Prohibition

RSS Feed for this category

We Need Your Ideas!

 

We Are the Drug Policy Alliance.

 

Name our campaign to end the war on drugs – and win a free DPA t‑shirt, mug and calendar.

 

Submit your idea today!

Dear Friends,

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs. After decades of disastrous policies, it couldn't be more clear: It's time to put an end to the drug war.

That's why the Drug Policy Alliance is pulling out all the stops this spring. We’re launching a massive campaign to spotlight the many failures of the war on drugs and to push for policies that work.

To get the campaign off the ground ASAP, we need a campaign name – will you help? Send us your ideas to name the campaign to end the war on drugs! If we pick yours we'll send you free DPA gear, including a t‑shirt, coffee mug and calendar!

Momentum is building quickly and now is the time to take our efforts to a new level.

My recent Huffington Post article explains our strategy for 2011 and the future. Please read it. It will give you a better idea of our basic themes and objectives – and hopefully inspire you to come up with a great name for our campaign!

In the next few months, DPA will release a hard-hitting report, team up with organizations to plan local events across the country and engage high-profile people to speak out against the war on drugs. With public opinion in our favor, we are approaching critical mass.

That's why we want you to participate in our campaign naming contest. Submit your idea for a campaign name now!

A good campaign name will be attention-grabbing, four words or less, and get across the core of our message: that the drug war is a failure and needs national attention now. A great campaign name will be unforgettable. Submit your idea today!

Sincerely,

Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director
Drug Policy Alliance

Seattle Times Endorses Marijuana Legalization Bill

In an editorial appearing in last Sunday's print edition, Washington state's largest circulation daily newspaper has called on the state legislature to legalize marijuana. "Marijuana should be legalized, regulated and taxed," the Seattle Times editorial board wrote.

The endorsement comes as the legislature ponders House Bill 1550, which would do just that. It also comes just days after a similar endorsement from first term Seattle City Attorney Peter Holmes, who published an op-ed titled Washington State Should Lead on Marijuana Legalization in the Times Thursday.

Legalization is within reach in Washington, according to a SurveyUSA poll released late last month. That poll had support for marijuana legalization in general at 51% in the state, although that figure dropped to 47% when respondents were asked if they supported marijuana being sold through state liquor stores, as HB 1550 envisions.

In its Sunday editorial, the Times said the Evergreen State could take the first step toward ending pot prohibition nationwide. "The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington," said the Times.

The Times noted that Washington state had been in the vanguard of medical marijuana legalization and that Seattle had led the move to make adult marijuana possession offenses the lowest law enforcement priority. "It is time for the next step," the Times said.

Declaring that "marijuana is available now," the Times declared that "prohibition has not worked" and has imposed numerous costs -- to people arrested and imprisoned, in wasted law enforcement resources, in corruption and "disrespect for the law," in encouraging a criminal lifestyle among youth, and in lost tax revenues.

Although legalization would put Washington at odds with federal law, leading to a political and legal fight, somebody has to do it, and it might as well be Washington, the Times said.

[Editor's Note: HB 1550 might certainly ignite a political fight, but the legal conflict aspect tends to be overstated. As with state medical marijuana laws, the federal government has been found to have legal power to enforce federal drug laws, even in states that have broken with federal policy, but no federal power has been found which forces states to have drug laws on their own books.]

Seattle, WA
United States

Drug War Anniversary a Time for Reflection and Action

This June will mark forty years since President Nixon declared a "war on drugs," identifying drug abuse as "public enemy No. 1." Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of Drug Policy Alliance, opines that what's needed, indeed essential, are reflection -- and action.
Publication/Source: 
The Huffington Post (CA)
URL: 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-nadelmann/post_1717_b_821935.html

The Addled Piorities of US Drug Policy: As Cities Like Camden, New Jersey Are Forced to Cut Policing, It Is Nonsensical for Law Enforcement to Pursue Prohibition (Opinion)

Jennifer Abel opines on policing priorities given that the state of the economy is forcing cutbacks in law enforcement.
Publication/Source: 
The Guardian (UK)
URL: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/10/new-jersey-police

Mexican President's Visit to Stanford Meets with Objections Due to His Drug Prohibition War

Location: 
Palo Alto, CA
United States
Mexican President Felipe Calderón has been invited to give the commencement address at Stanford University in June, but an editorial in this week’s El Mensajero calls it the "wrong choice" due to his prohibitionist drug war. El Mensajero editor María Mejía writes that the point of a commencement address is to inspire students, adding that if she were a student, she wouldn’t feel inspired by Calderón. "I don’t admire his war against drug trafficking...I can’t believe that more than 30,000 dead during his administration due to violence stemming from narcotrafficking is something that could inspire me," she wrote.
Publication/Source: 
The Bay Citizen (CA)
URL: 
http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/mexican-presidents-visit-stanford-meets/

Beyond Prohibition Foundation Commends Liberal Party of Canada for Opposing Bill S-10 (Press Release)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 9, 2011

CONTACT: Jacob Hunter at 604.803.4085 or jacob@jacobhunter.org, or Kirk Tousaw at kirktousaw@gmail.com

Beyond Prohibition Foundation Commends Liberal Party of Canada for Opposing Bill S-10

Today the Liberal Party of Canada announced that it would vote down Bill S-10, a cornerstone of the Harper Conservative’s incarceration agenda, which would have imposed mandatory jail sentences on non-violent minor drug offenders. The Beyond Prohibition Foundation commends the Liberal Party for standing up to Mr. Harper’s false “soft on crime” slurs and defeating this dangerous, enormously expensive and ideologically-driven legislation.

“We are extremely pleased that the Liberal Party has made its decision on the basis of evidence,” noted Kirk Tousaw, Executive Director of the Foundation, “This punishment plan would not have reduced crime, nor would it have made Canadian safer from the influence of gangs. In fact, the Foundation has long argued that the evidence is clear that ramping up a war on drugs has the perverse effect of making drugs more available, cheaper and more potent while simultaneously increasing the profitability and violent tendencies of organized criminals. Today the Liberal Party of Canada decided to be smart on crime.”

The legislation had previously been the subject of intense criticism during two rounds of testimony before committees of the Senate and House of Commons. Experts from Canada, the United States and abroad testified that other jurisdictions using mandatory jail terms have worse crime and drug problems than Canada, and that these experiments have been expensive failures. Despite this, the Harper Conservatives have been pushing for the legislation for years.

“The Foundation knew that the Conservatives would not listen to expert advice and, therefore, we made a strategic decision early on to appeal to the Liberal Party,” explained Jacob Hunter, the Foundation’s Policy Director. “We believed that the Liberals would understand that making economically and socially smart decisions with Canadian’s tax dollars would be a political benefit, not a liability. Everyone knew that Mr. Harper would attempt to fool Canadians with ‘soft on crime’ rhetoric but the Foundation believes that our citizens are smarter than that. We are very pleased the Liberal Party agrees.”

Earlier this week, the government refused to tell the House how much its incarceration agenda would cost Canadians. “Mr. Harper tried to use fear to sell Canadians on a multi-billion dollar legislative boondoggle by hiding the costs and falsely describing it as targeting only major criminals.

Instead, it would have almost exclusively punished non-violent small time drug offenders. Now that the legislation appears doomed, we urge all Parliamentarians to conduct a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of drug prohibition. Its time to reject the failed approaches of the past and, instead, to work toward putting criminals out of business by ending the war on drugs,” Tousaw continued.

Location: 
Canada

Ex-South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel Says Legalize Drugs; Prohibition Is a Destructive, Costly and Futile Strategy

Location: 
SC
United States
Former South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel is breaking his silence and taking on America's drug prohibition war, saying he advocates a repeal of the prohibition on drugs and calling the government's response a failure. "Drug abuse is a medical, health care and spiritual problem, not a problem to be solved within a criminal justice model," he said. Prohibition is "our government's most destructive policy since slavery," he added.
Publication/Source: 
The State (SC)
URL: 
http://www.thestate.com/2011/02/08/1684798/thomas-ravenel-legalize-drugs.html

Ex-World Leaders Form Global Drug Policy Commission

A group of world political leaders, intellectuals, and businessman Richard Branson have formed a Global Commission on Drug Policies in a bid to boost the effort to achieve more humane and rational drug laws. The commission is headed by former Brazilian President Henrique Cardoso and builds on the work Cardoso and former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria did with the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/latinamericacommission.jpg
Latin America Commission panel, 2009, President Gaviria on left (courtesy comunidadsegura.org)
The commission's goals include reviewing the basic assumptions, effectiveness and consequences of the 'war on drugs' approach; evaluating the risks and benefits of different national responses to the drug problem; and developing actionable, evidence-based recommendations for constructive legal and drug policy reform. The commission will issue a report in six months.

The commission will examine the current international drug control regime, conduct a global overview of drug policies and laws, examine the drug production and supply chain, address criminal justice challenges, study the lessons learned from harm reduction, treatment, and prevention campaigns, and examine the economic and political ramifications of the massive illicit global drug trade.

In addition to the three Latin American ex-presidents, commission members include former US Secretary of State George Schulz, writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, former European Union official Javier Solana, former Swiss President Ruth Dreifuss, and former UN High Commissioner for Refugees Thorvald Stoltenberg.

"There is a growing perception that the "war on drugs" approach has failed," the commission said in a statement as it announced its existence in Geneva this week. "Eradication of production and criminalization of consumption did not reduce drug traffic and drug use," the commission said.

The harm from corruption and violence resulting from prohibition "largely exceeds the harm caused by drugs," the statement says.

We will be looking forward to seeing the commission's report this summer. The report from the Latin American Commission helped stir debate and advance the cause of reform, and this should, too.

Geneva
Switzerland

Retailers Fight Efforts to Ban "Fake Marijuana" [FEATURE]

Although the DEA's bid to ban synthetic cannabinoids at the federal level has been stymied, at least temporarily, bills to ban it at the state level are moving through legislatures in at least a half-dozen states and more will probably follow this year. They are already banned in a dozen other states. But retailers' representatives say that "fake pot" is a multi-billion dollar a year industry that should be regulated, not prohibited.

synthetic marijuana -- gone in some states, going in others? (image via Wikimedia)
In products going under a variety of brand names, such as Spice and K2, and sold widely in head shops, convenience stores, and gas stations, as well as via the Internet, synthetic cannabinoids are sprayed onto dried plant matter. Although the products are marketed as incense and sometimes marked "not for human consumption," they are typically smoked by purchasers in a bid to replicate a marijuana high with a legal substance.

While advocates of banning the synthetic cannabinoids describe them as harmful and dangerous, there is little evidence they are addictive or especially toxic. There are no known overdose fatalities from Spice, although at least one suicide has been linked by grieving parents to recent use. Other reported adverse effects of synthetic cannabinoids include panic attacks, anxiety, agitation, rapid heartbeat, vomiting, hallucinations, tremors, and seizures.

The American Association of Poison Control Centers reported last week that it had received more than 2,800 calls about Spice last year and another 217 through January 18. The calls were "causing increased concern among doctors and clinicians," the group said.

"These products present a health risk that is not worth it for consumers," said Missouri Poison Center Medical Director Anthony J. Scalzo, MD, who first noticed increased calls about these products to his center last fall. "The products are meant to create a similar reaction to marijuana, but in fact, patients often report the opposite -- a fast, racing heartbeat, elevated blood pressure and nausea."

But representatives of retailers say the concerns are overblown. They point to a relatively low number of reported adverse events, a lack of evidence of life-threatening side effects, and fending off Puritanism as reasons to regulate instead of prohibit synthetic cannabinoids.

"My estimate is that this industry is worth $2 to $3 billion at the retail level, so we are talking about up to 100 million $30 doses," said Dan Francis of the Retail Compliance Association, the group representing retailers that forced the DEA to back away, at least for now, from its emergency ban on synthetic cannabinoids. "If we're talking about 3,000 reports to poison control centers, it would seem that the incidence of problems is extremely low."

Francis also reacted to some of the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding the danger of synthetic cannabinoids and the need for emergency action. "The typical side effects that are being reported are anxiety, agitation and nervousness," he said. "There are no reports of any side effects lasting more than a few hours."

"These substances are very widely used and they've been around for awhile. They're sold in head shops across America and a large number of gas stations, and there have been a few cases where people have freaked out and gone to the hospital, but that happens with marijuana, too," said Dustin Bayer of the Small Business Alliance, a group representing entrepreneurs challenging the federal ban effort. "It's not physical problems, but more like anxiety attacks."

The complaints of the retailers' representatives notwithstanding, bills to ban the synthetics are moving in the following states:

In Arizona, HB 2167, an emergency measure adding synthetic cannabinoids to the state's list of dangerous drugs and providing the same penalties as those for marijuana, passed the passed the House Judiciary and the House Rules committee last week on unanimous votes. It now heads to the House Floor.

In Indiana, SB 57, which outlaws synthetic cannabinoids and punishes them like marijuana, passed the Senate on a 47-0 vote last Friday. Two days earlier, the House Criminal Codes Committee approved its version of the bill. It now awaits a House floor vote.

In Minnesota, HF 57, which make sale of fake pot a gross misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and possession a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days in jail, passed the House Public Safety Committee Monday and has been referred to the house Judiciary Policy Committee.

In Utah, HB 23, which would add synthetic cannabinoids to the state's controlled substances list, passed the House Health and Human Services Committee and is headed for the House Floor. A less restrictive bill that would ban their sale to people under age 19, HB 200, passed the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, but its sponsor said he would withdraw it if the more draconian bill passed.

In Virginia, SB 748, which add a new category of controlled substances to include synthetic cannabinoids, was passed by the Senate Committee on Courts and Justice Tuesday. The bill would make punishments similar to those for marijuana.

In West Virginia, SB 63, which would ban fake pot in the Mountaineer State, passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee Tuesday, but only after being amended. The original version of the bill also included a ban on salvia divinorum, but that was dropped in the version approved by the committee.

Indiana state Sen. Ron Alting (R-Lafayette), who sponsored the Indiana ban bill, provided a typical rationale in an interview with the South Bend Tribune. "This is something that is just a real, real bad substance," he said, adding that "the hallucinations produced by synthetic cannabinoids are 10 times stronger than those from marijuana."

Alting said doctors and police had told him of people falling into comas, being temporarily paralyzed, or trying to kill themselves after using fake pot. And he said teenagers in his home district convinced him of the need for a ban when he asked them why anyone would smoke synthetic cannabindoids.

"They looked at me and said, 'Because it's legal,'" he said."Let's put an end to that comeback from young people and anyone else using this."

"Why do they want to make criminals out of store clerks?" asked an exasperated Francis. "It's an insane endeavor to enforce felony-quality laws on people who are just struggling to get by. Why don't they consider regulation instead? There's a myriad of those chemicals out there -- we could have good manufacturing regulations, batch and lot numbers, restricting it to people over 21. Those are the kinds of things we're working on right now."

"I would ask those legislators what danger does this pose?" said Bayer. "There is no shown danger. The people who want to ban it want to ban it for moral reasons, the same way they want to ban marijuana. It's not a scientific issue or an issue of danger, it's really more of a moral issue."

Know Your Drug Prohibition War: $15 Billion Will Be Spent by the Feds Alone in 2011

Here's a look at some highlights of how your dollars are being spent, from the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Drug Control Strategy 2011. Remember, they also hide several billion from the total by not including the cost of incarceration. Total drug prohibition war spending by the federal and various state governments will be approximately $69 billion.
Publication/Source: 
East Bay Express (CA)
URL: 
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2011/01/24/know-your-drug-war-15-billion-in-2011

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Safe Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum), Synthetic Drugs (Mephedrone, Synthetic Cannabinoids)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School