SINGLE-ISSUE OPPORTUNISM

Last week C-Notes described the unmitigated gratitude with which
pro-marijuana activists greeted an anti-prohibition op-ed by George
Melloan in the Wall St. Journal. I questioned Melloan's motives and
his decency, quoting a subsequent op-ed in which he made light of the
hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the U.S. bombing and
embargo of Iraq between 1991 and 2003. I did not anticipate that
knocking George Melloan in the Anderson Valley Advertiser would annoy
"progressive" activists back East, but it did, thanks to the
Internet. A participant in the Alliance of Reform Organizations'
chatroom forwarded this sigh of contempt from Doug McVay, Director of
Research, Common Sense for Drug Policy, and Editor/Webmaster, Drug War Facts:

*"At the risk of being accused of being either pedantic or abrasive,
I want to give my opinion on this article: So what? What's the point, Fred?" *

The point was plainly stated: in the instant that drug-legalization
advocates praise George Melloan for supporting their agenda, they
- -you, Doug-confer credibility on his, which is global control by
capital enforced by the U.S. military.

*"The movement in general also praises Milton Friedman, George
Schultz, William Buckley, and any number of others.

We don't necessarily agree with their politics.

We may in fact completely oppose their politics other than this one
issue... -- heck, there's not a whole lot of political agreement
among ARO members.

But most of us still praise them for their pro-legalization stance." *

I don't pretend to speak for "the movement in general." I'm old
enough to recall when "the movement" meant a lot more than the single
issue to which you implicitly refer.

In 1968 identifying with "the movement" -which millions of Americans
did-meant being for peace, civil rights, civil liberties, women's
liberation, defense of the environment against corporate plunder, an
end to discrimination of all kinds, personal freedom (including the
freedom to smoke marijuana), and some measure of economic equality
(which Martin Luther King had begun to define as "socialism" before
they killed him). Within a few years "the movement," instead of
fusing into a party, had fissioned into 100 separate-interest groups
pursuing piecemeal goals.

NORML, founded by Keith Stroup (a young lawyer who had worked for
Ralph Nader) and funded mainly by Hugh Hefner of Playboy, typified this trend.

It makes sense that enlightened capitalists would prefer hundreds of
separate-interest groups to a party capable of challenging the
rich/poor system.

*"So personally, in that context, I have to ask: Fred, who cares
about your bloody politics?

What does that have to do with helping patients, let alone
improving/reforming drug control policies?" *

I didn't send my AVA column to your list or ask you to care about my
take on things.

I don't expect you to. The people I write for are, like me,
relatively powerless; people on the ARO list have some clout, or
think they do. Tom O'Connell, MD, once offered to "sponsor" me for
the list, but I recalled an old editor's warning about "chronophages"
and "group gropes," and decided to pass. Or maybe it was just fear of
rejection.

Even if they let me in I would have reported on what they were
chit-chatting about and been drummed out for unprofessional
violations of intimacy.

What I do to help patients directly is none of your beeswax. (I
assure you I have standing -my family's prohibition-related tragedy
is endless.) On the political front, I've been a close friend and
ally of Dennis Peron's since the 1970s, and was peripherally involved
in the Prop 215 campaign (to which almost everybody on the ARO list
owes their present livelihood). After 215 passed I produced
occasional leaflets to update members of the San Francisco Cannabis
Buyers Club on relevant developments, legal, political and
scientific. I couldn't get the backing to do a statewide newsletter
and I couldn't afford to leave my day job, but fortunately the job
itself (at UC Med Center and then a job at the district attorney's
office) enabled me to follow the medical marijuana story in detail.
The AVA column, launched in the summer of 2002, is about 90% straight
reportage, 10% political analysis.

I hope that even people who disagree with or have no use for the
analysis, such as you, Doug, get something from the reporting.

Also in 2002 I helped Tod Mikuriya, MD, launch a journal,
O'Shaughnessy's, in which the small but growing group of pro-cannabis
California doctors publish their findings and observations. These
15-20 doctors have done more actual political organizing -brought
more adherents to the medical marijuana movement-than all the
functionaries on the payrolls of MPP, DPA et al. The patients, as
Philip A. Denney, MD, has observed, become organizers in turn as they
explain to friends, loved ones and acquaintances that their cannabis
use really is medicinal and proving by their own example that getting
a doctor's approval is do-able. Denney's Law: the real movement grows
by conversation and personal example.

A corollary: Almost anyone who has ever gotten seriously involved
with a cause can recall who turned them on to it.

The pro-cannabis doctors, with several minor exceptions, receive no
funding from the reform organizations that spend millions annually on
lobbying and related efforts.

In the '60s the balance of power and prestige between funders and
organizers in the field seemed very different. The funders didn't
script or micromanage or impose their tactical line on Stokely
Carmichael. They gave money to SNCC to support his work, not to
direct or deflect it. Nowadays the tail is wagging the dog. Would-be
organizers in California submit grant proposals aimed at and
rewritten by self-styled political masterminds in New York and
Washington, D.C. Or the masterminds dream up projects and pay people
to carry them out. The power of money within "the movement" parallels
the power of money in the unjust society at large. Wealth's in the
saddle, we lost the battle, honey, only money matters....

*"The difficult part of building a coalition is saying: 'I disagree
with you about absolutely everything except this one thing, and
that's the one thing that we're going to work together on. The fact
that we oppose each other on everything else will make our position
on this the more convincing. If we can stop from killing or trashing
each other, we will win.'" *

Why assume that a coalition is a good thing at all times and in all
circumstances? Sometimes, as they say, "You lie down with dogs, you
wake up with fleas." The desire to build a coalition with rightwing
politicians is prevalent now among reform lobbyists on the East
Coast. Their/your goals are finite, to be achieved via electoral
politics, the media, the courts, and K Street techniques like direct
mail (guaranteeing ongoing employment in those sectors, and many
lunches for Republican staffers). In due course, getting marijuana
moved to Schedule 2 will be hailed as the greatest victory since
affirmative action (a "solution" to the "problem" that helps 1/10th
of the people deserving and in need of help). "Medical marijuana" is
similarly alliterative, and also has the potential to be a 10%
solution, with doctors writing triplicate prescriptions according to
DEA practice standards.

*"I personally disagree with George Melloan and for that matter the
Wall Street Journal in general." *

Do you complain in public about his and their "bloody politics?" I
truly don't understand how you can separate what you call "personal
politics" (by which you apparently mean your whole world view) from
your work for CSDP. As if there's no connection between the war on
drugs and other issues.

As if we mustn't apply the lessons we've learned in exposing the
phony war on drugs while our fellow citizens get misled (by Melloan
and his ilk) into waging a phony war on terror. As if the
responsibility of an intellectual is to deny historical and political
connections instead of revealing and explaining them... Did you
complain when Keith Stroup of NORML, Steph Sherer of ASA, Ethan
Nadelmann of DPA, Rob Kampia of MPP, and Angel Raich (on instructions
from Fenton Communications) all endorsed the "war on
terror?" Weren't they introducing an extraneous issue into the
drug-policy-reform discussion? How come you didn't protest in the
high-level chat room?

*" But when he agrees with my position on drug policy reform I will
trumpet that to the heavens and I will gladly use his agreement with
me -- shamelessly -- to proselytize among those who otherwise agree
politically with WSJ... Because I think that reforming drug policy is
a lot more important than insisting that everyone agree with my
personal politics." *

I'm not in a position to insist that anyone agree with me,
politically. To repeat: I'm relatively powerless.

Are you suggesting that if I had power I'd insist on conformity? What
makes you think that? It's way off.

I'm not in touch with anybody who's on the WSJ wavelength and would
be impressed with quotes from Melloan. But I knew plenty of rightwing
cops and DAs when I worked at the Hall of Justice, and I can imagine
a conversation with a couple of them about the Melloan column.

It's a plausible scenario -I had a bulletin board outside my office
and instead of just posting clips about SFDA (the traditional
single-issue approach) I posted other articles relevant to the
law-enforcement mission, and Melloan's well might have made the
board. So there I am tacking up press clips and Murphy and Clark come
by and read Melloan over my shoulder.

My commentary: "Why now, Murph? Why is this bloodthirsty motherfucker
coming out for drug legalization now? Oh, here it is: Evo Morales!
The natives are getting restless in South America! And Bush's
approval ratings are down to 30%-the natives are getting restless
here, too. Didn't I always tell you guys they'd reschedule pot when
the ruling class really needed a sop to throw the masses? 'Let's take
their jobs, take their pensions, take their medical care, and if we
let them smoke their pot in peace, they'll say "Thank you."' Murphy
and Clark would laugh understandingly, I'm pretty sure, and I'd make
one more point: "They don't really need the war on drugs anymore.

They've got 'terror' and 'gangs.'"