Drugs and the Arts: A Perfect Match? by KENNY MARTIN
A
s an artist, I must admit to feeling a certain amount of ambivalence toward drugs. I’m speaking broadly here, not just about marijuana, the subject of this issue of Hilltopics, but also about alcohol, LSD, cocaine, and all other substances that Homo sapiens sapiens commonly uses for recreational, mindaltering purposes. For it seems to me that art and artists have a complicated, problematic, and probably overblown relationship with drugs, one that’s fascinating but troubling at the same time. There’s the stereotype of the genius, eccentric, mad artist (à la Allen Ginsberg and the Beats) who heavily experiments with drugs as a means of extended or heightened creative expression. The Beatles did it; recent discoveries suggest that Shakespeare might have done it. Drugs play a fundamental role in hip-hop and rap music (if not as a player in the creative process, then at least as subject matter), and taking drugs has long been a part of the audience experience for jazz and rock-androll concerts in particular. Even the copywriters and artists of Mad Men have been known to indulge in a joint on occasion, a supposed route to increased productivity that more often leads to strange and totally unproductive episodes of high-induced, faux-poetic folly. Nonetheless, the mythical association of drugs with the arts is there, and it remains strong today. Drugs, we’re told, are a way to connect more intimately (or, perhaps, to connect in the first place) with your “creative side,” to see the world in fresh, unprecedented ways. For the poet,
Hilltopics | Page 2
or the musician, or the painter— for anyone interested in artistic representation and interpretation of the world, whether physical, imagined, or psychological—this sounds like Heaven. Why not? All artists struggle to perform or produce up to their own expectations; perhaps drugs hold the key to a more relaxed, creative, focused, and clear way of living, to a more powerful artistic personality.
But, of course, not all artists agree. The late Mark Strand, one of the great poets of the recent age, was once asked about artists using drugs to enhance their work. I suspect many people will identify with his response: “They interfere. I mean, if I’ve had a couple of drinks, I don’t feel like writing. I feel like having another drink.” Moreover, for every artist who has successfully used drugs as an artistic tool, there’s at least one who has fallen, tragically, to the very real dangers of drug use. Bill Evans and John Coltrane, two of the most important musical geniuses ever, both died partially as a result of drug use (cocaine and heroin, respectively). Amy Winehouse, Heath Ledger…the list of artists who have died in drug-related circumstances is astounding, and it speaks volumes
about the costs of the marriage of drugs and the arts. For my part, I don’t put much stock in the need for drugs as a part of the creative process. Good art, I believe, is produced through a particular way of looking at the world, a sensibility that opens itself up to nuance, to gesture, to possibilities that most people are not aware of. The artists perceives the world uniquely, and then works hard to convey that particular, individual experience in a way everyone can understand. And while drug use may produce interesting results, it will not turn a non-artist into an artist— nor will it make an unperceptive or passive experiencer of art (whether an audience member in a concert hall or theatre, or an observer in a gallery, or a reader of poetry) more keen or interested. There’s simply no getting around the hard work of art, no magic pill with the power to make a miracle out of mediocrity. The key to art is the, as Keats says, “teeming brain” of the artist, along with an audience willing to engage with that brain via the artistic product it produces. If drugs are involved, great; I suspect, however, that it will prove, in the long run, even better if they are not. For chemical-induced highs will always fade…on the other hand, the elation, understanding, and transcendence produced by sound art are, like diamonds of the mind, forever. Ours is a world of several pleasures, and none is less valid for being more fleeting—I’ll be the first to say that I embrace them all. But if I had to take just one, I know my choice, and that gives me more pleasure than all the rest ever could.
Black and White : the War on Weed b y K AY L A F I N S T E I N
A
merican laws against marijuana possession, sale, and use are crumbling. Though it is happening state-by-state now, it is only a matter of time before the entire country faces legal weed as a 21st century reality. But this path toward legalization begs the question – why was it illegal in the first place, especially in light of an emerging scientific, medical, and social consensus that it’s, well, not that dangerous? Why have marijuana prohibitions? The genesis of the US ‘war on weed’ began with the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, in the mid-1930s. He was one of the first to connect marijuana use with racial minorities and other “degenerate” groups, arguing that their bad behavior, sexual wantonness, laziness, and communist tendencies all stemmed from using pot. Similar in style to racial scares involving immigration, pre-World War II anti-drug propaganda stirred up dual feelings in whites, who began to connect being anti-drug with being anti-black. Fabricated polls and medical studies provided false evidence for Anslinger’s racist anti-weed campaign. A federal ban on marijuana was enacted in response to this campaign in 1937. Henry Hearst, newspaper mogul, perhaps put it most dramatically: “[Weed is] the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.” Fast forward to the 2010s. The American Civil Liberties Union
“
has found, in the last few years, striking racial disparities in marijuana arrests; most notable of their findings includes a sobering statistic: blacks are almost 4 times as likely to be arrested for weed possession as whites, even as other data suggests usage levels are roughly the same between the two races. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws for marijuana possession and distribution are also putting more nonviolent offenders behind bars, and for longer periods of time. The ACLU has also concluded that even staggering levels of
...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races” “Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing” Harry J. Anslinger
arrests have not significantly impacted marijuana use or supply. This disproportionate legal implementation of archaic drug law has had a negative effect on black communities, where it is estimated that half of all black men will be arrested by their early 20s. On average, around 60% of America’s prisoners are racial minorities. Setting aside drug crime, most cannot afford to post bail, many suffer from mental illness, and others are merely debtors.
As a nation, we have to do better. It is a miscarriage of justice for communities of color to be on the receiving end of a lengthy history of racist drug laws. It is also a global embarrassment that America has 25% of the world’s prison population, the highest of any nation – a phenomenon that goes hand-in-hand with tough-oncrime drug laws. It is shameful that in 2016, the rhetoric of the 1930s still lingers, even if not expressed in overtly racist terms like Anslinger’s. There might be other issues to be addressed when it comes to racial justice, but drug law reform and race-based legal implementation and policing should be at the top of the list.
Hilltopics | Page 3
What’s Weed Got to Do with It? Marijuana and American Public Opinion by DANIEL MUEHRING
H
ash, Hemp, Cannabis, Pot, Ganja, Weed, the Devil’s Cabbage. Whatever you want to call it, Marijuana has had a long and varied history within the United States. Indigenous to Central and South Asia, this infamous plant made its way to colonial America not as a recreational drug, but as a material for cloth, paper pulp, and rope where it quickly became a commonplace product. In fact, the Virginia Assembly of 1619 mandated every farmer to grow hemp, and the plant was also used as legal tender in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Recreational use of marijuana as a personal drug became prevalent after the Mexican Revolution of 1910 when immigrants fleeing the war introduced it to the American public. Before this, the drug was commonly referred to as cannabis, but anti-drug groups quickly adopted the Mexican-Spanish name for the drug, marijuana, in order to attach the drug to the Mexican culture which played off of anti-immigrant sentiments. There were claims that marijuana made people more violent, that Mexicans were purposefully giving schoolchildren poisoned weed, and that marijuana was a drug for inferior races and social deviants. This sentiment was not just limited to Mexicans, however. Henry Finger, a member of the California State Board of Pharmacy, expressed his concern about the growing population of “Hindoos” (an archaic spelling of “Hindus”) and their influence on American marijuana culture in a 1911 letter:
Hilltopics | Page 4
“They [Hindoos] are a very undesirable lot and the habit [of smoking marijuana] is growing in California very fast; the fear is now that it is not being confined to the Hindoos alone but that they are initiating our whites into this habit.” However, while anti-immigrant groups may have used the drug as a talking point, many pot historians attribute the general animosity surrounding pot to the lack of knowledge about the drug’s effects. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana, and in 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act which effectively restricted possession of the drug to only those individuals who were authorized to use it for medical and industrial purposes. Several laws passed in the decades following also enacted jail time and fines for marijuana-related offenses. As the counterculture movement of the late 1950’s and 1960’s developed, marijuana became noticeably more acceptable, especially among the white upper
middle class, and laws pertaining to marijuana began to loosen and move toward treatment rather than punishment. However, this was a brief pause in the efforts toward further sanctioning and since 1970, marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act alongside other drugs such as Heroin, MDMA, Bath Salts, and the infamous Wolf of Wall Street Quaaludes. Such drugs are deemed to have no acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse, which restricts the amount of research that can be done to study the effects of these drugs. In 1986, President Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which guaranteed life sentences for repeat drug offenders by instituting mandatory sentences for drug-related crimes as well as three-strike policies. The number of marijuana-related arrests skyrocketed: police officers in New York City made fewer than 800 arrests in 1991, and an astonishing 59,000 plus in 2010. In 2011 there were more arrests
for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined. These arrests almost unanimously have a racial component to them as well; despite studies showing similar if not lower usage rates for African Americans, blacks are overall 3.7 times more likely than their white peers to be arrested for marijuana-related offenses. Gallup has surveyed the general public for nearly half a century about the legalization of marijuana. In 1969, only 12% of the public agreed that it should be made legal, but as of 2015,
an astounding 58% agreed on legalization. Support has been on the rise for the past decade and has enjoyed majority level approval since 2013. It should come as no surprise that young Americans have always tended to be more supportive than their older counterparts. 71% of Americans between 18 and 34 years of age support legalization, while only 35% of those 65+ years do. Legalization efforts which allow for the regulated use of medical and recreational marijuana have already succeeded in states like Colorado, Washington, Oregon,
and Alaska; while other states such as California, Nevada, New York, and Minnesota have decriminalization laws on the books. Only 11 states currently practice full prohibition, and at least 20 states are expected to have ballot measures in the November 2016 election pushing to either legalize medical or recreational marijuana. With such a large movement and a majority of the public now supporting legalization, 2016 could be a “sky-high� year for marijuana advocates.
Comic Relief
by ANDREW OH
Hilltopics | Page 5
The Pros and Cons of Legalization by DESTINY ROSE MURPHY
W
ith the controversy of legalization looming in political battles and in the minds of many citizens, it seems best to set the facts straight. Here are some arguments for and against legalization.
The PROS
jj With police no longer required to arrest those in possession of marijuana, not only would prison populations decrease significantly, but also law enforcement would be free to give their valued time to more dangerous matters.
marijuana to cause harm. In fact, some studies have found that marijuana is exponentially less toxic to the body than alcohol.
jj For the politically minded, legalization is a question of personal and states rights vs. federal authority. Although recreational use of marijuana is not for everyone, many citizens believe it should be their choice to pass or to puff puff pass and that the government should not restrict this choice.
TO LEGALIZE or
jj Legalization allows the government to have greater control over the quality and safety of cannabis related products. Drugs sold on the street always have a danger associated with them regarding how the substance was created and what other substances it has come into contact with. Legalization would allow the government to place regulations on cannabis to ensure its safety and purity.
NOT TO LEGALIZE
jj Who doesn’t like cooking with interesting new ingredients? Right now most of the country is missing out on creative edibles. That’s a real shame.
THAT IS THE QUESTION
Hilltopics | Page 6
jj I hear being high is fun?
jj Economically, legalization is a sound choice. Like any other product, legally sold cannabis products can be taxed, and Uncle Sam can take that money and put it towards bettering the country. On the flip side, the very act of keeping the pot illegal is very expensive to the states when one considers legal systems
jj The longer marijuana is used in a medical setting, the more researchers find it to be beneficial. Cannabis oil and extract has helped to treat epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, anxiety, depression, migraines, some tumors, and is often used by hospitals to help patients that are taking stomachwrenching drugs to regain the desire to eat.
jj Relative to other legal substances, good old Mary Jane seems pretty harmless. For instance, while people can easily die or become very ill from drinking too much alcohol or taking too much medication, it is extremely difficult to intake enough
to gain access to income and employment benefits.
The CONS
and prison costs. Legalizing takes away this cost, and turns black market jobs into regular jobs, which can serve to bolster the economy and help workers
jj Legalization could lead to drastically increased use of the substance, and many opponents ask if this is really what we want. Sure, there would be some responsible adults who enjoyed a single green cookie in order to unwind on the weekends, but there would also likely be parents blowing pot smoke into the faces of their children around the house, and by revoking the taboo on the substance more children would be likely to try it. jj According
to
the
National
Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana dependence is fairly common among users, and can lead to “irritability, mood and sleep difficulties, decreased appetite, cravings, restlessness, and/or various forms of physical discomfort” if a dependent person attempts to stop using the drug. Can the government in good conscience legalize a substance known to be addictive? jj Reefer madness. Duh. jj Legalizing marijuana would naturally increase the number of people who drove under the effects of the substance, which could lead to more accidents and injuries on the road. In states where the drug is legal, there has been an increase in the number of fatal accidents involving someone testing positive for marijuana.
jj Smoking is still dangerous, whether it’s tobacco or marijuana. Lighting something on fire and breathing in the smoke is never a particularly health conscious decision, and marijuana smoke has been proven in many cases to contain carcinogens and other dangerous chemicals just like cigarette smoke. The government runs the risk of introducing a brand new national health problem if federal legalization is approved. jj Any substance that drastically alters the way a human perceives the world is bound to create some dangerous scenarios. When high, just as when drunk, people are not completely in control of their faculties and so are more likely to make poor and unsafe decisions.
jj Have you ever smelled the stuff? It’s like a cross between skunk and old man smell. Why would we legalize that?! jj On the political front many opponents of legalization believe that it should be a states rights matter, not something that the federal government forces on citizens. Though some states like Colorado have chosen to allow the substance into their borders, others should be able to make the choice to keep it out. jj Marijuana has often been called a gateway drug, which makes users comfortable with the idea of taking drugs and therefore more likely to take other more dangerous ones like heroine and cocaine. By legalizing marijuana, the government may be inviting further drug use.
“ “ “ By regulating marijuana, we can put black market drug dealers out of business and eliminate the rebellious allure that attracts young people.” - Sal Albanese / New York City Council Member 1983-1998
It would be wryly interesting if in human history the cultivation of marijuana led generally to the invention of agriculture, and thereby to civilization.” - Carl Sagan / Astronomer
[Marijuana legalization] is an experiment, and it’s probably good to have a couple of states try it out to see before you make that national policy.” - Bill Gates / Founder of Microsoft Hilltopics | Page 7
Isb y Amsterdam Tolerant? A R YA M C C A R T H Y
I
have a superpower: this spring break, I discovered that I can land a plane using only my mind. You see, my classmates and I had joined Dr. Doyle on a trip to Amsterdam as part of his class, HIST 3317 (From Persecution to Affirmation: Sexual Minorities and Human Rights). Let’s be frank: more than the Richter Fellowships or the extra scribble on our diploma, the biggest draw to the Honors Program is the free class trips. Ours took us to the capital of liberalism and tolerance: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The Bulldog, established in an aging canal house a block from Amsterdam’s Old Church in the Red Light District, prides itself as being the city’s first coffeeshop. From it— and many others—wafts the hazy reek of pot smoke that lingers in the air along the city’s winsome canals. See, a distinction arose last century between cafés and coffeeshops. Cafés could serve alcohol (which flows nearly as freely as Amsterdam’s canals), so regulators and scrutinizers trained their eyes on them. Coffeeshops, in the meantime, developed in the shadows and became hotspots for hotboxing. Cannabis isn’t legal in Amsterdam, despite popular belief. Instead, it’s bound by a Dutch cultural notion called gedogen which just barely translates into English as “tolerance,” only because it’s more concise than, “We don’t like this, and we’re looking the other way.” Nobody but tour guides really talks about the cannabis or the prostitution—both of which are only enjoyed by tourists anyway. A police officer who catches you carrying a bit of cannabis won’t reproach you, and honors students
Hilltopics | Page 8
who returned to our room high as kites would never be rebuked, but there’s a darker side to gedogen: prostitutes, performing perfectly legitimate work, will often be laughed out of banks when asking for loans. As one former prostitute told our class, nobody puts prostitution on their résumé. The environs of The Bulldog, stretching south from the Oudekerksplein, are Amsterdam’s largest red light district. A few splinters are scattered elsewhere, but along De Wallen, women in scant, exotic dress look to meet the gaze of more pleasant clients. I had the pleasure of tasting a former prostitute’s apple tart as she led us around the area, showing the window where she worked as a teenager, hoping to buy herself a puppy. Mariska Majoor, now out of the profession, runs the Prostitute Information Center (PIC), which advocates for the rights and dignity of Amsterdam’s prostitutes. Mariska fears that the municipal effort to shutter the ruby-lit windows will push prostitutes from the safety of their private rooms—furnished with sinks and panic buttons, and protected by sturdy doors—toward vulnerability on the streets. The plight of prostitutes and the
city’s refusal to allow new coffeeshops shows the fragility of gedogen. The class heard more about this in Rotterdam, where we met Jamaican, Iraqi and Egyptian refugees persecuted for their homosexuality. There’s a strong sense of self– versus–other in the Netherlands. Cultural and ethnic groups (the country has all but banned the word “racial” because of its association with the Nazi regime that caused the country a still-open wound in World War II) live in relative isolation, which pushes the gedogen notion from mutual tolerance to mutual endurance. Yes, the Netherlands’ prominence in human rights is crowned by the Hague: the nation’s seat of government (Amsterdam is the nominal capital, as provided by the Dutch constitution) and the Peace Palace, a post-WWII international endeavor to prevent the need for future conflict. (My, didn’t that work well?) The Peace Palace houses the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Court of Justice, an opt-in organization and the judicial branch of the UN. The US shied away from its involvement the ICJ in 2005 after having lost two cases for failing to observe international consular access laws. The trip to the Netherlands illuminated so many issues that are often understated: the line between tolerance and endurance, propriety and fairness, the enduring legacy of war, and the United States’ rejection of international justice. But didn’t I promise you the story of my superpower? I discovered it on the return flight. The left hemisphere of my brain erupted into the most debilitating pain in my life. The plane’s doctor, portly and stretching
What is an Amsterdam coffeeshop? “Coffeeshops are alcohol-free establishments where soft drugs are sold and consumed. A driving principle of coffeeshop policy is that the sale of alcohol and the sale of soft drugs is separated. The underlying idea behind this includes the fact that, from an enforcement perspective, the size of the segment of economic activity requiring supervision is reduced, as is the size of the audience being confronted with (soft) drugs. The stock of soft drugs held on the premises may not exceed 500 grammes.” (iamsterdam.com) a blue St. Andrews T-shirt to its limit, told me that there was a 99% chance that I was fine, but a 1% that it was something serous, so he’d already asked the pilot to drop the kerosene
I
was hunched over my dorm room desk when my roommate walked in. “What’s that smell?” he asked. “It’s marijuana,” I replied, as I ground a sticky nug into green frosty flakes. Something felt wrong about the way he quickly left the room without saying a word, but my apprehension was interrupted by three short knocks on the door. I let two police officers in and seemed to watch the scene from outside my body as one of them bit handcuffs into my wrists and told me to watch my head as he put me into an SMU PD cruiser. Four years later, I’ve finally cleared those arrest charges from my record. But they haven’t yet left my mind. I stopped smoking weed that year, after the arrest, but it’s not why I quit.
and land in the nearest airport. Dr. Doyle, ever precious, stayed with me as I was afforded the dignity to walk off the plane, rather than lying in the stretcher the paramedics had bought.
We made an unplanned trip and spent the night in Shannon, Ireland after having halted a transatlantic flight over an aneurysm that never came into fruition.
Here’s another story.
of singing in front of people. Before I went up, my friend suggested that we smoke a little. I politely declined. All I needed was a guitar, a microphone, and myself. As I finished and walked off the stage, I remembered why I quit smoking: the feeling of complete independence was infinitely more fulfilling than any high ever had been. There’s nothing like the feeling of carrying everything I need and will ever need within myself.
The last cross-country race of my high-school career was dusty, hot, and hilly. Hundreds of runners from across the nation gathered on a once-green, now brown-trodden field under tents of so many colors that the racing grounds looked more like a traveling circus. As my teammates stretched before the final race, I crouched in a porta-potty on the edge of the field with a little glass pipe and BIC lighter. “I can’t do this unless I smoke,” I told myself. As ridiculous as this sounds, I didn’t think that I had a problem. I thought that weed made me a better person. I didn’t realize that I was missing something weed couldn’t give me. Okay, one more story. One year ago, I attended an open mic event to face my fear
Never Quit Me by WILL TOBIAS
It all comes down to one thing: selflove. I can smoke all I want, but someday the weed or my money or my tolerance will dry up. The only thing that will never run out is my love for myself. It may not be as easy, it may not make me laugh so hard my sides hurt, it may not make breakfast burritos at 2:00 am taste better than anything in the world, but I am the one thing that will never leave me, so I am the one thing I will never quit.
Hilltopics | Page 9
Coming off the High : What’s the Real Deal with Marijuana Legalization in the US? by CECILIA WEIGMAN
C
annabis, marijuana, weed, pot, etc. has been the subject of a growing debate in the United States, especially as more and more states are not only legalizing it for medical use but for recreational purposes as well. Many more states are coming out with variations of marijuana legalization laws besides the twenty three already out (“State”). States across the US are turning to a more tolerant view of marijuana decriminalization, with “Portland, Me., and three Michigan cities just pass[ing] measures legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults” and “activists in Massachusetts…pushing to put a full legalization referendum on the ballot in 2016” (Hall).
the 1970s to the early 2000s with the latter belief held as the most popular. According to a Gallup Poll, in 1969, 84% of people in the United States stated that marijuana use should not be legalized, as compared to 12% asserting it should. This was the largest gap. Now, flash forward almost a half century to 2009-ish where the standing was 54-44%, with those opposing legalization coming out ahead. But then a tiny shift occurred, so small yet very profound. Around 2010-2011, the numbers changed ever so slightly and those calling for legalized marijuana became the majority by a
“
Looking at the entire population of the United States, however, the line is much hazier (no pun intended). The gap between those who thought marijuana should be legal and should not be legal was quite dramatic f r o m
Colorado can devote more time into planting the crop that seems to be changing the face of the economy” few percentage points. By 2013 there was a 58-39% standing with the pro-marijuana people decisively leading (Folsom). Yet, this gap is still moving, closing actually, with 51-47% being the most recent projection according to Gallup (Saad). Those for marijuana legalization are still ahead, but not by much. It is hard to say whether these shifts in perspective are because of a cultural shift in the tolerance of marijuana or a political restructuring
Hilltopics | Page 10
of society. According to a Gallup poll, “in contrast to high levels of support among liberals and solid support among moderates, less than a third of conservative Americans think marijuana should be legal. As a result, such measures are likely to be more viable in relatively liberal locales” (Saad). So there is definitely a shift in perspectives, but only among those with certain political agendas. And whether marijuana legalization is actually helping the country is another long-winded and complex debate. On the one hand, there are people arguing for the economic benefits of legalizing marijuana, and their points carry some weight and evidence, but there are also certain structural pieces that may need to be looked at twice. For example, “Cannabis growers have been left to improvise since no commercial pesticides are labeled for legal use on cannabis plants.” As a consequence, some weird chemicals have been caught being used on marijuana farms, which is hardly a safe situation for marijuana consumers (Haun). Furthermore, like alcohol abuse with teens, there has been an increase in weed consumption, which has caused “education problems in middle schools and high schools” as well as “a spike in ‘edibles’-related emergency room visits” (Haun). These issues are serious and need to be dealt with in effective ways. Marijuana may be a “minor” drug, but like alcohol, its effects are still precarious. Unlike alcohol, however, there are fewer regulations and law enforcement strategies surrounding cannabis consumption in those
areas of the United States where the drug is legalized for recreational use. This is a structural issue that needs attention if people ever want to see marijuana become part of this country’s culture. Or, for those who do not, it is still problematic as the number of “marijuanaintoxicated driving” cases and the “illegal movement of vast amounts of cannabis product into other states” increase (Haun).
a consequence that may or may not have resulted from legalizing marijuana (Bard). In any case, it is a distinctly ironic occurrence and could mean something symbolically as well. No longer needing the jail space for minor drug crimes, Colorado can devote more time into planting the crop that seems to be changing the face of the economy: a seeming winwin in either case.
But to end on a more positive note, there have been movements to use marijuana legalization in influential and beneficial ways. Nicholas Erker bought an abandoned prison in the Colorado town of Brush which he plans to transform into a marijuana factory. It is interesting to note that “the lack of crime means jails are empty and its place sprouts weed,”
Sources:
Bard, Barry. “Former Colorado Jail Might Transform Into a Massive Marijuana Grow Facility.” Marijuana. Marijuana.com, 28 July 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. Folsom, Robert. “A Neurosurgeon Explains: “Why I Changed My Mind on Weed” | Elliott Wave International.” Elliott Wave International. Elliott Wave International, 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. Hall, Katy. “Why Legalizing Weed Just Makes Sense, In 12 Charts.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. Haun, Majorie. “The Unexpected Side Effects of Legalizing Weed.” Newsweek. Newsweek, 6 June 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. Saad, Lydia. “Majority Continues to Support Pot Legalization in U.S.” Gallup. Gallup, 6 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. “State Marijuana Laws Map.” Governing: The States and Localities. E.Republic, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
Analyzing the TREND Gallup Polls taken in 1969, 2009, 2013, and recently show the change in citizen support for legalization of marijuana.
Pro Anti Neutral
Hilltopics | Page 11
“Jeb Kush” : How the Presidential Candidates Compare on Marijuana by DANIEL MUEHRING
J
eb Bush tweeted this out when he admitted on national television that he had previously smoked pot during one of the best exchanges of the first Republican Debate way back in September of 2015. Former candidate Sen. Rand Paul had not so subtly called out Bush for his hypocritical marijuana policies, claiming that wealthy people like Bush who smoked pot in high school would never get caught by the police as opposed to their poorer counterparts. The legalization of marijuana remains a relatively small issue in the 2016 election, having only been mentioned sparingly during a few debates, but the subject provides an interesting point to read how each party is adjusting to rapid shifts in public opinion. With that in mind, let’s take a look at how each remaining candidate would address this issue.
Hil ary Clinton
Clinton has softened her views on marijuana from the past and has said that she would like the drug to be reclassified from Schedule I to II in order to remove the barriers around the research of its medical benefits.
Hilltopics | Page 12
She supports the medical use of marijuana and would not want the federal government to interfere with states that adopt legalization laws. She also believes that people should not be imprisoned for marijuana use. It is unclear whether or not she supports the full legalization of recreational marijuana; she often states that the country should wait to see the effects of the policies in states like Colorado and Washington. “I think that states are the laboratories of democracy, and four states have already taken action to legalize, and it will be important that other states and the federal government take account of how that’s being done, what we learn from what they’re doing.” –WBZ NewsRadio, Jan 25, 2016.
Bernie Sanders
Sanders has repeatedly and forcefully advocated for the full legalization of medical and recreational marijuana. He focuses on the disproportionate effects of the War on Drugs on minority communities and the role marijuana has played in the skyrocketing number of arrests. In 2015 he proposed legislation which would remove the drug from the
federal drug schedules completely and let states regulate its use with methods similar to how they regulate alcohol; the legislation also proposed benefits to marijuana businesses such as access to bank accounts and tax deductions, which are currently denied to these businesses under federal law. Sanders stands alongside former candidate Rand Paul for being the strongest advocate for legalization. “Someone in the United States is arrested every minute on marijuana charges. Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. That’s wrong. That has got to change.” –Sanders Campaign Website, Oct 28, 2015
Donald Trump
It’s hard to find a position or issue on which Trump hasn’t vacillated during his public career, and marijuana is no exception. He was for the full legalization of all drugs in 1990, but has recently come to favor a more state-by-state approach. He fully supports medical marijuana, but has provided little to say one way or the other about legalization. “In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state. … Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should happen — right? Don’t we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states.” – Washington Post, Oct 29, 2015
Ted Cruz
Cruz is personally opposed to recreational marijuana, but has said
“
I’ve never taken drugs of any kind, never had a glass of alcohol. Never had a cigarette, never had a cup of coffee.” - Donald Trump (2000)
that he would not interfere with individual state policy concerning the matter. Cruz and Clinton both like to use the phrase “laboratories of democracy” to describe the varying state laws on legalization. Cruz has criticized the Obama administration in the past for not enforcing the federal laws against marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington. “I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the laboratories of democracy. If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”- CPAC, Feb 26, 2015
John Kasich
Kasich has consistently expressed opposition to both the recreational and medical uses of marijuana. While he has claimed that he would not challenge state laws regulating such use, he has also claimed that if elected President, he would like to lead a campaign to “stomp drugs out of our country.” Seen as the most moderate Republican candidate on most issues, his personal opposition to marijuana may win him the title
of being the most hostile candidate to legalization out of the candidates still running. “I feel very strongly in my state, I’m going to oppose, and they’re going to put something on the ballot to legalize drugs. I’m totally opposed to it, because it is a scourge in this country…In my state and across this country, if I happened to be president, I would lead a significant campaign down at the grassroots level to stomp these drugs out of our country.” – HughHewitt.com, Apr 21, 2015.
tend to also view marijuana as less harmful than alcohol both in personal and societal use, and 76% think that the possession of small amounts of marijuana should not lead to jail time. For those one-issue voters who wish to see the full legalization of marijuana, their best bet would be to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders. Those not wishing to see the country become like Colorado are better off voting for either Sen. Cruz or Gov. Kasich.
“
The fact that Democrats tend to support legalization more than their Republican peers should come as no surprise. Democrats tend to focus on the effects of the War on Drugs on minority (mainly AfricanAmerican) communities, while Republicans see marijuana as more of a states’ rights issue. None of the candidates still running advocate for a federal crackdown on states with recreational or medical usage laws, and this might be a wise move politically. Legalization enjoys majority support among the public, and even Millennial Republicans favor legalization by 63%. Americans
I can’t claim a Bill Clinton and say that I never inhaled” -Sarah Palin (2006)
Hilltopics | Page 13
Letter from the Editor BEING GREEN
W
eed. Grass. Bud. Pot. Cannabis. Herb. It is a thing of many names, something around which an entire culture—perhaps, even, an entire mythology—has grown up. And whether you like it or not, it seems here to stay. Indeed, marijuana, along with abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, and others, has become one of the most controversial and important issues of our time. For many, talking about marijuana brings back memories of their “party days” (or, more likely, their hippy ones); even if they now oppose legalization you can usually see that little smile on their faces, that little twinkle of nostalgia only weed seems to bring about. For others, it is an utterly serious problem, a threat to the productivity, morality, and goodness of our country and a harbinger of a more delinquent age to come. And, of course, for many the issue is of no particular interest at all (at least, so they claim), while for others it is deeply personal and drastically pertinent to their everyday lives. So weed is important. In the course of planning this issue, I’ve gotten the question over and over, from people on both sides of the debate, people who smoke and those who don’t: Why a weed issue? Aren’t there better uses of your time? What’s the deal? My answer is quite simple: marijuana is important, and especially given its relevance to many of us college students (first-time voters; maybe-first-time smokers; young, thinking people of the world…) it is time we all started talking about it. Far too often, we shy away
Hilltopics | Page 14
from anything that makes us uncomfortable, or talk about complex problems only with those we agree with. Indeed, the recent Mustangs for Life antiabortion demonstration, and the impending counter-responses, are in many ways indicative of the overly-aggressive, polarizing tone that can commandeer even the most well-meant expression of thought and turn it to the dark side of insularity, self-righteousness, offense, and refusal to engage in legitimate dialogue. That’s the sort of thing we at Hilltopics try to avoid, and that’s why we’re doing a weed issue. To get the dialogue into the open air and let it be seen, to encourage further discussion beyond our all-too-limited pages. We also hope that, like everything we do, this will be fun. It was certainly fun for us to create, and we hope that you enjoy it as much as we did. So, from all of us, have a very happy 420, however you choose to celebrate it (or not). We hope that this edition of Hilltopics makes the day a little bit better. This will also, alas, be our last issue of the school year. I have to give my immense thanks to Camille Aucoin, copy editor and designer extraordinaire, without whom Hilltopics would have been dead long, long ago. Abby Hawthorne has been amazing as a copy editor and source of moral support; Destiny Rose Murphy revived our formerly pitiful social media presence; Kara Hallam was a brilliant designer and websitebuilder; Arya McCarthy has worked with astounding diligence as resident interviewer and as a member of the online crew. My thanks to you all.
I would be remiss without mentioning Daniel Muehring and Terisha Kolencherry, who have spent countless hours with me talking about ways to make Hilltopics better and pushing me to be better, as an editor and a person. They are wonderful colleagues and even better friends. To Dr. Doyle and Ms. Spaniolo, thanks for your unwavering support of this project and for giving me a chance at the reins. You believed in my vision and helped us achieve it with enthusiasm, care, and passion; for that you have my eternal gratitude. And, of course, my biggest thanks of all goes to the staff, for putting up with me and for making possible the best publication on SMU’s campus. Thanks for joining the ride, y’all. And to you, reader, I would say this: back in September, we set out on a mission to change things. To make things better, not just Hilltopics but ourselves, our campus, and our world. We wanted, more than anything, to stir things up, to come together and show everyone that SMU is, despite what some might say, an intellectually and artistically vibrant place…to prove, in short, that SMU has a soul. We think we’ve done that, and we’re excited about continuing to do so in the future—there’s still room to grow, to sharpen our critical gaze and more fully engage with the SMU community. But we think we’ve come a long way, and we hope you’ve enjoyed the process as much as we have. We’ve also learned, I think, the challenge in making new things happen, in realizing and sustaining an ambitious vision, a perhaps overly naive hope. For
in many ways, we were (as they say of young military recruits, or t-ball tykes, or young writers) green when this thing started. We were wild, foolish, sometimes even absurd in our desires. And, over the course of the year, much of that has changed, especially as we’ve been forced to face the realities of publication, the difficulty in coordinating a project like this. So yes, we’re more experienced, more
capable, a touch more realistic. But I want to say this: we’re still green, and green is good. That is what Hilltopics has been about from its start over a decade ago, and that is how it remains. It is a thirst for more than you know you can have, a longing for change sooner than you know is possible, a vision for a time and place no one has yet dared to
dream of. We remain committed to such green visions, without regard for the discouragement and disparagement we might receive from the cautious, the conservative, the mild. We push on, and we hope you will join us— onward, always.
- Kenny Martin
Hilltopics will return Fall 2016
Staff and Contributors Editor in Chief.............................. Kenny Martin Tech and Layout Editors .............. Camille Aucoin, Kara Hallam Copy Editors ................................ Camille Aucoin, Abby Hawthorne Special thanks to............................David Doyle and Sally Spaniolo
Submit Letters to the Editor: kjmartin@smu.edu Find us online at: smu.edu/Dedman/studentresources/universityhonors Or on Facebook: SMU University Honors Program
Writers
Kayla Finstein Cecilia Weigman Arya McCarthy
Daniel Muehring Destiny Rose Murphy Will Tobias
Images
Stejara Dinulescu Andrew Oh
Terisha Kolencherry Daniel Muehring
For exclusive online content, visit hilltopicssmu.wordpress.com
Hilltopics | Page 15
Cover art by Stejara Dinulescu | Infographic Compiled by Terisha Kolencherry