Establishment vs. the Drug War
David Fleming, long one of L.A.'s most powerful private citizens, has now become one of its most powerful advocates for drug legalization. The L.A. Daily News has produced a profile of Fleming and his wife Jean, who together have created a new medical-marijuana docudrama entitled Smoke Screen.
"The War on Drugs has cost the American taxpayer $1 trillion since 1972," he said. "We're paying $69 billion a year to make a health problem into a criminal one."
That's the libertarian side of him talking - he's also a board member of the Reason Foundation. But while Fleming can go on at length about drug stats from a policy standpoint, he's also got a personal stake.
His wife, a former Miss Illinois turned actress, suffers debilitating pain from post-polio syndrome. Several months ago, she obtained a prescription for medical marijuana. At night, she takes a few drops of liquid THC or snacks on a pot brownie to ease the pain.
"Here's Jeannie, well-to-do and a pillar of society, using marijuana," Fleming said.
"And I could be thrown in prison by Bush," she interjected.
That's Bush as in President George W. - the one who named her husband as a trustee for the James Madison Foundation, a group of politicians, jurists and two private citizens that hands out scholarships for teachers. Fleming has a photo of him and the president in his office.
The couple have an unusual marriage. He hangs with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. She wears a Barack Obama T-shirt. The two disagree on many political issues, but they vehemently agree about the need for drug-policy reform.
"Look, I'm an old lady, so I can say what I want to," she said. "In the '60s, I used to go to parties where cocaine was passed around and snorted. Nothing ever went up my nose, but I smoked marijuana."
Whole thing, well worth a read, here. (Link via L.A. Observed.)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I say lock 'em up, their criminals.
Liquid THC? Is that for real? Wiki has no mention of it. I long for the day when I can have a dry martini with a "twist."
I agree with Juanita!
Liquid THC? Is that for real?
In my vaguely informed estimation, that would be THC (and other cannabinoids) dissolved in ethyl alcohol.
If that's what they're talking about...yes, it's for real.
Mike, look up hash oil. that's the most common term I've heard for that, while smokable chronic has around 6-10% THC, hash oil approaches 75% (#'s are gross estimates)
But according to the Feds, MJ has no medical use! She must be having psychosomatic results.
"And I could be thrown in prison by Bush," she interjected.
I'm getting annoyed with this hyperbole. Maybe she was trying to make a point. Fair enough. But she also could have been thrown in jail by Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and she'll likely be thrown into prison by The Revenge of Clinton, Obama, or our next group of eight or ten presidents.
I really wish Reason or some other such publication would delve deeper into the "War on Drugs" and mention its true inception ... not with the Nixon presidency, though elevated then and later in the Reagan and Clinton years. But it was Woodrow Wilson, one of our dearly beloved avatars of so-called Progressivism who instituted the first federal anti-Narcotic measures, and yes, they included cannabis, before the marijuana tax act. They were sweeping regulations whose original intent was economic protectionism after the Opium Wars with England and the Spanish American Conflict leading to newly acquired Pacific territory and open trade routes.
I'm actually shocked Reason hasn't touched on this interesting bit of history.
lmnop:
what you're referring to would be known as a tincture of MJ.
We're paying $69 billion a year to make a health problem into a criminal one.
Since when is recreational use of anything a health problem?
When you start right off conceding that people's entertainment choices are a "health problem", you shouldn't be too surprised that you aren't making much headway in changing their legal status.
Funny, I don't see End the Drug War listed on http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/. I'm sure it's just an accidental omission.
I don't smoke marijuana, but I have this dream that someday they'll legalize it just so everyone will shut the hell up.
Peter:
Probably because if Reason staffers delved this deeply into the history and origins of the War on Drugs, they'd become hopelessly depressed.
This morning on this show, an individual made a point of saying the for the most part, drug prohibition is a global issue, in that there really wasn't a square inch on the globe where drugs were legal. Even in Amsterdam, he pointed out, drugs are illegal, the authorities take a "look the other way" approach due to their pragmatism.
I take Reason's side on the war on drugs, however, I'm not as optimistic about its arc. In my opinion, the War on Drugs is expanding, and any belief that *poof* prohibition will become a thing of the past is wishful thinking.
We may institute reforms, and we may not fight the war on drugs with DEA agents in South America, but in some way, the government WILL control and regulate what and how we put stuff in our bodies, end...of...discussion. The will to regulate is simply too strong.
In the link I post above, one of the individuals being interviewed wants to reform drug laws in this country, but his approach is disconcerting to me. He approaches the issue with a mish-mash of populist thinking, top-down government control, and change of focus from prevention to treatment. He also thinks that the "cure" to the substance abuse problem is some sort of National Health system. So there ya go.
Since when is recreational use of anything a health problem?
RC,
That's all you'll ever get with any form of drug legalization/decrminalization. You will probably never be allowed to use drugs recreationally ever, anywhere.
I stated on a previous thread about legalization of Marijuana, what you're going to get is: Grind it up, put it in a pill, demand a prescription for it, and put anyone caught in posession of it without said prescription into jail. HOORAY! We "won"!
Woodrow Wilson: the most over-rated President in our history,
That's all you'll ever get with any form of drug legalization/decrminalization. You will probably never be allowed to use drugs recreationally ever, anywhere.
What about alcohol, caffeine and nicotine? What give them their exalted status as THE legal intoxicants? Should they be illegal, since the other intoxicants must be illegal?
What about Kennedy? He's certainly got to be in the running.
Since when is recreational use of anything a health problem?
Of course excessive anything (food and water come immediately to mind) can balloon into a health problem. I spent a couple of years dropping acid every Saturday. Shared a joint going up, and another coming down. Effect on my health? None.
"Look, I'm an old lady, so I can say what I want to,"
Damn. I sure wish I was an old lady sometimes.
Old Lady for president!
Oh Juanita, haven't you gotten tired of this? *Le sigh*
Paul,
Defeatist
That is why we should approach this as a property rights issue. Fuck utilitarian arguments.A prescription should be nothing more than a note from your doctor to the pharmacist --not a "permission slip". Pre-emptively to the Danteetarian argument, I'm not moving to Mexico!
RC Dean,
Seconded
Peter,
Are you new here? Progressives are the root of most of our problems in this country.
Jean Fleming,
As the wife of "one of L.A.'s most powerful private citizens" you can literally get away with murder. Laws are for Nigras and Po' White trash. You have nothing to fear from Bush or any authority.
What about Kennedy? He's certainly got to be in the running.
Kennedy wasn't even in there long enough to be evaluated, really.
Wilson did so many terrible things--starting the drug war, lying us into World War I, introducing racial segregation to the federal government, starting the federal reserve--yet hes lauded as some kind of great visionary. It makes my stomach turn.
What about alcohol, caffeine and nicotine? What give them their exalted status as THE legal intoxicants? Should they be illegal, since the other intoxicants must be illegal?
First of all, Juanita, we're working on that right now. There are top men, making lots of money, trying to figure out how to ban them, as well as trans-fats, foie gras and many other things. Again, it's all about regulation.
And another point on that is that it makes me cringe everytime someone who wants to end the drug war starts talking about all the damage alcohol does to society. Because you'll never make your point and make the regulator say "Oh, yeah, you're right, this whole drug war thing should end", they're going to say "Oh crap, how'd we miss that? Yeah, let's ban that too!".
So please, don't call anymore attention to the few vices I do have-- and enjoy.
Oh, FWIW, the guy in the interview (link in my previous post) made some rather schizophrenic points about ending the war on drugs. He was asked about cigarettes, recreational drug use etc., he seemed to be whistling past the graveyard on his answers, but he indicated that we're having success with eliminating tobacco use from society, by pushing the users onto the cold, rainy street. To him, that was success. Had I been in the studio, I'd have said "Uhm, heroin users have been on the cold, rainy street for decades, and that's not working so well." And to think this was the guest who was against the drug war. In the end, it seemed like he was really arguing for a "New and Improved Drug War, a kinder, gentler drug war... with lots of government control and regulation."
Be very afraid.
That is why we should approach this as a property rights issue. Fuck utilitarian arguments.A prescription should be nothing more than a note from your doctor to the pharmacist --not a "permission slip".
Siv,
So what you're saying is, we're already screwed.
I'm getting annoyed with this hyperbole. Maybe she was trying to make a point. Fair enough. But she also could have been thrown in jail by Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and she'll likely be thrown into prison by The Revenge of Clinton, Obama, or our next group of eight or ten presidents.
I'm sorry but Bush Jr. has been especially egregious in this regard. No previous president has used the federal government to crack down on pot smokers who were licensed by the state. Carter even spoke of legalizing.
You could argue that Reagan would have pushed "just say no" on the states, or Clinton would have done it to throw the Republican congress a bone. But you could just as easily argue that Reagan's hands would have been tied by his own federalist rhetoric, and the Clinton would no more have cracked down on pot than the did on porn and uh.. pot.
Face it. When it comes to marijuana, W is the biggest douche in history.
Carter even spoke of legalizing.
Cool, if someone speaks of legalizing, I'm sold.
I would argue that Bush Jr. has been egregious in this regard because of timing.
Re: Biggest douche in history
What about Giuliani?
No previous president has used the federal government to crack down on pot smokers who were licensed by the state.
Let's pretend that whole old-timey tax-stamp deal never happened and note that no other president has had any opportunity to do this. Every one who has has. One datum, no information.
Carter even spoke of legalizing.
And he meant it, and he wasn't just perpetuating a false image of Democrats as anti-drug-war when not one of them is, and that's why he didn't just talk about it, he made it happen. And it was awesome.
Clinton would no more have cracked down on pot than the did on porn and uh.. pot
Yes. Two whole terms with no hundreds and hundreds of marijuana-related DEA arrests and federal prosecutions. We all don't remember it well.
Warren,
Are you an alternate-dimensional traveler from some Bizzaro World where Clinton didn't oppose med mj and his Justice Department didn't conduct raids? Because he sure did in this one.
Face it. When it comes to marijuana, W REASON commenters, Warren is the biggest douche in history.
stamp deal never happened and note that no other president has had any opportunity to do this.
See my 'timing' comment above. Thanks for the detailed clarification, however.
You will probably never be allowed to use drugs recreationally ever, anywhere.
Except, of course, alcohol, tobacco (for now, at least), and coffee.
"Progressives are the root of most of our problems in this country."
The Progressives just conjured up concern about drugs out of thin air, didn't they?
That's why shortly after the Harrison Act was passed under Woodrow's watch (yet it was not at the time he signed it interpreted to be such an anti-drug use act, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Act#History) it was tightened as a law enforcement tool in 1924 by the Progressives that dominated the Congress and Presidency...Oh SNAP! Calvin Coolidge was President and a Republican dominated Congress!
Well, it must have been those Prohibitionists under FDR (curiously the same ones who repealed Prohibition) who passed the Marijuana Stamp Act in 1937 that are responsible for all the War on Drugs. And then those same Progressives, under the draconian Boggs Act in 1951 and the Daniel Act in 1956, really ratcheted up the drug war. Actually, the respective Presidents there were Truman and Eisenhower (Progressive Eisenhower?).
Sorry, the criminalization of drugs goes way back, widely supported by conservatives and "Progressives" and liberals..."Foriegn" drugs especially seemed strange to the WASP establishment and most of the nation thought something should be done. Can't lay all the blame on those evil "Progressives" I'm afraid...
Except, of course, alcohol, tobacco (for now, at least), and coffee.
RC, see my post above on this very subject.
Can't lay all the blame on those evil "Progressives" I'm afraid...
Absolutely not. The War on Drugs is a fully bipartisan effort. Which is why it's here to stay.
Juanita should be locked up for showing her ignorance of grammar.
My point was that the "War on Drugs" as it was originally introduced in the years of Wilsonian Idealism, the position that government should be a moral and economic guide etc., was a Progressive reform. There is no doubt that it has been co-opted by the social conservatives, I'd guess mostly as a reactionary result of the sixties turn on, tune in, drop out mentality that happened to permeate the left wing counterculture.
However, I must say in response to the comment made regarding Coolidge that, Cool Cal presided unfortunately over a Supreme Court that was infused with Progressivism. William Taft was chief justice, and the man who split the Republican party due to his liberal politics. It was this Progressive court, largely packed by Wilson that ruled the Harrison Act constitutional, thus leading to the increased legal tactics used by crusaders, do-gooders, and opportunists like Harry Anslinger and Thomas Dewey.
Peter
Here are the appointments to the Supreme Court made by Wilson:
Wilson appointed the following Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States:
James Clark McReynolds - 1914
Louis Dembitz Brandeis - 1916
John Hessin Clarke - 1916
How did he "pack" the court exactly? The Court was hardly "Progressive" in either the sense of today's liberals or the Progressive Movement (a distinction lost on some unamed posters here) when it ruled, for example, on Webb v. US (which is what I'm guessing you are thinking of). The Court was spectacularly conservative (and in a libertarian way I'm afraid to say) during that time and up until FDR indeed did pack it. Brandies, the epitome of a "Progressive" jurist, and Holmes, his unlikely fellow jurist (Progressives loved Holmes for his rulings but personally he was no Progressive) were known as the Great Dissenters because the rest of the Court happily struck down much Progressive legislation. Seems even the libertarians of the day were willing to crack down on drugs...
"William Taft was chief justice, and the man who split the Republican party due to his liberal politics."
This is a strange statement. Roosevelt did not rail against Taft's "liberal" politics. It was the opposite, as Roosevelt felt the conservative Taft had betrayed progressivism. From Taft's and TR's wiki site:
"The left wing of the Republican Party began agitating against Taft. Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin created the National Progressive Republican League (precursor to the Progressive Party (United States, 1924)) to defeat the power of political bossism at the state level and to replace Taft at the national level."
"Despite his obvious achievements, progressives decried Taft's acceptance of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act, which lowered the tariff on the farm products of the western states, whose citizens desired lower rates on Eastern factory products. Taft opposed the entry of the state of Arizona into the Union because of its judicial features. Progressives grumbled that he worked too closely with conservative Senator Nelson W. Aldrich and Speaker of the House Joseph G. Cannon. By 1910, Taft's party was deeply divided between progressives and conservatives."
and up until FDR indeed did pack it.
FDR never packed the the way he wanted to. Thank god.
I don't smoke marijuana, but I have this dream that someday they'll legalize it just so everyone will shut the hell up.
Yeah, yeah, we get it already. You don't smoke so you don't care, the police have never bothered you so you aren't worried about their abuses... How about you take your own advice up there and come back only when your ego-centric moral philosophy is irritated by something that does directly impinge on your ability to live your life as you wish and share your concerns then. I bet we'll even be sympathetic since most here tend to take a more principled stand rather than simply applying a "what's-in-it-for-me" test.
Marijuana does far less damage than whiskey or than many pharmaceutical drugs that doctors prescribe daily. But even if one disagrees with legalizing it for everyone there is no question that medical marijuana should be made available in some cases. Anyone against that position has...well...no legitimate or reasonable argument in my opinion.
From the linked article:
Ok, is there a Mich(a)el Moore in this country that isn't a propagandist? More property crime if drugs are legalized!?! Apparently critical thinking skills are not tested on the police exam.
Yes, I understand that there are differences in the Progressives of the late 19th Century and the early 20th and the liberals of today. However, these differences are literal, and the ideologies share many fundamental tenets, such as the belief that government has to take an active role in society to enhance the general welfare, the regulation of industry, especially trust-busting (in its many incarnations and abstractions), egalitarian social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth and property.
A "Progressive" and "Liberal" would have little more to fight over ideologically than Coke vs. Pepsi (unless of course the anticorporate sentiment and nanny state dogma over sugary soda pop ruins that fun as well)
This is another example of the panhandlers' approach to ending the WOD.
It won't work.
People abuse panhandlers. Always will.
The only way to end the WOD is to DEMAND it be ended.
(I've recently noticed there are fundamentally two approaches: Demanders and panhandlers.)
Anybody with just a fragment of a brain should be able to see that the Right to put what we please into our bodies would have been the Second Amendment, if the Founders had not been so nervous after they did the First, the Right to put whatever ideas we please into our minds.
BTW, I had polio, and I'm not in pain, and I don't use currently illegal substances and never have.
Peace.
Marijuana does far less damage than whiskey or than many pharmaceutical drugs that doctors prescribe daily.
Even if marijuana was instantly addictive poison
that would cause quick dissipation , disease , and early death that is no reason to make it illegal in a free society.
Anyone against that position has...well...no legitimate or reasonable argument in my opinion.
Objects are morally neutral
The case should be made on principles of individual autonomy and property rights.
Amen and right on Brother SIV!
(SIV don't stand for "structured investment vehicle" do it?)
Ruthless
Hold on there! Your 2nd para. does not imply your 1st. Who said we can't have prescription drugs which are allowed to be used recreationally?
What about the drugs for erectile dysfunction? They're prescribed specifically to facilitate recreation. Same with birth control drugs & devices. Isn't Sex By Prescription a Szasz book title? (You might even say hair growing drugs are meant to serve the same function indirectly.)
Given that entire class of prescription drugs & devices, what makes you think yet other drugs & devices won't come on the market to be dispensed by prescription and used for other forms of recreation?
SIV= Single Issue Voter
the issue is legal cockfighting
I think I'm worth more than a lot of the Structured Investment Vehicles right now.
Robert,
You're making an interesting connection, but no matter how clever, it won't happen. While I didn't write it, you know I meant intoxicants.
Given that entire class of prescription drugs & devices, what makes you think yet other drugs & devices won't come on the market to be dispensed by prescription and used for other forms of recreation?
History.
It seems like we're overlooking one BIG reason Republicrats are determined to frown on drugs: minorities. For many Republicans, the association of drugs and non-whites combined with a negative moral value attached to drugs justifies the trends of disparity in our country. For Dems, the disparity is not justified per se, but by not seeing personal choices as personal choices (which is how Republicrats get many of their jollies, eh?), Dems have expanded purview to guide a needful population to salvation.
Before they kill and rape all of us, we need to get "Salem" on these degenerate potheads once and for all.
Line 'em up; stake 'em up; and torch 'em, I say.
Sueeeee!
It bothers me that pro-mj advocates are constantly degratating alcohol and cocaine use in an attempt to make their drug of choice more attractive. Boozehounds and cokeheads are people too! Dammit i've known very few tokers who've turned down a good sam adams or blue moon...
Show me. We already have the beginning of this trend in the form of serotonergic drugs, which have become accepted in widespread, prescribed use. What makes you think that as newer psychoactive drugs demonstrate their safety, they won't also be permitted as various feel-good agents, both for short- and long-term use?
I agree that "intoxicants", if the term is taken to mean substances causing an impairment in the sensorium, won't be licensed per se, basically because they'll be considered unsafe for driving, operating heavy machinery, etc. But not all fun drugs will fit that description. Eventually we'll be able to reproduce the enlivening & disinhibiting effect of booze without impairing one's ability to walk a straight line, etc.