The New Prohibitionists
As we observed in previous work, the moral, legal, and cultural renegotiation underway on cannabis has its detractors. Some are obvious. Others are perhaps less so. We defined the New Prohibitionists by distinguishing them from the old Prohibitionists, based on three features.
…First, the New Prohibitionists are more adept at using scientific research to support their arguments. Second, when compared to the Old Prohibitionists, their motives appear to be less harsh and more enlightened because of the veneer of scientific authority…
Third, and finally, the New Prohibitionists reject imprisonment and other harsh penalties for cannabis possession. Instead of relying on moralistic arguments, appeals to law and order, and deterrence, they have adjusted their tactics, couching prohibition in public health mantras and non-punitive (but sometimes coercive) approaches. Indeed, the New Prohibitionists are more associated with the “treatment-industrial complex” rather than the “prison-industrial complex” … this approach to treatment is used to quell concerns about drug prohibition and stifle reform
I was thinking about our designation recently after reading the always provocative Julian Buchanan. Back in 2015, he presciently called the current trend of legalizing cannabis by expanding paternalistic public health policies “Drifting toward Prohibition 2.0.”
He offered a litany of common statements which at first glance appear to support reform agendas. On closer inspection many of these phrases “…risk replicating misinformation, and could open the door to new forms of state control, coercive treatment and punishment…”
Here is one that we hear quite often:
The drug war was a mistake but the state must protect people from the risk of addiction with strict controls over possession and supply.
A recent video helps frame some of the issues with adopting this approach. Entitled a “fact checked debate” on cannabis, it is clear how organizations like Smarter Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) approach legal cannabis. They suggest it is a significant danger to the public. This justifies their focus on:
… educating the public about the harms of marijuana legalization—a policy that has consistently placed corporate profits and addiction ahead of public health. We provide information on the harms of such policies to interested parties for use in messaging, and educate federal and state legislators on the benefits of a science-based marijuana policy.
There is, of course, no evidence that commercial cannabis is harming people. Fears of cannabis addiction have long been exaggerated. Indeed, the most dangerous part of cannabis historically has been having to acquire it from the illicit market. Nevertheless, worries about commercial cannabis appear to be behind many recent cannabis reforms. They certainly informed policies in Malta, which recently legalized cannabis.
Barely.
People who use cannabis may now grow cannabis or join a non-profit association to legally acquire cannabis. Cannabis cannot be sold commercially. Some organizations, including Transform, appear quite pleased with policies that explicitly embrace anti-consumer practices. It is hard to square the policies in Malta with meaningful reform, as most define it. It does nothing to reduce stigma and is unlikely to make a dent in the illicit market. Sanctions persist.
A review of Law 241 suggests several punitive features. For example:
Possession of more than 28 grams remains a criminal offence.
Possessing more than seven but less than 28 will lead to confiscation and a fine between fifty and one hundred euros.
Fines of €235 may be issued to those who consume cannabis in public.
These fines are doubled for those under 18.
Non-profit associations must be registered with the government, keep detailed membership lists, and are subject to a host of additional constraints, limitations, and restrictions.
Fines of nearly 500 euros for youth who commit the high crime of smoking a joint in public?
Seriously?
This is a deep betrayal of the goals of cannabis reform. It is a shame that organizations who support Bill 241 put their aversion toward commercial cannabis ahead of Malta’s youth. As we will explore in posts to come, it is deeply depressing that this is seen as the pinnacle of cannabis reform in Europe.
There are three issues.
The first is the moral panic around consumer cannabis, which exaggerates the dangers, and minimizes the costs of alternative approaches.
The second is a certain comfort with paternalistic public health models on cannabis, which replace criminal records with coerced “treatment.” Advancing medico-political discourses based on the idea that people who use drugs are “sick,” is an impediment to meaningful reform.
The third is the bizarre unwillingness to consider how anti-consumer cannabis policies support illicit markets, serve as an impediment to racial justice models of reform, and perpetuate stigma.
In Malta, these policies will require people who use cannabis to become master home-grow cannabis cultivators or register with the government. For those interested in evidence, requiring people to register with the government to access cannabis hasn’t done much to reduce illicit cannabis markets in Uruguay. At the risk of stating the obvious, government registration is not something that is required to consume alcohol or cigarettes.
I guess those are good drugs?
For the New Prohibitionists, legal cannabis is a significant risk to society. The people who use it? At best they are bad, sick, or otherwise pathetic people who need to be saved from themselves. How else can you justify limiting access to legal cannabis? It seems likely that people who use cannabis will avoid the stigma and simply stick with the illicit market. That means they will buy whatever those operating outside the law want to sell.
Is this meaningful cannabis reform or merely the soft bigotry of low expectations?
