This is a final reminder for folks in Massachusetts. Vote Yes on Question 2 tomorrow to reduce penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   
OCTOBER 27, 2008

Hell Freezes Over:
White House Drug Czar Backs Decriminalization

John Walters Backs a Mexican Proposal Far More Sweeping Than U.S. Measures He Has Opposed

CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications ............... 415-668-6403 or 202-215-4205

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Marijuana Policy Project today congratulated White House "drug czar" John Walters for backing a Mexican government proposal that would remove criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana.

    "I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but John Walters is right," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia. "We heartily second his support for eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana users in Mexico, and look forward to working with him to end such penalties in the U.S. as well."

    On Oct. 22, The New York Times reported Walters' public support for a drug decriminalization proposal by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, quoting Walters as saying, "I don't think that's legalization." Under Calderon's proposal, individuals caught with small quantities of marijuana would receive no jail sentence or fine and would not receive a criminal record so long as they complete either drug education or, if addicted, drug treatment. Unlike proposals supported by MPP, the Mexican president's proposal would also decriminalize possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.

    "It's fantastic that John Walters has recognized the massive destruction the drug war has inflicted on Mexico and is now calling for reforms there, but he's a rank hypocrite if he continues opposing similar reforms in the U.S.," Kampia said. "The Mexican proposal is far more sweeping than MPP's proposals to decriminalize marijuana or make marijuana medically available, both of which John Walters and his henchmen rail against."

    In a March 19, 2008, press release from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, deputy director Scott Burns called a New Hampshire proposal to impose a $200 fine rather than jail time for a small amount of marijuana "a dangerous first step toward complete drug legalization."

    With more than 25,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.

####

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP--the drug czar's office) director John Walters headed to California this week to try t

Try reading this unhinged Boston Globe editorial opposing decriminalization in Massachusetts with a straight face. It is an exhibit in dishonesty and an insult to everything on earth that is actually truly dangerous. The whole thing is nuts, but this line really tickled my bullshit bone:

And despite their best efforts to paint an ounce of marijuana as innocuous, the fact is that one ounce of marijuana is worth about $600 and represents about 60 individual sales.

Seriously!? Do you even know what marijuana is? The average price is around $200 an ounce. And it's not sold in 1/60th ounce increments. You can’t even roll a joint out of that. You know what a joint is, right? Seriously, I would have thought there were enough preposterous reefer madness arguments already in circulation that you wouldn’t need to create new ones.

One of the great challenges facing those who advocate sensible marijuana policies is that of responding to crazy made-up nonsense over and over again. Sometimes our opponents just lie on purpose. Other times they simply don't know what they're talking about. And frequently we can't tell the difference.

For Immediate Release: October 3, 2008
For More Info: Tony Newman (646)335-5384 or Ethan Nadelmann (646)335-2240

Mexican President Proposes Decriminalizing Small Amounts of Some Drugs, Including Marijuana and Cocaine despite U.S. Opposition

New Law Would Prioritize Going after Major Drug Dealers and Violent Crime, not People who Use Drugs

International Drug Policy Expert Ethan Nadelmann Available for Comment on Significance and Impact of Proposal

President Felipe Calderon on Thursday proposed decriminalizing small amounts of some drugs, including cocaine and marijuana. The legislation would offer treatment instead of incarceration for people who are struggling with drug addiction. A recent survey found that the number of Mexicans addicted to drugs doubled in the past six years to more than 300,000.

President Calderon has made a crackdown on Mexico’s drug cartels a cornerstone of his administration since taking office. He has sent 30,000 troops around the country to try to stop the violence. But armed attacks and executions have only increased with more than 3,000 people dying from violence related to drug prohibition this year alone.

The United States is already criticizing the new proposal. One official who did not want to be identified said they oppose the policy because it “rewards the drug traffickers and doesn’t make children’s lives safer.” Mexico’s Congress passed a similar decriminalization bill in 2006, but the bill was eventually dropped because of U.S. opposition and pressure.

Statement from Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (see description below).

“President Calderon’s proposal to decriminalize personal possession of illicit drugs is consistent with the broader trend throughout Western Europe, Canada and other parts of Latin America to stop treating drug use and possession as a criminal problem. But it contrasts sharply with the United States, where arrests for marijuana possession hit a record high last year – roughly 800,000 annually – and now represent nearly half of all drug arrests nationwide.

“Mexico is trying to make the right choices on law enforcement priorities; it’s time for the United States to do the same,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

“The White House Drug Czar John P. Walters should think twice before criticizing a foreign government for its drug policy, much less holding the United States out as a model. Looking to the United States as a role model for drug control is like looking to apartheid South Africa for how to deal with race. This country leads the world in per-capita incarceration rates, with less than five percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. About 500,000 people are in U.S. prisons and jails today simply for violating a drug law; that's almost 10 times the total in 1980,” said Nadelmann.

We already know marijuana prohibition is a fraud, so it should come as no surprise that the people fighting to protect prohibition cannot be trusted to obey the law themselves.

The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy’s campaign to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in Massachusetts has driven drug-thirsty prosecutors over the edge, prompting blatant lawbreaking by the exact people sworn to uphold the state’s laws (via MPP email):

*  Under Massachusetts law, it is illegal to solicit, receive, or spend funds to support or oppose a ballot initiative without first forming a political committee. CSMP has from its inception followed all of these rules, but the district attorneys solicited, received, and spent donations before they were legally allowed to -- blatantly ignoring state law in a cynical attempt to conceal their campaign activity for as long as they could, undermining the very laws they have sworn to uphold.

*  Additionally, the district attorneys used public funds to post and house a statement urging voters to reject the decriminalization initiative on its Web site ... clear, indisputable violation of Massachusetts election law, which prohibits public officials from using public resources to advocate for or against a ballot initiative.

*  What's more, this illegal statement -- itself an abuse of public office and taxpayer resources -- is riddled with bald-faced lies ... like the claim that the initiative would permit any person to carry and use marijuana at any time. In reality, the measure simply changes the type of penalty for possession of less than an ounce and specifically reiterates that public use remains illegal.

Unsurprisingly, lying and cheating have become the last resort of the desperate drug war faithful. They have no legitimate arguments and the polls show them losing badly, so you can bet they’ll try anything.

One could never overstate the extent to which these hardened drug war prosecutors believe the law is theirs to toy with. It is their precious little plaything, a personal possession to be molded and manipulated until it fits just right. That very same mentality also explains why they love marijuana laws, which can be cast casually aside or brought crashing down with righteous ferocity.

Indeed, the very notion of a democratically-enforced public morality that trumps prosecutorial discretion is an affront to their world. That’s why they’d sooner break campaign laws that serve the public interest than risk the reform of marijuana laws that serve no interests but their own.

This article on a marijuana decriminalization effort in New Hampshire provides a useful case study in the utter confusion and desperation of the anti-pot peanut gallery:

…Exeter Police Chief Richard Kane, among others, is adamantly opposed. "If we reduce the penalty for small amounts of marijuana, it will eventually lead to legalization and I think that's heading in the wrong direction," he said last week.

Nashua Police Chief Donald Conley also said it would be a mistake to take the sting out of the law. [Boston Globe]

So the Police Chief begins by arguing that we must go around stinging people for possessing pot. But when reform advocates argue that too many young lives are being derailed by harsh punishments for petty offenses, Conley completely changes his tune:

But Conley said it is rare for first-time offenders to get jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana.

"As far as someone getting arrested and their lives being ruined, I don't think that's the case," he said. "Employers are more forgiving in this day and age, and police prosecutors frequently reduce marijuana cases down to violations…"

Wait, so should we be stinging people or not? He begins by defending aggressive sanctions and ends by claiming the sanctions aren't aggressive. The contradiction is transparent and embarrassing.

It is, in fact, not at all uncommon to hear defenders of harsh marijuana laws speak approvingly of the fact that most offenders avoid jail time. Thus, it is not necessarily the practice of ruining lives for marijuana which they crave, but rather the discretion to do so should the urge happen to arise. Meanwhile, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans are branded as criminals so that people like Chief Conley can live out their authoritarian fantasies.

Mark Forsythe of CBC radio will be host/moderator for this special event featuring retired provincial court judge Jerry Paradis and Tony Smith, a retired police officer. Both men are members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).

Last Friday saw the kick-off of a campaign to put a marijuana decriminalization initiative on the ballot in the southwest Missouri city of Joplin.

The superb efforts of our friends at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition notwithstanding, police generally oppose efforts to reform marijuana laws. Initiatives in Colorado and Nevada were vehemently contested by law-enforcement interests, who claimed that reform would invite crime and undermine community safety. Sheriff Fred Wagner of Park County, CO even tried to link marijuana reform efforts to a recent school shooting.

Intuitively, there's nothing surprising about police lobbying to retain the gratuitous powers granted them by the war on drugs. Yet, as marijuana arrests reach a new record high each year, it becomes increasingly difficult to point towards any societal benefit to these costly attacks on otherwise law-abiding Americans. Because I believe most officers really do want to protect the communities they serve and make a difference, I have often pondered their willful enforcement of, and political support for, a war that endangers communities while failing to a make a difference.

I was pleasantly surprised, therefore, to learn that Joplin, MO Police Chief Lane Roberts has pledged not to oppose a local marijuana decriminalization initiative. Roberts correctly defines his role as defending the constitution rather than opining on what the law ought to be. But he goes on to explain that officers sometimes overreact to policy changes that reduce police authority:

When asked how his officers had reacted to the decriminalization of pot possession in Oregon and in Washington State where he previously headed up departments, Roberts reclined in his office chair and smiled.

"When that law was first passed, most police officers thought that the end of the world as we know it was about to occur," he said. "But, we thought the same thing when the Miranda decision came down." [Joplin Globe]

Miranda is such a wonderful analogy for law-enforcement's knee-jerk assumption that any restriction on police power will invite pure chaos. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona that police must inform criminal suspects of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination before conducting interrogations provoked panic among police. Murderers and rapists would go free, we were told, and crimes of the most despicable nature would become unsolvable.

The result was nothing of the sort. Police simply became more professional. It turned out that the freakiest psycho killers still insisted on confessing their misdeeds, while the rest got taken down through good old-fashioned police work. "You have the right to remain silent…" has become a popular and familiar symbol of due process, and the horror show predicted by law enforcement has been long forgotten.

The point here is that it was the experts, the interrogation specialists themselves, who were so wrong about Miranda. Today, when police speak out against marijuana reform, they are motivated not by experience at all, but rather a fear of the unknown. Indeed, today's officers simply have no real frame of reference for what law-enforcement in a post-drug war America would look like.

I'm optimistic, however, that whatever our friends at LEAP can't explain to their colleagues will ultimately find a way to explain itself. Inevitably, the truth about drug policy reform will become self-evident each and every time it is given the opportunity to do so.

Update: I've posted a follow-up to emphasize the important point that a significant number of police officers actually do realize the drug war isn't working and continue to fight it anyway

A pending marijuana decriminalization effort in Joplin, MO revealed the city's police chief to be a pretty decent guy. This is a textbook example of how a professional public servant regards the democratic process:

"Somebody is going to say, 'you're the chief ... you ought to oppose this thing,'" he said. "Somebody else will say 'you are the chief of police and supposed to be protecting our constitutional rights.' My argument is, 'yep ... you are right.'" [Joplin Globe]

It's such a simple concept, yet it is so often abandoned by law enforcement agencies when citizens work to reform marijuana policy. There's something very creepy about police lobbying to protect their own obscene drug war powers, and it's refreshing to hear a veteran police chief speak in defense of democracy.

Mark Kleiman is one of a relatively small number of US academics who thinks and writes about drug policy. I don't always agree with him—especially his proposals for licensing drug users, higher alcohol taxes, and "coerced abstinence"—but his work is thoughtful, and, after listening to what passes for drug policy discourse among the political class, a veritable breath of fresh air.

Kleiman is at it again this week, with a lengthy article, "Dopey, Boozy, Smoky—And Stupid," in the magazine The American Interest. After noting that 35 years into the war on drugs, the country still has a massive drug problem, as well as a massive police and prison apparatus aimed at drug users and sellers, Kleiman observes that no policy is going to eradicate drug use and what is needed is "radical reform."

But real reform requires a better understanding of drugs and drug use, and that is where reality confronts mythology. As Kleiman notes, "most drug use is harmless," but drug abuse is not. That's quite different from "just say no." Similarly, he goes up against another drug policy mantra, this one popular with some reformers, that "drug abuse is a chronic, relapsing condition." That is true for only a minority of a minority of drug users, he correctly notes.

After discussing some of the basics, Kleiman gets to the fun and thought-provoking part of his article—general policy recommendations:

These facts having now been set out, five principles might reasonably guide our policy choices. First, the overarching goal of policy should be to minimize the damage done to drug users and to others from the risks of the drugs themselves (toxicity, intoxicated behavior and addiction) and from control measures and efforts to evade them.

That implies a second principle: No harm, no foul. Mere use of an abusable drug does not constitute a problem demanding public intervention. “Drug users” are not the enemy, and a achieving a “drug-free society” is not only impossible but unnecessary to achieve the purposes for which the drug laws were enacted.

Third, one size does not fit all: Drugs, users, markets and dealers all differ, and policies need to be as differentiated as the situations they address.

Fourth, all drug control policies, including enforcement, should be subjected to cost-benefit tests: We should act only when we can do more good than harm, not merely to express our righteousness. Since lawbreakers and their families are human beings, their suffering counts, too: Arrests and prison terms are costs, not benefits, of policy. Policymakers should learn from their mistakes and abandon unsuccessful efforts, which means that organizational learning must be built into organizational design. In drug policy as in most other policy arenas, feedback is the breakfast of champions.

Fifth, in discussing programmatic innovations we should focus on programs that can be scaled up sufficiently to put a substantial dent in major problems. With drug abusers numbered in the millions, programs that affect only thousands are barely worth thinking about unless they show growth potential.

Hmmm, sounds pretty reasonable. Now, here is where Kleiman gets creative. Below are his general policy recommendations. I will leave the comments for others, but there is plenty to chew on here:

Democratic Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick has, according to

• read full post
• 10 comments

Talkleft reports that the UK is experiencing a drop in marijuana use after reducing penalties for possession.

From The Observer: