Author Topic: Medical Marijuana: disparate access based on socio-economics  (Read 822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Medical Marijuana: disparate access based on socio-economics
« on: December 14, 2009, 01:24:43 PM »
AlterNet.org
Medical Marijuana Apartheid: Different Rules Apply for Rich and Poor Pot Smokers
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted December 13, 2009.

A California hipster can hit the vaporizer without fear of harassment, but a lower-class person smoking a blunt may not be so lucky.

About 80 percent of Americans approve of medical marijuana laws, but some conservatives are incensed that state legislatures keep passing them. In a recent column, George F. Will, the Washington Post's bow-tied curmudgeon, decried the reefer madness he sees taking over California, sweeping across Colorado and perhaps even coming to a normal state near you.

The pundit seemed especially incensed that states like Colorado and California had effectively legalized the drug through a "back-door" process, writing that medical dispensaries "serve the fiction that most transactions in the store -- which is what it really is -- involve medicine."  He lamented that "fifty-six percent of Californians support legalization," and concluded: "They essentially have this."

But Will is only half right. Pot in California is only legal for those of a certain class, or those who live in certain areas. It is effectively illegal in most communities of color. It's not legal for pot smokers in many conservative counties and municipalities. And it's effectively out of reach for California's poor.

It's not hard to imagine George F. Will overlooking the poor and disenfranchised from his lofty perch at the Washington Post, but they're right there, basking in the California sunshine. And every day they get busted for marijuana, and every day they enter the criminal justice system as a result.

It must be one of the great ironies of pot-politics. By using the "back-door" of medicinal use rather than legalizing marijuana sales outright -- treating it like alcohol or tobacco -- progressives in California have helped create a system of pot apartheid in the Golden State.

That's obviously not spelled out in the law. But marijuana is only legal for those who have $100-$300 to fork over for a medical marijuana card (you don't get any pot in return), who live in an area where there are medical marijuana dispensaries (generally liberal-minded, gentrified areas), who have proof of residence, and who don't fit the stereotypical image of a drug dealer.

If all that's the case, then it's true that you can go to a doctor and tell him or her that you have insomnia, headaches or bad menstrual cramps, and you're good to go. You can walk into a store like a civilized, non-criminal person, and choose from a variety of grades of marijuana.

But if you don't have a couple of hundred bucks to invest up front for what is essentially a (partial) get-out-of-jail-free card, or you don't have access to a willing physician and a dispensary, you're out of luck. There's still a healthy black market for marijuana, however. And police still arrest people who patronize it, and the courts still mete out punishments for doing so.

Just the $100-$300 barrier alone means that pot's still illegal for anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck. Add to that the fees cash-strapped California counties can charge to issue the card (in Sonoma it'll run you another $160 on top of the doctor's visit). If you earn a living wage, yes, you can use marijuana without fear of arrest. Work a minimum wage job, and pot's as illegal as it ever was.

Access to legal pot is limited geographically, according to both class and race, and the ideological orientation of local government.

Even if, for example, you really are a terminal cancer patient who smokes weed to curb the worst side-effects of chemotherapy, you're screwed if you live in one of California's right-leaning communities. As the Wikipedia entry for California's medical marijuana law notes, "Conservative areas such as San Bernardino and Riverside counties saw little change when local officials declared the law null and void due to conflicts with federal law, and continued to arrest, prosecute, and in some cases convict legal patients."

There is also something akin to "red-lining" in poorer neighborhoods. Consider this map of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles. If you're unfamiliar with the city, they're all clustered in yuppified, high-rent areas -- Culver City, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Silver Lake, etc. There are no medical marijuana clubs in Inglewood, none in Compton, none in East L.A.

In the Bay Area, where medical marijuana dispensaries flourish in some communities, "Oaksterdam" has become the best-known destination for medical cannabis. But while people from elsewhere in the country may see Oakland as a poor, minority-dominated city, a map of Oaksterdam pot clubs shows they're clustered exclusively around the tony Lake Merritt area. There are none in the poorer parts of the city.

Geography and class aren't the only barriers to legal pot-smoking. If the 56 percent of California voters who favor outright legalization of marijuana had their way, anyone who appeared to be of age could buy marijuana legally, as with alcohol today. But California's medical cannabis law requires "a valid government-issued photo ID."

A number of studies looking at similar ID requirements for voting have shown that some are more likely to have those papers than others (PDF). In Georgia, blacks were 83 percent more likely than whites to be without a state-issued ID. In Indiana, the elderly and the poor, young adults and minorities were less likely than the population as a whole to have valid state-issued documents. And ID, like the medical marijuana card itself, costs money. The New York Times, citing the $20 cost of a state-issued ID (in California, it'll run you $21), called Georgia's voter-ID law, "a new poll tax," disproportionately affecting the "poor, black and elderly."

So it is with medical pot in California. Or perhaps a better analogy would be the papal dispensations that once allowed those who could afford to grease the Catholic church to buy forgiveness for their sins.

Of course, disparate punishments for getting high is nothing new in the U.S. The history of American drug laws is fairly consistent: with the exception of a brief and disastrous flirtation with alcohol prohibition, we have always come down harder on whatever the poor, foreigners or people of color use to get stupid. Opium became illegal when Chinese railroad workers used it to stave off the pain, but white ladies of the time could get their opiates easily enough from their favorite medicine-show huckster anytime they came down with a case of "the vapors."

The ultimate irony is that because of its "back-door" legalization, progressive California is continuing that tradition today. Conservatives may decry the state's supposedly freakish leftward tilt, but it's still the case that a San Francisco yuppie can hit the vaporizer without fear of jail, while a poor black youth smoking a blunt in downtown Oakland isn't so lucky.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.


© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Lack of Access to Medical Pot Is the Poor's Greatest...
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2009, 03:35:49 PM »
Boy, does Joshua Holland love those flaming headlines! Based on comments to the above article, he's written another piece, blog entry this one, fleshing out some pertinent points...

-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------

AlterNet.org
Lack of Access to Medical Pot Is the Poor's Greatest Problem Ever!
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 2:00 PM on December 13, 2009.

Silly straw-liberals.

Because dumb people* also enjoy access to the information super-highway, I get comments like this one in response to my piece on today's front page:

    Goddamn if you think the biggest problem with the working poor in California is a lack of access to marijuana, you are seriously stoned out of your mind.[/list]

    To which I can only respond by happily announcing that nobody's even suggested it makes the top ten.

    But having cleared up that messy controversy, I do want to flesh out the argument a bit.

    I think the issue I raised is just another of the hundreds of burdens on the working poor -- arguably modest individually, but profoundly painful in aggregate -- that Barbara Ehrenreich wrote about in Nickel and Dimed. The sub-head on my piece, "Different Rules Apply for Rich and Poor Pot Smokers," wasn't meant to be read literally. We're not talking about Jim Crow laws -- it's a matter of access. If you work a minimum wage job in a community where there isn't ready access to medical marijuana dispensaries, you can, legally speaking, spend a couple of weeks of salary getting a pot card and schlep an hour or two on the bus to get to a pot-club in the next county over. But in the real world, you won't -- access matters.

    Another commenter suggested I had it all wrong because the column only showed that legal marijuana ends up costing more than on the black market, and there are all sorts of things poor people can't afford. But that's not true. Like the dozens of small, largely unappreciated charges Ehrenreich found she had to pay when working those dead-end McJobs for her book, the irony is that those who can't afford to pay the up-front costs of getting medical marijuana end up paying a lot more for their weed than those who can. 3.5 grams of very high-grade weed goes for $25 at a pot club in Culver City; you'll be lucky to pay twice that for the same amount on the street (believe it or not, while I know several people with medical marijuana cards, this isn't based on personal experience).

    In the first chapter of Nickel and Dimed, Ehrenreich says that even as a liberal who'd given quite a bit of thought to the realities faced by the working poor, she'd been surprised to learn about these little "poverty taxes" when she actually joined their ranks for a while. It's exceedingly difficult, she argued, for people safely ensconced in the middle class -- even the lower end of the middle class -- to appreciate those costs, the burden of all these little access issues.

    And I think it's the same thing here. While it can cost upwards of $500 to get a medical marijuana card in some California counties, it can also run you as little as a $100 or less. People in my own demographic tend to have a hard time putting themselves in the shoes of someone who can't come up with $99 and still pay their rent. But they exist in pretty significant numbers.

    Similarly, I brought up the ID requirements -- another defacto barrier to access. Again, that can be hard to relate to; within my own demographic, unless you've lost your wallet and haven't had a chance to replace it, you have a state-issued photo ID.

    We take these things for granted, just as we don't fully appreciate the vagaries with which the law tends to be applied in the real world. I originally submitted that piece with the tag-line: "A San Francisco hipster can hit the vaporizer without fear of arrest, but a poor black kid smoking a blunt in downtown Oakland isn't so lucky." But my editors -- good, smart liberal thinkers, but members of the white middle-class -- thought that was a bad example because the Oakland police department issued a directive making arrests for simple possession of marijuana the department's absolute lowest priority.

    But that only means that it's a matter of a police officer's discretion, which only reinforces the point I was making. Yes, the Oakland cops have little interest in busting a Berkeley student smoking a doobie -- they don't prioritize marijuana busts. But, just to point to an obvious example, they do prioritize gang-control. And if a black kid in baggie pants smokes that same joint on that same Oakland street, and the police want to stop him, put him in hand-cuffs, and search and photograph him, they can decide that at that moment marijuana is still very much illegal, and use that joint as probable cause.

    Added: Criminal marijuana busts went up by 27 percent in Oakland last year, despite the department's "lowest priority" policy (PDF).

    * You're not dumb -- this was a comment on a blog elsewhere.


    © 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- • -------------- • --------------

    Offline Ursus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 8989
    • Karma: +3/-0
      • View Profile
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- • -------------- • --------------

    Offline Ursus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 8989
    • Karma: +3/-0
      • View Profile
    More O'Reilly
    « Reply #3 on: December 21, 2009, 10:05:23 AM »
    O'Reilly gets all riled up over Reason:

    YouTube clip: O'Reilly Pwned on drugs
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
    -------------- • -------------- • --------------