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.