Last Wednesday, on the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus, there was a debate on a medical marijuana bill before the Wisconsin legislature. See, Assembly Bill 554. (There’s also a Senate companion bill.) The bill would make medical use of marijuana legal under specified and limited circumstances.
I attended the debate, along with – by my imperfect count — about ninety people. Held on the upper floor of the University Center, the room was packed, and a few extra chairs had to be brought in to accommodate the audience. The event was publicized beforehand (Whitewater forum to debate pros and cons of medical marijuana bill), and the large crowd did not surprise me.
The two debaters, Gary Storck of NORML (National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Law) spoke in favor of the bill, and Dr. David Nordstrom of the university, speaking in opposition. There were three aspects to the debate that stood out for me.
(Quick disclaimer: I favor Assembly Bill 554, for those who can establish that they have chronic and debilitating conditions. Those upest about current laws and regulations should seek legal change, as those backing AB 554 are doing. I would not encourage anyone to violate existing drug laws. Even following legal reform, patients would also be discussing these matters with their doctors.)
Rhetoric. First, the direct debate between Storck and Nordstrom was civil, and almost understated. As one could guess, Storck has probably given a similar presentation countless times, and his remarks were relaxed, and seemed familiar to him. Neither man was as young as the average person in attendance; a generation separated speakers and audience. They were the same presentations, though — Storck sought to appeal to a person’s natural desire to alleviate suffering, and much of his remarks depended on an appeal to the circumstances of those in chronic pain. Nordstrom acknowledged the personal circumstances of those with chronic pain, but he had no anecdote in reply, no story to offer in response to Storck’s emotional appeal (more about that appeal in a moment).
I posted to Twitter (‘tweeted’) a few times during the debate; my remarks were about atmosphere.
Points. From my notes, capturing the arguments of the debate — what one might know as flowing the debate, it was a much closer affair than the rhetorical contest between the debaters. Nordtstrom raised legitimate concerns about marijuana use — concerns about individual dosing — that I though Storck answered too glibly. (There’s a better answer to concerns about dosing than simply contending that people will stop when they feel better; licensed opinion should instruct on dosages, for medical marijuana as well as any other substance prescribed.
As I look over my notes, days after the debate, I can see how Nordstrom set out a better case than one might have felt while watching the debate.
There’s not a point that Storck might not have contested more soundly, but many arguments on both sides lacked a compelling and engaging reply. There was not, to use another debater’s term, a lot of clash between the debaters, over specific points to be directly refuted. (Clash like that can be subtle, too; it does not imply harshness.) There were counter-arguments, to be sure, but not as much grappling in reply to specific points as might have been the case.
The Context of It All. I know that the debaters wanted to confine themselves to the bills before our legislature, but that’s a futile effort. There’s a broader context to all this, about state and federal regulations on medicines, and about drug policy for illegal narcotics.
The college-aged students in the room — perhaps ninety percent of them — seem to favor AB 554. A show of hands after the debate suggested about this level of support, as best as I could quickly count it. It’s not just students, though, who have come to feel this way.
America’s not a radical place, and I’m convinced many Americans are right-of-center, with a libertarian streak. There are millions upon millions in America like this, and they’re skeptical of government claims, official pronouncements, and declarations that all is well-in-hand. All sensible Americans, surely, reject drug dependency and addiction, generally. It’s a fantasy to think Americans are tolerant of drug use, or that we’re a reckless people who’d risk health over drug use. We’re a people that admires productivity, energy, and vitality — we will never admire wasted misfits. (Note well: the legalization of medical marijuana isn’t about use for «em»healthy«/em» people, but for those few in chronic pain and suffering from debilitating, diagnosed illnesses. There’s nothing recreational about their need.)
If there are broader challenges to drug policy — and there are — the most potent of these are not coming from so-called radicals, or from the left. They’re coming from right-of-center Americans who have begun to doubt that official pronouncements on drug enforcement are believable. Some officials have lived too long in an echo chamber, and have become deaf to the growing skepticism of their claims outside of a small circle of back-patters. It’s not that America’s too far left; it’s that she has a large number of practical, right-of-center voters who’ve come to doubt proud declarations of victory. It was, after all, the conservative National Review, and William F. Buckley, who came out against current drug enforcement efforts in 1996. They didn’t favor drug use; they opposed an ineffective, expensive effort that wasn’t reducing dependency.
This must come as a shock to some, accustomed to support for longstanding drug policy. It must be doubly shocking when declines in support come in constituencies officials assumed would always be supportive. Always has run up against Americans’ practical tendencies and expectations of genuine reductions in dependency.
Storck, of NORML, surely sees this, too. Many of his arguments were libertarian-oriented, about individual, and not group, rights. (I’m not suggesting his arguments were a pose; I’ll assume that he presented his beliefs as they truly are.) Storck’s anecdotes weren’t about how groups (e.g., twenty-somethings) should have access to marijuana, but about how individuals, described specifically, who are in pain, should have an individual right to medical marijuana under Wisconsin law. I wish there’d been greater back-and-forth on these points, but the debate was a good introduction to the narrower issues in bills like AB 554.
This view found a receptive audience in the room last week. It also finds an increasingly receptive audience in cities and towns across America. The issue’s not likely to go away.
