The Case for Decriminalizing Marijuana in Minnesota–The Right and Wrong Reasons for It and What it Means to Do So

Is it time to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Minnesota?  The answer may be yes, but when and how it is done in Minnesota is a critical issue.

Two parties in the November 2018 elections received  major party status on the promise of legalizing marijuana.  Governor-elect Tim Walz is apparently supportive of the same along with several legislators.  State Fair and other polls in Minnesota too support legalization of its recreational use, paralleling national polls placing more than 60% of the American public favor this.  The time seems right to act.

In many ways, the time is more than ripe.  Twenty-five years ago I was among the first to argue for decriminalization of drug use.  In “Rethinking Drug Criminalization Policies,” 25 Texas Tech Law Review 151 (1993), I argued that the then three decade long war on drugs had  failed miserably and that it was time to shift away from a drug policy that criminalizes its use to one which treats it as a public health problem. That thesis was true then, and even more so now.  My argument then addressed not simply marijuana but all forms of illegal drugs because while there is no evidence that the use of marijuana poses a public health problem, other drugs do.  Not a problem then, or at least not apparent, were the health dangers arising from opioid use which is now an epidemic, posing a far greater problem than the recreational use of marijuana.  Add up the costs of police enforcement, court time, and other expenses, one can argue that Minnesota would save significant resources in legalizing recreational marijuana.  In addition, as I pointed out earlier this year in a Huffington Post article, the criminalization of its use has failed.  Its prohibition has not worked and it has produced  racial disparities with lasting effects on society, including Minnesota. 

Marijuana use is effectively already being decriminalized in Minnesota.  Over time more and more conditions are being allowed under the medical marijuana law, including most recently Alzheimer’s Disease.   That law has accommodated Minnesota’s gradually to it use, but of course there is also a generational shift going on that does not shun its use.  One can make a libertarian argument for its recreational use that parallels John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty arguments that it is not the business of society what one does so long as it does not affect others.  However, the stronger arguments to make are that legalizing its use is consistent with the “One Minnesota” Walz promise to address disparities that divide the state.  Criminalizing recreational marijuana use is supported by a majority of the state and its enforcement has racially arbitrary impacts.  Additionally, legalizing it saves money, allowing the state to concentrate its resources are more pressing drug-related issues such as the opioid crisis, domestic and sexual abuse associated with alcohol use, and the growing  problem of e-cigarettes.  Decriminalization should be sold along these lines, suggesting legalization  allows for the state to address more pressing problems.

Finally, many will argue that a legalize strategy will help Minnesota in two other ways.  First,  a “legalize, regulate,  and tax” policy will bring in new revenue to the state.  Yes this is the case, but one should be wary about projections of such revenue which are often oversold.  Second, the state should not get too dependent on one revenue stream such as this–lotteries point to this.  Third, as seen in the case of Colorado, legalize, regulate, and tax poses administrative complications for the state that need to be addressed.  Marijuana is still illegal under federal law and one cannot use banks.  Marijuana sales are a cash economy for now and good planning is essential to making it work.  Finally, along this lines, moving from medical to recreational use of marijuana will have an impact on the former businesses, and one must think about that.

A second claim for legalization is its impact on the Minnesota economy.  It may well help in many ways, ranging from agriculture to retail businesses.  But again, one needs to think in terms of how these new businesses fit in with existing ones in the state. This gets at what is meant by decriminalization or legalization.  Is legalization simply about personal use or does it mean commercial sanction?  This is a policy question not clear now.

Finally, despite popular support for decriminalization, will this be an easy bill to pass this session?  Do Democrats and Walz want to define their political agenda as starting with marijuana  or do they want to start with the budget, the bonding bill, federal tax conformity, or infrastructure?  Legalization is a popular issue with urban liberals, but it is a top priority with suburban female voters who put the DFL in charge?  What are the priorities, will the fight over marijuana be contentious, and what message will be sent by making it a priority in 2019?  These are all good questions that need to be examined.

Overall, the time to legalize is past due, but how it is done and exactly when, and how it is sold, are the real questions that remain.

Jeff Sessions’ War on Drugs: The Sequel

Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be the only person in America who fails to recognize that the
country has fought a losing war on drugs and it is time to end it.  The war hath wrecked immense damage in terms of wasted money, fostering the creation of a prison-industrial process that incarcerated millions of people, often with a disparate racial impact.  That is why his decision to again prosecute individuals for federal drug charges in states that have legalized marijuana usage is  a horrible idea.
Twenty-five years ago Iargued in “Rethinking Drug Criminalization Policies,” in 25 Texas Tech Law Review 151 (1993) that the then three decade long war on drugs  had failed miserably and that it was time to shift away from a drug policy that criminalizes its use to one which treats it as a public health problem. That thesis was true then, and even more so now.
Richard Nixon launched the “war on drugs” with his presidency in 1968 and coined the phrase “war on drugs” in a 1971 speech.  Since Nixon the war on drugs has been a mainstay of Republican if not bipartisan politics.  The 1974 New York Rockefeller Drug laws penalized individuals with sentences of 15, 25 years, or even life in prison for possession of small amount of marijuana. Increased mandatory minimum sentences for crimes were ratcheted up for drugs and the move toward “three strikes and you are out laws” in the 1990s were adopted in part as a result of the drive to prosecute drug crimes.  All told in the last decade the federal government has annually spent $20-25 billion on drug enforcement with states kicking in an additional $10-15 billion if not more. What has this money purchased?
  There is little evidence that drug usage is down.  Nearly 40% of high school students have reported using illegal drugs, up from 30% a decade ago.  Some studies suggest 30 million or more Americans have used illegal drugs in any given year.  Several hundred thousand individuals per year are arrested for mere use or possession of marijuana. Hard core use is not down and in fact in some cases it has stabilized or increased over time.  Programs such as DARE show little sign of success, and the “Just say no” campaign that begin with Nancy Reagan also does not seem to have had much impact on drug usage.
  But if the war on drugs has done little to decrease demand for drugs, it has had powerful unintended consequences.  Interdiction and enforcement has created a significant and profitable market for illegal drugs both in the United States and across the world.  Estimates are the marijuana is one of the most profitable cash crops in California and the drug violence in Mexico, resulting in approximately 60,000 deaths in the last eight years, is  tied to American demand for drugs.  The price of cocaine is now at record lows, courts are jammed with drug dockets, and prison populations have swelled with individuals whose only crimes were minor drug possession.  States are now saddled with overcrowded bloated and aging prison populations, lives have been lost due to drug incarceration, and tax dollars that could have been spent on education, roads, or simply saved have been wasted on drug enforcement.  On top of which, the war on drugs had a racial impact, jailing more people of color, saddling them with felonies, and then giving states the ability to strip away their civil rights, including the right to vote. Call the war on drugs the new slavery or Jim Crow and one would not be far from the mark.
American politicians never seemed to lose points by ranting against drugs or demanding tougher enforcement.  Clearly they were addicted to our drug policies.
Drug criminalization has failed.  This is not to say that drug use is not a problem.  In some cases it is.  But put into perspective, use of alcohol, tobacco, or the consumption of fatty foods and sugary drinks exacerbating obesity and heart disease are far greater problems in this country than the use of illegal drugs. In many cases recreational use of drugs is harmless, in others, such as with medical marijuana, its uses may in fact be beneficial.  For others, personal and occasional use of drugs is a matter of privacy.  But yes, one can concede that use of illegal drugs–including abuse of prescription drugs which is perhaps the biggest problem–is a public health issue.  Lives can be lost to addiction and families broken up through abuse or neglect.  Many of us know of friends or family members who lives read like a drug version of Billy Wilder’s 1945 classic The Lost Weekend.  These individuals need medical help, not a prison term.  Drug policy needs to be decriminalized and shifted to a public health approach.  But many oppose decriminalization.  Why?
The basis for opposing the use of drugs generally rests on one of two grounds. First, there is the moral claim that drug use is inherently immoral or bad because it alters the mind, debases human nature, or reduces the capacity for autonomy. The second claim for opposing the use of drugs is social, arguing that the use of drugs and drug related activity produces certain social costs in terms of deaths, black marketing, and crime. Another variant of this claim is that drug use diminishes social productivity by sustaining bad work habits, or by generating other social costs including increased health care costs.
Ok, one might concede that use of illegal drugs is bad or that it constitutes a public health problem that needs to be addressed.  By having acknowledged this, the question is whether the current practice of drug criminalization and using police resources is the most effective policy to addressing this problem.  One argument against the decriminalization approach is the sending signals argument.  Specifically one major objection to the strategy proposed here is the argument that it would lead to an increase in drug usage and experimentation. Legalizing drugs would send a signal to individuals that drug usage is permissible and therefore more people would use them.
It is just not clear what impact making drugs legal or illegal has on their usage.  Conceivably making them illegal creates a “forbidden fruit” aura around them that encourages their usage that would be abated by legalizing them.  The same might be said for tobacco products and teenagers or perhaps for any other products or practices socially shunned. Regardless of the reasons why individuals choose to use drugs, there is little evidence that legalization has resulted in increased usage.  In the Netherlands, decriminalization of some drugs has not lead to an increase in usage or in users trading up from soft to harder drugs.  Five years after Portugal decriminalized many drugs in 2001, there too was little evidence that it led to increased drug use.  Portugal’s drug usage rates remain among the lowest in Europe after legalization, while rates of IV-drug user infection rates and other public health problems dropped.  In legalization of medical marijuana in California, the decriminalization might have changed attitudes towards the drug but there was no evidence of change in its use.  So far the same is true in Colorado with outright legalized marijuana. There simply is no real evidence that legalization sends a signal that drugs are permissible and therefore more people use them.
The point here again is that the war on drugs has failed.  It was a political narrative used by politicians for decades to promote their electoral interests at the expense of public good and taxpayers.  The criminal justice-prison industrial complex has gotten addicted to the war on drugs, making billions of dollars off of criminalization of drugs, especially marijuana. If we truly wish to win the war against drugs, whatever that means, jailing people is not the way to do it. It is time to end that narrative and establish a different approach that sees drug usage as a public health issue.  The $40 or so billion expended per year on drug enforcement could be better spent on other things.  This is a taxpayer issue and maybe in these difficult fiscal times the opportunity is there to rethink drug policy in Minnesota and America.
The consequences of Sessions’ War on Drugs: The Sequel, is an effort to reverse the trend  toward rethinking drug decriminalization.  His policy will punitively punish those using marijuana  for medical purposes, people often chronically if not terminally ill without any other hope.  It will also target attorneys, accountants, doctors, nurses, and other professionals who work with the medical marijuana field.  It may work cross-purposes to address the opioid crisis, hurting many of those in areas that voted for Trump.  And it is simply not clear there are many in the Republican base who support Sessions’ move.  It is a  retro policy without clear political support or benefit.

Boehner and Dayton: A Tale of Two Politicians and Parties

In addition to the Pope’s visit, two end-of-week stories made headlines.  One was the resignation of Speaker Boehner, the other the miserable roll out of the medical marijuana program in Minnesota.  Both stories deserve comment because they illuminate broader problems for the Republicans at the national level and the DFL in Minnesota.

“The Crazies Have Taken Over The Party.”
Speaker Boehner’s resignation really should have shocked no one.  His entire tenure as speaker has been tense.  Made speaker when the Tea Party arose and which  lead to the Republicans capturing majority control of the US House during the 2010 elections, Boehner has always been pulled in several directions.  One is being leader of the House of Representatives, seeking to broker deals with the Senate and President Obama.  This is the pragmatic and institutional aspect of his role as speaker.  But many in the GOP (as was true with Nancy Pelosi when she led the Democrats and the House as Speaker) view the speaker as both their party and ideological leader, expecting that person to push their agenda.
While all speakers face this pull as institutional, party, and ideological leaders, some are better able than others to bridge the three.  Boehner did his best, but seldom pleased his most conservative members.  On several occasions he negotiated deals to keep the government open or avert a debt crisis, but he also failed on occasion too.  For the ideological purists in his party, he too failed.  He failed on abortion, failed to cut taxes enough, failed to challenge Obama and the Democrats enough.  There were constant rumors and signs of ideological battles and tests of his leadership, but finally it became too much.  Boehner said that he was stepping down to protect the House and not let the constant leadership battles threaten the institution.
The issue that finally seemed to do it is the one now linking the defunding of Planned Parenthood to funding to keep the government open.  The purists are willing to shut the government down to defund PP and expected Boehner to be both their ideological and party leader to help them here.  But Boehner as part leader knew that past government shutdowns have hurt the Republicans in the past and would probably again do so this year, risking electoral problems in 2016.  Finally, as an institutionalist he knew shutting the government down was not good.  Thus, his tri-lemma–represent the ideologists who have taken control of the party, protect the GOP from self-destruction in the house, and protect the House and the government as an institution.
In the end, the ideologies have won.  They have won not simply in knocking off Boehner (a person they did not ever really trust), but they have taken control of the institution and of the party.  Peter King, Republican from NY, describes what just happened as “the crazies have taken over the party.”   Mainstream media says this move makes it less likely that there will be a government shutdown soon.  Maybe.  Or maybe a weakened Boehner or future speaker will be able to control the ideologies even less, perhaps increasing the chances of a shutdown or more confrontations as we getting closer to the 2016 elections.  Stay tuned.
But there is also something else the mainstream media is missing.  One has to view the resignation of Boehner in conjunction with the Republican presidential polls showing that the three outsides–Trump, Carson, and Fiorina–are leading over the institutionalists or more mainstream GOP.  Consider also polls showing a Republican base entrenched on issues over hostility to immigration  reform, proposals to address climate change, abortion, taxes, and just about everything else, and it  is easy to see why Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are leading.  It is looking to be the year that the Tea Party revolution started in 2009 has finally won.  The Republican party has been made over–if not by Tea Party followers, definitely by the ideologists.    The Party is being pulled ideologically further and further to the right at the congressional and presidential level, representing a demographics and ideology perhaps far from the ideological center of American politics.  Whether this means in the short or long term their demise is a matter of debate.  How Democrats respond will be interesting to see.

Dayton’s Dilemma
The roll out of medical marijuana is effectively a disaster on all fronts.  Yes the legislation was terrible and misconceived from the start.  Instead of just legalizing marijuana or allowing for a deregulated medical use, Minnesota chose to over-regulate its medical use.  Few people would be allowed to use to, but only in an expensive processed form that would not be covered by insurance.  Doctors would be expected to write prescriptions for its use even though they had no financial incentive to do so and risked their medical license to do so because marijuana is still illegal federally and doctors could potentially be sued or prosecuted for suggesting its use.  There was a costly process to select vendors to sell medical marijuana and they would have start up and operating costs  that far exceeded our friendly neighborhood dope dealer.  Bad policy design leads to bad implementation and that is what we are finding out now.
In the last week stories have emerged that the rollout of the medical marijuana is going poorly.  The prices are too high, too few people qualify, stories to buy the product are few, and the vendors are losing money.  There is talk now of qualifying more people for medical marijuana, perhaps giving the program financial solvency.  This will ultimately fail.  The basic policy design  is flawed and tinkering around the edges probably will not fix it.  In too many ways the policy was  captured by too many special interests who all wanted a piece of the pie, and by flawed assumptions about who wanted medical marijuana and why.
On one level one cannot fully blame the Dayton administration for the faulty policy design.  Dayton originally did not want medical marijuana.  But there is a troubling pattern here.   Consider perhaps the three most significant initiatives of the Dayton administration–the Vikings Stadium, MNSure, and now medical marijuana.  All three have had major policy design failures and all three have had terrible roll outs.  With the Vikings stadium MN has one of the worst stadium deals in the country.  MNSure’s rollout was so bad even Dayton was willing to put on the table this last session killing the Minnesota health care exchange and opting into the federal one.  Now medical marijuana and the concession it needs a major fix.  This is not a good implementation history for Dayton and the Democrats, and it is a certainty that such a pattern will be an issue in the 2016 state legislative elections.

Politics, Drugs, and Sports: Thoughts on Clinton, Trump, Medical Marijuana, and the Vikings

The 2016 presidential race is effectively over already in 40 states.  In places such as New York and Texas, Republicans and Democrats respectively might as way stay home on election day because the chances of the voters in these states electing their party nominee are slim to none.  But it is small group of ten swing states (and Minnesota is not one of them) that will decide the election.  This is the conclusion and subject of my new book Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter.  Whomever wins in these states wins the presidency.  And if that is true then the Democratic and Republican frontrunners both are in trouble.
Both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton are leading the polls in their party. According to a new Quinnipiac University Poll Donald Trump has huge negatives in three critical swing states–Iowa, Virginia and Colorado.  The same poll has Clinton trailing Walker, Bush, and Rubio in these states, even though she still has a lead overall against Republican contenders according to other polls.  For Clinton, this is a significant turnout around where just a couple of months ago she enjoyed strong leads over all Republicans, and even was far outdistancing Bernie Sanders
But because the presidential race (and even the primaries and conventions) are a 50 state (plus DC) contest due to the Electoral College, national polls mean little–it is about what happens in individual states.  For Trump this suggests that he faces major problems should he get the nomination–he may be unelectable among swing voters in swing states, some of which, such as Colorado, have a significant Hispanic population.  Of course his other problems–his disconnect between his brain and mouth and the fact that his first place is really only about 15% in the party polls, suggests major problems for Trump and for the Republicans.  It is not clear which is worse–Trump as the party nominee who drags the entire party down across the country–or Trump  as a third party candidate who drags the Republicans down and costs them a presidential race.  Assume Clinton and Bush get the nominations, this might be a repeat of 1992 when another third party candidate by the name of Perot ran against a Bush and Clinton, leading to a Democratic victory.
But Hilary Clinton and the Democrats too face problems.  Clinton’s problem in swing states also raises questions about her prospects of winning in a two way race.    Her big negatives and high name recognition make it unlikely she can really change her image as she is trying to do.  She is who she is.  Yes much of her criticism is sexist and the product of a smear campaign, but that is the reality she must face and yelling foul does not change much.  Should she get the nomination she faces problems winning the swing states not only because many swing voters will not vote for her but because the Republicans will use her to activate all types of misogynists and Hilary-haters.  Karl rove penned a recent essay declaring Clinton has a likeability or relateability problem still and Republicans will exploit that.  As a politically savvy friend of mine pointed out, Clinton will be a terrible draw at the top of the ticket.  For example, Clinton nomination will probably hurt Democrat’s prospects to win back the Senate and in Minnesota she will not help in knocking off Congressman Kline.
Finally, the money is still on Clinton to win the nomination but she could be damaged.  Weeks ago on Esme Murphy’ radio show I discussed how  Clinton remains weak in caucus states just as she was in 2008.  Image a scenario where Sanders wins the Iowa caucus (not impossible) and then does really well in New Hampshire (next to his home state of Vermont).  Clinton is damaged much like McCarthy damaged Johnson in 1968.  By the time we get to Minnesota I can see it too going for Sanders–he has the passion of the grassroots, Clinton does not.

Drugs and Sports
Two local stories deserve comment.
First, the roll out of medical marijuana so far is horrible.  Beyond the stories of Leaf Line  hiring three former or present states officials or representatives to work for them (raising tons of questions about ethics, perhaps illegal behavior, and whether the original bidding process for distribution rights was fair), there is the issue of so far only 340 individuals certified for usage for the medical marijuana.  There are few doctors registered to prescribe, fearful both of their licenses (pot is still illegal under federal law) and because there is still no scientific evidence of the value of pot.  While the State of Minnesota may not be interested in whether medical marijuana makes money, the private companies have to think about that.  With such a restrictive program and too few customers one wonders about the economic viability of the program.
Also, Leaf Line appears to be selling medical marijuana for about $350 per ounce.  Because  it is an experimental drug I am not sure insurance will cover it.  Because of this individuals may have to pay out of their own pockets to purchase it.  It probably will be cheaper to buy a dime bag from your friendly neighborhood dope dealer instead.
Finally, the Vikings stadium deserves comment.  One is the story points out that the Vikings stadium was one of the five worst sports deals negotiated with a government.  Minnesota tax payers got fleeced–Dayton and the legislature did a horrible job in negotiating the deal and we still have no idea regarding all that was promised since so much was dealt behind closed doors.  Second, the 12 person state legislative panel meant to oversee the Vikings project has not met in a year.  Effectively, there is little oversight here.  Finally, as Jay Kolls has pointed out in a channel 5 television segment I did with them, the development around the site in Minneapolis is a saga in back door deals.  The Vikings already has exclusive rights for 80 days on the public park being built next to the new stadium and Minneapolis is looking for more corporate sponsors for it.    One wonders what deals they will get on exclusive use and also I wonder whether I can show up to this public park and protest public funding for sports stadiums!

Making Sense of the 2014 Minnesota Legislative Session–A Tale in Four Parts

  
Legislative sessions in Minnesota produce defining themes.  These narratives allow observers to make sense out the political debates and the policies that emerge. Often times these narratives also influence the legislators themselves, acting almost as invisible hands that move participants in ways that look as if they are serving broader goals.  The 2014 legislative session too had its defining themes; in this case four stand out.

The DFL Delivered the Goods
    For good or bad, the DFL delivered on their promises because they were in charge.  This is the result of unified government.  When all is told the Democrats largely did what they promised.  They raised the minimum wage, passed anti-bullying legislation, cut taxes, passed a massive bonding bill, and also did more.  The DFL acted like, well, Democrats are expected to act and they made no real missteps or mistakes in the process.  They did fail to address the constitutional problems with the civil commitment process for sexual offenders, but no one seriously thought they would do that in an election year.  They also failed miserably to pass new disclosure laws for campaigns and elections, but outside Representative Winker and Senator Marty DFLers seem to have little appetite  for government ethics issues.  But come November they will tell the voters that they did what the aimed to do, that it bettered Minnesota, and that because of that they deserve to retain single party control.
    But for all that they did, the Republicans will use it against them.  All of the accomplishments or victories that the DFL will triumph the Republicans will say is the reason why they should be elected.  They will argue that the DFL damaged the economy with a higher minimum wage, that the tax cuts are illusionary given the massive increases the year before, that  the Democrats overreached into social issues, and that the bonding bill was simply an example of wasteful pork to buy votes. They will also try to talk about the botched rollout of MNSURE and excess spending on a new Senate office building.  Republicans will say the DFL acted like Democrats–as tax and spend liberals–and that their party has a better or different vision on state government.  Republicans and Democrats will offer contrasting views on the role of the state in Minnesota, with both parties making the election a referendum on the DFL’s performance. 

Dayton is in Charge
    What became clear here is the extent to which Dayton is in charge–not only as governor but also in terms of the legislative session.  His agenda largely defined what happened.  He wanted tax cuts and got them despite the desire of Tom Baak to save more of the surplus.  Dayton wanted a larger bonding bill, he got it.  Dayton was originally opposed to medical marijuana and the bill was dead until late in the session when he changed his mind and the policy got a second wind.  Dayton also used the bully pulpit effectively to structure what would go into many of the other laws that were passed–sprinklers for high end homes–and he generally imposed line of the legislature to act and the generally followed.  The governor in his first two years often took a passive roll in the legislative process.  Think about the law legalizing same-sex marriage.   For much of that debate he simply said that if the legislature passes the law he would sign it.  Dayton took that position on many bills.  But this session he went from being a passive participant to an active force in the legislature.

Suburban Soccer Moms Win (sort of)
    Suburbs are the battle ground for political power and control in Minnesota and the votes that drive who wins there are the soccer moms.  The suburban soccer mom is the single most important  swing voter in the state, and whoever wins or controls their vote wins statewide office and control of the legislature.
    Women in general, but especially the soccer mom, are central to Democrat and DFL success. Nationally there is a huge gender gap, with women far more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans.  Suburban women have left the Republican party for many reasons–reproductive rights, health care, and other family security issues, even while their male counterparts stay with the GOP.  Women are a larger percentage of the electorate than men and inn presidential election years they show up to vote.  But in now presidential years, they do not.  In part that is why Democrats do so badly in midterm elections.  This was the case in 2010 when Democrats nationally and in Minnesota were routed, but Dayton managed to capture enough female voters to win.  Come November 2014  what women will do–vote or stay home–will determine the fate of the Democrats.
    It should not come as a surprise then that in 2014 the DFL did what it could to reach out to female voters, giving them a reason to vote Democrat.  For the most part, women did well this session and one could say that the soccer mom in Edina with three kids was the winner.  Consider  four pieces of legislation.
    First, the passage of the anti-bulling legislation addressed an issue of core concern to mothers–their children being bullied.  No parent wants their children bullied, but this is an issue that resonates with moms more than dads.  Second, the Women’s Economic Security Act was a high profile bill aimed to eliminate employment and economic barriers facing women such as child care, discrimination, and sexual harassment issues.  Third, legalization of  medical marijuana was entirely an issue driven by women.  The so called “mommy lobby” was instrumental in overcoming the Governor’s reluctance in opposing the law enforcement community (one of his biggest supporters).  In fact, not until after Dayton was confronted with women telling stories about how their children needed medical marijuana did he move.  The mommy lobby gave the DFL cover on this issue.  The one surprise?  The DFL did not pass the Toxic Chemicals bill, a law that would have given parents more information about children's products to disclose presence of chemicals of concern in them.  This should have been a no-brainer, but it failed, perhaps due the lobbying presence of Minnesota’s  powerful food industry.  But on balance, suburban women did well by the DFL.

Evidence-Based Policy
    Ronald Reagan once said facts were stubborn things.  Facts can empower but often times facts have little impact on decisions, or at least certain kinds of facts.  Many of us hope that legislators will make policy based on evidence, but as I have written in American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Research, there are many reasons why this is often not the case.  Alternatively, what lawmakers consider as facts is different from what social scientists or scientists consider as facts.  Consider again the medical marijuana bill.
    The medical profession is absolutely correct–there is no evidence substantiating the therapeutic effects of medical marijuana.  The type of evidence they are looking for is the classic controlled experiment, perhaps a double-blind test involving placebos.  But this type of evidence is seldom what moves policy makers.  For them, personal stories from constituents, often anecdotal, is seen as compelling and powerful.   Moms testifying before the legislature with children in hand, telling personal stories about how medical marijuana helped their children, is hard to resist.  These political facts are more likely to move  public officials than the kind that sway doctors and scientists and they were enough to move the governor and legislature this term on a host of issues that might otherwise lack real evidentiary support.   It is these kind of political facts that also move voters.
    Thus when it comes time to spin the story of the 2014 Minnesota legislative session the above four narratives define what happened.  How compelling these stories are, what they mean, and how the parties will frame them, will determine to a large extent who wins the 2014 elections.

Marijuana and the Criminal Justice-Prison Industrial Complex

     America has fought a losing war and it is time to end it.  No, this is not a reference to Afghanistan or the War on Terrorism.  It is to the four decade long war on drugs that has failed miserably.  It is time to shift away from a drug policy that criminalizes its use to one which treats it as a public health problem.  This should be the policy regardless of whether Minnesota endorses medical marijuana.
    Richard Nixon launched the “war on drugs” with his presidency in 1968 and coined the phrase in a 1971 speech.  Since Nixon the war on drugs has been a mainstay of Republican if not bipartisan politics.  The 1974 New York Rockefeller Drug laws penalized individuals with sentences of 15, 25 years, or even life in prison for possession of small amount of marijuana. Increased mandatory minimum sentences for crimes were ratcheted up for drugs and the move toward “three strikes and you are out laws” in the 1990s were adopted in part as a result of the drive to prosecute drug crimes.  All told in the last decade the federal government has annually spent $20-25 billion on drug enforcement with states kicking in an additional $10-15 billion if not more. What has this money purchased?
    There is little evidence that drug usage is down.  Nearly 40% of high school students have reported using illegal drugs, up from 30% a decade ago.  Some studies suggest 30 million or more Americans have used illegal drugs in any given year.  Several hundred thousand individuals per year are arrested for mere use or possession of marijuana. Hard core use is not down and in fact in some cases it has stabilized or increased over time.  Programs such as DARE show little sign of success, and the “Just say no” campaign that begin with Nancy Reagan also does not seem to have had much impact on drug usage.
    But if the war on drugs has done little to decrease demand for drugs, it has had powerful unintended consequences.  Interdiction and enforcement has created a significant and profitable market for illegal drugs both in the United States and across the world.  Estimates are the marijuana is one of the most profitable cash crops in California and the drug violence in Mexico, resulting in approximately 55,000 deaths in the last six years, is tied to American demand for drugs.  The price of cocaine is now at record lows, courts are jammed with drug dockets, and prison populations have swelled with individuals whose only crimes were minor drug possession.  States are now saddled with overcrowded bloated and aging prison populations, lives have been lost due to drug incarceration, and tax dollars that could have been spent on education, roads, or simply saved have been wasted on drug enforcement.  American politicians never seemed to lose points by ranting against drugs or demanding tougher enforcement.  Clearly they were addicted to our drug policies.
    Drug criminalization has failed.  This is not to say that drug use is not a problem.  In some cases it is.  But put into perspective, use of alcohol, tobacco, or the consumption of fatty foods and sugary drinks exacerbating obesity and heart disease are far greater problems in this country than the use of illegal drugs. In many cases recreational use of drugs is harmless, in others, such as with medical marijuana, its uses may in fact be beneficial.  For others, personal and occasional use of drugs is a matter of privacy.  But yes, one can concede that use of illegal drugs–including abuse of prescription drugs which is perhaps the biggest problem–is a public health issue.  Lives can be lost to addiction and families broken up through abuse or neglect.  Many of us know of friends or family members who lives read like a drug version of Billy Wilder’s 1945 classic The Lost Weekend.  These individuals need medical help, not a prison term.  Drug policy needs to be decriminalized and shifted to a public health approach.  But many oppose decriminalization.  Why?
    The basis for opposing the use of drugs generally rests on one of two grounds. First, there is the moral claim that drug use is inherently immoral or bad because it alters the mind, debases human nature, or reduces the capacity for autonomy. The second claim for opposing the use of drugs is social, arguing that the use of drugs and drug related activity produces certain social costs in terms of deaths, black marketing, and crime. Another variant of this claim is that drug use diminishes social productivity by sustaining bad work habits, or by generating other social costs including increased health care costs.
    Ok, one might concede that use of illegal drugs is bad or that it constitutes a public health problem that needs to be addressed.  By having acknowledged this, the question is whether the current practice of drug criminalization and using police resources is the most effective policy to addressing this problem.  One argument against the decriminalization approach is the sending signals argument.  Specifically one major objection to the strategy proposed here is the argument that it would lead to an increase in drug usage and experimentation. Legalizing drugs would send a signal to individuals that drug usage is permissible and therefore more people would use them.
    It is just not clear what impact making drugs legal or illegal has on their usage.  Conceivably making them illegal creates a “forbidden fruit” aura around them that encourages their usage that would be abated by legalizing them.  The same might be said for tobacco products and teenagers or perhaps for any other products or practices socially shunned. Regardless of the reasons why individuals choose to use drugs, there is little evidence that legalization has resulted in increased usage.  In the Netherlands, decriminalization of some drugs has not lead to an increase in usage or in users trading up from soft to harder drugs.  Five years after Portugal decriminalized many drugs in 2001, there too was little evidence that it led to increased drug use.  Portugal’s drug usage rates remain among the lowest in Europe after legalization, while rates of IV-drug user infection rates and other public health problems dropped.  In legalization of medical marijuana in California, the decriminalization might have changed attitudes towards the drug but there was no evidence of change in its use.  So far the same is true in Colorado with outright legalized marijuana. There simply is no real evidence that legalization sends a signal that drugs are permissible and therefore more people use them.
    The point here is that the war on drugs has failed.  It was a political narrative used by politicians for four decades to promote their electoral interests at the expense of public good and taxpayers.  The criminal justice-prison industrial complex has gotten addicted to the war on drugs, making billions of dollars off of criminalization of drugs, especially marijuana. If we truly wish to win the war against drugs, whatever that means, jailing people is not the way to do it. It is time to end that narrative and establish a different approach that sees drug usage as a public health issue.  The $40 or so billion expended per year on drug enforcement could be better spent on other things.  This is a taxpayer issue and maybe in these difficult fiscal times the opportunity is there to rethink drug policy in Minnesota and America.