Richard Nixon's Illicit Substance Control Legacy, Medical Marijuana Social Movement Organizations, and Venue Shopping
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Syracuse University SURFACE Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Political Science - Dissertations Affairs 12-2012 Cultivating Reform: Richard Nixon's Illicit Substance Control Legacy, Medical Marijuana Social Movement Organizations, And Venue Shopping Jason Scott Plume Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/psc_etd Part of the Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Plume, Jason Scott, "Cultivating Reform: Richard Nixon's Illicit Substance Control Legacy, Medical Marijuana Social Movement Organizations, And Venue Shopping" (2012). Political Science - Dissertations. 111. https://surface.syr.edu/psc_etd/111 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science - Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract Over the course of the last two decades, organizations representing the medical marijuana social movement have campaigned for, proposed state level legislation, and supported numerous legal arguments that challenge and attempt to reform U.S. federal illicit substance policies. This set of social regulatory policies, commonly known as the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (CSA), were drafted, promoted, and implemented by the Nixon Administration then subsequently entrenched by multiple presidents with acquiescent congresses adopting supplemental supply-side resource allocating legislation. My dissertation research uncoils the convoluted history and institutional dynamics of path dependent U.S. illegal drug control policies to answer the question of how social movement organizations (SMOs) challenge and reform executively entrenched policies. First, I examine the Nixon Administration’s decision-making process via archival materials in order to understand why and how the CSA was “framed,” introduced, and ratified. Second, two presidential illicit substance control case studies (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) are presented to demonstrate how U.S. illicit substance control is executively entrenched. Third, periodical challenges prior to the first state-level medical marijuana law are presented as antecedent and instructional to contemporary SMO institutional mobilization. Last, through interviews, media portrayals, and institutional rulings I demonstrate how medical marijuana SMOs have “reframed” the drug’s definition then “shopped” institutional venues for the purpose of reforming existing policies. CULTIVATING REFORM: RICHARD NIXON’S ILLICIT SUBSTANCE CONTROL LEGACY, MEDICAL MARIJUANA SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND VENUE SHOPPING Jason S. Plume B.A., California State University-Bakersfield 2002 M.A., Syracuse University 2005 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctoral of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate School of Syracuse University. December 2012 © 2012 Jason Scott Plume Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction 1-12 Chapter Two: Development of Contemporary American National Controlled Substances Policies: Richard Nixon's Foundational Illicit Substance Control Frames and Target Population 13-61 Chapter Three: Executively Driven Path Dependency, Drug War Politics and The Punitive Paradigm 62-112 Chapter Four: Periodical Challenges to 113-171 Federal Marijuana Prohibition Chapter Five: Venue Shopping, 172-262 Patients’ Rights, and the Marijuana Policy Project Chapter Six: Findings 263-285 286-292 Appendix One: Methodology 293-304 Appendix Two: Text of California, Michigan, Hawaii And Rhode Island Medical Marijuana Laws 305-314 Appendix Three: Schedule of Drugs 315-333 Appendix Four: Interview Protocols 334-336 Bibliography 337-346 Biographical Information 347-349 iv 1 Chapter One: Introduction At a March 1971 White House Rose Garden event, Richard M. Nixon declared America’s entry into the “War on Drugs.” That same day special invitees and members of the media also witnessed Nixon announce congressional passage of the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (CSA)-the first comprehensive piece of federal illicit substance control legislation in over thirty years. Four months later, in July of 1971, Nixon again invoked a conception of war when he addressed Congress in an alarmist tone, declaring drug use to now have assumed the dimensions of a “national emergency” warranting Congress to allocate $84 million for such “emergency measures.”1 In two short years, the Nixon Administration had generated a war without clear objectives or precise enemies.2 In order to further his administration’s reorganization and uniformity of drug control policies, resources, and personnel, Nixon, via Executive Order 11727, directed transformation of an anemic Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) into the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) while shifting auspice from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice. Thus, U.S. drug control operations were guided by law enforcement-first dictates within a punitive paradigm while health initiatives were categorized as a secondary set of priorities. Moreover, CSA statutes drew on authority so inclusive as to give DEA officers, at times, jurisdictional reach beyond America’s borders, sentencing guidelines for different degrees of trafficking, and a “Schedule” of drugs that weighed the severity of potential danger a given substance held to society and any medical 1 Ed Vulliamy, “Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’: began 40 years ago and the battle is still raging.” The Guardian July 23, 2011. 2 See Massing, Michael. 2000. “The Fix.” Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 2 worth a given substance might hold. As the centerpiece of the CSA and at the urging of Nixon, marijuana prohibition stood as stalwart against traffickers and users of illicit substances. As an unintended consequence, marijuana’s prohibitive status would also constitute a continuous impediment to drug control reformers. Fast forward to the mid-1990s, the advent and escalation of America’s AIDS epidemic produced a new populous suffering from the physically and socially corrosive disease while seeking pain-relief alternatives to over-the-counter or prescription-based pharmaceuticals. One of the sufferers, Jonathan West along with his life-partner, Dennis Peron believed marijuana to be the best bet against the pain induced by the ravages and complications of AIDS.3 Mr. Peron, acting as impetus for reform, spearheaded a 1996 California ballot initiative process for the medical use of cannabis in California; as if “tilting against windmills,” Peron and his followers moved forward in the face of over thirty-five years of executively driven entrenchment of the substance’s prohibitive status. The result presented federal marijuana prohibition with a state- based affront when Peron successfully achieved his goal of helping partner legally and more easily acquire marijuana, when the Golden State’s electorate favored passage and implementation of the first Compassion Use Law by a 54% to 46% vote. Though passage of Proposition 215 can be considered a catalyst for a reform movement, 215’s passage gave little foretelling of the litany of successful medical marijuana campaigns transpiring after the 3 While many suffering from AIDS and its associated ailments compose a large percent of medical marijuana patients beginning in 1990s and until the present, the increase of cancer detection and treatments also contributed to an increase of medical marijuana usage. Specific statistical data regarding AIDS related illness and chemotherapy treatment for cancer are discussed in Chapter Five: Venue Shopping, Patients’ Rights, and The Medical Marijuana Project (MPP). For preliminary evidence of this topic see: Chapkis, Wendy and Richard Webb. 2008. “Dying to Get High: Marijuana as Medicine.” New York, NY: New York University Press. Also, Wo/mens Alliance for Medical Marijuana website: www.wamm.org offers evidence of a proliferation of private cultivation operations for the express purpose of selling to medical marijuana dispensaries. 3 milestone initiative’s passage. The willingness of electorates, at the state and local levels of government to even consider, and then affirm illicit substance control reforms, has constituted a pattern of intensified efforts by medical marijuana Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) to create and campaign for alternative drug policies. To raise the saliency of medical marijuana beyond common myth so as to legitimate medical marijuana’s status as worthy of political and policy agenda consideration is of substantial scholarly significance. SMOs mobilized their members by disseminating innovative “frames” or messages into public discourse for legislative, electoral, and judicial contemplation. Each endeavor to bring legal use of medical marijuana stoked criticism and controversy with defeats and victories for medical marijuana advocates littering the political landscape. Yet to date, passage of seventeen state medical marijuana laws, numerous municipal alterations to law enforcement directives concerning drug control statutes and national lobbying campaigns to stop federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients since 1996 demonstrates public acceptance and political viability of marijuana reform along with a rethinking of prohibitive means. A groundswell of promotion and mobilization by illicit substance control policy reformers has