Political Implications

• Voter apathy
• The third party movement
• Elections lost
• Elections won
• Voting model

What are the Political Implications of Medical Marijuana?

The use of marijuana as medicine is at odds with most laws in the United States. Possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana violate federal law. With various degrees of severity, all states have statues on their books that prohibit these activities. This is what made the passage of Proposition 215 by California voters in 1996 a milestone. Under Prop 215, marijuana activities that are illegal under Federal law – possession, cultivation, and distribution – are legal under state law providing that the patient has a physician’s recommendation. Eight other states – Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington – have followed with similar legislation, all by ballot initiative passed with wide majorities except for Hawaii where the change was by legislative action. In the past five years, 20% of the U.S. population has had a chance to vote on medical marijuana, with overwhelming majorities in favor of allowing medical use.

Because of its illegal status and reputation shaped by years of negative propaganda, marijuana has found itself at center stage in the "War on Drugs." This policy toward substance abuse is based in part on discouraging children from entering the gateway to more addictive and dangerous substances through marijuana. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine’s Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base not only dispelled the gateway theory but also gave credence to medical uses of the plant.

Thus, from 1996 onward, momentum has been building to legitimize marijuana as medicine. Survey after survey shows that favorable public opinion is growing. Failed legislation shows that lawmakers have a way to go. There may be consequences to this inaction.

Voter Apathy

Voter apathy becomes even more real when politicians not only fail to advance a cause in which their constituents believe, but instead, actively work against it. Such has been the case with medical marijuana time and again. Democrat officials, in particular, who must have sensed constituent support for medicinal cannabis, either sat silently or actively advanced provisions of the Drug War that led to the abuse of patients in the course of enforcing drug laws. Some potential voters, believing that they can’t affect change, do nothing, including cast their ballot.

Third Party Movement

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate estimates that, in states where voters designate their party affiliation, registration in Democratic Party has declined 30% since the 1960s, dropping its ninth consecutive Presidential election year to about 33% of eligible voters. The Republican registration level approximates 24%. On the other hand, registration for third parties or as independents rose for the tenth consecutive presidential year to 17% of those eligible to vote.

Two "third" political parties have platforms that specifically oppose the prohibition of marijuana as medicine: the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.

Item #13 of the Green Party’s 2000 Platform on healthcare specifically opposes arresting anyone for the "cultivation, transportation, distribution or consumption of medicinal marijuana."

The Libertarian Party's statement condemning the War on Drugs lies at #4 on its list of twenty-three Individual Rights. Recently, the party has increased its focus on drug policy, particularly marijuana prohibition. In 2001, during a year-long strategic planning process, the Libertarian National Committee adopted the following goal, "The Libertarian Part will focus resources to achieve the repeal of drug prohibition at the federal level by 2010." Campaigns that reflect this commitment include an ad in the New York Times condemning the Bush Administration’s attempt to tie drugs to terrorism and the online campaign, NoJailForPot. The NoJailForPot.com petition demands that by December 25, 2004, the government stop arresting or jailing anyone for any non-violent activity related to the use, possession, cultivation, transportation, or sale of marijuana.

Fielding more than 1,430 candidates in the 2000 election, many at the local and state level, the Libertarian Party appears to be positioning itself to pick up the public support that Democrats and Republicans are forfeiting by remaining silent on issues like medicinal cannabis. As Curtis Gans, Director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, said,

"It is clear that both major parties are losing the allegiance of a sizable portion of the citizenry and that threatens the cohesion of American politics. The Democrats have failed to find a thread of advocacy that unites its ‘New’ Democrat wing with its traditional wing, and the Republicans are perceived as too far right of the American center. And both, in their conduct in the public policy debate and in the stalemate on important issues, are producing increasing voter disdain. If the major parties do not address these problems, the future may well produce either a viable third party challenge or a resumption of the trend of increasing disengagement from the political process."

Unfortunately, a search of the Democratic National Committee’s web site yielded no references to either "marijuana" or "cannabis." This held true for the sites in such large states as Texas, Ohio, and even California, a state where this issue probably receives more public attention than in any other. Republicans also don’t mention marijuana. With their president’s apparent popularity – 80% of Ohioans approve of the job president George Bush is doing as president according to an April 2002 University of Cincinnati Institute for Policy Research study – it is unlikely they will depart from the policy positions, especially ones appealing to their conservative core, which got them to the White House.

Elections Lost

In addition, the student activist political action committee, SACPAC, launched an intensive campaign to defeat U.S. Representative, Mark Souder (R-IN), author of the Higher Education Act (HEA) that denies financial aid to students who have drug convictions. This law poses a particular hardship for patients who want to improve their lives through education, but become entangled in the criminal justice system when caught with their illegal medicine.

The notorious 2000 Presidential election could represent the beginning of medical marijuana’s political influence. With 49.97% of the vote, President George Bush took the State of Ohio, including its 21 electoral votes, from rival, Al Gore (46.46%), by only 3.51%. With percentages of 2.5% going to Ralph Nader (Green Party), 0.3% to Harry Browne (Libertarian Party), and 0.8% to other independents, Bush did not actually win a majority of the Ohio vote. He fell short by 1,479 votes. Obviously, the margin that gave Ohio to the Republicans was very slim indeed.

During the campaign, Al Gore "waffled" on issues like medical marijuana, supporting it at a December 1999 New Hampshire television forum, but opposing it in an MTV interview about six weeks before the election.

George Bush, perhaps understanding the underlying political power of this issue, only commented that he "supported states rights." To some, this may have signaled that a Bush Administration would leave California Proposition 215 alone. That may well have been enough to hand the Republicans the White House by shifting the marginal vote to Bush or independents and away from Gore in key battleground states like Ohio and Florida.

Elections Won

The Vermont medicinal marijuana legislation is particularly significant because Governor Dean strongly opposes it. To unify his party for a national campaign, a presidential candidate cannot take a stance that reflects the views of no more than 10% of his own party, that is largely favored by his opposition, and that, from numerous surveys, lacks significant public support.

Other political races, such as those for the governor of states like Ohio, California, and Wisconsin, may represent additional opportunities for parties to solidify their political base behind an issue that is of great interest to so many of their members and the public.

Voting Model

This model is based on voter turnout for a major election such as a presidential or governor’s race in a larger state like Ohio -- around 3.5 million. The percentage party split among the Democrats (33%), Republicans (24%), and Independents/Other (17%), as determined by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, is then applied to this number. Because the Center’s percentages reflect all eligible voters, "No Party Affiliation" represents those in states that do not require party registration.

Strength of support assumes that voters who feel strongly about an issue are more likely to act on it. Consequently, applying the simple 80/20 rule, 80% of those who feel "very strongly" about an issue may cast their ballot according to it, while perhaps only 20% of those feel "somewhat strongly" will do the same. Applying this concept to the two models and using the Democratic Party model (Appendix I) as an example, eighty percent of the 39.1% of Republicans who are "much more likely" to cast their ballot for candidates who endorse medicinal cannabis will switch parties to vote for the Democrat (262,752), but only 20% of their "somewhat less likely" counterparts will do the same (34,944). For the purpose of the model, this logic applies to both sides of the issue.

The model clearly shows that the strength of support for medicinal cannabis makes it a winning issue for the major political party that endorses it. While the Democratic Party would come out slightly ahead of the Republican Party with such a position, both parties would gain a substantial plurality of the voting populace. Interestingly, if the Republicans were to take the lead on medicinal cannabis, assuming the Democrats stayed with its prohibition, they would only lose about 17% of their party members to the Democrats, while at the same time gaining almost 50% of the Democratic vote. On the other hand, if the Democrats back medical marijuana and the Republicans do not, the Democrats stand to lose only 8% of their own vote, but gain 35% of the Republican vote. With lower overall registration, the actual damage to the Republicans could be greater.