Cultural Divide, not Ideological Divide

Guns or Marijuana.

Shotguns or kale.  NACAR or Bicycles.  Nashville or Hollywood.  University of Kentucky or Harvard.  Dodge Ram or Prius,.Fox or CNN.  Beer or Wine. 

Guns or marijuana.   We aren't fighting over policy.  We are divided over culture.

Marijuana is dangerous.

I read some excellent testimony from representatives of AAA urging state lawmakers not to support legalization of marijuana in their states.  The citizens described how strong the current versions of marijuana were, how dangerous it was to drive buzzed, how hard it was to determine the level of impairment a person had with marijuana compared with alcohol.  The burden of the argument was that marijuana was dangerous and that tragic incidents were inevitable with widespread use of marijuana.  It would be crazy to allow--or even encourage--hazards to public health and safety, when the dangers are so apparent.   We need to control marijuana.  Obvious, right?


I realized that the argument was parallel to the argument that Hillary Clinton made repeatedly regarding guns.  Yes, she admitted, some people handle guns responsibly, but some people do not and when they don't the results are tragic.  Guns are inherently dangerousand new guns with automatic firing and huge magazines are especially dangerous.   There will be tragic consequences if guns are in the wrong hands and used irresponsibly, and the dangers could hardly be more apparent.  We need to control guns.  Obvious, right?

Guns are dangerous.

But notice something.  Although the arguments are the same, in fact the polarity of the political implications are opposite.   Most people who want free access to firearms and who resist government control of guns--citing freedom and the practical impossibility of controlling them--are on the opposite side of efforts to legalize marijuana.   Simultaneously, a great many people who consider guns to be dangerous and who would welcome stronger controls and limits on them to improve public safety, consider the war to criminalize marijuana to be both wrongheaded and a practical impossibility.

 Blue states (here in gray) legalized marijuana

Guns, marijuana, and alcohol are hazardous per se, but people like them.  They have their fans.  

Voters and elected official decision makers will often have very different points of view on the gun issue and the marijuana issue.   A strong supporter of gun freedom will be culturally conservative, more likely suburban or rural, and will be most likely to have voted for Trump.   They predominate in red states.   They tend to support the war against marijuana, considering it a dangerous drug and gateway to more dangerous drugs.   The strong supporters of marijuana freedom will be culturally liberal, more likely urban, more likely to have voted for Hillary.  They predominate in blue states.  They tend to support control of guns, considering them to be dangerous.


Guns and marijuana are symbols in the minds of voters.  They represent different lifestyles.  Testimony to a legislature against marijuana is not--in its actual cultural understanding--about driving hazard, even though that is the overt text of the testimony.  It is about disapproval of marijuana and the kinds of people who use it.  Hillary did not say that people who liked guns were deplorable, and indeed she overtly said she was not saying that.  It was no use.  People go the real message.  Her criticism of the misuse of guns meant--in its actual cultural understanding--distaste and discomfort with guns and the kinds of people who liked them.

There is a lesson here for blog readers and candidates for office.  It is pointless to think that careful parsed arguments are heard and understood, arguments of the kind Hillary attempted, saying she was only against bad guns and bad people using them.  People hear the big picture symbolism.  They understand the culture war, not the debate points of policy.

In the culture divide alcohol and marijuana are not similar in being intoxicants that cause problems.  They are opposites, representing different lifestyles.

Same with guns.   Guns and marijuana aren't similar in being hazardous when misused.  They are opposites, again representing different lifestyles.

For the NRA, guns represent order and safety

A great many Americans have an idea in their minds about guns that are positive.  They imagine an independent, strong person, enjoying freedom.  (Others picture criminals.)   A great many Americans have an idea in their minds about marijuana, that it is a private pleasure, like sex perhaps, that people should be allowed to enjoy without government interference. (Others picture stoned drivers,  lazy, unwashed, and on food stamps.)

The arguments for restricting guns and restricting marijuana only appear to be parallel.  They are opposite. 
                                                   *     *     *

Added perspective by Carolyn Shaw, an Ashland resident, 

She commented on this issue on Facebook.  I am adding it here because it provides a valuable perspective. There is factual basis for the public to be unhappy with the behaviors of some people in the marijuana industry:

Not my drug of choice, in fact, I'm quite allergic to the plants (I prefer a good Pinot Noir), but it is a legal crop. Sort of, owing to federal prohibitions. Untie the banking knot! Financial accountability, payroll and income tax responsibilities will reduce "outlaw" factor. I interact with those in the trade through one of my businesses- they are hampered by banking restrictions, have to resort to "creative" accounting to purchase land and large equipment (title companies will not handle these sales and putting down $800K cash does seem to alert the IRS), cannot get property insurance, and they have to somehow protect and launder large amounts of (untaxed) cash. 

Many young people I know (those you refer to in your blog) are working the grows and trimming, making large under-the-table sums for a couple months then traveling or "living the dream" the rest of the year- all while collecting SNAP and OHP benefits, so, while I hate to be a buzz-kill, some folks may not be too happy about their tax dollars supporting these farm workers. (One friend worries that her adult children working the grows will have no credit history or retirement benefits (social security) and encourages them to at least save something, or finish college.)

Legalizing the financial aspect may kill the buzz of this gold "rush" but it will help settle it into a legitimate crop for many end-products, and may even contribute to the tax-base.