Your first thought on reading that headline might be what the Great Carnac on NBC-TV’s “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson” would have come up with as a punchline. (For instance, “Sis-boom-bah,” answered as “Name the sound an exploding sheep makes.”)
Long-term readers (and this blog is now three years old) might think I’m trying to repeat the success of one of the most popular blog entries here, “Pornography, abortion and unpasteurized milk.” (Which proves the point of one of the songs in the subversive musical “Avenue Q.”)
Actually, James Taranto ties all four together:
The Obama White House is having a tiff with the New York Times editorial board, and our reaction is best summarized by that old quip: It’s a pity they can’t both lose. But actually they can. Both sides end up looking rather foolish, though the Times more so.
It began with an editorial in Sunday’s Times titled “Repeal Prohibition, Again,” in which the paper renounced its longtime opposition to decriminalization of marijuana. It didn’t go so far as to call for nationwide legalization, only a repeal, limited to adults over 21, of the federal ban, which would “put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it [sic] belongs–at the state level.”
The paper announced that it was embarking on an old-fashioned editorial crusade. It promised six signed pieces by editorialists elaborating on various aspects of the argument. Four of them have run so far, along with a series of posts on the page’s “Taking Note” blog. It was in one of those posts that Philip Boffey delivered his rejoinder to the White House:
No sooner had the Times published its opening editorials advocating legalization of marijuana than the White House fired back with an unconvincing response on its website. It argued that marijuana should remain illegal because of public health problems “associated” (always a slippery word) with increased marijuana use.
Careful readers will immediately see the White House statement for what it is: A pro forma response to a perceived public relations crisis, not a full-fledged review of all the scientific evidence, pro and con.
Touché. Except that in scoring that point against the White House, Boffey inadvertently reveals a trade secret. Here is a by no means comprehensive selection from recent Times editorials that employ the same “slippery word”:
• “Putting More Controls on Painkillers,” Oct. 30, 2013: “[Food and Drug Administration officials] are requiring the manufacturer to conduct postmarketing studies of the amount of misuse, abuse and addiction associated with the drug. But that approach may not be enough to protect patients from potential harm.”
• “Equal Coverage for the Mentally Ill,” Nov. 9, 2013: “In the long run, better care could cure enough people to save billions of dollars a year in medical costs, lost wages and reduced productivity associated with alcoholism and other addictions.”
• “The Sulfur Rule, Tardy but Welcome,” March 8, 2014: “To its commendable list of clean air initiatives, the Obama administration can now add one more: a new rule requiring refiners to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline by two-thirds. . . . This will further reduce harmful tailpipe emissions, associated with a range of heart and respiratory diseases.”
• “What Science Says About Marijuana,” July 31, 2014: “Early and frequent marijuana use has also been associated with poor grades, apathy and dropping out of school, but it is unclear whether consumption triggered the poor grades.”
That last one is the fourth in the “Repeal Prohibition” series. The author is Philip Boffey.
This column has a modicum of sympathy for the pro-decriminalization position and a great deal of sympathy for the view that the federal government is far too powerful vis-à-vis the states. Thus our purpose is not to dispute the Times’s conclusion but to examine the quality of its argumentation. It is shoddy, hypocritical and juvenile.
In his blog post, Boffey partly concedes the White House’s contention “that marijuana use affects the developing brain” and acknowledges it “is a concern for all parents of teenagers.” The White House cites two studies on this question, one of which Boffey seems to accept. The other he rebuts with a dubious appeal to authority, saying it “has been criticized as flawed by a Norwegian researcher.”
But he concludes this is all beside the point anyway. “Remember: no responsible advocate of legalization is urging that marijuana be made available to teenagers.” Readers of this column will recognize that as the No-True-Scotsman Move.
Boffey also puts forth this magnificent non sequitur:
Besides, it is hypocritical for the White House, whose chefs brew beer for the president, to oppose legalizing marijuana, which poses far less risk to consumers and society than does alcohol. Two recipes for the White House brew are posted on its website under the headline “Ale to the Chief.”
It may be hypocritical for the president to enjoy such luxuries at the White House and demonize the wealthy on the campaign trail. And the White House’s opposition to marijuana decriminalization would be hypocritical if, say, the first lady were cultivating loco weed in her garden. But so far as we know Obama has never advocated the criminalization of beer.
The Times is more vulnerable than the White House to the hypocrisy charge. On Monday Michael Calderone of the Puffington Host reported that the New York Times Co. “is one of several big media companies that require prospective hires to take a drug test”:
A Times spokeswoman told HuffPost that the paper’s policy for drug testing hasn’t changed, despite the editorial board’s decision.
“Our corporate policy on this issue reflects current law,” the spokeswoman said. “We aren’t going to get into details beyond that.”
The White House’s policy also reflects current law. To be sure, the editorial board doesn’t set corporate human-resources policies. But in a Taking Note post that accompanied the initial editorial, editor Andrew Rosenthal writes that the decriminalization crusade was begun “with the support of our publisher, Arthur Sulzberger,” who surely has something to say about them.
The claim that marijuana poses less “risk” than alcohol, while not implausible, is problematic. In neither his signed editorial nor his blog post does Boffey provide a source, but the leading study of the subject seems to be one published in 2010 in The Lancet whose lead author was the delightfully named British psychiatrist David Nutt. The article costs $31.50 to buy online, but blogger Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø reproduced the central chart in a 2012 post.
The Nutt study was actually a survey in which scientists were asked to rate, on a 100-point scale, the harms caused by 20 legal and illegal drugs in the United Kingdom. Alcohol rated highest, at 72. In second and third place were heroin and crack cocaine, at 55 and 54, respectively. Cannabis was a distant eighth, scoring 20 on the scale.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Nutt’s methodology is rigorous and sound–that a survey of expert opinion is sufficient to generate a reliable quantitative comparison of the harms caused by various drugs. Boffey reasons that marijuana should be legal because its score is better than that of alcohol, which is legal.
The same reasoning, however, would argue in favor of legalizing both heroin and crack. It would also argue for reinstituting Prohibition so as to curtail use of the most harmful drug. At the very least it would argue for loosening restrictions on tobacco (No. 6 on the list, with a score of 26) while tightening those on alcohol. To our knowledge the Times adheres to none of these positions, and it actively encourages tighter restrictions on tobacco.
There’s a basic problem with using the Nutt numbers as a guide to public policy. One reason alcohol causes as much harm as it does is because it is widely used, and one reason it is widely used is because it is easy and legal to obtain. Marijuana is illegal in the U.K., as it is in the U.S. The estimate of harm it does under such a regime takes no account of the risks of legalization.
An even more dramatic illustration of that point: Coming in at No. 18 on the Nutt list, with a score of just 7, is LSD. In an accompanying feature titled “Evolving on Marijuana,” the Times compiles a baker’s dozen past editorials, including one from 1969 that notes: “Simple possession of LSD . . . calls for a maximum sentence of only one year [under then-current federal law], as against ten for marijuana. The discrepancy is as glaring as it is absurd.” But by the logic the Times now employs, the discrepancy makes perfect sense. If we should legalize a drug that scores 20 on the Nutt scale, surely we should legalize the hell out of one that scores 7.
The Times’s framing of decriminalization as a matter of “states’ rights” raises a different question of hypocrisy. To say that the Times editorial page is not generally a friend of states’ rights would understate the case considerably. Liberals generally argue for the aggrandizement of federal power and do their best to keep the idea of states’ rights in a bad odor by citing its past association with segregation.
In Part 1 of the series, titled “Let States Decide on Marijuana,” David Firestone makes clear the paper is as hostile as ever to states’ rights as a general proposition. “Consuming marijuana is not a fundamental right that should be imposed on the states by the federal government, in the manner of abortion rights, health insurance, or the freedom to marry a partner of either sex,” he writes, not bothering to explain the basis for this distinction.
It’s telling that Firestone’s list of “fundamental rights” consists entirely of present-day liberal enthusiasms. He could have broadened the argument’s appeal by throwing in some enumerated rights, like free speech or equal protection of the laws.
Even more telling, he doesn’t mention that less than a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case that involved both marijuana laws and states’ rights. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the high court ruled 6-3 in favor of the federal government and against the appellees, two California women who had grown and used cannabis for medical use, in compliance with state law. The justices rejected their claim that the federal government had exceeded its power under the Interstate Commerce Clause by applying federal law against them.
The Times’s position on Raich, in a 2004 editorial, was consistent with its have-it-both-ways approach now:
Although the California women should win, it is important that they win on narrow, fact-specific grounds. Advocates of states’ rights have latched onto this case and are urging the court to use it to radically rewrite its commerce clause rulings, reviving ancient precedents that took a more limited view of Congressional power. This is where the greatest danger lies in this case. If this sharply restricted view prevails, it could substantially diminish the federal government’s ability to protect Americans from unsafe work conditions, pollution, discrimination and other harms.
The Times is advocating “states’ rights” with regard to marijuana in spite of its principles, not because of them.
There is also an inconsistency in the tone with which the Times presents its arguments. In his Taking Note post, Boffey insists (after listing other things they aren’t advocating): “Nor are we urging adults to take up marijuana smoking. We are simply asking the federal government to get out of the way so that states can decide what marijuana policies would work best for their own people.”
But there are nods and winks that belie this high-minded tone. The lead editorial is illustrated with a graphic that shows white stars on a blue background, as in the canton of the American flag, morphing into stylized yellow marijuana leaves on a green background. And the “Evolution” collection has a background graphic in psychedelic colors featuring, among other elements a disco ball, a flower, another cannabis leaf and a hippie’s face. As you scroll on the page, parts of the image move up and down to create a blurring effect.
And there is this Monday tweet from @NYTOpinion, promoting a live chat with Rosenthal: “At 4:20 PM EST, NYT editorial page editor, @andyrNYT, is taking your qs about marijuana legalization.” The unusual time was surely chosen advisedly, for “420” is an in-joke of the cannabis culture. Marijuana-related events are often scheduled for April 20 (which ironically happens to be the birthday of Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Raich).
It is true that the Times is not explicitly urging marijuana use. But there’s more than one way to generate a buzz.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 