The Public Forum on Thursday, August 31 at WNMU’s Miller Library covered the topic: “Illicit” Drugs: Decriminalization, Legalization, or Continued Prohibition? Cindy Provencio opened the evening by explaining the ground rules so the discussion could remain open.
Shawn White from the WNMU Chemistry department challenged the group by bringing up terms that often have multiple meanings, such as “drug” and “decriminalization.” He thanked the group for attending the forum, and began his portion of the presentation by explaining that the government is not required to do anything for us. White’s position was that the freedom of the individual includes allowing the individual to decide which risks to take. He explained that ending prohibition is not a solution to drug addiction, but suggested the legalization of substances as a way to avoid a lot of collateral damage, such as gang involvement and purity issues. White shared several examples from art and philosophy to show that for centuries people have debated which drugs were okay to take, and which are not.
Next to present was Alexis Rodriguez, a student at WNMU. Rodriguez reminded the group of the statistical evidence showing direct and indirect problems caused by addiction, specifically opioids. With opioid use, prescribed or not, 23% of users develop an addiction. This affects families, especially those with children, who may become subject to abuse and neglect. Rodriguez asked the group to consider the John F. Kennedy quote: “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
Round table discussion opened and several people commented that drugs themselves do not create problems, and, as such, permissiveness does not create nor stop abuse. Prohibition finances the “bad guys,” and we must be clear when we classify what a “drug” is.
New Mexico State Representative Bill McCamley joined the discussion via Zoom teleconference from San Antonio, Texas, at the Red Cross headquarters. He informed the group of the Cannabis Revenue and Freedom Act, which he helped introduce and which was buried last year in committees. He will re-introduce it this year and McCamley believes with a different composition in the House of Representatives, it may be reviewed. Similar to what happened with alcohol in the Prohibition era, cannabis and hemp face a lot of negativity when decriminalization or legalization is mentioned. McCamley said that it may be possible to get people off opiates if they were able to use cannabis medicinally, and that legalization may bring 16,000 jobs and legal revenue to the state. Only a small percentage of the United States allows for the use of cannabis, medicinally or socially, and New Mexico's neighbor Colorado is a prime example of economic growth from changing laws.
Round table discussion brought some positive reaction from the group, mostly because what McCamley described could help everything from job growth to mental health funding. As to whether New Mexico could see the same economic boom as Colorado, that’s tough to project, but an influx of 60-70 million dollars to the state economy is a large amount even though the entire state budget is around 6 billion dollars. McCamley reminded the group that this type of legalization is unlike any other singular thing we could do to help the state's economy. This particular bill is dealing specifically with cannabis, not opiates or methamphetamines, and would place the legal age at 21.
Deputy Sheriff Mike Burns of the Grant County Sheriff’s Department was the next panelist, with 22 years of experience on the front lines of the “War on Drugs,” a term he does not prefer. Burns said drug abuse of some sort, be it nicotine, alcohol, prescription medication, or illicit drugs, has touched everyone,. Whether a person individually faces the issue or have a loved one dealing with drug abuse the end result is the same—death and destruction. Burns quoted a recent Cato Institute article from April 12 of this year that stated: “The War on Drugs has created a domestic battle zone where U.S. citizens are viewed as potential enemies to be defeated by an array of government agencies working in conjunction to enforce prohibition.” Burns disagreed with Nixon’s declaration of a “War on Drugs” due to the amount of lives affected by the overburdened justice system and the strained healthcare system, but he does believe the D.A.R.E. program has helped him connect with the community and introduces students to the humanity of peace officers.
A student from the crowd began further discussion by interjecting a quote from former President Richard Nixon’s policy advisor from that time, John Ehrlichman: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” The Round Table discussion agreed the laws born of this administration were beyond drugs and were about racism and control. There was even lighthearted conversation about how people experimented with all kinds of substances but the adage was always, “speed kills,” and that’s where people drew the line. This was a great example of how clarity needs to be part of discussing “drugs” in the legal sense, and how that can be difficult since there are varying opinions on which drugs are unacceptable and/or dangerous.
Miguel Narvaez, Jr., WNMU alum, provided statistics on how prohibition is an institutional problem. Tying together the Ehrlichman quote and White’s explanation of how the society has always been trying to limit the use of some substance or another, Narvaez showed how persons of color are more likely to be affected by prohibition laws when it comes to Schedule 1 substances, especially cannabis, even though cannabis use occurs across the board. The Nixon era intent seems to have prevailed, using laws about controlling substance to target specific communities.
Damon Bullock from the Criminal Justice department at WNMU added that the social construct of race becomes especially important when operating within the criminal justice system. Bullock asked the group to consider two different people taking objects that aren’t theirs. A Caucasian is called a kleptomaniac even though a person of color committing the same crime is considered a thief. Knowing the system is flawed and reverts to this systematic and institutional racism may persuade us to consider decriminalization.
In summary, the Round Table found that decriminalization could allow negative effects of prohibition to cease, and that profits from making cannabis, in particular, legal could help address the mental health issues that will occur no matter what the classification of substances. It was even mentioned that legalization of all substances would put any abuse issues into the medical model, suggesting that mental health is indeed the nature for combatting addiction.
None of the speakers or participants endorsed or encouraged the use or abuse of any substances, merely noting the rights individuals have to make choices and the potential revenue from changing current laws.