Marijuana has been prohibited for almost a century, with effects on the nation such as high prison populations and an expensive “War on Drugs” that many call detrimental. For the past 40 years, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) and similar organizations have sought to change that. While it sometimes seems as if these efforts are gaining ground, victory remains aloof. Despite the ever-growing number of users and increasingly relaxed attitude toward marijuana, prohibition maintains a momentum that has proven difficult to counter. Recent developments in America, most notably the recession and the skyrocketing deficit, have provided fresh hope and a newborn kairos, or timeliness, for the argument that marijuana should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

Medical data contradicting the established attitude toward marijuana as a dangerous narcotic has been stacking up for decades, yet has gained no ground. Indeed, while official studies are occasionally trotted out which purportedly prove that it is more dangerous than ever, these appeals to logos (logic) are secondary at best and are never trumpeted. Most of the arguments, some of which have almost become commonplaces, are based on ethos (the speaker’s authority), pathos (appeals to emotion), or a combination of the two. The major challenges are as follows:

• Claims by authorities, such as the DEA, that marijuana is both harmful to health and a “gateway” drug that leads to harder drugs
• The argument that marijuana causes gang violence
•  The argument that marijuana ruins lives (and, if legalized, maybe the economy) by sapping motivation and creating “slackers”
• The argument that marijuana use is immoral
• The argument that marijuana arrests prevent more serious crimes by taking the users off the street
• The argument that marijuana is addictive
• The argument that legalization would send the wrong message to young people, in effect “giving permission” to smoke it

All of these arguments are highly debatable. For instance, it can be countered (and has been many times) that gang violence is caused by prohibition instead of by marijuana itself, that slackers exist independent of pot, and that the government has no place enforcing morals or acting as our children’s parent. However, prohibition has lasted so long that few people bother questioning it, even some who use marijuana. The government no longer needs to back up prohibition with logical, medically based arguments, as such sound proof’s existence is largely accepted sight unseen by the general populace. Only ethical and pathetic arguments are needed to keep the status quo. Those who want legalization carry the burden of proof.

It must also be noted that those who oppose legalization do not come from one identifiable group. They are not all rich Republicans or poor Democrats or white people or college graduates. Legalization’s opponents come from all races, all political parties, and all social strata. The same can be said, however, for legalization’s proponents.

This is an important point because NORML tends to preach to the choir. Their booths are present at events such as rock concerts, hemp rallies, and Libertarian Party functions, where the message has a friendly audience. Their advertisements appear in cause-friendly magazines like High Times. This is good from a fundraising point of view, but is ineffective for spreading the message. While those who attend these functions and believe in legalization may indeed try to convince others, they are frequently dismissed by those others as “hippies” and “stoners” who don’t really care about the issue beyond their desire to get high. Their ethos cannot go up against the DEA’s. President Obama’s chuckling dismissal of the notion in a recent webcast illustrates this perfectly.

NORML cannot forget these people, of course. They form the movement’s core. They should be encouraged to donate and vote. In order to gain the momentum needed to change drug policies, however, NORML must expand their scope and bring their arguments to those that don’t support legalization. Ads should appear in magazines besides High Times. By appearing in publications such as Rolling Stone, People, U.S.News and World Report, and scores of other mainstream magazines, NORML will reach not only marijuana users but also legalization opponents. NORML should also use newspapers, radio, television (if it can be budgeted), and grass roots efforts such as flyers and handbills to reach as broad an audience as possible. Also, a presence at Republican and Democratic functions will increase visibility. If this is done aggressively enough, it will attract media and political attention. Thus, the media can be used not only to spread the message, but also to refute the inevitable political opposition that will come with greater visibility. Minds can be changed, but only when they are challenged frequently over a significant period of time, as in the case of global warming. No one cared about global warming 30 years ago, but it is considered a priority by much of the world after constant and varied presentation of data, arguments, and appeals to pathos.

Most importantly, legalization efforts thus far have been based on countering emotion and disinformation with facts, and have largely failed. As noted, this is because prohibition arguments are mostly based on emotion and the assumption that the facts were established long ago. Again, the burden of proof is on the pro-legalization side, so logos cannot be ignored – the arguments for legalization must be based on fact. In order to be more effective, however, these facts must be consistently tied to emotional arguments as well. Rhetorically speaking, arguments of pathos that persuade by creating a particular emotion can best be countered by arguments that create a different and stronger emotion.

For instance, it is often advertised that legal prescription drugs are more dangerous than marijuana. Recent reports claim that prescription drugs actually cause more deaths than all illicit drugs combined, with marijuana’s historic death toll equaling exactly zero. Alone, this argument fails to get much attention, but it can easily be connected to arguments more emotional in nature, such as the economy.

The U.S. economy – with its record setting deficit- has become the most emotional issue of the year. Doomsday scenarios are easy to find, and even those who support President Obama’s stimulus plan are nervous. People are very sensitive to any waste – or even appearance of waste – in government spending. What better time, then, to remind Americans that a recent estimate for federal, state, and local drug enforcement is $44 billion dollars – $10 billion for marijuana alone? That the same estimate puts possible tax revenues at $33 billion? That this is already America’s biggest cash crop, with uses ranging from medicine to fuels, from food to plastics, from paper to insulation? These facts can all be bundled in one argument – that while our economy dwindles and manufacturing dies in America, we are spending money to prohibit a non-lethal substance that could instead put Americans to work and help pay off the deficit by great bounds – that blends these facts with a vital emotional component. The question is, in the final analysis, “Can America afford to continue prohibiting marijuana?”

Furthermore, another appeal to pathos comes from the fact that manufacturing fuels and plastics with hemp instead of petroleum and making paper from hemp instead of wood pulp are both more environmentally friendly. The quick rate at which the plant creates biomass is another environmental appeal, as biomass converts carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus combats global warming. These facts have been aired before, but only as part of a larger, clinical whole. Highlighting hemp oil use to replace petroleum, however, can strike an emotional chord more than ever for economic and cultural reasons as well as ecological ones. Many people who don’t like the idea of legalizing pot may like the idea of being dependent on OPEC even less, and may be swayed by the idea of replacing petroleum with something available domestically.

Marijuana’s medical uses provide a strong opportunity to combine logos and pathos. So much has been made of medical marijuana over the past few years that resistance to the idea is down when regarding terminal patients. The Obama administration has already adopted a policy of leaving medical marijuana alone in states that have legal programs. Prohibitionists point out that a legal prescription marijuana derivative, Marinol, is available to treat those conditions that marijuana is used for: glaucoma, pain, and appetite stimulation for cancer and AIDS patients. Patients, however, overwhelmingly testify that the derivative is ineffective compared to the actual plant. This opens the door for the claim that the government is less concerned with those suffering from disease than they are with protecting the profits of America’s biggest lobbyists – the pharmaceutical industry. Lobbying is another political topic that Americans have become emotional about – anything connected with lobbying is eyed suspiciously these days. Furthermore, the death statistics for prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco can be brought into play. Actual patient photographs can give the abstract idea of human suffering a face. A picture of an emaciated cancer patient bearing the message that a medicine that could help her eat and regain her strength – a medicine proven safer than prescription drugs - is prohibited by law so that drug companies can make a profit from a less effective version of the same natural substance carries a factual message with a strong emotional component. Who doesn’t know someone who suffered such a painful death? Who wouldn’t have helped that loved one escape the pain and nausea if they could have?

Criminality is an aspect of marijuana policy that is already mired in pathos – usually as a scare tactic to drum up support. That could easily be reversed, however. The cost of enforcement mentioned before has a human component: 872,000 arrests per year, more than for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault combined. Connect this to the medical evidence and it is clear that the greatest risk a marijuana smoker faces is the risk of arrest. 30 percent of those arrested are under 19 years of age. Prohibition forces have been successful at giving these people a hardened criminal’s face, but another face could be used- that of America’s children. The argument that their lives were disrupted more by the arrest and conviction than by the marijuana itself can easily be made, especially when linked to the ethos argument to be outlined later. Using the commonplace that petty criminals become highly trained criminals while serving time, these people can be shown as normal young adults that weren’t criminals, but became criminals in jail as a result of policies that protect pharmaceutical profits, show skewed justice priorities, and waste taxpayer money.

There are two more forms a pathetic argument involving criminality might take. First, legalization opponents are generally seen as serious, straight people who are not at all counter-cultural; think of the Brady Bunch. Prohibition, however, creates black-market profits, profits that drug dealers violently protect. With legalization, these profits – and motives – disappear. Thus, an argument can be made that legalization’s staunchest opponents aren’t Mr. And Mrs. Main Street, but the murderous drug cartels themselves. The second is related: a direct comparison of Roaring Twenties era gang violence to the gang violence of today, and a reminder that the violence of alcohol prohibition was ended by repeal. The recent murder sprees in Juarez give this argument excellent kairos. As Secretary of State Clinton admits that American demand for illegal drugs fuels the mayhem along the Mexican border, Americans can also be reminded that eliminating demand for drugs has never been effective, meaning that the only realistic hope for eliminating the motivation for violence is eliminating the black market by legalizing.

            Finally, the prohibition forces can no longer be allowed to control this debate’s ethos. It has been established that those who keep marijuana illegal speak from a position of highly informed authority, and that marijuana users are stoners and slackers who are fabricating evidence for legalization only so that they can legally get high. There are many people, however, who are not “slackers” yet have expressed support for legalization, or at least a more open debate. Jocelyn Elders is among the latter, but it may be more effective to trumpet a noted conservative like William F. Buckley, Jr., who along with former NM governor Gary Johnson and Republican Secretary of State George Shultz, is among the former. To combat the “slacker” ethos that users have been saddled with, a campaign can be started that highlights people who have admitted or been caught smoking marijuana but have been highly successful, such as Olympic athlete Michael Phelps (who would have needed no apology had he been caught guzzling tequila straight from the bottle), actors Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp, John Wayne, and Woody Harrelson, as well as Republican governor Arnold Schwartzenegger. Others include William Shakespeare, Mozart, Steve Jobs, Barbara Streisand, Pablo Picasso, and even Bing Crosby, who openly advocated legalization in the 1960s. Care must be taken not to put some of these people, such as Schwartzenegger, in the position of advocating for legalization if they have not publicly done so. The point to be made is only that smoking pot did not prevent them from becoming productive and successful people, mainly because they were never arrested for it.

The constant increase in marijuana use over the past few decades, the advances in medical marijuana rights, and the federal deficit have all combined to create a far more receptive atmosphere for legalization than ever before. California is currently considering legalization, in fact. Still, the pendulum can swing back quickly, or the moment be simply forgotten, if this kairos is not acted upon. The arguments for prohibition have become commonplaces while facts supporting legalization are ignored. The time is ripe to change that, but efforts must go beyond merely repeating facts to friendly audiences. These facts must be bundled with powerful pathetic and ethos-based arguments and presented to a much wider demographic, particularly those who support the status quo or are neutral. Only by increasing support drastically can drug policy be changed. Only by combining facts with emotional and ethos-based arguments for legalization and presenting them widely over an extended time period can NORML and other pro-hemp organizations reach the support levels needed to bring about this much-needed change.

Works Cited

“About Marijuana.” National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws Website. 17 March 2009. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7305

            “Annual Causes of Death in the United States.” Drug War Facts.org. 2000-2008. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

            Thompson, Keith. “Michael Phelps in Good Company.” The Huffington Post. 5 February 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/michael-phelps-in-good-co_b_164504.html

            Miron, Jeffrey A. “Commentary:Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence.” CNN.com. 24 March 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

            “Arguments for and Against the Legalization of Marijuana.” Legalization of Marijuana.com. Date unknown. http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/marijuana-for-and-against.html

            Messerli, Joe. “Should Marijuana Be Legalized Under Any Circumstances?” Balanced Politics.org. 7 April 2008. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm

            “U.S. Shares Blame for Mexico Drug Violence, Clinton Says.” CNN.com: Political Ticker. 26 March 2009. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/26/us-shares-blame-for-mexico-drug-violence-clinton-says-2/

            “Obama Goes Online for Town Hall Meeting.” CNN.com. 26 March 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/26/obama.online/index.html?iref=newssearch