweries for example. Or high-end chocolates. Or wines. Or gourmet peanut butter.

In one comment thread, I asked Sean what sort of legal model he envisioned or thought we should be working for. He suggested we treat marijuana like cocoa beans or wheat. That would imply that parents could serve it to their kids for breakfast, and school bus drivers and surgeons could have it on their lunch breaks. I don’t think that’s what anyone really wants.

3. “Partial legalization and regulation create targets for law enforcement.”

You won’t get much of an argument from me on Sean’s points here. Law enforcement has been a foe in nearly all efforts to make marijuana legal, medical or otherwise (but check out Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). However, now that we’re six years into medical marijuana in Montana, I think many officials are coming around to believe that it’s here to stay.

4. “Incrementalism is not a successful path to political reform.”

Actually I think the opposite is true. Social movements for equal treatment of women and minorities, and the gay rights movement, come to mind.

5. “If you have political momentum for medical MJ passage, you have such momentum for decriminalization.”

Sean again seems to to think that Montana NORML is focused entirely on medical marijuana.  We’re not.  Every chance I get, I maneuver medical marijuana discussions into legalization discussions. We are working towards the day that marijuana is legal for all adults, regardless of their medical condition.

Recent polling on medical marijuana versus full legalization shows that public support for medical is a slam dunk at 70-80% approval, but making marijuana legal for everyone has not yet attained majority support nationwide. Voters in western states may support legalization by a small margin, depending on which poll you read, and California will vote on legalization this fall. Support for full legalization has grown considerably just in the last few years. Is that because of the passage of medical marijuana laws? There’s no way to know for sure. But support is growing, and legal marijuana is likely to become a reality in one or more states over the next several years.

There will always be strategy debates within social movements. It’s a healthy part of the process and helps refine and improve defensible positions and arguments. Overall, Sean and I are on the same side. We want adults to be legally allowed to grow, possess and use marijuana responsibly.

• Previous Entry: Montana NORML Newsletter: Hash Case & High-Ku
• Next Entry: Montana NORML Newsletter – Jack Herer, Marijuana Education Day, and the News