Pubdate: Mon, 20 Apr 2009
Source: Daily Reveille (Louisiana State U, LA Edu)
Copyright: 2009 Daily Reveille
Contact: http://www.lsureveille.com/submit_a_letter
Website: http://www.lsureveille.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2879
Author: Mark Macmurdo
Note: Mark Macmurdo is a 22-year-old economics and history senior 
from Baton Rouge.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?420 (Cannabis - Popular)

Murda, He Wrote

REPORTERS, POLITICIANS DISTORT MARIJUANA DISCOURSE

AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France - April 20th is a special day - a day when 
strangers will exchange a wink or a nod, casually addressing an issue 
that is taboo for the other 364 days of the year.

But we formulate our understanding of this issue and public sentiment 
through the prism of the media. And because of a combination of 
political and financial influences, that understanding has been 
blurred, rebuffed and stagnated.

The politicization of marijuana likely originated in the Southwest 
U.S., where targeting Mexicans - with whom marijuana was exclusively 
popular - was a good way of drumming up support. Epitomized in the 
1929 film "Reefer Madness," lies and exaggerations led to excessively 
frightening views of the plant.

Politics were again important for marijuana policy when Richard Nixon 
declared his war on drugs. Since then, marginalizing marijuana users 
has been a tool of conservative politicians to shore up a policy of 
legislating morality, dividing traditional Americans from radical hippies.

Today the media continues observing this line and hinders marijuana 
policy discussion.

Reporters and anchors use words like "marijuana cigarette" or "water 
pipe" to give the impression they've never seen a joint or heard of a 
bong before.

Chances are though, those journalists are among the estimated 100 
million people who have used marijuana. One CNN poll - undoubtedly 
receiving low numbers because of marijuana's stigma - found that 47 
percent of Americans had tried marijuana, with a whopping 3 percent 
saying they were "not sure."

Perhaps that minority falls into the Bill Clinton category.

Clinton admitted on MTV he had smoked, but not inhaled, consequently 
encapsulating the irrationality of the marijuana discussion. Clinton 
knew a majority of Americans had no problem with others smoking 
marijuana, but knew people had been trained to object to it.

Did Obama inhale? "Frequently," he said coolly. "That was the point."

Obama was still willing to engage in the same tired rhetoric. During 
his "virtual town hall meeting," Obama answered the most voted-on 
question by Americans, which asked how marijuana could be used to 
grow the economy.

But instead of giving the typical, long, thoughtful answer, he 
dismissed the question in simplistic terms, adding only suggestive 
comments about Internet users.

Seeking clarification on the president's answer, one reporter asked 
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs whether the president was 
questioning the fact that taxing marijuana would increase tax 
revenue. The best justification Gibbs could muster was it's "not the 
right plan for America."

The question was forgotten after a reporter made a joke about "green 
jobs." The giddy reporters all broke into laughter - representing the 
seriousness with which the media consider the issue.

While the media continue to frame the discussion of marijuana the way 
moral conservatives want - as a moral issue - several financial 
factors also bear influence. The pot industry doesn't advertise, but 
pharmaceutical companies do. They therefore have an interest in 
making sure any competitors to their advertisers - like medical 
marijuana proponents - aren't given the time of day.

The Partnership for a Drug Free America - the group that brings you 
the hilariously ridiculous anti-drug commercials - is a marketing 
company with a history of funding from the tobacco, alcohol and 
pharmaceutical industries.

Today, groups like these rely on logical fallacies including the 
"gateway theory" ad hominem attacks (making jokes about the Grateful 
Dead), and appeals to emotion (protecting the children).

Even after the world's greatest Olympian was ousted as a marijuana 
user, the media conversation stayed the same. It didn't even allow 
for serious discussion by failing to emphasize the three most 
important elements of marijuana reform: legalization, 
decriminalization and medical use. The same shoddy arguments 
resurfaced, and the news cycle continued.

Most interviewed said they thought individuals should be able to make 
their own personal decisions. Others vaguely said they were 
"disappointed" in Phelps. Of course, this didn't stop him from 
issuing a cookie cutter apology, and Kellogg's dropping his endorsement.

It is imperative we end the climate of marijuana policy discussion 
that stifles rational and pragmatic ideas. The conversation has for 
too long been influenced by political pressure. Obviously we have to 
engage in discussions - the kind that happen once every April - with 
real people, rather than relying on the media or politicians to show leadership.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom