|
IDPC October 2010 Alert
Friday, October 29, 2010 |
|
0
comments
Only One Week Left to Submit an Abstract for HR:2011
|
|
0
comments
|
|
 Manage your subscription  |
Soros: Why I Support Legal Marijuana #cannabis
Thursday, October 28, 2010 |
|
0
comments
The Wall Street Journal
October 26, 2010
OPINION
Why I Support Legal Marijuana
We should invest in effective education rather than ineffective arrest and incarceration.
By GEORGE SOROS
Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good. The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries. But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.
Law enforcement agencies today spend many billions of taxpayer dollars annually trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition. The roughly 750,000 arrests they make each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40% of all drug arrests.
Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually. It also would reduce the crime, violence and corruption associated with drug markets, and the violations of civil liberties and human rights that occur when large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are subject to arrest.
Police could focus on serious crime instead.
The racial inequities that are part and parcel of marijuana enforcement policies cannot be ignored. African-Americans are no more likely than other Americans to use marijuana but they are three, five or even 10 times more likely-depending on the city-to be arrested for possessing marijuana.
I agree with Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, when she says that being caught up in the criminal justice system does more harm to young people than marijuana itself. Giving millions of young Americans a permanent drug arrest record that may follow them for life serves no one's interests.
Racial prejudice also helps explain the origins of marijuana prohibition.
When California and other U.S. states first decided (between 1915 and
1933) to criminalize marijuana, the principal motivations were not grounded in science or public health but rather in prejudice and discrimination against immigrants from Mexico who reputedly smoked the "killer weed."
Who most benefits from keeping marijuana illegal? The greatest beneficiaries are the major criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere that earn billions of dollars annually from this illicit trade-and who would rapidly lose their competitive advantage if marijuana were a legal commodity. Some claim that they would only move into other illicit enterprises, but they are more likely to be weakened by being deprived of the easy profits they can earn with marijuana.
This was just one reason the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy-chaired by three distinguished former presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico-included marijuana decriminalization among their recommendations for reforming drug policies in the Americas.
Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education. One survey after another indicates that teenagers have better access than most adults to marijuana-and often other drugs as well-and find it easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I'd much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration.
California's Proposition 19, which would legalize the recreational use and small-scale cultivation of marijuana, wouldn't solve all the problems connected with the drug. But it would represent a major step forward, and its deficiencies can be corrected on the basis of experience. Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws.
And just as California provided national leadership in 1996 by becoming the first state to legalize the medical use of marijuana, so it has an opportunity once again to lead the nation.
In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter what happens on Election Day. The mere fact of its being on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago.
These are the reasons I have decided to support Proposition 19 and invite others to do so.
Mr. Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and founder of the Open Society Foundations.
--
Drugs & Democracy Info <drugs@tni.org>
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK
Amsterdam - The Netherlands
Tel +31-20-6626608 | Fax +31-20-6757176
http://www.tni.org/drugs
http://www.druglawreform.info/
http://www.ungassondrugs.org/
Twitter: @DrugLawReform
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world
US: FT Editorial: High time to legalise marijuana #cannabis #drugpolicy
|
|
0
comments
The Financial Times
October 27 2010
Editorial
High time to legalise marijuana
Just say no, the slogan says. But on November 2, California has the chance to say yes, at least to marijuana. Proposition 19 would legalise the production, sale and use of cannabis, abolishing an ineffective and socially damaging prohibition on a substance with fewer health risks than alcohol and tobacco. The Golden State should vote to legalise dope.
Proponents of banning drugs make two claims: that bans reduce use, and cut associated social problems, such as violence. Neither is persuasive. Prohibition in the US reduced alcohol consumption only slightly. There is scant evidence that the US’s “war on drugs” has done better. America is not alone: worldwide, there is no correlation between the zeal with which states pursue users and how many drugs their citizens take.
Prohibition has only a small impact on drug use but a big impact on society. Enforcement is uneven. It targets poorer people and racial minorities. Young blacks in California smoke less pot than whites, yet are more than twice as likely to be arrested for possession. This is literally pot luck. And in an illegal market, the purity of drugs cannot be controlled: overdoses are more likely.
Rather than stopping violence, prohibition fuels it. Most drug violence is caused by turf wars, not users committing petty crimes to finance their habit. Traffickers cannot rely on the courts to resolve disputes so they swap lawyers for guns. Mexico’s increasingly bloody drug war – some gangsters are better armed than the state – has cost 28,000 lives since 2006. By raising prices, prohibition allows drug barons to reap high profits. Simply smuggling a kilo of marijuana from Mexico to the US raises its price from $80 to $2,000.
Some countries have opted for decriminalisation, which allows possession but penalises production. The supply chain remains in the hands of criminals. California’s proposals would go further, potentially creating a fully legal market for marijuana. This substance does not carry the addictive properties or health risks associated with hard drugs. Legalising it would cut violence and profits. Losing marijuana revenues would not be a fatal hit for cartels who derive much of their income from other drugs, but it would still hurt them.
Resources spent chasing and locking up drug users would be freed up. And by legalising and taxing marijuana, California could raise substantial revenues. Proponents put the benefits at about $1.3bn a year. For a bankrupt state, this is serious money.
Legalising marijuana might increase its use. But the rise is likely to be small; Californians can already get cannabis armed only with a doctor’s note. In Portugal, where possession of all drugs was decriminalised in 2000, cannabis use has hardly budged.
Some fear legalising a “gateway” drug would fuel consumption of more harmful substances. But the percentage of cannabis users who also use other drugs is low. Making pot cheap, safe and available might even encourage substitution away from the harder stuff.
In fact, legalisation has public health benefits: drug deaths in Portugal fell after decriminalisation. With the threat of arrest removed, users are more likely to seek treatment. A legal supply chain also allows quality control. This is less of a boon than with harder drugs; even in large doses marijuana is rarely fatal. But treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal one is surely correct. Most harm done by drug users is to themselves, not others.
However California votes, marijuana will remain illegal in the US. Nor will Proposition 19 weed out all the social problems caused by narcotics use. But it will make a start at removing a failed policy that exacerbates these ills – an approach which could, if successful, perhaps in time be applied to other drugs. It is time to say yes.
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world
October 27 2010
Editorial
High time to legalise marijuana
Just say no, the slogan says. But on November 2, California has the chance to say yes, at least to marijuana. Proposition 19 would legalise the production, sale and use of cannabis, abolishing an ineffective and socially damaging prohibition on a substance with fewer health risks than alcohol and tobacco. The Golden State should vote to legalise dope.
Proponents of banning drugs make two claims: that bans reduce use, and cut associated social problems, such as violence. Neither is persuasive. Prohibition in the US reduced alcohol consumption only slightly. There is scant evidence that the US’s “war on drugs” has done better. America is not alone: worldwide, there is no correlation between the zeal with which states pursue users and how many drugs their citizens take.
Prohibition has only a small impact on drug use but a big impact on society. Enforcement is uneven. It targets poorer people and racial minorities. Young blacks in California smoke less pot than whites, yet are more than twice as likely to be arrested for possession. This is literally pot luck. And in an illegal market, the purity of drugs cannot be controlled: overdoses are more likely.
Rather than stopping violence, prohibition fuels it. Most drug violence is caused by turf wars, not users committing petty crimes to finance their habit. Traffickers cannot rely on the courts to resolve disputes so they swap lawyers for guns. Mexico’s increasingly bloody drug war – some gangsters are better armed than the state – has cost 28,000 lives since 2006. By raising prices, prohibition allows drug barons to reap high profits. Simply smuggling a kilo of marijuana from Mexico to the US raises its price from $80 to $2,000.
Some countries have opted for decriminalisation, which allows possession but penalises production. The supply chain remains in the hands of criminals. California’s proposals would go further, potentially creating a fully legal market for marijuana. This substance does not carry the addictive properties or health risks associated with hard drugs. Legalising it would cut violence and profits. Losing marijuana revenues would not be a fatal hit for cartels who derive much of their income from other drugs, but it would still hurt them.
Resources spent chasing and locking up drug users would be freed up. And by legalising and taxing marijuana, California could raise substantial revenues. Proponents put the benefits at about $1.3bn a year. For a bankrupt state, this is serious money.
Legalising marijuana might increase its use. But the rise is likely to be small; Californians can already get cannabis armed only with a doctor’s note. In Portugal, where possession of all drugs was decriminalised in 2000, cannabis use has hardly budged.
Some fear legalising a “gateway” drug would fuel consumption of more harmful substances. But the percentage of cannabis users who also use other drugs is low. Making pot cheap, safe and available might even encourage substitution away from the harder stuff.
In fact, legalisation has public health benefits: drug deaths in Portugal fell after decriminalisation. With the threat of arrest removed, users are more likely to seek treatment. A legal supply chain also allows quality control. This is less of a boon than with harder drugs; even in large doses marijuana is rarely fatal. But treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal one is surely correct. Most harm done by drug users is to themselves, not others.
However California votes, marijuana will remain illegal in the US. Nor will Proposition 19 weed out all the social problems caused by narcotics use. But it will make a start at removing a failed policy that exacerbates these ills – an approach which could, if successful, perhaps in time be applied to other drugs. It is time to say yes.
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world
Ecstasy users' health no worse off: study #MDMA
Wednesday, October 27, 2010 |
|
1 comments
Ecstasy users' health no worse off: study
By Edwina Scott
The Age (Australia)
October 26, 2010
Heroin users encouraged to smoke drugs #heroin #drugpolicy
|
|
0
comments
Heroin users encouraged to smoke drugs
By Bruce Sinclair
This is South Wales (UK)
October 27, 2010
November 3 Public Salon - including former COV drug policy coordinator, DONALD MACPHERSON
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 |
|
0
comments
see attached
Donald MacPherson (ex city drug czar) will be speaking – circulate to your networks widely!
The Global Civic Policy Society presents: a public salon on Wednesday November 3rd - 7.30-9.00pm
@ The Vancouver Playhouse
Reserved tx $15.00.
UN health rapporteur: Drug war ignores rights, decriminalize narcotics use #drugpolicy
|
|
0
comments
UN health rapporteur: Drug war ignores rights, decriminalize narcotics use
By Anita Snow
The Canadian Press
October 25, 2010
Many Effects of a Pot Law Are Unknown #cannabis #drugpolicy
|
|
0
comments
Los Angeles Times
25 October 2010
Elections 2010
Many Effects of a Pot Law Are Unknown
Proposition 19 Raises a Lot of Questions About Logistics, Legality and Tax Revenues.
John Hoeffel
Vote yes on Proposition 19, the measure to legalize marijuana, and the unofficial state weed and largest cash crop will be controlled like alcohol, police will focus on serious crimes and California will get billions of dollars in new taxes. That's the pitch proponents make.
"It's a jumbled legal nightmare," opponents retort, disputing those claims and insisting that the measure would lead to stoned nurses in hospitals, drugged motorists on the road and more high teenagers.
Proposition 19, at three pages in the official voter information guide, is neither the longest nor the shortest initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot, but it would propel the state into unknown territory.
What is clear is that after midnight on election day, if the initiative has passed and you are at least 21 years old, you will be allowed under state law to smoke a joint in your home or other private place when no kids are around, keep a stash of up to an ounce and grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana plants.
That change, however, would not protect you from U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents, who could still enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act. And the new law could face a legal challenge, although the courts have ruled that states can decriminalize marijuana.
Beyond that, the potential effects of Proposition 19 become much murkier.
The initiative would make California the first state to allow commercial cultivation and retail sales.
The measure's opponents say talk of legal sales and tax revenues is fanciful because the federal government wouldn't stand for it. U.S.
Atty. Gen. Eric Holder promised this month to "vigorously enforce"
federal drug laws, regardless of what California voters do. And former federal drug officials say it's unlikely any taxes would be paid because that would be admitting to a criminal violation.
But California's voters are not averse to casting their state into uncertainty. "It's part of California's culture," said Darry Sragow, a former political consultant who now teaches political science at USC.
"You've got to be a bit adventurous to get all the way here. You've got to be a little bit of a risk taker."
When it comes to marijuana, voters were also warned in 1996 that Proposition 215, which allowed the drug to be used for medical reasons, would lead to chaos. The measure passed comfortably and has led to years of raids, trials and court battles, but the state's voters strongly support it.
About half of them now consistently tell pollsters they want to legalize marijuana, which opponents tacitly acknowledge by aiming their arguments not at legalization but at this particular initiative, ridiculing it as flawed. The argument signed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the voter guide
begins: "Even if you support legalization of recreational marijuana, you should vote 'No' on Proposition 19."
Proponents say that prohibition has failed and that it's time for "a common sense approach to control marijuana," as retired San Jose Police Chief Joseph D. McNamara and others say in their voter-guide argument.
Opponents, backed by law enforcement organizations and the California Chamber of Commerce, challenge almost every claim made by proponents, starting with the title: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. They contend it would do no such thing.
The initiative leaves the issue of whether to allow legal sales up to the state's 481 cities and 58 counties, a wet-dry approach that mirrors how the state handles medical marijuana. But that makes it impossible to determine how carefully legal marijuana would be controlled.
If the past is any guide, most cities and counties would have nothing to do with it. Only 37 cities and 10 counties allow medical marijuana dispensaries, according to Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.
In some places, notably Los Angeles, city officials lost control over them.
Oakland, the political hub of the state's marijuana legalization movement, would almost certainly be the first place to wrestle with regulations. A local initiative passed six years ago requires the city to allow sales "as soon as possible under California law."
San Francisco and Santa Cruz have passed legislation calling on the state to allow legal sales. And Oakland, Humboldt County, Berkeley and West Hollywood have endorsed Proposition 19.
"I think we will proceed cautiously," said West Hollywood Councilman John Duran, who noted that the city helped set up one of the state's first cannabis clubs, which closed in 2001 after a DEA raid. "We'd have to decide once again if this little city is ready to take on the United States. We did it before."
This city-county approach also makes it anyone's guess how much might be raised in tax revenues. Proposition 19 promises billions of dollars, and proponents cite a figure of $1.4 billion, but that is an estimate for a legislative bill that would legalize pot sales statewide.
The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst concluded that, if a commercial marijuana industry were to emerge statewide, tax revenues could reach hundreds of millions a year. An analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute, which looked at taxing marijuana like tobacco, put it at $352 million, less than 2% of California's $19-billion budget shortfall.
Budget-crunched local governments increasingly see marijuana as a new revenue source. Ten cities, including San Jose, Sacramento and Stockton, are asking voters to approve taxes on marijuana, including higher levies on marijuana sold for recreational use. Long Beach is proposing to tax non-medical marijuana at 15%. These taxes, of course, could be collected only if these city councils decided to ignore Holder's threats and pass regulations for legal sales.
Oakland was the first California city to tax medical marijuana, and it has a measure on next month's ballot to raise that tax and add one for non-medical marijuana. If the new tax is passed, the city's four dispensaries, which anticipate $40 million in sales this year, would pay
$2 million in taxes.
If Proposition 19 passes, and Oakland approves four more dispensaries, four 60,000-square-foot cultivation facilities and allows pot sales to adults, city officials estimate that pot tax revenues could hit $13 million. That's almost enough to rehire the 80 police officers it laid off this year.
"There's a lot of opportunity for meeting a lot of needs," said David McPherson, a former police officer who is Oakland's tax administrator.
"Like a lot of other cities, we're hurting."
The initiative promises to "implement a legal regulatory framework" that would "put dangerous underground street dealers out of business" and keep children from getting marijuana. The measure does include some new regulations, such as prohibiting use when minors are present, but would not establish rules to control marijuana like alcohol, which is subject to statewide regulation and enforcement.
What Proposition 19 would do, opponents say, is increase use, leading to more drugged drivers and to more children trying it. The measure's supporters scoff, saying marijuana is already so easy to get in California and so socially acceptable that anyone who wants to smoke is already doing it.
Researchers at Rand Corp., a nonpartisan research institute in Santa Monica, concluded that use would increase, but they could not say by how much. "It's going to change the stigma for some people, but more importantly, it's going to create availability," said Beau Kilmer, co-director of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center.
Rand also concluded that legal pot, if widely available, would be so cheap, it could squeeze Mexican cartels from the California marketplace - but would barely dent their overall drug business. The researchers said nothing about whether it would dislodge the drug gangs from the state's forest lands.
Proponents argue that the state would save millions of dollars on policing marijuana crimes. If cultivation and sales were legal, the legislative analyst estimated potential savings could reach tens of millions by reducing the number of marijuana offenders in prisons and jails. The Cato Institute analysis estimated California spends $960 million a year to enforce its marijuana laws.
Misdemeanor arrests for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana have risen steadily. Last year, there were 61,164 arrests, a quarter more than a decade earlier. Law enforcement officials say they devote few resources to chasing pot smokers and many of these charges stem from arrests for more serious crimes.
The state Chamber of Commerce says the initiative would allow smoking pot at work and would prevent employers from acting against a worker who is high unless the worker causes an accident. Proponents say the initiative would not change state laws that protect an employer's rights in the workplace.
This dispute, like others raised by the initiative, would almost certainly be settled in court.
--
Drugs & Democracy Info <drugs@tni.org>
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK
P.O.Box 14656 1001 LD
Amsterdam - The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 662 6608 / Fax: +31 20 675 7176 http://www.tni.org/drugs
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world
Tune in, turn on, relieve traumatic stress #ayahuasca
Monday, October 25, 2010 |
|
0
comments
Tune in, turn on, relieve traumatic stress
By Michael Posner
Globe and Mail
October 24, 2010
Hazy impact of more jail time for drug crime #drugpolicy #manditorymimimuns
Friday, October 22, 2010 |
|
0
comments
Senate reconsiders mandatory drug sentences after watering down Tory bill #drugpolicy
|
|
0
comments
Senate reconsiders mandatory drug sentences after watering down Tory bill
By Janice Tibbetts
Montreal Gazette
October 20, 2010
Submit an Abstract Now for HR:2011 - Deadline 5th November
|
|
0
comments
From: Harm Reduction Conference Team [mailto:info@ihraconferences.com]
Sent: 22 October, 2010 4:37 AM
To: Haden, Mark [VC]
Subject: Submit an Abstract Now for HR:2011 - Deadline 5th November
|
|
| Manage your subscription |
The promise of legalization #drugpolicy #cannabis
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 |
|
0
comments
Los Angeles Times
October 16, 2010
The promise of legalization
Anti-drug policies in the U.S. have failed, and the marijuana trade is largely in the hands of organized crime. It's time for a saner policy of legalization and regulation.
By Evan Wood
People on both sides of the marijuana legalization debate have strong feelings about Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative that promises to regulate, control and tax cannabis. But science and empirical research have been given short shrift in the discussion.
That's unfortunate, because the U.S. government has actually funded excellent research on the subject, and it suggests that several widely held assumptions about cannabis legalization actually may be inaccurate.
When the total body of knowledge is considered, it's hard to conclude that we should stick with the current system.
One important question is whether laws criminalizing marijuana have effectively reduced supply and use. It would appear from available data that they have not. Despite billions spent on anti-cannabis law enforcement and a 30% increase in the number of arrests in California since 2005, marijuana remains the most frequently used illegal drug.
Nationally, an estimated $10 billion is spent each year enforcing marijuana laws, yet an ongoing study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse has concluded that over the last 30 years, the drug has remained "almost universally available to American 12th-graders," with 80% to 90% saying the drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain.
On the health side of the equation, scientific consensus is that while cannabis may pose some health risks, they are less serious than those posed by alcohol and tobacco. The approach taken to regulating these other harmful substances, however, hasn't been to criminalize them but to regulate their distribution, to impose taxes on their purchase and to educate the public about their risks. These measures have been shown to be effective, as in the case of cigarette consumption, which has dropped dramatically.
On the other hand, cannabis prohibition has not achieved its stated objectives. As detailed in a report published last week by my organization, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, research funded by the U.S. government clearly demonstrates that even as federal funding for anti-drug efforts has increased by more than an inflation-adjusted 600% over the last several decades, marijuana's potency has increased by 145% since 1990, and its price has declined 58%.
In this context, supporting Proposition 19 seems like a reasonable position, and recent polls have suggested that almost half of decided voters support the ballot initiative. However, there has emerged a strong assumption in the debate that, though legalization will save police time and raise tax revenue, this will come at the cost of increasing rates of cannabis use.
This notion is based on a widely cited Rand Corp. report, which used a theoretical model to conclude that rates of cannabis use will increase if cannabis is legalized. Though the authors of this report cautioned readers that there were "many limitations to our estimate's precision and completeness" and that "uncertainties are so large that altering just a few key assumptions or parameter values can dramatically change the results," few seem to have read past the headline that legalization is likely to increase cannabis use.
This may be the case, but it's not a certainty. In the Netherlands, where marijuana has been sold in licensed "coffee shops" since the 1970s, about 20% of the adult population has used the drug at some time in their lives. In the United States, where it is largely illegal, 42% of the adult population has used marijuana.
Neither Rand's theoretical model nor other commentaries have considered the potential benefits of the broad range of regulatory tools that could be utilized if the marijuana market were legal. The state could then license vendors, impose purchasing and sales restrictions and require warning labels. Although these methods have been scientifically proven effective in reducing tobacco and alcohol use internationally, it is noteworthy that successful government lobbying by the tobacco and alcohol industries has slowly eroded many of these regulatory mechanisms in the United States.
A bill has been introduced in the California Legislature to create a uniform statewide regulatory system under the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control if Proposition 19 passes. Such a system would allow, finally, for an evidence-based discussion of how to optimize cannabis regulatory regimes so that the benefits of regulation (including such things as tax revenue and reduced drug market violence) can be maximized while rates of cannabis use and related harms can be minimized.
Up to now, the fact that cannabis is illegal has meant that the unregulated market has been largely controlled by organized-crime groups, and the trade has sparked considerable violence, both in the United States and in Mexico. Given the widespread availability and use of cannabis despite aggressive criminal justice measures, there is no doubt that a saner system can be created if marijuana is strictly regulated rather than left in the hands of organized crime.
Evan Wood, a physician and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, is the founder of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy.
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world
Don't buy the hype on pot legalization #drugpolicy #cannabis
|
|
0
comments
Don't buy the hype on pot legalization
By Jeffrey A. Miron
CNN
October 19, 2010
Organized crime generates $120 billion annually: UNOD #organizedcrime #drugpolicy
Tuesday, October 19, 2010 |
|
0
comments
Organized crime generates $120 billion annually: UNOD
Montreal Gazette
October 18, 2010
Montreal Gazette
October 18, 2010
U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, State Vote Aside
Monday, October 18, 2010 |
|
0
comments
New York Times
October 15, 2010
U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, State Vote Aside
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
LOS ANGELES - The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug.
The announcement by Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, was the latest reminder of how much of the establishment has lined up against the popular initiative: dozens of editorial boards, candidates for office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other public officials.
Still, despite this opposition - or perhaps, to some extent, because of it - the measure, Proposition 19, appears to have at least a decent chance of winning, so far drawing considerable support in polls from a coalition of Democrats, independents, younger voters and men as Election Day nears.
Should that happen, it could cement a cultural shift in California, where medical marijuana has been legal since 1996 and where the drug has been celebrated in popular culture at least since the 1960s.
But it could also plunge the nation's most populous state into a murky and unsettling conflict with the federal government that opponents of the proposition said should make California voters wary of supporting it.
Washington has generally looked the other way as a growing medical marijuana industry has prospered here and in 14 other states and the District of Columbia, but Mr. Holder's position - revealed in a letter this week to nine former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration that was made public on Friday - made explicit that legalizing marijuana for recreational use would bring a whole new level of scrutiny from Washington.
Mr. Holder did not fully spell out the reasons for the decision, but he did allude to the reluctance of the federal government to enforce drug laws differently in different states. "If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens," he wrote.
The Los Angeles County sheriff, Lee Baca, who has been one of the leading opponents of the measure, quickly embraced the Justice Department's stance. He said that the initiative was unconstitutional and vowed to continue enforcing marijuana laws, no matter what voters do in November.
Supporters of the initiative have portrayed support for it as another example in an anti-incumbent year of voters rejecting authority.
"Bring on the establishment," said Chris Lehane, a senior consultant to the campaign pushing for passage of the initiative. "This campaign, and the energy driving it, is predicated on the common understanding that the establishment's prohibition approach has been a complete and utter failure, as proven by the point that today it is easier for a kid to get access to pot than it is to buy a beer or a cigarette."
But Roger Salazar, a political consultant who has been directing the effort to defeat the proposal, said that Mr. Holder's statement should reinforce deep concerns about the initiative, including the way it was drafted and what he called inflated claims by its backers of what legalization might do.
"This is sort of a shot across the bow from the federal government:
They're saying that, 'If this thing moves the way we think it is, we're going to come after you guys,' " he said. "That gives California voters one more reason to take a deep breath."
California's becoming the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use would provide a real-life test of theories that proponents of legalization have long pressed: That it would provide a new stream of revenues for government, cut down on drug-related violence and end a modern-day prohibition that effectively turns many citizens into lawbreakers.
As it is, no matter what voters or Mr. Holder do, marijuana use in California these days appears, for all practical purposes, all but legal.
Mr. Schwarzenegger signed legislation last month that made possession of an ounce of marijuana an infraction - it had previously been a misdemeanor - punishable by a $100 fine. Medical marijuana dispensaries are common in many parts of the state, and getting a prescription is hardly challenging.
Baby boomers who had not smoked marijuana since college now speak openly at dinner parties of their "medical" experimentation with the drug. The smell of marijuana is hardly unusual at outdoor concerts at places like the Hollywood Bowl.
A Field Poll last month found that 50 percent of respondents said that marijuana should be legalized; that is up from 13 percent when the organization first asked the question in 1969. And 47 percent said they had smoked marijuana at least once, compared with 28 percent when the question was asked in 1975.
"This is the first generation of high school students where a majority of their parents have smoked marijuana," said Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which has been pushing for passage of the initiative.
The presence of the initiative on the ballot has encouraged Democrats, who argue it will lead to increased turnout among younger voters.
Notably, none of the major statewide candidates have endorsed the measure.
But perhaps just as notably, none have made the proposition a campaign issue.
The state Republican Party has officially come out against Proposition 19 and plans to urge people to vote no, said Ron Nehring, the party chairman.
He called repeal a "big mistake" and mocked the notion that placing the proposition on the ballot would help Democrats.
"We call that their Hail Mary Jane strategy," he said.
John Burton, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, said his party had decided to stay neutral on this issue. Asked if he supported it, Mr. Burton responded: "I already voted for it. Why not? Brings some money into the state. Helps the deficit. Better than selling off state buildings to some developer."
Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, noted that polls showed the measure breaking 50 percent, but said that given the history of initiatives in the state, that meant its passage was far from assured.
Opposition has come from a number of fronts, ranging from Mr. Baca and other law enforcement officials to the Chamber of Commerce, which has warned that it would create workplace health issues.
Still, the breadth of supporters of the proposition - including law enforcement officials and major unions, like the Service Employees International Union - signal how mainstream this movement is becoming.
"I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol," said Joycelyn Elders, the former surgeon general and a supporter of the measure. "I feel they cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the prohibition on marijuana."
Related Times Topic: Marijuana and Medical Marijuana http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html
--
Drugs & Democracy Info <drugs@tni.org>
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK
P.O.Box 14656 1001 LD
Amsterdam - The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 662 6608 / Fax: +31 20 675 7176 http://www.tni.org/drugs
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Mark Haden
Mark Haden currently works for Vancouver Coastal Health, Addiction Services, and has worked in detox, methadone and outpatient settings in both counseling and supervisory roles for over 20 years. Mark is a pivotal voice in the drug policy reform movement, providing viable, coherent models for reforming drug education and regulating markets for currently illegal substances.
Mark's listserv has become an invaluable hub of information about drug policy and reform efforts. This blog will serve as an archive for future mailings.
Mark's listserv has become an invaluable hub of information about drug policy and reform efforts. This blog will serve as an archive for future mailings.
Visit Mark's personal website here: www.MarkHaden.com