â€œI want there to be a thousand Kevins,â€ he exclaims. â€œThere canâ€™t be just one Kevin. Kevin is not going to be able to do this alone. Kevin canâ€™t just do this year after year, he is going to have a heart attack.â€
Sure, I understand the argument for just not talking about him, but this article has so much worth discussing…
Here’s the most damning bit of the entire article:
Itâ€™s why Project SAM opposes any form of legalization. But then what does the organization want in its place? Sabet has repeatedly promised to develop model laws, but so far, policy proposals encapsulating Project SAMâ€™s preferred legal reforms, such as reduced marijuana arrests and increased public health campaigns and treatment options, havenâ€™t materialized.
â€œWhat do they want as a policy?â€ says Tom Angell, chairman of the pro-legalization group Marijuana Majority. â€œThey make these assertions, how itâ€™s something in the middle, but itâ€™s very vague.â€
Sabet says his organization has been working with drug-law experts and political consultants on the matter, and Project SAM-backed policy initiatives are coming soon. â€œWe have to go on the offense,â€ he says. â€œI am sick of saying, â€˜Vote no, vote no.â€™ We want to be â€˜yes.â€™â€
Coming soon… yes, we’ve heard that for quite a while, now.
Here’s another interesting bit in the article:
The sky hasnâ€™t fallen in Colorado or Washington State since marijuana became legal, concludes Jonathan Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon University professor who studies marijuana policy. But thatâ€™s because, he says, itâ€™s too soon to determine the social impacts of the policy change. He thinks that anyone who tries to spin the short-term data to either promote or condemn legalization is missing the bigger question: What happens years from now to the first generation to grow up not just with legalized but potentially mass-marketed cannabis?
â€œOnly an idiot would predict that the problems would come in two years,â€ says Caulkins. â€œI think we are going to legalize this nationally, we are going to let Big Tobacco play, and 25 years from now we will say, â€˜What were we thinking?â€™â€
Um… I think the real ‘What were we thinking?’ moment has already come, and is was a reaction to criminalization, not legalization. This is where the public policy folks completely fucked up. If they wanted to make a difference in how marijuana was legalized, then they needed to get involved in suggesting strategies, not just acting as naysayers.