The feature article in the current (June) of Atlantic magazine
concerns what its author (Jeffrey Rosen) thinks is likely to be an
imminent development: the overturning of Roe V. Wade by a newly
configured SCOTUS. Although Rosen's careful parsing of the various
possibilities doesn't mention the drug war-–– even tangentially–– the
situation is laden with significance for the intermediate future of
drug policy to a degree that suggests reformers would very quickly be
presented with a variety of important political opportunities by any
significant resurgence of the abortion issue at the Supreme Court level.
For one thing, the national policies now controlling both
contentious issues were created by–– and to a degree, remain dependent
on–– medical decisions made by medically ignorant Supreme
Court Justices. That fact alone would allow drug policy activists to
capitalize on any debate prompted by a move against Roe from the far
Right; especially if were tp involve 'partial birth' abortion.
Unfortunately, it would also require reform leadership to
demonstrate considerably more knowledge of drug policy history than
they have to date.
A very interesting variation with respect to the abortion controversy
is that even if Roe were to be struck down by the Court, abortion
would not automatically become illegal; rather the policy would be up
for grabs. Given how national attitudes toward abortion are now being
expressed, it's very unlikely that a national top-down, rigorously
enforced general ban would ever gather the support needed to
pass. What is far more likely is that abortion would be decided
by the individual states and probably remain legal for a
numerical majority of American women. A similar outcome with in the
case of drug use would represent a huge victory for drug policy reform and such
an argument might be made very effectively as the dust from Roe was starting
to settle. Of course, a more enlightened attitude toward the medical
use of cannabis (especially by 'reformers') would be a big plus in any
event.
The more one reads Rosen's analysis, the more uncannily it echoes
dilemmas similar to those which confound the drug policy stand-off, including
the political risk each side runs by rejecting all compromise on
doctrinal grounds. Although there are obvious differences, the
article deserves careful attention from people with a serious interest
in 'medical marijuana.'
