BLOG
Study: Decriminalizing Marijuana Doesnât Increase Use
Bruce Mirken at the Marijuana Policy Project Blog points to some revealing data from the National Research Council:The issue most extensively studied has been the impact of decriminalization on the prevalence of marijuana use among youths and adults. Penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use were significantly reduced in 11 states in the 1970s (Bonnie, 1981b). All of these laws preclude incarceration for consumption-related marijuana offenses, making the offense punishable only by a fine, and most also classify the offense in a category (typically a civil infraction) that does not carry the stigmatizing consequence of having been convicted of a crimeâ hence the term âdecriminalization.âMost cross-state comparisons in the United States (as well as in Australia; see McGeorge and Aitken, 1997) have found no significant differences in the prevalence of marijuana use in decriminalized and nondecriminalized states (e.g., Johnston et al., 1981; Single, 1989; DiNardo and Lemieux, 1992; Thies and Register, 1993). Even in the few studies that find an effect on prevalence, it is a weak one. â¦In summary, existing research seems to indicate that there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use, and that perceived legal risk explains very little in the variance of individual drug use. [NAP]Weâve been placing marijuana users in handcuffs and taking them to jail. Weâve been stigmatizing them with criminal records and interfering with their job opportunities. Weâve been taking their children away. Weâve been revoking their financial aid for college. Weâve been taking away their hope for living a normal life and then claiming weâre trying to help them be normal.Our marijuana laws are designed to hurt people. To inflict injury. And itâs all based on the idea that less people will use marijuana if we do these horrible things to them. But if that isnât true, then weâre ruining lives for no reason. There remains no excuse for continuing this.
Happy Constitution Day!
In honor of Constitution Day, Pete Guither has some sarcastic observations regarding how tragically far removed we are from the freedoms promised us in that great document. Itâs true, but I also think itâs terribly important that we understand how to use the rights we still have. So I thought everyone would enjoy these 4th Amendment success stories Iâve been compiling over at Flex Your Rights:I was driving from New York to D.C., and I was pulled over going through Baltimore. The officer asked if I knew why he pulled me over. Having recently seen Busted, I made it a point to say, "I don't know," instead of "speeding." He said he wasn't going to write me a ticket, but wanted to search the car because they "were seeing a lot of drugs going through the area." I told him I was in a hurry and really didn't feel it was necessary. He tried to get all buddy-buddy and make it seem like I should "just help him out." He said his boss really wanted them to be checking cars, so he'd "really appreciate it." At this point, I said I did not wish to consent to a search and asked if I was free to go. He said "yes" and I drove off.Mason T.Denver, COWe had a Know Your Rights training (and showed Busted) for the American Indian Community at the IndianWorks community center. One woman who attended told us that her son and his friends were being harassed by a police officer assigned to his high school. The officer stopped them repeatedly when they hung out after school and constantly demanded to search their bags. Although her son was not at the training, she was eager to show him the information and she went home and ordered Busted off the website.She called a month later to say that when the officer stopped her son and his friends as they walked home from school and demanded to search their backpacks, her son said, "Officer, am I being detained or am I free to go and I do not consent to a search" all in one sentence. The cop turned red in the face but returned to his squad car, sped off and has not bothered them since. With such great results, the mom has been showing Busted to all of the neighborhood youth.Michelle G,Minneapolis, MNJust two days ago I had an unfortunate run-in with the police. They were already in my house, to respond to an emergency that my friend was having. Due to the nature of his emergency, they requested a search of my house. Immediately, everything from Busted came rushing back. I think the only things I said (and repeated) were "I do not consent to a search", "Are we free to go to the hospital now?" and "I think I need to contact my lawyer." When I said "lawyer" the cop backed off. But I just couldn't believe how astounded he was that I refused the search. He insisted that it meant I had something to hide over and over. And, too, the use of silence really came in handy. I have never been in a situation like that before, especially with the cops already inside my house. So, thanks for Busted. That truly saved me. It was the only thing I thought of the entire interrogation. Things could have turned out differently otherwise.Stephanie H.You can read many more of these here.
Drug Czar Embarrassed By Marijuana Arrest Rates
New FBI data showing that 872,721 Americans were arrested for marijuana last year must have a come as a major shock to Drug Czar John Walters. Watch him just a week ago claiming that we donât arrest that many people for marijuana: Of course, the Drug Czar gets caught lying all the time, so no surprises there. But since when does he go around downplaying the results of the drug war? He typically bends over backwards and beyond to tell everyone how well he thinks his programs are working, so why is he so shy about these marijuana arrests? Amazingly, the Drug Czar is actually ashamed. After all, even he could never summon proud words to describe this. The drug war is, first and foremost, a massive campaign against peaceful people who smoke pot for fun. Thereâs no glory for the soldiers in that fight.There is just nothing more revealing in the drug war debate than the moment when the people in charge start insisting that the whole thing is really quite civilized and reasonable. Of course, we donât put people in jail for smoking pot because that would be cruel. Trust us, the people we do put in jail are major assholes, every last one of them. And if you hold this chart at a 45 degree angle and squint, youâll see that weâre producing exciting results this year.Meanwhile, the same people who insist that they donât want to put pot smokers in jail will go raving nuts if you try to pass a law that reduces the number of pot smokers who go to jail.
A New Record for U.S. Marijuana Arrests
Every year, more Americans are arrested for the pettiest crime on earth:Until that day when the burden of our brutal war on marijuana becomes too great to deny, when the costs canât be written off anymore and even the proud drug soldiers begin to lose interest in this disgraceful crusadeâ¦until that day, make damn sure you know what to do when they come for you:
Mark Kleiman vs. "Drug Policy Reform"
Cato Unbound has posted two more essays in its online series debating the meaning of responsible drug use. True Temperance from Jacob Sullum is typical of his rational approach to the topic and pretty much said what I expected from him, concluding that it isnât the governmentâs role to restrict personal choices that donât infringe on the rights of others.Mark Kleimanâs piece Drug Policy in Principle, And in Practice was more of a challenge for me. On one hand, Kleiman was effective in clearing up some of the false distinctions put forth by Jonathan Caulkins last week, and I generally appreciated his theme that current drug laws just donât reflect the relative risk associated with some of the most popular drugs. Unfortunately, Kleiman also gives us a taste of what we can typically expect from him in terms of defending prohibition as the best policy with regards to the most dangerous drugs and looking at ways to make the drug war work better, rather than aiming to reduce its enormous size. Pete Guither covers that point well, so Iâll focus my response on this specific statement from Kleiman:Cato Unbound is to be commended for having assembled a symposium free both of the usual drug war rant and of the usual "drug policy reform" rant.Rather than acting all offended by this, Iâll just assume (generously) that Kleiman is merely enjoying how focused this discussion has been. Itâs true that Cato has provided an opportunity to explore some central themes of the drug policy debate that are not always given the attention they deserve. Kleimanâs quip might be slightly less annoying than Caulkins "dull drug legalization debate" remark earlier in this same discussion, but it still requires me to ask at what point the advocacy of reform becomes a problem for Kleiman. Which of our talking points is he so sick of?I ask because I simply donât see "drug policy reform" as a single idea that one either agrees or disagrees with. You donât have to even consider regulation of drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in order to conclude that weâve made terrible errors in our approach to them. What disappoints me so much about Kleiman is not just that he refuses to consider post-prohibition solutions, but that he also appears to regard that as our sole agenda and sidesteps many of our legitimate concerns about the way the drug war is being fought at this exact moment. Kleimanâs entire essay manages to avoid acknowledging one single negative consequence of the modern war on drugs. His habitual reluctance to acknowledge the harms of our current policy combined with his stated objection to hearing us "rant" about those things amounts to an apparent effort to pretend they arenât happening. I have a better impression of Kleiman than to think heâs naïve or callous about incidents like the Rachel Hoffman or Kathryn Johnston tragedies, but I hope he realizes that most self-described drug policy reformers spend more time thinking about things like that than about how "crack should be sold at the 7-11." Even if I knew we couldnât change one drug law in this country, I would still be asking why so many dogs are killed in drug raids, why so many warrants are issued based on unreliable informant testimony, why new mothers are losing child custody based on false positive drug tests, why the drug czar opposes needle exchange, why students with petty drug convictions are denied financial aid for college, why police are never sanctioned for destroying property and even killing innocent in botched drug raids, why we spray herbicides from airplanes on poor farmers in foreign countries, and on and on.In fairness to Kleiman, this particular Cato discussion wouldnât necessarily have been the best context in which to explore all of the different ways that our current drug policy produces incalculable injustices. I realize that. My point is that Iâm sick of hearing knowledgeable voices like Kleiman and Caulkins express disinterest in the drug policy reform debate while their own ideas continue to focus so much on the drugs and so rarely on the war. Until they are prepared to meaningfully discuss the "war" part of the drug war, they have no credibility to dismiss our ideas, for they have yet to even address many of our foremost concerns.
Lies and poor bashing,it's election time again
Vancouver Mayoral hopeful Peter Ladner was all over the news today telling anyone who had a microphone that the street market that appears each evening on the DTES is a market for stolen property.Mr.L
Money is the promise for legalization
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/98317/ we had made plans for the first retail chain to market reefer back in the early 70's, something along the lines of the tobacconist "The Tinder Box".
Drug courts show their true colors
Vancouver introduced it's first clone of Gulianni's infamous drug court with much fan fare and lots of speeches and politicians there for photo ops.The first thing I noticed was that to qualify for di
Cheye Calvo Speaks Out Against the Police Tactics That Killed His Dogs
I had the opportunity to see drug war victim Cheye Calvo speak this afternoon at the Cato Institute, discussing the heavily-publicized botched drug raid in which police raided his home and killed his two dogs before discovering that he was actually the mayor and had nothing to do with the package of marijuana theyâd tracked through the mail to his address.Calvoâs story is well known and video of todayâs event should be online soon (also featuring excellent presentations by Radley Balko and LEAP founder Peter Christ), so I wonât recap the conversation, except to say that I admire Calvoâs enthusiasm for pursuing accountability on behalf of the many voiceless victims of these same abusive police tactics.But I would like to address a point raised by Radley Balko prior to the event:A few commenters have asked why no one taking the pro-hyper-militarized police position will be speaking. As I understand it, several possible candidates were invited, but none accepted. I've actually sought out several opportunities to debate this issue in the past, and had similar problems finding opponents.I was reminded of this as Calvo described the horrific thoughts that ran through his head upon being ordered to the ground by armed men in his own home. He enumerated several distinct acts of incompetence and brutality that characterized the raid on his home and the killing of his dogs.*That they never checked who owned the home before raiding and initially literally thought he was delusional when he claimed to be the mayor.*That they argued their violent entry was his mother-in-lawâs fault for "compromising" their operation because she screamed when she saw them pointing guns at her through the kitchen window.*That they continued to accuse him of behaving suspiciously even after learning who he was and observing considerable evidence of his innocence.*That they essentially hunted his dogs down within the home, yet insist that the dogs "engaged" officers.*That the police spokesman told the press that the raid had been conducted appropriately before anyone spoke with the Calvos to hear their side of the story.This list just goes on and on. We would be dreaming if we thought that anyone would actually come forward to defend these things in a forum that provides equal time and allows questions. Fortunately, unlike so many botched drug raids before it, this incident isnât going to be forgotten. The FBI is currently investigating the officersâ actions and, to his credit, Mayor Calvo doesnât seem the least bit interested in letting this go. Moreover, while there may well have been some actionable violations of protocol, I think the likely conclusion is that the totality of what took place here was essentially legal under Maryland law. While Iâd certainly be pleased to see some officers face disciplinary action, Iâm much more interested in whether political leaders in Maryland recognize the systemic conditions that brought this outcome about. And that wonât happen if a couple officers take the fall Lynndie England-style. Until the law itself is exposed as an instrument of violence against the innocent, we can be sure the next bloody botched drug raid fiasco is only days away.
Jonathan Caulkins vs. The Boring Drug War Debate
Yesterday I noted Cato Unboundâs online discussion series surrounding the terrific article Towards a Culture of Responsible Psychoactive Drug Use. Cato has now published the first in a series of responses, entitled Is Responsible Drug Use Possible? by Jonathan Caulkins. I had a hard time with it.As noted by Pete Guither at DrugWarRant, the whole thing begins with a cavalier dismissal of what Caulkins calls the "by-now dull legalization debate," which just made me cringe. Itâs not just that I support legalization, or even that I would still willingly debate it if I didnât. Rather, Iâm just amazed that Caulkins has shown up today to write about drug policy on the Cato website if he finds the drug policy debate boring. Think about how silly that is. The whole point of this online discussion is to bring together experts to share differing views on drug use and the policies surrounding it. Is Caulkins going to get bored when he reads Jacob Sullumâs upcoming contribution to this same discussion? Will he excuse himself from subsequent dialogue when the conversation inevitably turns towards the efficacy of prohibition itself? I assume not, but his word choices beg these questions and it truly escapes me why he would feign disinterest in the exact debate he just voluntarily entered into.This aversion to the drug war debate is at least partially explained in his concluding paragraph, which adopts the classic copout that drug policy reform isnât going to happen, so we can only evaluate our options within the confines of the current policy:American voters appear to have decided that even though responsible drug use is possible ex post, society is better off if the ex ante gamble is prohibited. Given that reality, is it responsible to willfully flout laws that are constitutional and produced by a generally fair and open democratic process? I would argue no. Civil disobedience has its place as a form of political expression, but stealthily using drugs with the objective of getting away with breaking the law is an act of selfishness, not civil disobedience. The responsible decision is to obey the law, even if doing so forecloses some pleasures, and in that respect responsible drug use is not possible in todayâs society, even ex post.I just don't agree that following the law is always inherently "responsible," except to the extent that the law will sometimes get back at you for non-compliance. Moreover, heâs responding to an article that went to great lengths to explain how prohibition interferes with the ability to use drugs responsibly (e.g., unknown purity of black market merchandise, breakdown of communication between users and medical professionals, laughably bad anti-drug education, etc.). Caulkins is entitled to his belief that it's always irresponsible to break the law, but thatâs somewhat beside the point.The concern that you canât use drugs responsibly in violation of the law is a problem with the law, not a problem with drugs.
If Salvia Isnât Toxic or Addictive, Whatâs the Argument for Banning it?
The New York Times has a fascinating piece on the growing hysteria surrounding salvia. Researchers are studying its medical potential, college kids are tripping on YouTube, and state legislators are trying to outlaw it entirely.All of this may soon provoke an illustrative glimpse at the philosophical dimensions of drug prohibition, in that salvia is powerfully psychoactive, yet shows no signs of addictiveness or toxicity. It isnât causing crime or medical emergencies. The short duration of its effects allows users to indulge without becoming incapacitated to the point of impacting their daily lives. In short, salvia simply doesnât fit into the pre-existing categories that drug warriors have carved out in order to justify prohibitions against other popular recreational drugs. So what will they say about it?Though states are moving quickly, Bertha K. Madras, a deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said federal regulators remained in a quandary."The risk of any drug that is intoxicating is high," Dr. Madras said. "You're one car ride away from an event that could be life-altering. But in terms of really good studies, there is just very little. So what do you do? How do you make policy in the absence of good hard cold information?"Is that a trick question? I give up, Bertha. How? This is the same woman who opposed distributing overdose prevention kits, based on the theory that overdoses might be good for people. So I'm sure sheâll eventually find a solution here that wonât require copious doses of scientific methodology. Rarely in the history of the war on drugs have facts or common sense ever gotten in the way of someone trying to outlaw something. Tell Joe Biden it makes you think youâre a unicorn and heâll have the Saving American Lives from Volatile Intoxicants Act on your desk by nightfall.But if salvia is ultimately banned at the federal level simply because it makes you insanely high for 5 minutes, one might interpret that as a long-awaited acknowledgement that the war on drugs really is just an attempt to control our minds.
How to Use Drugs Without Ruining Our Lives
Cato Unbound has a wonderful piece, Towards a Culture of Responsible Psychoactive Drug Use, by Earth and Fire Erowid, the founders of Erowid.org. The article provides a rational discussion of why people use psychoactive substances and what can be done to minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of such use. Over the next week, Cato will post responses from Jonathan Caulkins, Jacob Sullum, and Mark Kleiman.I read the piece last night in its entirety and donât recall finding a single word I disagree with. What struck me is how far removed modern drug education is from even discussing these commonsense principles. Do this information sound dangerous to you?Fundamentals of Responsible Psychoactive Use * Investigate the health risks and dangers of the specific psychoactive and of the class of drugs to which it belongs. * Learn about interactions with other recreational drugs, medications, supplements, and activities. * Review individual health concerns, predispositions, and family health history. * Choose a source or product carefully to help ensure correct identification and purity (avoid materials with an unknown source or of unknown quality). * Know whether the drug is likely to reduce the ability to drive, operate equipment, or pay attention to necessary tasks. * Take oneself "off duty" from responsibilities that might be interfered with (job, child care, etc.), and arrange for someone else to be âon dutyâ for such responsibilities. * Anticipate reasonably foreseeable risks to oneself and others and employ safeguards to minimize those risks. * Choose an appropriate occasion and location for use. * Select and measure dosages carefully. * Begin with a low dose until individual reactions are known and thereafter use the minimum dose necessary to achieve the desired effects: lower doses are safer doses. * Reflect on and adjust use to minimize physical and mental health problems. * Note changes in health over time that may be related to use. * Modify use if it interferes with work or personal goals. * Check in with peers and family and accept feedback about oneâs use. * Track reactions to specific drugs and dosages in order to avoid repeating mistakes. * Seek treatment if needed. * Decide not to use when the time isnât right, the material is suspect, or the situation is otherwise problematic.Anyone who has a problem with any of this should contemplate the consequences of allowing young people to learn these lessons the hard way. The fact that these ideas might be considered controversial should serve to remind us how badly our society has demolished its own ability to discuss drug use with people who use drugs.
Jurors Fight Back Against the War on Medical Marijuana
Further proof that railroading medical marijuana defendants in federal court has consequences:
Smoke a Joint, Get Your Boss Fired
Yikes, it looks like marijuana hysteria in Japan has nearly ruined the sport of sumo wrestling:Kitanoumi Toshimitsu, head of the Japan Sumo Association and former sumo star of the 1970s, stepped down after two wrestlers were accused of smoking marijuana only weeks after a third was sacked for possession of the same drug. [Telegraph]Iâve never understood why anyone cares if athletes use marijuana. If youâre concerned about the message it sends, then tell âem you wonât test for it as long as they stay off the cover of High Times. Why create opportunities for your athletes to embarrass you? Just donât test them; itâs that easy. And if they get caught with it, just be glad it wasnât crack.Yet in Japan, pot is apparently such a big frickinâ deal that the head of the whole Sumo organization has resigned in shame because a couple wrestlers got stoned. If only the Drug Czar would resign in shame the next time a cop gets high.
If the Drug War Makes Sense to You, Nothing Else Will
Terrorism blogger Douglas Farah doesnât understand why South American nations arenât more excited about cooperating with the U.S. war on drugs:So, after 30 years, on a political level there is no consensus that combatting drug trafficking is in the interest of most nations. Given the level of corruption, violence and social disintegration the criminal activities inevitably bring, such a conclusion by national leaders (backed, it seems, by the large majority of the population) is not easily understood.Really? I know a lot of people have trouble with this, but itâs not that complicated. Widespread "corruption, violence and social disintegration" are caused by the war on drugs. Nothing could be more obvious to those living on the front lines of the drug war battlefield. There was no problem until we showed up. They probably assume there will be no problem once we leave. I donât blame them.
Liar! John Walters, National Drug Nazi
Last night I was watching C span and the White house Drug Council was having one of their sit down lie fests trying to brain wash us and their puppet press into believing more of their lies.
My idea for a system
IF ALL DRUGS WERE MADE LEAGEL I think that there is no real wining argument when it comes to prohibition or legalization of drugs. I think whatever happens there will always be problems.
Victimâs Rights in the War on Drugs
Pete Guither pointed out the other day that the Republican platform contains this vague statement on victimâs rights:The innocent have far fewer rights than the accused. We call on Congress to correct this imbalance by sending to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of crime victims.I wonder if such a law would protect victims of armed robbery when police search their home, arrest them for marijuana, confiscate even more of their money than the robbers did, and ultimately decline to investigate the initial robbery for which they were called in the first place.Victimâs rights is an interesting idea. Letâs talk about it after we end the drug war.
Palin Pick Makes Medical Marijuana a Problem Issue For McCain
We know she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska. And we know that she hypocritically claims to oppose legalization. But Sarah Palin is also governor of a state thatâs had a medical marijuana program for ten years. How does she feel about that?Does Sarah Palin share John McCainâs open hostility towards seriously ill patients who use marijuana on the advice of their doctors?Frankly, I highly doubt Palin agrees with this. Itâs bad politics for her in Alaska and, for that matter, everywhere else as well. If pressed, sheâll be forced to take the party line, but that wonât go well for her. Palin canât conveniently defend federal supremacy over state medical marijuana laws because sheâs already argued that her own past marijuana use was legal in Alaska. She canât defend medical marijuana raids without labeling herself a criminal. The point isnât that thereâs anything damaging about her admitted marijuana use or that people who admit trying marijuana become obligated to support medical access. Neither is true. The point, rather, is that Palinâs personal story highlights the absurdity of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. telling people all the way up in Alaska what sorts of petty drug laws they ought to have. She doesnât want to go there. Itâs a terrible jumping-off point for initiating a defense of federal authority to arrest sick people.Thatâs why the Obama campaign would be smart to apply pressure here. Public support for medical marijuana is overwhelming and the video of McCain literally turning his back on a wheelchair bound patient is compelling. This debate polarizes independent and libertarian voters in Obamaâs favor, while forcing McCain to defend another unpopular Bush policy. Bidenâs obnoxious drug war background also becomes a counterintuitive asset, as he can ably deflect any shrill attacks from the law & order crowd on the right.As the democrats clamor for opportunities to puncture the narrative of McCain/Palin as a "reform" ticket, there is nothing to lose, and potentially much to gain by directly challenging McCainâs deeply unpopular views on medical marijuana.(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)