Potheads had high hopes for President Obama’s Google+ hangout on Monday.
The Web superpower had invited citizens to submit questions for the president via YouTube, and it encouraged people to vote on the questions they’d like Obama to answer in a live video chat.
The results: 18 of the 20 most popular questions were about marijuana policy.
The top vote-getter came from retired LAPD officer Stephen Downing, who said he’s come to see the country’s drug policies as “a failure and a complete waste of criminal justice resources.”
Pointing to a recent Gallup poll that showed, for the first time, a majority of Americans in support of marijuana legalization, he asked Obama, “What do you say to this growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you’ve delivered in your first term?”
Nothing, as it turned out. The question wasn’t among those selected by Google.
That’s a bummer for the weed lobby but par for the course in Washington, where legalization remains a nonstarter despite fast-growing public support.
In 1969, 12 percent of Americans thought pot should be legal. That percentage grew to the mid-20s by the late 1970s, passed 30 percent in 2000, and hit 40 percent in 2009, according to Gallup.
A surprising October poll showed support at 50 percent, with just 46 percent against.
While voters have mellowed out, their representatives in Congress haven’t.
A legalization bill was introduced in Congress last year for the first time, but few expect it to even come up for a vote.
Its sponsors are Barney Frank and Ron Paul, legislators who have built their reputations by taking unpopular stands.
Those with something to lose—like, say, an election—still won’t touch the issue.
When Obama did field a marijuana question in a YouTube chat last year, he laughed at it. “I don’t know what this says about the online audience,” he chortled.
Why won’t the president, or anyone else in Washington, take marijuana policy seriously?
Pro-legalization types see it as a mere matter of time before the government catches up to the rest of the country. “The conventional wisdom for decades has been that this is a dangerous issue,” activist Tom Angell told me. “Behind the scenes people will say, ‘I agree, you’re totally right, we need to change these laws, but I’m afraid to say so.’ For some reason it’s still perceived as a political third rail.”
A primary reason for lawmakers’ reticence is that, for decades, the most visible advocates of looser weed laws have been, well, weed smokers—and what serious politician wants to be associated with a bunch of stoners, man?
Earlier this decade, wealthy liberals like George Soros and Peter Lewis (once busted for pot-smoking himself) recognized that problem and shifted the debate to medical marijuana, giving the movement a more sympathetic public face: an ailing grandmother rather than a dreadlocked coach potato.
Several states have since passed medical marijuana laws, but they don’t address the bigger issue at play here.
It’s recreational users, not glaucoma patients, whose money fuels the illicit drug trade that finances criminal gangs.
That’s why Angell’s group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, has taken a different approach. It enlists cops and ex-cops to testify to the societal impacts of the failed drug war, pushing decriminalization and legalization as prudent policy solutions.
It’s an appeal to reason, not compassion. Downing, the former LAPD cop who asked the YouTube question, is a LEAP board member. The support his video got, from the public if not from Google, testifies to his message’s broad appeal.
While the tactic seems to be working in some liberal states, it has yet to make pot legalization safe for lawmakers in Washington. Anti-drug leaders see that as evidence that Angell is wrong when he argues that it’s just a matter of time.
Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas congressman who led the Drug Enforcement Administration under George W. Bush, told me he doesn’t see a big difference in how the debate is playing out in Washington today as compared to 10 years ago.
That may be partly a function of congressional demographics and partly a matter of incentives. Even if 50 percent of the public supports legalization, a pro-pot bill will never pass the Senate if those people are concentrated on the coasts.
There’s also the fact that potheads tend to be less likely to vote than senior citizens, who came of age in the pre-hippie era and have never inhaled. If legalization opponents are willing to back up their conviction at the ballot box, there’s a lot of risk and little reward for a congressman to assume the marijuana mantle.