The Medical Cannabis Victory: A Textbook Case of Organizing and Resistance
By Al Giordano
Monday’s memorandum by the Obama administration that the federal government will cease wasting law enforcement, prosecutorial (and correspondingly court) budgets on arresting and raiding medical marijuana dispensaries and patients came as the next logical step in what has primarily been a textbook organizing campaign from below.
The history is instructive on how small steps lead to big change, and is worth study by all who clamor for progress on many fronts: from bringing about national health care to ending the US embargo of Cuba to immigration reform to overhauling an entire economic system, to each and every “issue” one might advocate.
Much of my work as a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s was in the realm of reporting on US drug policy and the movements that sought to repeal or reform it. In that I had a front row seat to the debates and discussions – always passionate, often rancorous – between advocates and organizations that worked to change those laws. There were natural tensions between, for example, those who saw drug prohibition itself as the cause of so much harm, violence and injustice and concluded (as I do) that repeal of prohibitionist laws against all drugs – including those which are addictive or cause clear risks to their users - is a necessary step for any society that yearns to breathe authentically free. Others, representative of tens of millions of Americans who use marijuana recreationally or medically, simply wanted to establish their own right to do so in peace, without much regard to the related societal harms on people that were not demographically like them.
Conferences would be held and those matters of philosophy and strategy would be argued strenuously but meanwhile the drug war marched on as a literal war – with its own armaments, POWs and death toll – by the US government against its own people and against many in other lands.
In the mid-1990s, some forward-thinking advocates of drug policy reform concluded that the big, central matter – whether recreational drugs should be legalized or not – was simply too big and confusing a matter for so much of the public to tackle all at once. Even the matter of legalizing relatively harmless marijuana was overwhelming in terms of public opinion. As the Gallup poll graph above recounts, in 1996 only 25 percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana, with 73 percent opposed. Any organizing strategy under such overwhelming negative numbers that chose polarization over organizing was doomed to fail.
And so some pioneering voices and organizers set about on a path of incremental change. They chose to hit hard upon a brittle crack in the drug war artifice: that even if three-quarters of Americans did not then want cannabis legalized for everyone, a critical mass had grave misgivings about policies that persecuted people who were ill – with glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, MS and other ailments - and needed the plant as medicine.
The debates today over health care and other matters seamlessly echo those that took place among drug policy reform advocates in the mid-90s. Those who embarked on a strategy of incremental change were often vilified by natural allies who said that such a step-by-step path did not move fast or far enough. In some cases, entire organizations were shattered and splinter groups formed in their place, competing for the same supporters and funding. We all know how that story goes. Friendships in that milieu of drug policy reform, too, were lost in the divisions, egos and hard feelings. There have always been, and perhaps always will be, those who argue that by urging incremental change a movement abandons its core principles. But in the end, history moves one step at a time, and more often than not it is those who walk rather than sprint that emerge triumphant.
Thirteen years later, those who enacted the incremental strategy have proved correct, indeed, prophetic. In 1996 – over the objections of some pot legalization groups and individuals – citizens in California and Arizona placed medical marijuana referenda on their state ballots. The California measure – legalizing the possession of up to eight ounces or 18 plants of grass - passed with 56 percent support. In Arizona – thought to be a more “conservative” state – a measure allowing physicians to prescribe medical marijuana won 65 percent of all votes (there, the state legislature quickly repealed the new law, so citizens put it on the ballot again two years later and repeated their victory).
Shifting from mere activism and advocacy to a referendum strategy also forced significant swathes of drug policy reform movements to enter a new phase: that of community organizing. Referenda in most states require the collection of signatures, which means advocates had to get out of the circle jerk cycle of endless meetings and internal debate and go out there, door to door, to recruit from the general public. Once they got the proposed laws on the ballot that meant campaigning for votes. This marked a paradigm shift in what had been a self-marginalized reform movement: a wake up call
In 1998, again by pursuing this strategy of community organizing, the states of Oregon, Washington and Alaska followed suit with similar measures. Maine followed in 1999. In 2000, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada voters did the same. Since then, Montana, New Mexico, Michigan, Rhode Island and Vermont became medical marijuana states, and Maryland allowed medical use as a defense in court. Four of those states – California, Colorado, New Mexico and Rhode Island – have legalized clinics and dispensaries where cannabis can be distributed legally to the patients who need it.
During these years – and the battle has been particularly focused in California – the federal administrations of George W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton before him disrespected those expressions of democratic will and sent the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and federal prosecutors to raid medical marijuana clinics, arrest, fine and imprison providers and patients alike. And looking up again at that Gallup graph you can see how during those years public opinion on the larger question of legalizing marijuana for everybody that wants it has taken a fast turn toward outright repeal of prohibition.
The community organizing phase – that of referenda on the state level – quickly gave birth to a bona fide civil resistance movement: one in which tens of thousands of Americans openly committed nonviolent civil disobedience against federal law to implement the new state laws allowing distribution of medical marijuana to patients. The federal raids against cannabis dispensaries and patients provoked the public conscience and demonstrated the fundamental immorality and ineffectiveness not just of US enforcement against medical marijuana but also of pot prohibition overall. And public opinion on the wider question moved markedly toward legalizing marijuana.
In the Western states, according to Gallup, an outright majority of 53 percent of citizens now favor marijuana legalization compared to 46 percent against. Well, that makes perfect sense: that is precisely the cluster states that led the charge on the smaller matter of medical marijuana and where community organizing and civil resistance have garnered the most support and attention: thus, there is a causal effect of such organizing and resistance on public opinion.
With that shift in public opinion came a leading presidential candidate in 2007 and 2008 who pledged to end the raids of medical cannabis dispensaries in states that make them legal, and just ten months after his inauguration, President Obama has now made good on that promise, one that wasn't his idea but, rather, of his organizer's ear being able to hear the din that had been caused by the organizers from below. And with that paradigm shift in federal policy, expect to see public opinion continue to break steeply in favor of repealing the prohibition altogether.
The history textbooks will note forevermore, when looking back at how the United States repealed pot prohibition (something that will likely now come in most of our lifetimes) that it was the strategy of incremental change that opened the floodgates to fundamental change. The same will be said of how the US embargo of Cuba was ended (granting Cuban-Americans the right to travel there inexorably will extend that freedom to all US citizens). The same will be written of immigration policy. And – if you can weed through the griping about whether this year’s health care reform goes far enough or not – I think a similar path of incremental steps to change will provoke a very similar dynamic toward wholesale change. Short of revolutions – which happen when incremental change is made impossible by the authoritarian nature of regimes - that is how change usually happens.
There have been many, many unsung heroes and heroines of these organizing and resistance battles that in thirteen short years have changed public opinion on marijuana prohibition – often at considerable risk and sacrifice to their own freedom and safety – but a very special place in history will be reserved for Ethan Nadelmann, today the director of the Drug Policy Alliance. It is fitting that he is profiled favorably in the current issue of Newsweek. Back in the early 1990s, it was Nadelmann who coalesced and gave narrative to the disparate voices and advocates who sought to launch a strategy of incremental change, and not only on marijuana policy, but also with “harm reduction” measures regarding the problems prohibition has brought to users and to society when it comes to other drugs.
He and the tens of thousands of Americans that went door to door to put those referenda on the ballot, and who subsequently risked so much in their civil resistance to the federal clinic raids, have just stepped through the threshold of history, and from the momentum of this most recent triumph will live to struggle and usher in more sweeping changes to US drug policy as a result. This week's victory now provides a roadmap for organizers in each of the 50 states to further change policy by doing so at the state level. (No victory is ever final: It opens the door to the next.)
But there is also a lesson here for the cynics who, in lieu of participating in community organizing and civil resistance campaigns, preferred to talk trash against step-by-step movements for change on any policy front and pose as somehow more “radical” or “pure.” This latest paradigm shift in US policy did not come about because some marijuana legalization advocates complained that medical marijuana reform wasn’t somehow “enough.” Of course it never was the final policy goal for so many that did the heavy lifting to make it so. But baby steps have now made an evolutionary leap forward toward the bigger change. Thus, this is a good moment to point out that the whining and Chicken Little tantrums of some others on that front had zero impact on making progress happen. Their method of complain and bark orders from the sidelines proved, once again, completely inconsequential and only served as annoying distraction from those doing the real work and organizing.
It is by winning those step-by-step incremental victories – through proven methods of community organizing and civil resistance - that more fundamental change is made possible, indeed, likely to come faster than many dreamed just thirteen years ago. And whether your priorities are in the realm of drug policy, or health care, or foreign policy or anything else, there is something vital to be learned from this particular lesson in civics.
Email this page
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Comments
Like the gay marriage movement
Submitted October 20, 2009 - 12:13 pm by bonkers (not verified)When you step back a moment and think how different the American national discourse is today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, it really is exciting. Hell, just 2 years ago most Liberals I know were claiming that "no way is America ready to elect a Black President." And how were these naysayers proven wrong again? Oh yea, organizing.
I've worked on healthcare causes most of my adult life, especially pushing single-payer, and I've never been so motivated than now. 15 years ago it was difficult to find anyone with any idea what "single-payer" meant, and now it's a fairly common topic of discussion in the circles I run in. Gay rights, MaryJane legalization, the "Green Revolution," and now major healthcare changes, which will eventually lead to a real public option, have all made significant progress in recent years based on those on the streets and in the community rooms today, and on the shoulders of those who did it before them. The best part is that we're just getting warmed up, and that's why Al's message is so crucial for the sustainability of these various movements.
Onward and upward....to each and every doorbell in America!
On a related note...
Submitted October 20, 2009 - 7:21 pm by Nuisance Industry (not verified)...as of this writing, members of Congress have received about 230,000 telephone calls demanding health care reform today.
As the House and Senate prepare for floor votes, OFA demonstrated its most public show of strength since Election Day, setting a goal of 100,000 calls to Congress. That goal was passed before 2:30pm ET, and doubled by the time President Obama addressed supporters at 8pm ET.
What happened today was not merely a push by a sea of constituents for the final shape of health care reform. It is a warmup for future battles, including the looming one on climate change. A successful track record of mass organizing for specific policy goals, in which people on the streets and in the White House are mutually engaged and interested, is the most powerful weapon we have against the forces of K Street.
Years ago, Barack Obama mused about how politics should work when he first ran for the Illinois State Senate.
http://www1.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/
"The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted," said Obama. "People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.
"What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.
"The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.
"Now we have to take this same language--these same values that are encouraged within our families--of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other--and apply them to a larger society. Let's talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values. Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more."
He said that almost 14 years ago. As far as I can tell, he hasn't changed much other than his home address.
Much depends on how much one likes people
Submitted October 20, 2009 - 7:23 pm by Phoenix Woman (not verified)A big problem I've noticed with many of the bookish types (of which I am one) that wind up in "activism" (and it has ever been thus, though the internet's made it easier than ever to sequester oneself among only people who are exactly like you) is that many of us prefer books to all but a small subset of people -- and even there, we're so unused to, or unskilled at, getting along with and tolerating other people's foibles that it doesn't take much at all to rupture relationships; often even a longtime friendship won't survive the first real argument. Either that, or we turn out to be passive-aggressive paper tigers whose written bark is much less than our in-person bite; we don't have a middle gear.
Doorknocking is a wonderful way of separating the wheat from the chaff. To be a really good doorknocker, you have to not only believe in what you're selling, you have to like meeting people -- yes, even those of radically different mindsets than yours. In other words, the very folk from whom many of us bookish types spend most of our lives trying to avoid.
From all accounts, the young Barack Obama was one of the best doorknockers on the planet. He likes people, and they --especially schoolkids -- like him. (See also these pics: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/20/795150/-Obama-out-indoctrinating-school-children-again) There's a reason that this black guy -- and a skinny kid with a funny name, as he himself says -- got to be president.
We the People and OFA
Submitted October 21, 2009 - 7:15 am by Lorie CavinThe Organizer in Chief and his grass roots team over at OFA records over 300,000 calls to congress about health care.
Thought it was on topic with Al's story. Grass Roots, indeed.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog
Nadelmann on Diane Rehm/NPR
Submitted October 21, 2009 - 8:30 am by Lorie CavinFYI. Definitely the topic of the day...and beyond.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
Patience
Submitted October 21, 2009 - 10:37 am by richardbelldc (not verified)Patience is not a virtue much celebrated in our instant-on world. Al's account refers to the "thirteen short years" in which persistent organizers were able to change public opinion on marijuana. But 13 years is short indeed compared to some of the older epic struggles from which we all benefit unthinkingly today, like women's rights, the 8-hour day, etc. These struggles went on for decades, a time horizon that one almost never encounters in any aspect of one's life these days, except in bringing a child into the world.
Telling a child to "be more patient" has almost never been an effective way of dealing with a squirming kid. How does one go about teaching the patience that is essential to the success of any social struggle over anything much bigger than a neighborhood playground? Most activist fundraising relies on a kind of "shock-and-horror" style of messaging, messaging that arouses emotions but tends to cut against any historical and structural understanding of the problems we face.
One of the reasons that I have long loved Howard Zinn's work is because he is so skillful in using the history of struggle to show us what "patience in action" looks like. As activists, we need to do a much better job of teaching the virtue of patience to people joining a struggle for the first time, and for sustaining those of us who have been in the storm too long.
@richardbelldc: Good questions!
Submitted October 21, 2009 - 12:18 pm by Phoenix Woman (not verified)A big chunk of patience comes from recognizing that other people are human even if they don't share 100% of your viewpoint. This recognition and empathy doesn't often spring up fully formed; more typically, it is honed by years of face-to-face interaction -- which as I've noted above is an art under attack nowadays, when the internet makes it easier than ever for the smarties among us to isolate themselves rather than hone their socialization and persuasion skills.
Patience and Impatience
Submitted October 21, 2009 - 12:58 pm by Al GiordanoPhoenix and Richard - Yes, patience can't be taught but as a general rule of thumb people who are involved inside a community organizing campaign can see the daily progress in ways that people just looking at it from the sidelines cannot, and so they tend to be "patient" in that way (although they share a healthy "impatience" with wanting to change the world - impatience per se isn't bad, it's a question of how one is impatient!)
The other thought in terms of "people who like people," is that even misanthropes like myself can find ways to plug into organizing efforts in ways that suit them. One of the most important jobs in any door to door or phone banking campaign is that of data entry, for example. The data entry people are the unsung heroes of 2008. They made the door knocking mean something real in terms of getting out the vote later on.
Great thoughts from everyone above!
Pharmaceutical drug dealers have also had to come clean.
Submitted October 21, 2009 - 3:28 pm by cargo cult (not verified)However, this is still an issue that the corporate press dodges as much as possible - CNN International has a leading article on the Afghan heroin trade, but would never dream of comparing that to the legal oxycontin trade run by U.S. pharma firms, which is also a drug derived from the opium poppy. In fact, more U.S. overdoses are due to legal opiates than illegal opiates - and yet the death numbers remain far behind those from alchohol and tobacco.
The medical debate is not just a route to drug legalization, in any case. Cannabis has clear benefits for nausea, depression, pain and various muscular problems - and doesn't have many of the nasty side effects of common pharmaceuticals, like SSRIs and the Vioxx/Celebrex type drugs, to name just a few.
Eventually, all drugs should be placed under the same regulatory authority, the FDA, and the DEA should be dissolved into other law enforcement agencies. Then, clinical drug abuse can be treated the same way as alcoholism - as a medical problem, not as a criminal problem. Of course, regulation and restriction of sales should be handled as with alcohol and tobacco - and rules on that are still way too lax, as any motivated minor can get their hands on alcohol and tobacco.
A somewhat crazy idea for organizing for decriminalization
Submitted October 22, 2009 - 8:33 am by BR (not verified)For about a year I've been kicking around a somewhat crazy idea for organizing for drug reform (and specifically national decriminalization / rescheduling of marijuana).
The basic plan goes something like this:
1. Lay the groundwork by getting a good bill introduced in both the house and senate by really pushing hard on Reps. Frank and Paul on the house side and I'm not sure who on the senate side. This is so that there's a bill to organize around. I think such a bill already exists, it just needs to be (re)introduced.
2. Pick a day (or maybe week) a couple months in the future when congress is in session and will be available for meetings in DC. Via a website recruit at least 1 person from each congressional district who supports this policy and is willing to meet with their representative in person. The goal is to find someone well spoken and well groomed. Practice the talking points with those who are going to meet in advance. In the meeting, the person should dress in a suit or other equivalent business attire and be well-groomed. (We're avoiding stereotypes here.) They should deliver a passionate call and at the same time tell their congressperson that every one of their colleages is hearing from a similarly passionate person at that exact moment. Deliver signatures if possible from prominent local businesspeople, etc.
3. Tell them we're not going away and tell them you'll be back and expect to see that they've voted for the bill by that future date.
If only I had the time...
A quibble
Submitted October 22, 2009 - 9:23 am by Ben MaselFor the medical marijuna ballot initiatives, the overwhelming majority of signatures came not from literal "door to door' but from working streets, concerts, and tables on campuses.
Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
Wisconsin medical bill intro today
Submitted October 22, 2009 - 9:48 am by Ben MaselRepresentative Marc Pocan and Senator Jon Erpenbach Erpenbach formally introduce the Jacki Rickert Medical Marijuana Act, modeled on the measure passed by Michigan vorters last fall, this afternoon.
We got a boost from Governor Doyle yesterday.
WPR: (WAUSAU) Governor Jim Doyle says he favors legalizing medical marijuana in Wisconsin if a law can be written that restricts its use to people who have a doctor's prescription.
Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
Pushing toward the tipping point
Submitted October 22, 2009 - 11:13 am by SaferChoice (not verified)Al - You have done a wonderful job giving appropriate praise to the work of many leaders of the drug policy reform movement. Their work on incremental change undoubtedly set the foundation for future success. Along those lines, I wanted to point out an effort that is taking the movement to reform marijuana laws a major step forward. It is the SAFER campaign, which works to advance the message that marijuana is safer than alcohol and, thus, it makes no sense to punish adults who make the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol. It is a very simple message to advance, but you would be surprised how many Americans actually believe that marijuana is as harmful as, if not more harmful than, alcohol. But those who appreciate the relative harms support reform by more than a two-to-one ratio. So part of the goal of the campaign is to encourage all individuals to use the message with friends, family and anyone else who might be in need of a little education. If you or your readers are interested in this campaign and theory, I would encourage them to check out Marijuana is Safer: So why are we driving people to drink? The book describes the campaign, the theory behind the effort, and also provides a great overview of marijuana and the battle to change our laws.
Post new comment