The debate over the debate has been hot and heavy in the last week.
A few things worth keeping in mind:
-- The City Council resolution is meant to show support for Ciudad Juarez, and the issue of debating the role of the Drug War was only one of several policy steps recommended by the City Council. I'll say it again: IT WAS ONE OF MANY POLICY STEPS RECOMMENDED. Other steps included cracking down on gun-running from the U.S. to Mexico and on money laundering. While the media seized upon the unusual display of ganas to include the resolution calling for debate on legalizing drugs, we all did a poor job of placing it in the context in which it appeared, and in describing the rest of the context. Click here to see the entire resolution.
-- Anyone who thinks this is not a local issue also does not think immigration, air pollution, the Border Wall (or fence, depending on your point of view), and Fort Bliss -- just to name a few -- are not worth locals having an opinion on, either. In other words, just because it's ultimately a federal issue does not mean it does not involve us and sometimes warrant an opinion. It's called Democracy.
-- Anyone who thinks that people who support legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana are just using this as an excuse to push their agenda is right, sort of. Saying "it's just an excuse" is a way of being dismissive. If we agree there is a crisis in Juarez and Mexico, and there is one group of people who have been arguing consistently that part of the problem is our drug policy, why on earth would those people not proffer their proposals when they are most relevant? It's like saying people who think our flood control infrastructure in the city is inadequate are just using Storm 2006 as an excuse to promote flood control.
-- Opponents of this part of the resolution do a few things: They accuse proponents of being druggies, creating a credibility gap that has to be overcome -- a pre-debate; they use "the children" as a weapon, as though anyone thinks children ought to have drugs; they use dishonest language, conflating "use" and "abuse," as though someone cannot smoke marijuana or even snort cocaine without abusing those drugs (answer this -- how rational would it sound if instead of the phrase "drink a beer" everyone said "abuse a beer"?); they use dishonest statistics, throwing out numbers for drug overdoses, for example, when discussing marijuana, for which there are no recorded overdoses.
The bottom line is that most of the rational arguments, and the ones most consistent with a democracy built upon civil institutions -- imagine, some people say we ought to do as China and execute drug offenders, the same people who are likely to say they would go to war with China or any other nation to defend our democracy from an totalitarian system -- are those in favor of a science- and medicine-based approach to an incredibly complex issue.
Nobody is being a Pollyanna here. There always will be bad guys and a black market. We're all on the same side here in terms of keeping it away from children and fighting ABUSE (not USE); it's just that it's time drug warriors have to defend the 40 years of failure, escalation, prisons, failure, escalation, prisons, failure, escalation … in the same way that proponents of changing the policies have to defend their position.
City Council is on the brink of making a statement for real change, within the framework of our laws, something hardly radical except in its sensibility. Some of the Drug War, particularly as it relates to marijuana, started here, and it started because the all-Anglo City Council feared the Mexican underclass. This was another tool with which to keep them in line. [link]
The chances of change are slim. President-elect Obama so far has not shown the willingness to take bold steps in any area, although he's quietly building the framework for real change down the road. He's meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon today, and the guess here is he's going to commit to a status quo -- more funding for police and prisons, more military aid for Mexico.
Back at the City Council ranch, chances are a few council members will punk out and claim they didn't understand the amendment; after an hour-long debate, they're either dumb or they're lying.
The mayor … well, he's in a tough spot -- a fight he didn't expect on an issue with which he probably agrees. But he's facing re-election, and he's looking at a different picture -- as former Mayor Bill Tilney wrote, the feds don't take kindly to people tweaking them, and we have a long wish list at the federal level for things like better ports of entry, Fort Bliss, and transportation money.
In the heat of battle, the mayor dismissively calls people who think this makes sense "potheads," and appeals to a "silent majority" to come to council and support his veto. [link]
I'm thinking the silent majority is on the other side, and it's going to stay silent unless a few people -- the same ones sending emails and posting comments -- have the resolve, as did the City Council, to say that publicly.
