What the Pot Legalization Campaign Really Threatens: Alcohol Industry Profits

by: David Sirota, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Here's a fact that even drug policy reform advocates can acknowledge: California's 2010 ballot initiative to legalize marijuana does, indeed, pose a real threat, as conservative culture warriors insist. But not to public health, as those conservatives claim.

According to most physicians, pot is less toxic -- and has more medicinal applications -- than a legal and more pervasive drug like alcohol. Whereas alcohol causes hundreds of annual overdose deaths, contributes to untold numbers of illnesses and is a major factor in violent crime, marijuana has never resulted in a fatal overdose and has not been systemically linked to major illness or violent crime.

So this ballot measure is no public health threat. If anything, it would give the millions of citizens who want to use inebriating substances a safer alternative to alcohol. Which, of course, gets to what this ballot initiative really endangers: alcohol industry profits.

That truth is underscored by news this week that the California Beer and Beverage Distributors is financing the campaign against the legalization initiative. This is the same group that bankrolled opposition to a 2008 ballot measure, which would have reduced penalties for marijuana possession.

By these actions, alcohol companies are admitting that more sensible drug policies could cut into their government-created monopoly on mind-altering substances. Thus, they are fighting back -- and not just defensively. Unsatisfied with protecting turf in California, the alcohol industry is going on offense, as evidenced by a recent article inadvertently highlighting America's inane double standards.

Apparently oblivious to the issues the California campaign is now raising, Businessweek just published an elated puff piece headlined "Keeping Pabst Blue Ribbon Cool." Touting the beer's loyal following, the magazine quoted one PBR executive effusively praising a rate of alcohol consumption that would pickle the average liver.

"A lot of blue-collar workers I've talked to say 'I've been drinking a six-pack of Pabst, every single day, seven days a week, for 25 years,'" he gushed, while another executive added "It's, like, habitual -- it's part of their life. It's their lifestyle."

Discussing possible plans to "develop a whole beer brand around troops" -- one that devotes some proceeds to military organizations -- the executives said their vision is "that when you see Red White & Blue (beer) at your barbecue, you know that money's supporting people who have died for our country."

Imagine marijuana substituted for alcohol in this story. The article would be presented as a scary expose about workers smoking a daily dime-bag and marijuana growers' linking pot with the Army. Undoubtedly, such an article would be on the front page of every newspaper as cause for outrage. Yet, because this was about alcohol -- remember, a substance more toxic than marijuana -- it was buried in a financial magazine and depicted as something to extol.

Couple that absurd hypocrisy with the vociferous opposition to California's initiative, and we see the meta-message.

We are asked to believe that people drinking a daily six-pack for a quarter-century is not a lamentable sign of a health crisis, but instead a "lifestyle" triumph worthy of flag-colored celebration -- and we are expected to think that legalizing a safer alternative to this "lifestyle" is dangerous. Likewise, as laws obstruct veterans from obtaining doctor-prescribed marijuana for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, we are asked to believe that shotgunning cans of lager is the real way to "support our troops."

These are the delusions that a liquor-drenched culture prevents us from reconsidering. In a society drunk off of alcohol propaganda -- a society of presidential "beer summits" and sports stadiums named after beer companies -- we've had trouble separating fact from fiction. Should California pass its ballot initiative, perhaps a more sober and productive drug policy might finally become a reality.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



GO CALIFORNIA! Can you

GO CALIFORNIA! Can you imagine red, white, and blue buds? Heh, imagine our military looking like they trained in the Netherlands! Might do them some good. Maybe more of them would try voting progressive!



Keep in mind this is another

Keep in mind this is another area in which our 'Vichy' Republican President has disappointed progressives. His drug czar apparently came from the Raygun era, fully supportive of the insane drug war and he openly lies about health effects. It's not just the booze manufacturers, it's the private prisons, sherrifs, defense contractors and so on who wouldn't want to see an end to their profitable engagements. Keep in mind they pretty much own a majority of Congress.



I'm all for marijuana

I'm all for marijuana legalization, or perhaps better coined by another of this site's commenters as "decriminalization", but the sad fact is as long as the hyper-moralized southeastern US is hopelessly and stodgily conservative pot will never become legal nationally.

This country would be far more progressive if not for the ignorant south.



Of course it's all about the

Of course it's all about the money...but there are also related matters. For example, it's reasonable to assume that turnout of younger people and generally more liberally-minded people to vote for prop 19 ("legalization") will also have an effect on the gubernatorial outcome - which is also,(don't doubt it!) , about the money.

I am awaiting with some schadenfreude the attempts by the State and local g'mnt to collect money from the taxes on pot. Lotsaluck!



I'm not convinced. The sin

I'm not convinced.

The sin conglomerates could sell pot as well as anything else. Less processing required than with beer--higher profit margin, no?

Anyhow, back in the day, certain people that I knew drank beer AND smoked pot.

Of course, I never did. It would have been wrong.



The beerlords have nothing

The beerlords have nothing to fear. No one will give up their beer. Anyone who wants cannabis uses it law or no law, and many of those wash it down with a brew. All is well, no need to fight it.



18:55 MR, Cannabis is the

18:55 MR, Cannabis is the leading cash crop in North Carolina, Alabama and Kentucky (Yes, leading even tobacco.) But the hick stooges in these states put to use the excuse of illegality to keep up the social war on their poorest citizens. History shows 'criminal' enterprises routinely filter all the way to the top in some Gov'mints. Ergo, more lucrative profits are culled from illegality. Consider the symbiosis, one hand washing the other and so on.
You'll emerge with a healthier understanding of Politics in general and how Al Capone was a very successful politician.



You people do know that all

You people do know that all of our drug laws, going all the way back to prohibition, were written by and championed by Progressives, don't you?



19:46 Anon, I see your point

19:46 Anon, I see your point but mine was not about pot revenue - mine was about legality. What you're referring to also applies to, say, Cuban cigars. It's illegal for everyone else except the powerful elite, who have the legal clout to loophole the laws that regular folk can't in route to getting anything they want.

If only the rest of the nation was more intelligent and progressive like SFO. Then we could get somewhere.

@Erich, perhaps you're correct. But the fact is progressives have awakened to the reality that pot isn't' a bad thing because, well, they have progressed intellectually. The reason those archaic laws still exist isn't because of Progressives; it's because of the Right. Can't blame the Progressives for these laws still being in effect; they're trying to overturn them.



Isn't John McCain's wife the

Isn't John McCain's wife the head of a beer company?

Sad thing about this story, there are some good beer companies.

Thank you for an eye-opening article. I, for one, thought opposition might be spearheaded by the pharmaceuticals. Pot could really put a dent in the profits for various brands of zolpidem tartrate, for example.

Of course, they could still be behind much of it, as well. Or the effort to control it through "medical" means. Rather than allow it to be sold recreationally, and in a regulated fashion, as with alcohol.



You would figure the junk

You would figure the junk food industry would get behind the pot supporters. Munchies can be profitable!

Tastes great, more filling!



I'm from the south. Does

I'm from the south. Does that mean I'm ignorant? I should hope not. I would rather see pot legal than liquor any day. I'm all for marijuana legalization. Government needs to tend to their own business and not the business of private citizens.