Episode 8 | Pro-Life Democrats, White House Bible Studies, and Legalizing Pot


This week, Justin talks about the DCCC’s potential support of pro-life candidates, homeopathy, bible studies in the White House, and ending the federal prohibition of marijuana.

Read more

We Need to End the War on Pot

It’s Time to End the War on Pot

In 1936, a church-funded film called Tell Your Children was released in theaters. Originally produced by George Hirliman as a propaganda film, Tell Your Children displayed youths gone wild under the influence of marijuana. However, it is best known to the world under its later title, Reefer Madness. A more salacious version, released just years later, cemented its place as one of most ill-conceived, yet undeniably fascinating pieces of film. In both versions, young people have their lives ruined by the “dangerous” effects of marijuana, with violence, promiscuity, and death as a result of their inhalations. This type of presentation is known as “voodoo pharmacology,” the idea that any drug, no matter how benign, could cause “uncontrollable urge[s] of craving and compulsion.”

Popular culture has maintained this illogical and misguided view of marijuana use, so much so that public leaders continue to rail against it. Our current Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has attempted to undo much of the Obama-era drug reforms as soon as he came into office. In May of 2017, he sent a letter to congressional leadership urging them not to impede Justice Department prosecutions of marijuana offenses, even in states where medicinal or recreational marijuana is currently legal. In it, Sessions asserted that marijuana is “linked to an increased risk of psychiatric disorders such as psychosis,” which the Guardian’s Jamie Peck noted as “sound[ing] a lot like “reefer madness” to me.” I agree. While the research on medicinal marijuana is still not fully conclusive, most research suggests that it isn’t any worse for a person than tobacco and certainly alcohol.

With that in mind, why have we continued a national policy of marijuana prohibition that lead to 8.2 million arrests between 2001 and 2010, with African-Americans 3.73 times more likely than whites to be arrested? As the ACLU noted, marijuana accounted for 52% of all drug-related arrests during this period, and 88% of them were for mere possession. These aren’t the Pablo Escobar-style drug lords we’re talking about; these are millions of people who were arrested for simply possessing a little pot. Furthermore, the racial bias is ridiculous. During the same decade, African-Americans aged 18-25 used marijuana less than whites but still faced disproportionately higher arrest rates. This is on top of a historically racist and inhumane drug war that has destroyed millions of lives and countless communities.

As with many things, you can tie this nonsense back to Richard Nixon. In 1970, Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act into law, reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug. To give you a sense of how fucked up that is, Schedule 1 puts marijuana on par with heroin — a drug that caused nearly 13,000 overdose deaths in 2015. It also classifies marijuana with having “no currently accepted medical uses” and a “lack of accepted safety for medical use.” This is definitely not the case. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, an analysis of 10,000 studies concluded that marijuana strongly “helps chronic pain in adults,” “lessens chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting,” and “relieves some symptoms of multiple sclerosis.” It also moderately helps with “sleep problems caused by obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis” and “doesn’t increase risk of cancers.” Now, I’m not claiming it’s a wonder-drug like many cannabis supporters do, but I am following the best credible evidence we have. Based on this alone, marijuana shouldn’t be classified as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

This is only the science and the law. Let’s talk about the politics of all this. As with marriage equality, the public has rapidly changed its view of marijuana legalization over the decades. In 1979, only 27% of Americans supported legalization. Today, that number is 61%, according to a recent CBS News poll. As for its supposed relationship to crime, only 23% of Americans think it’s related to violent crime. As for its supposed danger to consumers, 53% of Americans think that alcohol is worse than marijuana, with only 7% believing the inverse. What do these statistics say about the changing culture of pot? For starters, many more Americans have tried marijuana than in previous generations. According to this same poll, 50% of Americans have tried marijuana, as opposed to only 34% in 1997. The country is just getting more and more comfortable with pot; they’re learning that it isn’t the boogeyman drug that politicians like Jeff Sessions paint it as.

States are also getting wise to this conclusion. Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use and 30 permit medicinal uses. However, Sessions’ Justice Department isn’t dedicated to federalism on this matter. Despite these legalized means, the DEA will continue to prosecute people under the federal Controlled Substances Act. So much for limited government. Until Sessions resigns, or a new administration is elected, it appears that marijuana policy at the Justice Department will not follow the science or public opinion.

That doesn’t mean that Congress should sit on its hands. On August 1, 2017, Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced the Marijuana Justice Act, a bill that “would amend the Controlled Substance Act to eliminate marijuana’s status as a Schedule 1 drug — a move that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.” Booker’s bill also “incentivize[s] states to legalize marijuana if their current laws have a ‘disproportionate arrest rate’ on minority or low-income individuals.” Building on President Obama’s previous reforms, the Marijuana Justice Act would retroactively apply to individuals charged for marijuana-related offenses, allowing for the commutation of sentences and expunging the records for those already released. Booker spoke of his bill in a public statement:

Descheduling marijuana and applying that change retroactively to people currently serving time for marijuana offenses is a necessary step in correcting this unjust system. States have so far led the way in reforming our criminal justice system and it’s about time the federal government catches up and begins to assert leadership.

Booker’s bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but he needs cosponsors as well as broad, bipartisan support. Despite our era of political gridlock and intense partisanship, this is an issue that Democrats and Republicans can get behind. Democrats like it because it will help those disproportionately harmed by terrible drug policy, particularly the poor and people of color. Republicans, especially libertarian-style ones, can get behind expanding personal freedom and cutting wasteful government spending on enforcement. As the recent CBS News poll indicates, “majorities of Republicans (63 percent), Democrats (76 percent), and independents (72 percent) oppose the federal government trying to stop marijuana use in these states.” This would be a prime piece of legislation for bipartisan cooperation as well as reasonable public policy.

Besides the political, legal, and scientific reasons for decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana, there’s also the moral component. I strongly believe in the philosophy of “self-proprietorship,” the Enlightenment principle that you own your life and your body. Jacob Sullum, writer for Reason magazine, brilliantly elucidated this concept and its relation to drugs:

People have a right to control their bodies, to control what goes into their bodies, to control their minds, ultimately, because that’s what you’re talking about. If you’re talking about psychoactive drugs, you’re talking about controlling the contents of your mind, what goes on inside your brain. That’s a pretty basic right, you would think.

Your life should belong to you and you should be able to do as you wish, so long as you’re not violating the rights of others. If we’re a country that prizes liberty above all else, this should be a foundation component of that liberty. Alas, pious politicians, overzealous cops, and moralizing nanny-staters have marched, en masse, to stop people from living their lives as they see fit. Legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana on the federal level would do a great deal to stop them in their tracks, while increasing the liberty, safety, and happiness of our citizens and their communities. Contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them you want a bipartisan push for decriminalization, if not outright legalization, of marijuana at the federal level. Prohibition taught us that when you unrightly criminalize something, you nevertheless make real criminals. Let’s not go down that road again. Let’s end the war on pot.

In Defense of Journalism

In Defense of Journalism

The front page of the June 18, 1972 issue of the Washington Post centered around the Nixon administration’s efforts in North Vietnam, Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern’s chances in the New York primary, and an impending US appeals court ruling involving an airline pilot strike and its demands for stronger protections against hijacking. However, among the other articles on the front page, one became the most important, not only for that day, but for the ensuing two years. “5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats’ Office Here,” was the headline for an article by veteran Post reporter Alfred Lewis. “Five men, one of whom said he is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, were arrested at 2:30 a.m. yesterday in what authorities described as an elaborate plot to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee here,” Lewis reported.

It was the beginning of the “long, national nightmare” of Watergate, a scandal so deep and so intricate that it took two years, multiple news reports, congressional testimonies, and a near impeachment to end. The linchpin that kept democracy safe against further abuses of the 37th President was a free press, the news. Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein’s subsequent reporting in the Washington Post blew the story wide open, took down a president, and made them legends in the process. A free press and unadulterated journalism pushed Richard M. Nixon to resign and for Washington to clean up what had gone wrong for so very long.

It is easy to make parallels from Watergate to our own times. Perhaps our White House’s current occupant is as corrupt, if not more corrupt, than “Tricky Dick.” However the chips may fall with regards to Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russians, it was because of good, unfaltering journalism that we know about it. And a lot of it has come from the very same institution that went after Nixon: the Washington Post.

As it is easy to mention Watergate, it is equally easy to trash the press. Many times, they make it easy for us. When three CNN reports recently went too early and played too loose with sources on a Trump-Russia story, they were asked to resign. Weeks later, CNN went after a reddit user who had a created a WWE-style, smackdown gif of Trump, body slamming a person with their logo over his face, that the president later tweeted. The redditor has since apologized and removed his original gif, but the news network wrote:

CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

The last sentence, which sent shockwaves through the American zeitgeist, amounted to what some called “blackmail.” In fact, there was even a hashtag started, “CNNblackmail,” addressing their step of potential editorial overreach.

I agree with the critics of CNN in concluding that its actions were extremely unethical, not to mention downright silly. Our country faces immense challenges and you’re wasting time and news copy on a person who goes by the name, “HanAssholeSolo”? It gives Trump and all those who seek to undermine the press the very fuel they need to continue their crusades. CNN shouldn’t have let it get to it and focused on good reporting and solid analysis. But it is cable news, so it doesn’t always act idealistically.

Despite its problems, a free and independent press is essential for the flourishing of our American democracy. Journalism is a bulwark against those who oppress, undermine, and disparage a free society. The post-inaugural success of outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post speaks to just how important the press is as an institution. They do get things wrong, but the difference between them and Trump, for the most part, is they own their mistakes. When the CNN reporters ran their Trump-Russia story too early, they apologized, retracted the piece, and left CNN respectfully. Imagine Trump apologizing for a falsehood or a complete fabrication. It’s pretty difficult to, right? The press will get things wrong; it doesn’t mean they should be disregarded outright.

It’s pretty fashionable to disparage the media these days. It seems like everyone is getting in on it, despite the fact that it is an indispensable part of our lives and social contract. The goal shouldn’t be to abandon the press altogether. Rather, one should use critical thinking when reading a story. Read something a couple of times. Check the sources in the piece. If an article has hyperlinks, click on them and check out what they’re citing. Read an opposing viewpoint; read many of them. And most importantly, don’t get too comfortable in your own bubble. We all have them; puncture yours every once and awhile and see if you learn something in the process. More often than not, you will.

This issue (no pun intended) matters to me because I see the big picture in ways that others have not. I work with historic newspapers from the state of Indiana every single working day. I’ve seen nearly 200 years of papers, from before we were a state to just a few years ago. It gives me a broader and less cynical perspective. Papers back then were wildly partisan and got things wrong all the time! Some even told you their leanings in the masthead. Papers like the Greencastle Democrat and the Marshall County Republican let you know right off the bat just what kind of paper they were. It compels me, as an historian, to look at multiple papers about the same topic, to get a flavor of how people thought about it back then. People these days think that there was a time when news wasn’t partisan, it was just about the “facts.” That’s a load of bullshit. In reality, papers were incredibly biased and gave you just as much commentary as they did pure news content. That doesn’t mean they weren’t important or weren’t valuable; it just underscored how a free and open press will give you so many ways of seeing events. Your job as a citizen was, and still is, to separate the wheat from the chaff, the good reporting from nonsense.

The reason we must be mindful of journalism’s place in our society is that it is the very thing that can keep our country free. Watergate, the failures of Vietnam, Iran Contra, the failed War in Iraq, and the alleged corruption of the Trump administration were all brought to light by journalism. They work tirelessly, and often thanklessly, to get the story right. They fail, like all people do, but it shouldn’t completely destroy our confidence in them. If we do, our civic life will fall apart. Thus, the founders believed that a free press lived at the heart of our American experiment. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “. . . were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer that latter.” I feel exactly the same way.