Personal Marijuana Use

Steve Chapman had an awesome piece last week that sent drug war nutjob Cliff Kincaid over the edge yet again:

"Mexico is the biggest supplier of cannabis to the United States," he writes. "Control of that market is one of the things that Mexican drug cartels are willing to kill for. Legalizing weed in this country would be their worst nightmare. Why? Because it would offer Americans a legitimate supply of the stuff."

What he fails to realize is the fact that the Mexican drug cartels have already infiltrated the U.S. and are growing the "stuff" in the United States. Hence, legalization could have the effect of making these criminals into "legitimate" businessmen.

Ed Brayton has a good response:

The obvious answer is: so what? Yes, it could make those currently peddling an illegal product into a legitimate company selling a legal product, just as ending prohibition allowed some bootlegging operations to become legit businesses (though more likely the distribution would be done by already existing companies, most likely tobacco companies). But the question is, why is this a bad thing?

Has Kincaid not noticed that having legitimate businesses competing on the basis of quality, service and advertising is a hell of a lot better than having rival gangs compete for territory through mass violence?

Right on, but I would take things a step further though and refuse to concede that cartel bosses would even made able to make that transition. Yes, the marijuana industry would go legit, but that doesn't mean we have to patronize or give business permits to anyone on an international most-wanted list. The genius of legalization is that we get to decide who our marijuana comes from.

Here's Jay Leno and Bill Maher discussing the effort to legalize marijuana in California:


Of course, it's a win just to have these kinds of conversations on The Tonight Show, and you can't look for perfect messaging from entertainers. But seriously, what the hell was Leno talking about with this:

Leno: Well, here's my thing, here's my thing. California, they spend all this money trying to get things on ballots. But federal law trumps state law.

Maher: Oh, Jay you're such a buzzkill.

Leno: Well, it's true. No matter what the state says, the federal government goes "sorry, it's a federal law. You lose."

Really, Jay? I wonder how far you'd have to walk from your studio in Los Angeles to find a dispensary selling marijuana in violation of federal law. Come on, man. We've moved way beyond that nonsense, and you don't have to be constitutional scholar to understand that state-level marijuana policies can be reformed dramatically by popular vote. All you have to do is read the LA Times any day of the week.

If the drug czar doesn’t even know what the hell the feds would do about this, I can't fathom why Jay Leno thinks he's got it figured out.

Earlier today, I blogged about Philadelphia embracing a sort of decriminalization of minor marijuana possession based on an article that appeared today in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It appears that article not only caught my attention, but also that of a lot of Philadelphians, who have been calling up the DA's office all day. This afternoon, District Attorney Seth Williams issued the following statement of clarification:

Based upon inquiries to this office it appears that some confusion exists regarding potential changes in charging policy when it comes to minimal amounts of marijuana. "We are not decriminalizing marijuana--any effort like that would be one for the legislature to undertake. The penalty available for these minimal amount offenses remains exactly the same. What we are doing is properly dealing with cases involving minimal amounts of marijuana in the most efficient and cost effective process possible. Those arrested for these offenses will still be restrained, identified and processed by police in police custody. They will still have to answer to the charges, but they will be doing so in a speedier and more efficient process. We want to use valuable court resources in the best way possible and we believe that means giving minor drug offenders the option of getting into diversionary programs, get drug education or enter drug treatment centers. Again we are NOT decriminalizing marijuana, and the penalty for these offenses remains the same."

It looks like DA Williams is trying to have it both ways. The Inquirer story--which Williams doesn't contradict in his statement--says that small-time pot offenders will be sent to a special "quality of life" court and fined. While Williams is correct that it would be that state legislature that woud decriminalize marijuana possession, It is a sort of de facto partial decriminalization, with people arrested, but not processed in the criminal courts or jailed upon conviction. I'll try to have this cleared up by the time we publish the Chronicle story about it on Friday.

People caught with 30 grams (a bit more than an ounce) or less of marijuana in Philadelphia will no longer be charged with criminal misdemeanors, but with civil summary offenses under a new policy that will go into effect later this month. Fines are expected to be in the $200 to $300 range. But while pot smokers won't face criminal charges, they will still be arrested, handcuffed, searched, detained, and fingerprinted. Then, their cases will be heard by a special "quality of life" court that is already in use for things like dealing with unruly Eagles fans and public drinking. "We're not going stop locking people up," Lt. Frank Vanore, a police spokesman, told the Philadelphia Inquirer, . Marijuana possession remained illegal, he said. "We're going to stop people for it. . . . Our officers are trained to do that. Whether or not they make it through the charging process, that's up to the D We can't control that. Until they legalize it, we're not going to stop." According to the Inquirer, the policy shift is the result of a collaboration between new District Attorney Seth Williams and a pair of Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges. It is part of an effort to unclog the city's overwhelmed court dockets. Under Williams' predecessor, former DA Lynn Abraham, police arrested an average of 3,000 people a year for small-time pot possession, about 75% of them black. That figure represents roughly 5% of the city's criminal caseload. About another 2,000 are arrested for marijuana distribution and 2,500 more are arrested for possession of more than 30 grams. Overall, enforcing drug prohibition has resulted in about 18,000 arrests a year in Philadelphia, or nearly one-third of the entire criminal caseload. "We have to be smart on crime," Williams told the Inquirer. "We can't declare a war on drugs by going after the kid who's smoking a joint on 55th Street. We have to go after the large traffickers." Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille, one of the two justices who worked with Williams on the policy shift, said decrim was "appropriate" for such a small-time offense. "It's a minor crime when you're faced with major drug crimes." Removing such cases from the criminal courts, he said, "unclogs the system." Philadelphia NORML has been quietly lobbying city officials for the change. "The marijuana consumers of Philadelphia welcome this," said chapter head Chris Goldstein. "This is a very progressive thing to do on the part of the city," Goldstein said of the new policy. "I couldn't be happier about this." Goldstein was much less enthused by the continued arrests policy. "It is completely absurd," he said. "It's harsh. For minor marijuana possession, it's very harsh treatment." In most states and localities with decriminalization laws or policies, people are merely issued a ticket after police seize their stash. Still, this is a quarter-step forward for Philadelphia.

Allow me to introduce you to Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, an apparent front for the opposition to legalization in California. They're kicking things off in style with this grammatically incorrect slogan:

Our children’s future are in your hands…

I wonder if they've printed up any t-shirts yet. Honestly, I'm never sure how far to go in the direction of mocking our opponents for petty stuff like this, but I just couldn’t let this one slide. Even as I write this post, my grammar check is telling me to fix it.

It'll be fun to see how long it takes them to correct this, and while we're waiting, they have a moderated comment section that might be worth attempting to participate in.

The laws against their products just make them rich. The threat of being killed or imprisoned just gives them a rush. Their reputation for ruthlessness just gets them laid. The cartels truly have only one thing to fear and that is the day when their monopoly is destroyed:

Legalizing marijuana wouldn't end the criminal drug trade and its violence. Addicts still would crave heroin, cocaine and other hard narcotics. But decriminalizing [he must mean legalizing] marijuana would be a body blow to drug cartels. Half the annual income for Mexico's violent drug smugglers comes from marijuana, one Mexican official told the Wall Street Journal last year. Imagine how many smugglers and street-corner reefer hustlers would be put out of business. [Chicago Sun-Times]

See, this is the mental exercise everyone needs to perform. If you're undecided about legalization, then try to put the politics aside for a moment and just think for yourself about what legalization would mean for the cartels. They have to lose something don't they? Let's please stop acting like this is an all-or-nothing proposition. If we can take some money from the cartels, that's awesome. We don't have to destroy them to make it worthwhile; we need only save a few lives from the cartels' brutal violence to achieve a massive victory.

Anyone who hates drug cartels owes it to themselves to muster the courage and curiosity to give this a chance.

This fascinating AP story really nails a dimension of the legalization discussion that is rarely understood or acknowledged in the press:

If California legalizes marijuana, they say, it will drive down the price of their crop and damage not just their livelihoods but the entire economy along the state's rugged northern coast.

Local residents are so worried that pot farmers came together with officials in Humboldt County for a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night where civic leaders, activists and growers brainstormed ideas for dealing with the threat.

Funny how the "threat of legalization" means such different things to different people. If anyone still doesn't understand how legalization will impact the black market, well, try asking the black market what it thinks. These people are freaking out and you really shouldn’t need an advanced degree in economics to understand why that is.

This is the reality that legalization's opponents are incapable of addressing. The marijuana economy already exists and the debate over taxation and regulation is merely a question of how the industry will be structured. This is not a matter of whether or not California should have marijuana. California already has more marijuana than it knows what to do with.

A vote against legalization is a vote for illegal growers and dealers. And they thank you for your support, as always.

This Sports Illustrated piece on the growing prevalence of marijuana use among NFL prospects is such a carnival of mind-bending idiocy that I wonder if I'll ever enjoy the sport quite as much after having read it. The whole thing is just a series of anonymous quotes from NFL coaches and executives acting like marijuana is some sort of mysterious plague gripping professional sports. Yet for all the deep concern about it, you won't find any attempt at explaining why anyone even gives a sh*t about this to begin with.

So what if an athlete has a secret history of getting super baked. Does he have a secret history of sucking at football? That would be worth looking into. But the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the real story behind all this nonsense is actually rather simple and far too embarrassing to acknowledge.

I seriously doubt any of this has anything to do with concerns about the impact of marijuana use on an athlete's performance. The sport of football has a rich history of dominant players known for indulging in cannabis and it would be laugh-out-loud moronic to suggest that the stuff was gonna screw up anybody's stats. Nobody even bothers to argue that, because it's dumb and everyone knows it's dumb.

The real issue is that you have to worry about these guys failing drug tests or getting arrested and then having to deal with seismic media attention and pissed off corporate sponsors. It's all about money, but you can't say that without revealing the mindlessness of marijuana policy in general, which the NFL isn't about to weigh into. Instead, we're stuck with marijuana-in-sports coverage that remains ubiquitous, yet utterly devoid of substance.

Meanwhile, as SAFER points out, the NFL is married to the alcohol industry and couldn't possibly do more to shove beer in everyone's face at every conceivable opportunity. It is unquestionably the best example that exists of an organization which simultaneously glorifies and promotes alcohol, while treating marijuana use as an intolerable vice.

I dare anyone to consume on a frequent basis all the nutritious food and beverages the NFL wishes to sell to you, and once you're sufficiently fat and drunk, you can then make it your business to lecture Rookie of the Year Percy Harvin about whether treating his migraine headaches with marijuana is a responsible choice.

Californians will be voting on whether to legalize marijuana in November. The California Secretary of State's office Wednesday certified the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 initiative as having handed in enough valid voters' signatures to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative is sponsored by Oaksterdam medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee and would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults and allow for personal grows of up to 25 square feet. It also provides for the taxed and regulated sale of marijuana by local option, meaning counties and municipalities could opt out of legalized marijuana sales. Some 433,000 valid signatures were required to make the ballot; the initiative campaign had gathered some 690,000. On Tuesday, state officials had certified 415,000 signatures as valid, but that didn't include signatures from Los Angeles County. Initiative supporters there Wednesday handed in more than 140,000 signatures. With an overall signature validity rate of around 80%, that as much as ensured that the measure would make the ballot. Late Wednesday afternoon, California Secretary of State's office made it official. Its web page listing Qualified Ballot Measures now includes the marijuana legalization under initiative approved for the November ballot. The 104,000 valid signatures from Los Angeles County put it well over the top. "This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources, and making criminals of countless law-abiding citizens. Elected officials haven’t stopped these punitive, profligate policies. Now voters can bring the reality check of sensible marijuana regulation to California." "If passed, this initiative would offer a welcome change to California’s miserable status quo marijuana policy," said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which recently endorsed the initiative. "Our current marijuana laws are failing California. Year after year, prohibition forces police to spend time chasing down non-violent marijuana offenders while tens of thousands of violent crimes go unsolved – all while marijuana use and availability remain unchanged." Proponents of the measure will emphasize the fiscal impact of taxing marijuana—the state Board of Equalization has estimated that it legalization could generate $1.3 billion in tax revenues a year—as well as the impact of regulation could have on reducing teen access to the weed. They can also point out that by now, California has lived with a form of regulated marijuana distribution—the medical marijuana dispensary system—for years and the sky hasn't fallen. Opponents, which will largely consist of law enforcement lobbying groups, community anti-drug organizations, and elements of the African-American religious community, will argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and that crime and drugged driving will increase. But if opponents want to play the cop card, initiative organizers have some cards of their own. In a press release Wednesday evening, they had several former law enforcement figures lined up in support of taxation and regulation. "As a retired Orange County Judge, I've been on the front lines of the drug war for three decades, and I know from experience that the current approach is simply not working," said Retired Superior Court Judge James Gray. "Controlling marijuana with regulations similar to those currently in place for alcohol will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business." "The Control and Tax Initiative is a welcome change for law enforcement in California," said Kyle Kazan, a retired Torrance Police officer. "It will allow police to get back to work fighting violent crime." Jeffrey Studdard, a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff, emphasized the significant controls created by the Control and Tax Initiative to safely and responsibly regulate cannabis. "The initiative will toughen penalties for providing marijuana to minors, ban possession at schools, and prohibit public consumption," Studdard said. The campaign should be a nail-biter. Legalization polled 56% in an April Field poll, and initiative organizers say their own private research is showing similar results. But the conventional wisdom among initiative watchers is that polling needs to be above 60% at the beginning of the campaign, before attacks on specific aspects of any given initiative begin to erode support. But despite the misgivings of some movement allies, who cringe at the thought of defeat in California, this year's legalization vote is now a reality. "California led the way on medical marijuana with Prop 215 in 1996,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Now it’s time again for California to lead the way in ending the follies of marijuana prohibition in favor of a responsible policy of tax and regulation."

As efforts to ban fake marijuana products continue to escalate, I predict we'll be seeing a lot of this sort of thing:
 
My understanding is that JWH-018 is the active ingredient in question here, but is that the end of the story? Maybe there are 9 other similar compounds that will work as well. Maybe there are 100. I'm not a scientist, but I'm starting to get the impression that the whole synthetic marijuana substitution phenomenon is just getting started. Banning a single ingredient will not only fail for all the reasons that prohibition always fails, but it might not even succeed in making fake pot illegal. Don't be surprised to see the DEA intervene at some point wielding the broad Federal Analogue Act, but you can't possibly ban every random concoction someone might stuff in a bong.

Science is smarter than prohibition, so the longer we have stupid rules about what people are and are not allowed to ingest for their own amusement, the more loopholes will emerge to circumvent and trivialize those rules.