NY Times For Legal Pot? Berkeley Students For Legal Hooking?

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL NOT-SO-BAD—Civil liberties got a couple of big shots in the arm over the past few days, one from an unexpected source and the other from a source not quite so unlikely but incredibly gratifying nonetheless. Let's start with the real biggie: The New York Times, aka the "Gray Lady," in part for its relatively conservative views on many issues, editorialized on Sunday that the use and sale of marijuana should be made legal at the federal level. The editorial was the beginning of a six-part series supporting such legalization. "It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished," the editorial, titled "End Prohibition, Again," began. "It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol." The Times editors go on to note that marijuana is already available for medical purposes in several states, and completely legal in two—Colorado and Washington—but that the federal prohibition essentially trumps all of those state laws, and that continued prohibition "would leave their citizens vulnerable to the whims of whoever happens to be in the White House and chooses to enforce or not enforce the federal law." After noting that blacks and Hispanics are by far the most grievous victims of anti-pot laws, the editorial states that the prohibition's "social costs are vast." "There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012, according to F.B.I. figures, compared with 256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives," the Times detailed. "Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals." In today's Times, some of those victims are named, including Bernard Noble, who got 13 years in the slammer for having had a "small amount" of marijuana in his pocket when stopped by cops in New Orleans. But "At least he will be released," the editorial continues. "Jeff Mizanskey, a Missouri man, was arrested in December 1993, for participating (unknowingly, he said) in the purchase of a five-pound brick of marijuana. Because he had two prior nonviolent marijuana convictions, he was sentenced to life without parole." Similar harsh sentences have been handed down in nearly every state, and prison terms for pot increased substantially after Congress passed, at President Richard Nixon's insistence, the Controlled Substances Act. As another Times op-ed states, "During the debate, Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut held up a package wrapped in light-green paper that he said contained $3,000 worth of marijuana. This substance, he said, caused such 'dreadful hallucinations' in an Army sergeant in Vietnam that he called down a mortar strike on his own troops. A few minutes later, the Senate unanimously passed the bill." Moreover, in 1961, the U.S. was a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of narcotics and drugs with similar effects, though there was a medical-use exception—and for the first time, marijuana was included among the substances whose production and distribution was internationally banned. Sadly, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is taking the position that pot should remain illegal—but then, they're required by statute to take that position, not just on pot, but on any drug that's currently banned under federal law. However, in a letter to the Times published yesterday, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR3rd) stated, "A growing, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the House has approved five measures in a row that represent incremental steps to rationalize our failed marijuana policy. There are more than a dozen bills pending, most with bipartisan sponsorship, that would create a framework for legalization. "The House has voted to increase access to banking services for marijuana businesses in states where they are legal, and prevent the Drug Enforcement Administration from using funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws," he continued. "This majority in the House seems to realize what many Americans already knew: Prohibition has failed." But legailzation could very well become a bipartisan issue. As the Times' Juliet Lapidos wrote on Saturday, "Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, told the Times in 2012 that 'we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol.' 'I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to,' he added, 'but it’s just one of those things that I think: This war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.' Bob Barr, a former congressman, and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, signed a letter to Congress in 2009 arguing that each state should have the right 'to dictate its own marijuana policy.' Giving states this authority, they said, 'would free federal law enforcement resources for the more urgent tasks of thwarting, apprehending and prosecuting international terrorists or murderers.'" And then, of course, there's the prospectus on investing in the marijuana growing business that the untra-conservative Heritage Foundation emailed to its subscribers a couple of months ago... Nearly half of all Americans have tried marijuana at least once, a 2013 Pew Research poll found, and ten percent admitted they'd tried it within the past year—and there are plenty of adult industry personnel of our acquaintance who use it regularly, so the New York Times' position, while a bit late in coming, is nonetheless welcome—and the article series well worth reading. But, you may ask, what about sex? Well, how about the editorial that appeared the Daily Californian, the publication of UC-Berkeley's student government, the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC), which called for the legalization of prostitution? "Prostitution has always existed and will likely always exist," the editorial written by the newspaper's Senior Editorial Board stated. "Despite a societal emphasis on monogamy or polygyny, and despite the criminalization of the industry, the profession persists all over the world. In the places where prostitution is legal, sex workers have more rights. They can expect the cooperation of law enforcement when they are the victims of robbery or assault. They are regulated by laws that require their regular medical testing for public safety in many countries. They can even unionize." Of course, that's not the case in California, where, the editorial reports, a Berkeley resident was sentenced to nearly 15 years in prison for pimping, a crime which simply means arranging for someone to obtain the services of a prostitute. Doesn't matter if the "pimp" is the prostitute's boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife or simply a business partner, and there's no coercion involved in any way, such sentences can still be handed down. Worse, as the editorial notes, minors who are found to be engaging in sex work, whether willingly or not, are treated as criminals rather than as children in need of supervision, with the result that, "This confusion of victim with criminal, of pimp with slave-trader, is the direct result of our blanket illegality in matters of prostitution. "This sweeping condemnation stems from an American tradition of legislating morality," the editorial continues. "Though opponents of legalized prostitution may register complaints rooted in public health or their interpretation of human sexual dignity, moral arguments are never far behind. Logically, prostitution is not morally different from the production of pornography; an industry that is legal, unionized [sic] and regulated by the state of California. Through that regulation, the state ensures that no minors act in pornographic films and can even insist on condom use in scenes of intercourse." (Um... no. Not yet, at least.) The point is, if prostitution were legal, pimps would be unnecessary, as the editorial further argues. Moreover, women engaged in the business would have rights and protections that the current laws deny to them, and it would "remove thousands of children from terrible exploitative positions without sentencing them to detention." We're guessing that there are more than a few Berkeley students earning their way through the university on their backs, and the ASUC have tumbled to that fact—and been supportive of their fellow student sex workers. "Legalizing prostitution ... could create a legal market for those who solicit sexual services but not enforce the misery of others," the editorial concludes. "If we can look past our antiquated morality, we could see the wisdom of this change." What can we say but, "BRAVO!"