Monday, September 2, 2019

Are They High? Why the Minnesota DFL is pushing marijuana legalization


            The Minnesota DFL is making legalization of marijuana a 2020 election issue. Governor Walz has instructed his agencies to prepare for it and Democrats are kicking off a statewide listen tour to tout legalization’s benefits.  Does such a strategy make political sense or are the Democrats high?
            From a public policy perspective, the current criminalization “war on drugs” has failed. I argued that in a Texas Tech Law Review Article 26 years ago, well before it was fashionable to advocate for legalization.  The current criminalization approach has failed to stop drug usage, imposed racially arbitrary sentences, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars in government enforcement and lost personal freedom and productivity due to incarceration.  Maybe for some, usage of marijuana is a matter of personal freedom to use a harmless drug.  However, as we have seen with the opioid crisis and some research on prolonged use of marijuana, use of any drugs ought also to be viewed as a public health issue with the question being what is the best way to regulate a specific drug to address it real or potential health issues.  Criminalization has failed with marijuana and legalization of some sort is the answer.  From a public policy perspective the question is what type of legalization.
            But policy change requires political opportunity.  The DFL sees the time as now to advocate for it., despite the fact that the Republican State Senate Leader Paul Gazelka has said legalization will not happen next year.  So if legalization is dead next year why push it?
There are several reasons.  The first is polling data that suggest 64% of those surveyed by  Gallup favor legalization, including in Midwest states such as Minnesota..  However, what legalization means varies by person.  A Mason-Dixon poll found recreational legalization support only at 37%.  Neither poll indicated that recreational legalization was a top issue for many voters.  Thus, while it appears that there is majority support for legalization, it is less clear that recreational use is a top political or policy priority for a large percentage of the voters. 
For the Minnesota DFL, they may be hoping that supporting marijuana legalization is the 2020 equivalent of the 2012 marriage amendment.  In that year the Republicans placed on the ballot a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.  The theory was that support for the amendment would be so strong that it would help the GOP maintain control of the state legislature and win Minnesota for presidential candidate Mitt Romney by energizing the party base.  It backfired.  Instead, it energized the DFL, especially young voters, and it resulted in flipping the state legislature to Democrats who in 2013 legalized same-sex marriages in the state.
More specifically, though, Democrats may be reading numbers from the 2018 election.  That year two pro-legalization parties in Minnesota qualified for major party status.  In the race for State Auditor, the Legalize Marijuana Now Party received 133,913 votes, whereas in the race for Attorney General,  Grassroots Legalize Cannabis received 145,748, or 5.28% and 5.71% of the statewide vote for those offices respectively.  In running for office, the two pro-legalization parties opted  not to run against one another to prevent splitting of votes.  This is important because one can argue that those who voted for one of the pro-legalization parties are those who view the issue as their top priority. This means not that 10% of the voters supported pro-legalization parties, but something around 5-6% of those casting votes in either the State Auditor or Attorney General races.
The Minnesota Secretary of State indicated that 2,611, 365 individuals cast ballots in 2018.  Assume that the 145,748 Grassroots Legalize Cannabis vote is a fair estimate of those who support legalization as a primary or top issue.  This works out to 5.58% who voted for a pro-legalization party.  In the counties of Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis,  31,976, 14,720, and  5,471 respectively voted for a pro-legalization party or candidate.  In total, these three counties constituted 62,167 or 42.7% of the pro-legalization vote in the state.  The other 56.3% was clumped in urban areas or college-town areas, with thin support in more rural areas.  Even in suburbs, support was  less.  For the Attorney General’s race, in Edina and Eden Prairie, two typical and more affluent suburbs that might be likely to support legalization, 2,462 out of 62,523 voters or 3.94% of the voters went for the Grassroots Legalize Cannabis Party.
What do all these statistics suggest?  Perhaps they underestimate support for recreational legalization as a top priority.  But they do indicate a small percentage of the population cares about the issue and the DFL feels it cannot ignore it.  Failure to support legalization may mean more voters drift away from the party, making it harder to pick up a Senate majority or mobilize voters for statewide races.  Yet, the geographic distribution of support for legalization  is clumped, strongest in areas where the DFL are already strong.  Moreover, if the race for control of the state, especially the legislature, goes through the suburbs, especially with suburban women, it is not clear that a  strong legalization approach makes sense.  In talks I have given, when legalization is raised, many suburban women exclaim “Another thing I  have to protect my children from.”
Perhaps marijuana legalization will do the same in 2020, mobilizing young voters to come out and vote. Or perhaps it will alienate suburban (female) voters, or it leads to a counter-mobilization by the GOP who are already motivated to come out to support Donald Trump.  This is the gamble the DFL is taking going into the 2020 elections in its advocacy for recreational marijuana.

1 comment:

  1. David: I've written extensively on this topic, sitting as an expert on the drugs side and enforcement, as my 1st advanced degrees were in MA addictions and ED psychopharmacology, and also a MS Forensic Sciences and Forensic Accounting for after 10 years working with addicts, I went to work with the dead and law enforcement in general(many similarities in those 3 groups). Add the PhDs in Economics, Public Policy and an MBA, I can do a fair analysis from all angles.

    From tax angle:
    The tax would be desired for dedication to a few programs but it must become the secondary source of funding for highway and roads across MN, especially and first the bridges. "Keeping All of MN high off the ground" each sign could say. And this would stop any future gas tax increase AND POSSIBLY REDUCE THE GAS TAX!(unlikely but the forecasts are not very consistent).

    Law enforcement:
    Contrary to popular belief there are tests to determine if a person has smoked/vaped/inhaled/etc THC short of blood tests. And these behavioural tests get around the fat solubility issue of THC: the drug stores in the body fat, so if a daily THC user stops using on 1st of the month with 12% (normal female, average male) body far, they will test positive through day 9, strong positive through day 21, and trace positive through day 29-32 -- but never feel any effects after the last smoking.
    But a more corpulent or obese person will test positive as if they just smoked a joint if the lose any weight for the duration of their body fat detox, an overage of 90 days; if they diet, the fat they lose dumps it's THC into the bloodstream giving the person a high and an increase in blood testing as if they smoked a joint. Behavioural testing and observation can overcome this.

    In Colorado, the incidence of driving while high has been more about non-residents versus Colorado state residents.

    The 1 restriction that MUST BE MADE to confirm that this is for RECREATIONAL USE and not addiction is to limit the amount any person can purchase in a day, in a week, and in a month. A recreational user of ANYTHING is not doing it all day, every day. That is an addiction or an obsession and the State does not support any habit that is a need that strong. Thus the limit would be the equivalent for a person to be able to make and smoke no more than 2 joints per day. If it is vaping, then take that same small daily amount and break it up. That is maximum. And if buying for multiple days, the volume would go down - you get more by coming each day for then you are out of the house each day.
    This prevents addictions and confirms RECREATIONAL USERS ONLY.
    Anyone needing it for pain, etc - get on the medical program.

    Medical Research
    As a medical researcher, I can tell you there are now 754 studies in Europe where THC is tested as a pain controller: in ever case, THC is "owned" by the control. When the treatment is "owned" by the control, it means that there is more benefit claimed by the people who are receiving the placebo than there is by those receiving the drug in question. When every study has a drug owned by the control that says a LOT for how strong the placebo effect of this drug just naturally is. And if it is occurring in pain, a very subjective experience, it will occur in every other form of testing in which the drug is used with subjects in a subjective condition: all psychological conditions (all so far tested have been owned). But THC does has use in neurological conditions of issues of electrical disruption such as which occurs in epilepsy, Parkinson's, possibly even some dementias. Having marijuana released for recreational use would then allow the state to sponsor research on beneficial uses of THC for of neurological degenerative conditions.

    The negatives can be managed and the upsides are so great. We must go for this!

    ReplyDelete