How Americans Really Feel About Drugs

[RainDog]

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/how_americans_really_feel_about_drugs/singleton/

Sirota has an excellent piece about the way in which propaganda is employed to continue to lie about the WoD, specifically in relation to cannabis.

Almost exactly eight years ago, I wrote an essay for the Nation magazine looking at how terms such as “centrism” and “moderate” were beginning to be deftly manipulated to shape the parameters of America’s political discourse. In almost every policy debate, these words were being used in with-us-or-against-us fashion to delineate what was — and what was not — acceptable. Through such linguistic propaganda over the last decade, America was gradually taught that anything called “centrist” or “moderate” was Good and Serious because it supposedly represented “mainstream” thinking in America — even as “centrism” was being used to describe policies and politicians that, based on empirical data, increasingly diverged from the actual center of our nation’s public opinion. By contrast, anything positioned in opposition to that branding was wild-eyed “leftist,” “extremist,” “ideological,” “fringe” — and most of all, Evil and Unserious.

As dishonest as this kind of agitprop is, it unfortunately — but predictably — continues unabated. This is, after all, the golden era of agitprop — a moment in which wars are no longer wars, corporations are people, and top New York Times scribes are given a national platform to declare that a key architect of the Republican Party’s infamous K Street Project “is not a representative of the corporate or financial wing of the party.” And so when it comes to who is a “centrist” or “moderate,” the distortions persist without so much as a peep of editorial protest.

The latest example of this insidious framing comes in the form of a Monday New York Times Op-Ed. The piece is written by Kevin Sabet, formerly one of President Obama’s top drug policy officials. Titled “Overdosing on Extremism,” he employs the “centrist” and “moderate” code words to criticize those pressing for reforms that, for purposes of law enforcement, would treat currently outlawed drugs such as marijuana just like far more dangerous yet legal drugs such as alcohol. With the possibility of these reform proposals roiling the presidential race and appearing on statewide ballots in 2012, a breathless and hysterical Sabet sounds an old fear-mongering alarm,

Mere weeks after Gallup’s new poll showed a majority of Americans support full legalization of marijuana, Sabet insists that it’s a “fact” that the public doesn’t support legalization. And mind you, it’s not just Gallup’s surveys that show public support for legalization — in state-based polls in politically diverse states like Massachusetts and Colorado, it’s essentially the same thing: widespread public support for pot legalization.

Here's that Gallup Poll:


Here's a link to Sabet's NYT's piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/drug-policy-needs-centrists.html

Here's Sabet's most egregious lie: "...a few tough-on-crime conservatives and die-hard libertarians dominate news coverage and make it appear as if legalizing drugs and “enforcement only” strategies were the only options, despite the fact that the public supports neither." (well, yeah, unless you take into consideration all the legalization polls for mmj for the last 15 years, the recent Gallop Poll, or the President's own web site with more calls to legalize than for any other petition presented there... ever.)

Please go to Sirota's piece at the top link and read the way in which Sabet is trying to frame this issue in a way that simply denies reality.

[Earth_First]

1. Interesting that more Midwest support exists when compared to the East...

I would also like to see this poll given among a breakdown of professionals in the medical field as well; pediatricians, surgeons, hospice, etc.

[RainDog]

2. Did you read the Sirota article?

it's very good b/c also aligns with the reality that the U.S. has a very narrow range of acceptable views on a variety of topics, and this is one.

this is another illustration of the way in which the beltway and the rest of America are in two different realities. I thought that was over with Bush's team who said they were creating reality... but in regard to things like economic and drug policy... not so much.

it's not simply the executive. it's the legislative too. the bureaucracies seem to be the worst of all - at least certain ones.

[Upton]

3. Why the big disparity between men and women?

A full 9%..and women were the driving force behind prohibition as well. I mean, c'mon ladies..what's the deal?

[RainDog]

4. Women are the ones who deal with issues of children most often

and the propaganda against cannabis constantly focuses on the fear of danger to children.

of course, we think it's possible to sort out acceptable actions for adults v. children in many other ways.. driving a car, voting, drinking alcohol, getting married...

women also tend to be more religious than men across societies. at least one person relates this to a greater number of risk-averse females - when religions in a society are more punitive (i.e. fundamentalisms of any type) more women are religious. when it's not considered risky to be non-religious (such as societies with religions w/o concepts of hell) the risk aversion for women decreases.

so, considering the level of propaganda, women might be viewed as engaging in risk-averse behavior to support prohibition because of their fears for their children.

the answer seems to be more accurate information.

[RZM]

16. That was true for prohibition as well

Women and women's groups were major forces in the temperance movement. I think much of that was because of women's roles in managing the household. Women had to deal with the negative consequences that an alcoholic spouse or relative brought into the home.

[RainDog]

17. and women had no way of earning an income, for the most part

so they wanted sober husbands so their children wouldn't be out in the street

[RZM]

19. Women could and did earn money back then

But they got a lot less than what men made . . . quite often not nearly enough to support a family. And they were pretty much shut out the more prestigious professions.

But your point still stands. Sometimes an alcoholic husband could lead to genuine destitution for a woman and her children.

[RainDog]

22. whenever a position was moved from "male identified" to "female identified"

wages for that position dropped. every time.

Initially, secretaries were considered administrative assistants and deemed responsible for a great part of the work flow in a business and they were all male. the position was highly estimated for that person's skills.

when females moved into the position, wages fell and men were moved to "managerial" classes - a part of the secretarial job until it was assigned to females.

prohibition was also tied to the right to vote for women. many of them found their voices on an issue of social concern that allowed them to also engage in citizen action for suffrage.

at the time, prohibition was initially considered a "progressive" cause. at that time, progressive meant policies that led to the greatest benefit for the majority of society.

one big reason prohibition fell apart is that it was obvious, with the crime and continued drinking, etc. that the policy didn't work.

but it wasn't until a female started calling out this failure that it gained a voice that moved the "wets" into a stronger position. prior to, "wets" were associated with cities and immigrants from Germany and Italy.

iow, it's pretty amazing how things get repeated again and again and yet we don't learn from our mistakes.

I am glad that coffee is legal since it's my drug of choice.

[rbnyc]

48. Sexism created middle management.

Ha - I'd never considered that before.

[randome]

5. I think most people respond to a poll like this don't think drug use will ever be legalized.

So it's a 'safe' answer to say you're in favor of something when you don't ever expect it to happen.

If the above poll was truly accurate, there would be huge public demand for legalization.

But there isn't because most people don't care.

Medical marijuana is a separate issue.

[RainDog]

7. yes. I am aware of your view on this subject

medical marijuana isn't considered a separate issue for many people.

in fact, medical marijuana has been the issue that has resulted in the greatest change in public opinion because mmj has been legal for a decade in various states and people recognize the sky has not fallen as a result. medical marijuana polls serve as leaders to indicate greater support for legalization overall.

however, we are all free to make distinctions that allow us to maintain particular points of view.

the reality is that nearly a majority of the population of the country favors mmj and some states that have mmj now also have full legalization on the ballot, which was achieved by obtaining enough voter signatures to put those measures on ballots.

if most people don't care, then I suppose those who barely lost a full legalization battle in the 2010 election don't matter to you either.

are you in a habit of discounting polls just because you don't like the result, or do you reserve this attitude when it's a poll that is for cannabis? polls that indicate support for Obama - do you discount those? polls that indicate Americans want the wealthy to be taxed - do you discount those?

I just wonder where your bias kicks in.

[randome]

8. I just don't see a great public outcry for legalizing drugs.

That's all it is.

[RainDog]

9. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117052

[randome]

10. I can't dispute that.

But your list is of leaders and organizations, impressive though it is.

I was just talking about ordinary people who respond to the polls.

I can't say I have many conversations at work or at the coffee shop or anywhere else that start with, "You know? I really wish they would legalize marijuana."

Maybe I don't hang in the right circles.

You can convince me that certain drugs SHOULD be legalized. I'd probably still be personally against it but I wouldn't stand in the way, either.

Except for medical marijuana, I don't see it happening except in isolated communities or one or two states.

[RainDog]

11. LOLOL

have a great day!

[RainDog]

50. I have a great idea!

I don't know what sort of environment you're in at work - but why don't you be the one at work or the coffee shop to say...

"You know, this pesky person keeps talking about the benefits of legalizing or, at the least, decriminalizing marijuana. She seems to think a lot of people would be in favor of regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol. She says it would help restrict access to teenagers that way. I think she's crazy. What do you think?"

And let me know what the word is where you are.

I can only comment about where I am. Where I am, a lot of ppl suport legalization - I'm around democrats and libertarians, for the most part. A lot of apolitical young adults where I live, too. My sons don't use but they think it should be treated like alcohol - that's generally the view where I am.

So, let me know what you hear.

[RZM]

18. There isn't a great outcry

But great outcries for major policy shifts are pretty rare things. I can't think of any at all in recent memory, despite the fact that there are plenty of such issues where changes get majority support in polls.

But as you mentioned, polls are abstract. Once you get to the nitty gritty of crafting legislation and bargaining, it becomes a lot more muddled.

However, I'm confident that we will start to see movement on this issue within the next decade or so as the children of boomers become more prominent in public life.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. The people of Massachusetts decriminalized pot.

This wasn't a medical marijuana initiative, it was a ballot initiative that reduced possession of small amounts of pot to an 'offense' - a parking ticket. It won quite handily. The chickenshit legislature never had the guts to do the right thing. The world didn't fall apart. Cops have better things to do than bust people for smoking pot.

[RainDog]

32. CA also decriminalized pot last year

a lot of ppl thought it was a move by Ahnuld to take some of the wind out of the full legalization movement.

in NYC, it's supposed to be only a ticketable offense, but cops continued to arrest people for simple possession anyway until SO MANY PEOPLE called them out on this tactic.

but, yeah, no one cares.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RainDog.

[librechik]

12. Bu-bu-bu--we're a center right country!

damn I'm tired of hearing that lie over and over again.

[Uncle Joe]

21. I don't believe centrism means what the corporate media promotes it to be.

[RainDog]

24. LOLOLOL!

that was a point that I thought was interesting about the placement of pols in the 2008 political compass' site graph that I posted here a week or so ago.



a politician who is "centrist" in terms of the discourse that is allowed for candidates who have a chance of winning an election is the center of authoritarian social views and right wing economic positions.

however, as Dan Ariely noted last year, Americans THINK we have a society that is more like Sweden's social democracy w/o the huge disparities in income that exist here.

additionally, unless you ask Randome Americans have moved farther and farther away from authoritarian positions on cannabis prohibition.

yet these ideas are not allowed b/c our media says they're extremist.

even when they're not.

[Uncle Joe]

37. Exactly, and that's why

Newt Gingrich; a would be war criminal and promoter of torture was given far more coverage by the corporate media than Ron Paul after Iowa in spite of finishing fourth to Paul's third place finish, Paul would fall to the bottom Libertarian Qaudrant of your graph.

The corporate supremacist loving corporate media was already preparing to say that Iowa didn't count if Paul had won.

I watched the major prime time news networks Wed. night and not a one of them mentioned Paul except Paul Schaeffer of CBS for about five seconds reminding them not to forget Paul when they mentioined the top candidates. I believe someone behind the camera must of clued Schaeffer in on to the corporate frame after that because he had a funny look on his face and said "of course Paul can't win" and the anchor asking questions of Schaeffer had a cat ate the canary expression on his face as well immediately after Schaeffer qualified himself.

This is a prime example of corporate media manipulation, they want an authoritarian government willing to squeeze the people on behalf of the major corporations. The corporate media's moist dream is a government firmly in the right wing authoritarian quadrant, because that would most serve to divide the people making them easier to conquer, abuse and subvert.

[librechik]

41. thanks for the graph, exactly!

[RainDog]

40. well, at least the cat doesn't have to hear it

...with those earphones.

[joshcryer]

51. We only elect center-right politicians because we're unfairly represented.

A right winger getting elected in the South does not represent the 40-50% of people who live down south, for example.

[Logical]

13. Why is it that the GOP wants government to leave them alone except with Drugs and Sex and Abortion??

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Party of smaller government

so small that they can fit it in your medicine cabinet- and your pants.

[RainDog]

25. because they're not conservatives? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I love how anyone who doesnt favor spending $40 Billion a year to 'fight'

the smoking of a relatively harmless plant by consenting adults, is 'unserious'.

And anyone who questions the use of tax dollars to harass and imprison chemo-sick cancer grannies is an 'extremist'.

Thanks, Raindog. K&R.

[Wind Dancer]

20. K & R!

I assumed during the early 70's that pot would certainly be legal by now. Obviously, I was wrong. We seem to be regressing in some areas as a society, sad to say.

Thanks for sharing.

[RainDog]

27. thanks for the comment! n/t

[Tikki]

23. Can you stay out from behind the wheel of a moving vehicle? Well then...

whatever.
Do not drive: drunk, loaded, UI, on prescriptive narcotics, tired, on your cellphone, eating, putting on makeup,
reading a book/newspaper, reading a map, reaching out with your hands to control unruly children, without your seatbelt on, while fighting with someone in the car or another car, with a gun on your front seat, when the weather makes the roads totally impassable, too old with bad reflexes, driving without a licenses......ex....
I do not want to be on the road with you if you are UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS.

If my grandchildren come into contact with a loaded up or smacked out or speeded up person in front of a tasty frosty, will, I can explain that to them. Why anyone would drive that way...not.

Tikki

[RainDog]

26. Yes. We already have laws for driving while impaired

those don't just disappear.

[Tikki]

28. Drugs other than alcohol (e.g.marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle...

drivers deaths. (CDC 2009)

Somebody(s) is not getting the message.


Tikki
ps the dead don't pay a fine or go to jail...they do lose their license, I suppose.

[RainDog]

30. well... 38% are attributed to alcohol

yet we did a cost/benefit analysis and we decided that the violence and societal upheaval from crime related to prohibition was worse than the prohibition itself. instead, we have engaged in anti drinking/driving campaigns and have done things like make buses or taxis free at certain times and places (like NY's Eve) to try to encourage people to not drink and drive.

Alcohol, unlike cannabis, encourages risk-taking behavior - not just while driving, but since that's the issue - cannabis remains a better risk, in terms of cost/benefit.

I wonder how they got those stats for cannabis use while driving, however. If they did a urine test, it would not be an accurate measure. afaik, police don't use mouth swabs, which are more accurate in determining actual cannabis influence within the 2-4 hour period in which it might be a factor.

[Tikki]

33. If you legalize it...this will socialize it..why legalize it otherwise..

you can sit in your back room and smoke dope all day long, already, and the real odds are
you will never pay any penalty for that.

If you want to share bud with your bud...you're going to be sharing the good news somewhere else.



Tikki

[RainDog]

34. you know, strange as it may sound - this isn't about me

but if you want to argue it that way, you will.

however - you're right. I'm a middle-aged mom of two with an advanced degree living in a progressive environment.

if people only cared about what mattered for them - they'd be republicans, I guess.

[Tikki]

35. I apologize...I meant the proverbial 'you'...

I am not always good at expressing myself. I care... about everyone.



Tikki

[Uncle Joe]

43. Why legalize it otherwise? Because people in general don't want to be criminals just for the

sin of altering their consciousness and having to worry about a militarized police busting down their door, hauling them away to an immoral for profit prison system and taking their possessions while the Bill of Rights are raped before their eyes.

There are a multitude of reasons to legallize cannabis other than any soicalization aspect but I don't have time tonight to go into all of them, I will be happy to come back tomorrow if you wish and spell out a few more reasons for legalization.

[RainDog]

45. I look forward to reading that here, Uncle Joe

thanks

[rbnyc]

49. + 1 nt

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Uh that stat is misleading.

Especially for pot. By involved that stat does not mean 'caused'. Unlike alcohol, which measurably impairs motor skills and is directly linked to accidents, pot has not such effect and cannot be clearly linked as a causative agent in traffic accidents. If anything, people operating vehicles after ingesting pot have been shown to be more cautious and paradoxically slightly better drivers, not that people should drive while stoned.

[JackRiddler]

31. bravo

[RainDog]

39. he did a great article, didn't he?

I have something I've been compiling and ran across this one.

We have to make some noise if we want to change the conservation!

[Bruce Wayne]

36. If you ask it this way, normal, law-abiding citizens don't see the harm.

But believe me, drugs are a scourge on our streets... and a cancer in far many more homes of the well-to-do who don't fit the typical profile of "druggie." And yet drugs work their vile menace on these families too, leading sometimes to far worse crimes than the occasional mugging or smash and grab.

On the other hand, Portugal's had such tremendous success with switching away from a punisment model to a treatment one. Maybe it's time to take the profits away from the pushers. In any event, this Gallup survey is asking about pot--hardly the same menace most people think of when they address "drugs" as a problem.

[RainDog]

38. I used the title of Sirota's piece

- but I agree with you that some people have problems that may lead them to substance abuse. I tend to think the underlying problems are the issue - but I'm sure there are other issues, too.

I absolutely agree that we would create a better society if we stopped putting so many people in prison for a medical condition and instead provided treatment. And I think it would ultimately be more cost-effective - tho we would surely, in the case of other drugs - tho I don't think that would happen here anytime in the future - have to devote more funds to rehabilitation.

It would be really useful, however, to remove the association of cannabis with dangerous substances b/c that sends the wrong message to teenagers, imo.

[sarcasmo]

42. Tax it and Legalize it

[Blacksheep214]

44. Why do drugstores have drive throughs?

Look at how many Walgreens there are.

This country is on drugs!

Funny that they are against one that actually makes you feel better!

Legalize!

[spanone]

46. government is representative of the major corporations

if Pfizer had 'invented' marijuana, we would take it in pill form everyday as a vitamin