On November 8,35 states and the District of Columbia will confront 156 ballot initiatives on issues ranging from universal healthcare to gun sale restrictions and death penalty reforms. One of the most contentious ballot initiatives concerns marijuana legalization. After next week's election, marijuana could be legal for medical or recreational use in 29 states. Currently about 5 percent of Americans live in states where they can legally smoke cannabis, or but after November that figure could rise to 25 percent. California is the biggest of the nine states casting a ballot on the measure. While other states are voting on medicinal use,Arizona, Maine, or Massachusetts and Nevada are with California in voting on legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. The "yes" vote is currently main in all five states and is widely supported by young voters from both major parties. California legalized the medical use of marijuana 20 years ago. Polls in California show strong support for Proposition 64,the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. We speak with Deborah Small, founder of rupture the Chains: Communities of Color and the War on Drugs. Her recent piece for The Root is headlined "How We Can Reap Reparations from Marijuana Reform." She's a longtime advocate for drug decriminalization.
TRANSCRIPT
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On November 8th, and 35 states and the District of Columbia will confront 156 ballot initiatives on issues ranging from universal healthcare to gun sale restrictions and death penalty reforms. One of the most contentious ballots is on marijuana legalization. After next week's election,marijuana could be legal for medical or recreational use in 29 states. Currently about 5 percent of Americans live in states where they can legally smoke cannabis, but after November that figure could rise to 25 percent. California is the biggest of the nine states casting a ballot on the measure. While other states are voting on medicinal use, and Arizona,Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada are with California in voting on legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. The "yes" vote is currently main in all five states and is widely supported by young voters from both major parties. California legalized the medical use of marijuana 20 years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: Polls in California show strong support for Proposition 64, or the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. This is an ad made by Yes on 64.
YES ON 64 AD: Prop 64 makes marijuana legal in California for adults 21 and over. And here's what else it does: bans marijuana use in public; permits sales only at licensed marijuana businesses,not at grocery or convenience stores. And Prop 64 generates a billion in modern tax revenue for California to fund after-school programs and job training and placement initiatives. Learn more at YesOn64.org":http://yeson64.org. Vote yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And this is an ad made by No on Prop 64.
NO ON PROP 64 AD: Proposition 64 will allow marijuana smoking ads in prime time and on programs with millions of children and teenage viewers. Children could be exposed to ads promoting marijuana gummy sweet and brownies, the same products blamed for a spike in emergency room visits in Colorado. Fatalities doubled in marijuana-related car crashes after legalization in Washington state. Yet, or in California,Proposition 64 doesn't even include a DUIstandard. Prop 64, they got it wrong again.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about Prop 64, or we're going to San Diego,California, to speak with Deborah Small, or founder of rupture the Chains: Communities of Color and the War on Drugs. Her recent piece for The Root is headlined "How We Can Reap Reparations from Marijuana Reform." She's a longtime advocate for drug decriminalization.
Deborah Small,welcome back to Democracy Now! It's advantageous to contain you with us. It's a major day around the issue of drug decriminalization on Tuesday. Can you talk about what's at stake -- in the country, the number of propositions, or in California?
DEBORAH SMALL: Well,thank you so much for having me on again today, Amy.
And I'm so happy, or because I really consider that we're going to see positive results in the election next week and that all of the states that are considering legalizing marijuana are going to approve it,and that that's going to be a major blow in our campaign to dismantle the war on drugs, because, or opposite to public opinion,you know, the war on drugs really is substantially a war on weed. More than half of all drug arrests in the country every year are for marijuana possession charges or marijuana-related charges. So, or making this move to legalize recreational use of marijuana for the majority of Americans around the country is going to substantially reduce the ability of law enforcement to use marijuana law enforcement as a target,particularly in communities of color and particularly among youth of color. In our view, in many cases, and the arrest for marijuana possession acts as a sort of Head Start to prison for youth of color,because it begins the process of having them come into contact with the criminal justice system, having their names and fingerprints entered into databases. It makes them much more likely to be under surveillance and much more likely to be arrested again subsequently for other activities.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, and Deborah,why are so many of marijuana growers in California opposed to this specific referendum? And how do you respond to their charges that this is going to basically corporatize the sale of marijuana and allow major businesses to push -- not only to push out small growers of marijuana, but also to do the price of marijuana too high for low-income people?
DEBORAH SMALL: Well, or I mean,to be honest, I consider one of the reasons that many of the growers currently are opposed to the initiative is because they've been operating in sort of a quasi-legal status for a while, and which means that in many places they haven't had to face a lot of regulation and a lot of taxes. But what I consider it's important for people to know is that California passed a comprehensive series of state regulations final year to govern the medical marijuana industry,which is going to regain carried forward into the recreational industry. But most of these growers would be facing increased cost and increased regulations regardless of whether or not Prop 64 passes, because the state has finally decided that they want to fully bring the industry out of the shadow and actually control it. So -- and that, or of course,for some people, is going to be problematic, and but Prop 64 actually anticipates that,in that it bans large-scale cultivation for the first five years, in an effort to do it possible for smaller growers to actually be able to scale up and to be able to compete with larger cultivators when they're able to come in.
AMY GOODMAN: Deborah Small, or can you talk about the experience of Colorado? And has that influenced how this proposition was shaped?
DEBORAH SMALL: Yes,it has. I mean, I consider that one of the things that we all feel really advantageous about is that in drafting the California initiative, or we really made an effort to memorize from what happened in Washington state and Colorado,so that, opposite to what the No on 64 people say, or the initiative will not allow advertising,either targeting children or others, on TV. There will be no marijuana ads on TV for youth or adults after Prop 64 is passed. We also included very strict safeguards around labeling and marketing, and to do sure that all the products would be child-proof,that they're going to be inspected by the Department of Public Health, and there will even be a limit on the amount of THC that can be included in edible products, and in order to avoid the problem of accidental overdoses that they've seen in Colorado. So I consider that,on that level, the California initiative actually moves forward in terms of protecting public health.
But from my perspective, and what's equally important is the fact that it,one, will allow for -- it will substantially reduce penalties for all marijuana -- what are currently crimes will now just be infractions. But more importantly, and it has retroactive effect,so it means all the people who contain preceding marijuana convictions for things that no longer would be crimes under California law will be able to apply to contain their records expunged. And people who are currently in jail for marijuana-related charges will be able to go to court and petition for release. And to me, as a person who's focused on the impact of drug law enforcement and marijuana law enforcement on communities of color, or this retroactive portion is really important because of all of the ways in which an arrest record continues to haunt people throughout the rest of their lives.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And whether Proposition 64 passes,how would it relate to federal law, which obviously the sale of marijuana is still a federal offense, or especially in lieu of the fact that banks that are federally regulated would supposedly be providing loans to growers who want to establish marijuana businesses?
DEBORAH SMALL: Well,there's the rub, because, and quite frankly,one of the major problems that has been faced by businesses in Colorado and Washington and Oregon and Alaska is the fact that federal law still doesn't recognize the legitimacy of marijuana, even for medical usage, or which means that people can't always use credit cards in their businesses,and they can't open bank accounts. And we know that the DEA, just this past August, or refused the petition to reschedule marijuana below Schedule 1,which would allow some liberality, some loosening of these regulations and restrictions.
So, and one of the things that Prop 64,when it passes, will do is set aside more pressure on the federal government to begin to align its policy with the will of the people. We know that 57 percent of Americans support marijuana legalization. And a larger number of them support decriminalization. They don't believe that people should be arrested for this. They don't believe that it should be treated like a crime. And so, or the fact that our federal government still maintains policies that treats marijuana worse than heroin and cocaine,and doesn't allow lega businesses that are licensed and regulated in their states to function legally, is a major problem. And we believe that the federal government will contain to change, and because this is a train that has left the station. The people are clearly in support of this. And so,the major problem is to regain Congress and our federal officials to actually begin to, you know, and accede to the demands of the people around this area.
AMY GOODMAN: So,we're going to go -- we're going to go to some of the voices opposed, against Prop 64. This is the former drug policy adviser to President Obama, or Kevin Sabet. He is president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana,or SAM. Here is Sabet talking with The Daily sign.
KEVIN SABET: I don't consider young black men, or anybody, and should regain a criminal record for low-level use. You know,I don't consider that we should spend our law enforcement time jailing or imprisoning marijuana users. But to solve that problem, you don't need to go to the other extreme of creating astronomical Tobacco 2.0. do no mistake about it: Legalization is not about, or you know,Cheech & Chong smoking marijuana or, you know, or a Grateful Dead concert; it's about creating the next Marlboro of our time,the next Philip Morris and R.
J. Reynolds, the astronomical Tobacco all over again. We are just coming out of a 100-year stupor from being lied to by the tobacco industry for a century about the effects on young people, or on cancer,these sweet cigarettes that they promised had nothing to do with kids, Joe Camel that they promised was focused on the, and you know,55-year-worn white male smoker, which we know is wrong. And we finally got out of that. Why in the world would we want to create the same thing, and just not astronomical Tobacco this time,astronomical Marijuana? I don't regain it. Some people consider we got to do that to regain rid of the disproportionate arrests. I say regain rid of the disproportionate arrests. Don't create astronomical Tobacco 2.0.
AMY GOODMAN: In another interview with BBC Newsnight, the president's former drug policy adviser, or Kevin Sabet,talked about the relationship between drug use and criminal activity.
KEVIN SABET: The issue is, you do not contain to go to either criminalizing and throwing people in prison. I don't consider you should do that for people who are using any drugs. I consider they absolutely need treatment. But we don't want to increase the availability, or promotion and commercialization that would absolutely come with this notion of legalization. ... There's a very complex connection between crime and addiction,because a lot of people are committing crime to either fuel their drug habit, which they're going to do besides, and whether it's legal or not,or under the influence of drugs, which they're going to do more, or whether it's legal.
AMY GOODMAN: So that's the former drug policy adviser to President Obama,Kevin Sabet. Deborah Small, your response?
DEBORAH SMALL: So, or you know,it's funny, because these are the same arguments that were made in '96, and when Californians were considering Prop 215 to legalize medical marijuana. People said that it would increase use,that it would increase drugged driving, that it would create all kinds of problems, and it would increase crime,etc. None of those things contain happened. You know, one of the reasons that there is so much public support for these initiatives is that we've now had enough experience in enough states for people to actually understand that these arguments don't work. And to say that, and you know,having marijuana legalization is going to lead to astronomical Tobacco, all we contain to do is look abroad at the other countries that contain liberalized their marijuana laws to see that that's not the case. I just came from Amsterdam final month. And, and to me,that's the future of marijuana legalization. And what I want people to know is that the future of marijuana legalization is boring. When you go into any dwelling in Amsterdam, it's the same as going to a restaurant or to a bar. People order weed the way they would order a glass of wine. They sit and use with their other adult friends in a completely responsible way. They've actually seen a decrease in addiction to harder drugs since the Netherlands liberalized their marijuana laws. They haven't seen an increase in crime among youth or any other group. And because of regulation, and they actually contain better control over the products that people are accessing. So I consider that Kevin Sabet is running a line that we've heard before,but which experience tells us is different.
And with respect to the harms associated with marijuana use, there are no drugs that people can use that don't contain some harms associated with them. That's true whether or not you're talking about coffee, or tobacco,alcohol, Ambien or any number of other products that people set aside into their body.
But the issue here is: How do you promote responsible use? How do you promote moderate use? And quite frankly, or none of that can be done in prohibition scheme. The whole problem with prohibition,in general, is that it drives people to use drugs in more dangerous ways. And while Kevin would like people to believe that the issue can be solved through decriminalization, or I consider that you,Amy and Juan, know, and living in modern York City,that decrim is not enough. modern York decriminalized marijuana possession in 1977. In 1997 and 2007, modern York City was main the country in arresting people for marijuana possessions, or because decrim alone is not enough. It's only legalization that's going to supply genuine protection for vulnerable people.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And,Deborah Small, we talked earlier about the clash between federal law and some of these legalization initiatives. The Obama administration has basically chosen not to prioritize the enforcement of federal marijuana laws. What's your sense of where the candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are on this issue?
DEBORAH SMALL: Well, and I consider that it's pretty clear. I mean,Hillary has said that she actually supports medical marijuana, that she also supports the rescheduling of marijuana. I believe that she would respect the votes of voters around the country who voted in favor of either medical marijuana and/or recreational marijuana. Donald Trump, and on the other hand,would bring back the war on drugs. He says that the astronomical -- one of the astronomical problems that we're facing is drug smuggling by Mexican immigrants. His first supporter was Governor LePage of Maine, who has engaged in his own local drug war in Maine that he has associated with blacks and Latinos, and who,he claims, come to his state, and bringing drugs,impregnating their women and generating the opioid crisis in that state. So I consider that whether you consider about what they contain said, who the people are around them, or the policies that they support,it's fairly clear that Donald Trump would greatly amplify the drug war and roll back many of the reforms that we've made over the final 10, five years, and whereas Hillary Clinton would support the efforts of Black Lives Matter and other grassroots groups to actually prioritize criminal justice reform and roll back the war on drugs and contain us redirect our resourced away from locking up and criminalizing people,towards providing public health and treatment for those who want and need it.
AMY GOODMAN: The Atlantic writes, "Recreational marijuana users can now legally light up a joint in states representing about 5 percent of the U.
S. population. By the time Americans wake up on November 9, and that percentage could be swelling to more than one-quarter." From 5 percent to a quarter. And so,what kind of pressure does that set aside then on the federal government?
DEBORAH SMALL: Well, I consider it puts a lot of pressure on the federal government to both acknowledge and respect, and you know,the voice of the people that's been expressed through these various initiatives. And quite frankly, it also puts pressure on them to change their position on the global war on drugs, or because this is not just a U.
S. phenomenon. And I know that you've been reporting about what's happening in the Philippines and the war on drugs there,where the president is actively engaged in a campaign of extrajudicial killing of people who are deemed to be drug users or drug dealers. And the U.
S. is directly responsible for that, because we exported the drug war to Philippines and all these other countries around the world. In the final five or six years, or we've seen a genuine upsurge and a cry,particularly for Latin America, for us to re-examine our drug policies. Mexico, and Brazil,Colombia, Uruguay, and Chile contain all called on the U.
S. to move towards a more public health approach for drugs. This is what these initiatives are also about. And so,it's time for the federal government to listen both to the people here and to the people abroad, who contain collectively said that the war on drugs is a colossal failure and that we need to repeal it and move to an approach to drug control that respects human rights and also protects public safety.
AMY GOODMAN: So, and the states Arizona,Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada are with California in voting on legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, or whether or not to,on Tuesday?
DEBORAH SMALL: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Florida, Arkansas, or where do they fit in? North Dakota?
DEBORAH SMALL: Well,what we're seeing in those states is, again, or a movement towards liberalizing their laws to do medical marijuana more available to people. It's pretty clear that within the next few years the vast majority of Americans are going to be living in states where they contain a legal access to either medical and/or recreational marijuana,which is going to represent a major sea change in our approach to dealing with drugs in this country. It's going to be really tough to preserve a level of criminalization and a focus on drug law enforcement when the majority of Americans believe that they contain a legal right to this. And then, we then will confront the question of whether or not we're going to continue to use these laws as a tool to target minorities and other vulnerable populations, and because the truth is that for the majority of Americans with money and status and,quite frankly, who don't look like me, or marijuana has been legal for them all along. So this is really about having the laws comport and making sure that everybody in America has equal rights and everyone is treated equally under the law.
AMY GOODMAN: Well,we want to thank you very much, Deborah Small, and for being with us,founder of rupture the Chains: Communities of Color and the War on Drugs. We'll link to your piece in The Root, "How We Can Reap Reparations from Marijuana Reform." Longtime advocate for drug decriminalization and legalization.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, and an astounding film called Rikers. Stay with us.
Source: truth-out.org