Subject: Ethan Nadelmann on Fox News - debating California ballot initiative to regulate cannabis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ME2jLFb9uU

 

 

 

 

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. IDPC March Alert Welcome to the IDPC March 2010 Alert.  The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) is a global network of NGOs and professional networks that work together to promote objective and open debate on drug policy. This Alert contains news, updates on the latest publications and upcoming events relevant to international drug policy. IDPC has recently published a Drug Policy Guide which brings together global evidence and best practices on the design and implementation of drug policies and programmes at national level. Click here to access the English version of the guide on our website. News CNDblog 2010  IHRA and IDPC blogged live from the meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna from the 8th to the 12th March 2010. Reporting on CNDblog was uploaded as the debates themselves were taking place, making CNDblog the fastest and most complete record of what happened at the CND. The blog is also an effective transparency mechanism on the proceedings. IDPC will be releasing our usual CND Proceedings document in the coming weeks to provide more detailed analysis of some of the key discussions and debates. APF and IDPC hold first South East Europe Informal Drug Policy Dialogue On the 19th and 20th March, 2010, the Andreas Papandreou Foundation (APF) and IDPC co-hosted the first informal policy dialogue for the South East European region.  The dialogue was attended by NGO presentatives and policy makers from Albania, Bulgaria, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and Greece.  Participants shared knowledge and experiences from across the region, identifying common problems and key priorities for drug policy advocacy.  A working group was set up to take forward the setting up of a regional network.  A report of the meeting will be made available in the coming weeks.  Campaign for ‘universal access’ to medicines goes global  The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network is joining a global movement of legal and trade experts, activists and students, grandmothers’ groups and labour organisations. They are calling on the Canadian government to use its leadership position to ensure greater access to medicines for AIDS and other public health needs in developing countries. Read the press release. NGO Veza reports from the Public Hearing on the EU Drug Policy 1998-2007 The Public Hearing aimed to discuss the ‘Report on Global Illicit Drugs Market 1998-2007’ and define the conclusions of the report which will be brought out by ENCOD during the general UNODC Conference in Vienna. The meeting was a unique opportunity for NGO Veza to share ideas and issues on drug policy with government representatives, and build a bridge of cooperation with the Serbian Ministry of Health. Drug Policy Alliance immediate opening: ‘national organising and field director’  Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) is seeking a National Organising and Field Director to oversee DPA’s organising efforts among drug policy reform organisations around the USA, and will coordinate a national strategy along with other organisations to end the war on drugs.  Students for Sensible Drug Policy opening: ‘international liaison job listing’  Students for Sensible Drug Policy is seeking a highly motivated, well-organised, multi-lingual individual to become the organisation’s first international liaison. SSDP’s target growth region for 2010 will be Latin America. Latest publications IDPC Drug Policy Guide, Edition 1 This is the first edition of the IDPC Drug Policy Guide aimed at national government policy makers. This publication is a collaborative effort by a number of IDPC members and partners, and brings together global evidence and best practices on the design and implementation of drug policies and programmes at national level. Read the full document. IDPC Magazine – Issue 1 Welcome to the first issue of the IDPC magazine. The stories in this inaugural issue tell us of the disproportionate harm suffered by individuals because of badly focused resources that target low-level “offending”, and of the human rights abuses committed in the name of drug control. Read the full magazine. IDPC Advocacy Note – A call to the new Secretary of the International Narcotics Control Board: ongoing challenges IDPC welcomes the appointment of Jonathan Lucas as Secretary of the INCB and chief of the INCB Secretariat.  On the eve on the 53rd Session of the CND, IDPC has identified key areas of concern to bring to Mr Lucas's attention, outlined in this advocacy note. Read the full note. IDPC Briefing paper – Time for an impact assessment of drug policy All stakeholders in the drugs debate share the goal of a policy and legal structures that maximise social, environmental, physical and psychological wellbeing.  However the drugs debate has been emotive, polarised and deadlocked and as a result, policy development has lacked objective scrutiny.  Impact Assessments would bring drug policy back into the arena of science. Read the full document. IDPC Policy Briefing – Arms trafficking from the United States to Mexico: divergent responsibilities  Arms trafficking from the USA to Mexico is a central issue in bilateral relations, closely linked to drug trafficking and, in particular, the lethal violence unleashed by Mexican drug trafficking organisations. Drug traffickers are obtaining increasingly sophisticated weapons at reasonably low prices thanks to easy access to guns in the US market. As with drug trafficking, gun smuggling implies a relationship of co-responsibility between supplier and consuming countries; the responsibilities and the capacities of states are different, as are the actions and policies that they should adopt. The full document is available in English and Spanish.  UNODC Report – ‘Responding to the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne diseases among drug users’ This report contains an overview of the technical assistance provided by UNODC to member states in developing comprehensive demand reduction strategies and measures, including HIV/AIDS prevention and care in the context of drug abuse. Read the full report.  UNODC Executive Director Note – ‘Drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice: a human rights perspective’ This document illustrates how drug control can be better synchronised with the need to protect human rights. The first three sections outline the conceptual and legal foundations underpinning the human rights aspect of drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice; while the fourth section indicates a way forward to mainstreaming human rights in the work of UNODC. Read the full report. Drugs control is leading to human rights abuses, says LSE study The paper, 'Narcophobia: drugs prohibition and the generation of human rights abuses', appears in the March edition of Trends In Organized Crime. It examines the history of the drug trade - from the 18th Century when opium was traded as a valuable commodity by, among others, the British, Dutch and Portugese governments - to the modern day in which the United Nations has adopted international treaties against drug trafficking. Eurasian Harm Reduction Network – Access to treatment for drug dependence is essential healthcare’ A new Eurasian Harm Reduction Network report highlights how drug control constrains access to care and treatment in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Network calls on governments to prioritise a health and human rights-based approach to drug policy. Read the full report. Europe and drug policies: Italian propaganda ends up in a fiasco This article published in Il Manifesto criticizes Italy's position on the concept of harm reduction. Whereas the concept is now well accepted at the European level, Italy is seeking to impose its own definition of the term via a list of 'acceptable' and 'non-acceptable' interventions. This was followed by intense propaganda in Italy, wrongly stating that the European Union had accepted the Italian position on harm reduction. Read the full article. New Zealand Drug Foundation video on drug law review  The New Zealand Drug Foundation has produced a short video from an interview with the authors of the review of New Zealand's 35-year-old Misuse of Drugs Act. Watch the video.    TTAG Policy Brief – 'Illuminating a Hidden Epidemic: The Public Health Crisis of HIV/HCV Co-infection Among Injecting Drug Users in Thailand'   The Thai AIDS Treatment Action Group (TTAG) developed a policy brief, "Illuminating a Hidden Epidemic: The Public Health Crisis of HIV/HCV Co-infection Among Injecting Drug Users (IDU) in Thailand," which will also be adapted to the regional level in collaboration with Indian, Chinese and Indonesian activists. TTAG's brief, published in Thai and English, will be available on TTAG's website in April. Hungarian Civil Liberties Union video at the 2010 CND – Russia declares that ‘there is no evidence that OST works’ The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) attended a press conference organised by the Russian delegation at the 2010 CND. HCLU asked Mr. Viktor Ivanov, the head of the Federal Drug Control Service, to explain why his country did not tackle its demand side problems with evidence based interventions, such as OST. Mr. Ivanov responded that there was no evidence that methadone treatment worked. Watch the video. ‘Illicit Drugs in Colombia’, Universidad de los Andes  The book addresses the dimension and proportion of cocaine production, trafficking and consumption in Colombia, the effectiveness and costs of anti-drug policies, the interaction between international relations and drug policy in Colombia, the legal aspects of the 'war on drugs', and issues related to Colombian institutions and the war on drugs. Click here for more information. Upcoming events Universidad de los Andes Conference – launch of ‘Illicit Drugs in Colombia’ 15 April 2010, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia The Universidad de los Andes is organising a conference to launch the book ‘Illicit Drugs in Colombia’. The conference will gather a number of international scholars, and is now open to the public for registration. Click here for more information. Harm Reduction 2010 – IHRA’s 21st International Conference  25 – 29 April 2010, Liverpool, UK The online registration for the International Harm Reduction Association’s 21st conference is still open. As in previous years, this promises to be a ‘must-attend’ event for the harm reduction field, with a programme covering a huge range of topics. For 2010, the event is returning to the city which hosted the first conference back in 1990 – Liverpool, England. All of the latest information – including news, supporting organisations, scholarships, travel, visas, and an online accommodation booking service – are available on the conference website. Farmers perspectives on the war on drugs – session at Harm Reduction 2010 Conference  29 Apr 2010, Liverpool, UK In a significant omission, production and supply-side issues have not been a traditional focus of the International Harm Reduction Conference. This session at this year's conference in Liverpool is intended to provide participants with an overview of the diversity and seriousness of the issues facing people in four very different producer nations from the perspectives of those with first-hand experience. This session will take place on Thursday 29th April between 9am and 10am. The session is organised by TNI, IHRA and IPS. The Club Health Conference 2010  7 - 9 June 2010, Zurich, Switzerland The Club Health Conference 2010 is geared towards those working on public health, substance use, sexual health, violence prevention, policing and criminal justice, tourism, nightlife industries, transport, environmental health, general practice and therapy. The call for abstracts will be open until 28 February 2010. For more information, visit the conference website. 2nd CONNECTIONS European Conference – Drugs, alcohol and criminal justice: ethics, effectiveness and economic of interventions    24 - 25 June 2010, London, UK The University of Kent is delighted to announce the Second European Conference of the CONNECTIONS Project, organised by the Conference Consortium and supported by Drink and Drugs News and Napo.  The conference will look at a range of interventions and treatments, from harm reduction to drug free ‘recovery’ in the criminal justice system. The premise is that no one treatment modality can deal effectively with the complex range of presented need. The task of the conference is to discuss and debate how best the different components can be combined most effectively. For more information, visit the conference website. 'Rights Here, Right Now' – XVIII International AIDS Conference  18 Jul 2010 - 23 Jul 2010, Vienna, Austria The XVIII International AIDS Conference will take place in Vienna in July of this year. The abstract deadline is 10th February 2010 and the deadline for satellite session proposals is 31st March 2010. For more information, visit the conference website. 8th National Harm Reduction Conference – Harm Reduction Beyond Borders!  18 Nov 2010 - 21 Nov 2010, Austin, Texas, USA This November, the 8th National Harm Reduction Conference will bring together approximately 1,000 drug users, ex-drug users, researchers, sex workers, social workers, doctors, politicians and community organizers from around the United States to share perspectives on Harm Reduction. For more information, visit the conference website. You are receiving this alert either because you signed up at www.idpc.net or because someone has to forwarded it to you. If you have received this alert as a forward and would rather not receive it, please reply to the sender's email address as we can only unsubscribe you if you signed up at www.idpc.net. Unsubscribe mark.haden@vch.ca from this list | Forward to a friend | Update your profile Our mailing address is: International Drug Policy Consortium 124-128 City Road London, London EC1V 2NJ Add us to your address book Copyright (C) 2010 International Drug Policy Consortium All rights reserved.

Harm reduction cheaper than not acting
Nanaimo Daily News
March 24, 2010

The Associated Press
Thursday, March 25, 2010

Calif. voters could legalize pot in Nov. election

By CATHY BUSSEWITZ

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- When California voters head to the polls in November, they will decide whether the state will make history again - this time by legalizing the recreational use of marijuana for adults.

The state was the first to legalize medicinal marijuana use, with voters passing it in 1996. Since then, 14 states have followed California's lead, even though marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end failed marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We really can't overstate the significance of Californians being the first to have the opportunity to end this public policy disaster."

California is not alone in the push to expand legal use of marijuana.
Legislators in Rhode Island, another state hit hard by the economic downturn, are considering a plan to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less by anyone 18 or older.

A proposal to legalize the sale and use of marijuana in Washington was recently defeated in that state's legislature, though lawmakers there did expand the pool of medical professionals that could prescribe the drug for medicinal use.

And a group in Nevada is pushing an initiative that marks the state's fourth attempt in a decade to legalize the drug.

The California secretary of state's office certified the initiative for the general election ballot Wednesday after it was determined that supporters had gathered enough valid signatures.

The initiative would allow those 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough to roll dozens of marijuana cigarettes.
Residents also could grow their own crop of the plant in gardens measuring up to 25 square feet.

The proposal would ban users from ingesting marijuana in public or smoking it while minors are present. It also would make it illegal to possess the drug on school grounds or drive while under its influence.

Local governments would decide whether to permit and tax marijuana sales.

Proponents of the measure say legalizing marijuana could save the state $200 million a year by reducing public safety costs. At the same time, it could generate tax revenue for local governments.

A Field Poll taken in April found a slim majority of California voters supported legalizing and taxing marijuana to help bridge the state budget deficit.

Those who grow and sell it illegally fear legalization would drive down the price and force them to compete against corporate marijuana cultivators.

Other opponents view marijuana as a "gateway drug" that, when used by young people, could lead them to try other, harder drugs. They worry that legalization would persuade more people to try it, worsening the nation's drug culture.

"We are quite concerned that by legalizing marijuana, it will definitely lower the perception of risk, and we will see youth use go through the roof," said Aimee Hendle, a spokeswoman for Californians for Drug Free Youth.

The initiative is the second proposal to qualify for the November ballot. The other is an $11.1 billion water bond measure championed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Legislature.

----

Associated Press Writers Lisa Leff and Marcus Wohlsen in San Francisco contributed to this report.

_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Outlaw pot growers in California fear legalization

By MARCUS WOHLSEN

REDWAY, Calif. -- The smell of pot hung heavy in the air as men with dreadlocks and gray beards contemplated a nightmarish possibility in this legendary region of outlaw marijuana growers: legal weed.

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.

"The legalization of marijuana will be the single most devastating economic event in the long boom-and-bust history of Northern California," said Anna Hamilton, 62, a Humboldt County radio host and musician who said her involvement with marijuana has mostly been limited to smoking it for the past 40 years.

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. Among the ideas: turning the vast pot gardens of Humboldt County into a destination for marijuana aficionados, with tours and tastings - a sort of Napa Valley of pot.

Many were also enthusiastic about promoting the Humboldt brand of pot.
Some discussed forming a cooperative that would enforce high standards for marijuana and stamp the county's finest weed with an official Humboldt seal of approval.

Pot growers are nervous because a measure that could make California the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use will appear on the ballot in November. State officials certified Wednesday that the initiative got enough signatures.

The law, if approved, could have a profound effect on Humboldt County, which has long had a reputation for growing some of the world's best weed.

In recent years, law enforcement agents have seized millions of pot plants worth billions of dollars in Humboldt and neighboring counties.
And that is believed to be only a fraction of the crop.

"We've lived with the name association for 30 or 40 years and considered it an embarrassment," said Mark Lovelace, a Humboldt County supervisor.
But if legalization does happen, he said, the Humboldt County name becomes the region's single most important asset.

"It's laughable at this point to try to be hush-hush about it," he said.

Humboldt County's reputation as a marijuana mecca began in the 1970s. As pot users began to notice a decline in the quality of Mexican weed, refugees from San Francisco's Summer of Love who moved to the forested mountains along California's conveniently remote North Coast began figuring out better ways to grow their own. The Humboldt name soon became a selling point for marijuana sold on street corners across the country.

These days, the small towns in this region about five hours north of San Francisco are dotted with head shops and garden supply stores.

California is one of 14 states that allow people to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes, but recreational use remains illegal.
(And will remain illegal under federal law, regardless of how California
votes.)

For decades, the outlaws, rebels and aging hippies of Humboldt County have been hoping for legalization. But now that it appears at hand, many clandestine growers fear it will flood the market with cheap, corporate-grown weed and destroy their way of life.

About 20 pot growers gathered on a patio outside the meeting Tuesday to discuss the dilemma posed by legalized pot. Many wore baseball caps and jeans, just like farmers anywhere else in America. No one addressed anyone else by name, a local custom driven by fear of arrest, but that didn't stop some in the group from lighting up their crop.

Many complained that legalization would put them in the same bind as other small farmers struggling to compete against large-scale agribusinesses.

A dreadlocked younger grower who said he had already been to prison for marijuana objected that no one could replicate the quality of the region's weed. When he was a kid, he said, "Humboldt nuggets - that was like the holy grail."

"Anyone can grow marijuana," he said. "But not everyone can grow the super-heavies, the holy bud."

Under the ballot measure, Californians could possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal use. They could cultivate gardens up to 25 square feet, which is puny by Humboldt County standards. City and county governments would have the power to tax pot sales.

Some growers Tuesday fantasized about mobs of tourists in limos streaming to the county. Others were not thrilled with the idea of paying taxes on their crop.

Many agreed with the sentiment on a sticker plastered on a pizza joint's cash register: "Save Humboldt County - keep pot illegal."
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

 

"Harm reduction comes of age"  

The Guardian
21 March, 2001

The number of inmates in US state prisons is down - but only in an effort to save money

A small reduction in the number of prisoners is encouraging. It's a pity, however, that the move has come about largely for financial reasons

The number of inmates being admitted to US prisons is dropping.
Photograph: Chris Jackson/Getty Images

In the fight for reform of America's grim, overcrowded and gang-ridden prison system it is a small victory. But so rare that it deserves mention. A new study by the Pew Centre revealed last week that America's state prisons have actually reduced their total number of inmates. The tiny dip - by just 0.4% - marks a reverse in one of the most stubborn trends in American society: the booming of its prison population. In fact it was the first recorded drop in the number of prisoners held at state jails since 1972. The numbers, of course, are staggering. The survey showed that America's creaking state jails are still home to
1,403,091 people. Back in 1972 there were just 174,000 prisoners. But what followed for almost four decades was a relentless toughening of sentencing guidelines in many states, giving the US the world's highest incarceration rate.

What is it that has finally stopped the onward charge to lock up as many people as possible for as long as possible? Sadly for reformers, it is not much to do with their campaigns to have America's laws changed on moral, humanitarian or, indeed, effectiveness grounds. It is instead mainly economic: the recession has simply meant that many states can no longer afford to lock up so many people. In cash-strapped Michigan, for example, the prison population has been slashed by 6,000 in three years as prisoners are released for serving their minimum sentence and parole violation rules are loosened.

However, the influence of the private firms who sometimes run prisons, giving them a financial incentive to lobby for tougher sentencing laws, is still strong. And the American press is full of stories of people given huge sentences for minor violations, especially when falling foul of "three strikes" laws. Earlier this month a California man who stole a
$3.99 piece of cheese got nearly eight years' jail time for the offence.
Prosecutors had originally argued for a life sentence for the repeat offender. The fact that this sort of thing still goes on (and elicits little meaningful outrage) throws the decline's significance into sharp relief. So, too, does the fact that at the federal level the number of prisoners is still increasing, up by 6,838 to an all-time high of 208,118. Indeed when the two populations are added together there are still more prisoners in American jails this year than last year. A small victory indeed.

--
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

Harper's YouTube Comments Off Base On Marijuana
By Charles W. Moore
Telegraph-Journal
March 26, 2010

The secret cannabis kings next door
Hannah isn’t just the girl next door. She’s a teacher who cultivates cannabis on the side. Meet the middle-class growers with a taste for easy money and uneasy morals
By Ed Caesar
Times (UK)
March 28, 2010

Needle exchange, injection site needed
By Bonnie J.E. Tateham
Times Colonist
March 28, 2010

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

We are writing to you today to inform you about a new report from the Urban Health Research Initiative, a program of the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which systematically reviewed all available English-language scientific literature on the impacts of drug law enforcement on drug market violence.

 

The systematic review entitled Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review identified 15 international studies examining the impact of drug law enforcement on violence. Contrary to the prevailing belief that drug law enforcement reduces violence, 87% of the studies (13 studies) observed that drug law enforcement was associated with increasing levels of drug market violence.

 

The review concludes that the available scientific evidence suggests that drug law enforcement efforts will not meaningfully reduce drug supply or drug-related violence and may paradoxically increase violence in Canadian communities.

 

The full report and a brief summary are available on the UHRI website. Click the links below to download.

Brief Summary

Full Report

 

This report was featured in the following media articles:

National Post: Gang violence increases as law-enforcement steps up: study

Vancouver Sun: The war on drugs has become a war against us

The Province: War on drugs' backfiring badly: UBC report

Canwest News Service: Drug-crime crackdown may do more harm than good: B.C. researchers

Macleans.ca: More cops, more violence

 

We hope that you will consider forwarding this message to others who may be interested in this study.

 

Please feel free to contact us directly if you have any questions concerning the Urban Health Research Initiative and the work we do.

 

Best regards,

 

Thomas Kerr and Evan Wood

 

Co-Directors of the Urban Health Research Initiative

British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

Division of AIDS, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia

 

St. Paul's Hospital

608-1081 Burrard Street

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada, V6Z 1Y6

(Tel)  604-806-9116

(Fax) 604-806-9044

Email:  uhri@cfenet.ubc.ca

Website: http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca/

 

 

You are subscribed to the UHRI update list. To unsubscribe, please send a message to uhri-list@cfenet.ubc.ca

 

 

 

 

No needle exchange at addiction centre: owner
By Richard Watts
Times Colonist
March 25, 2010



Legal-Marijuana Advocates Focus on a New Green
By Jesse McKinley
New York Times
March 25, 2010

Guest column: Let's all do a little more to help
By Robert Roach
The Province
March 25, 2010

 

Hello everyone,

 

The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (Vancouver, BC) is, on behalf of UNAIDS, mapping individuals and/or research institutes that possess relevant experience and expertise in relation to research to assess broadly the impact of criminalization of the transmission of HIV, in particular on those vulnerable to and/or living with HIV and on efforts to attain universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.  We are looking at individuals and organizations from all regions of the world, and from a range of disciplines.

 

Should you or your organization be interested in emailing me your response, please do so.

 

Sincerely,

 

Vivienne Chin

Project Coordinator

International Centre for Criminal Law Reform
and Criminal Justice Policy
1822 East Mall, Vancouver,
British Columbia  V6T 1Z1,  Canada
tel:  +1.604.859.6640
fax:  +1.604.859.6637
email: viviennechin@shaw.ca
or chin@law.ubc.ca
www.icclr.law.ubc.ca

'War on drugs' backfiring badly: UBC report
Roundup of gang bosses blamed for bloody turf battles
By Suzanne Fournier
The Province
March 23, 2010
Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a
Scientific Review (link to PDF, 26 pages)

Red Deer Advocate
March 23, 2010

Perhaps it's time to legalize pot

Seventeen per cent of Canadians report having used cannabis in the past year, despite it being illegal. Prohibition, it seems, is hardly stopping people from using cannabis.

For perspective, cigarettes are available at every corner store and the Canadian Cancer Society reports that tobacco use stands at 18 per cent.

When I was in university, one of my favourite people was a Member of Parliament who represented a very conservative riding yet held very liberal views on cannabis law reform. On the one hand, he would maintain that "Your mind is how you experience the world and I can't see why anyone would allow chemicals to dull the one chance they get to experience it." But then he would turn on a dime: "Let's be honest, this government I'm serving can't even keep cannabis out of prisons. Even in a tiny area guarded with guns, barbed wire, and four metre high concrete walls, we can't enforce the drug laws. Who here really thinks we can keep cannabis out of our sparsely populated country while respecting peoples' privacy and freedom of movement?"

His comments were reinforced recently when the Saskatchewan media reported actual examples of governments failing to keep cannabis out of prisons. This news, given that prisons are purposely designed to be secure, should prompt us to ask whether we are being rational in our attempts to prohibit cannabis from an entire country that is the world's second largest and most sparsely populated. We must further ask if the "cure" - prohibition - has side effects that are worse than the drug disease.

The conservative C2C Journal to the neo-Marxist This magazine have recently published arguments similar to that made by the Member of Parliament. In a thoughtful C2C article entitled The Price of Pot Prohibition, Peter Jaworski gives a picture of the difficulties inherent in a attempting to prohibit cannabis use.

In fact, a 2002 Senate Special Report found that, in 2006, authorities seized only 50 tonnes, or six per cent, of an estimated 800 tonnes of cannabis which circulated in Canada, which would seem to indicate that prohibition is to the cannabis trade as flies are to elephants: annoying but mostly irrelevant.

But, prohibitionists may maintain, if 17 per cent of Canadians smoke pot now, imagine if it was legal! Legalization decriminalizing cannabis use would be an implicit endorsement by the state, and the problem would get much worse than it is already.

However, the facts say otherwise: In the U.S., famous for its War on Drugs and with an estimated half million people in prison for drug offenses, 12.2 per cent use cannabis, while in the Netherlands, where people are able to legally buy and smoke cannabis in public, 5.4 per cent are users.

Further, so long as cannabis is illegal but in common use, an industry exists in which people can't access the police and court system for the enforcement of contracts and protection of their property. You can hardly report to the police that your runner ran off with your cannabis, or tell a judge that your grower has breached his contract. As a result, contracts and property rights in the drug business are enforced in much the same way as they are in the wider economy of Somalia; by people taking the law into their own hands.

Worse still, the burden of such lawlessness in not evenly spread across society. While middle-class parents may take some comfort from knowing that drugs are illegal, it is less well-to-do kids who are tempted by gangs enjoying the high profits associated with the dangerous but lucrative business of dealing drugs outside the law.

Finally, while economic projections are notoriously inaccurate, the best ones we have suggest that prohibition is a bad deal. Based on current values, Jaworski estimates that a tax on legal cannabis could generate between $1 and $3 billion, plus half a billion dollars saved from not having to enforce prohibition.

David Seymour directs the Saskatchewan Office of the Frontier Centre.

* * *

C2C
July 22, 2009

The Price of Pot Prohibition

by Peter Jaworski

THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF CANADA'S WAR AGAINST CANNABIS

MORAL CASE

A moral case against drug prohibition might take several forms. Milton Friedman, for example, has argued that the war on drugs and prohibition in general offends against our personal sovereignty, and is analogous to the censorship of ideas: "The question is whether the government should have the right to say what you may put in your mouth any more than it has the right to say what you may put in your mind."1 We can call this the sovereignty argument, but its pedigree is more easily recognized as the argument from self-ownership.

Alternatively we might insist that while the government does have a "right" to attempt to ameliorate self-caused harms, marihuana just is not sufficiently harmful to be prohibited. Call this the harm assessment strategy. The harm assessment strategy would include criteria for judging something sufficiently harmful to be subject to prohibition. It is very difficult to believe that marihuana, in any of its forms, would even come close to some rational criteria for prohibition. And if it does not meet the criteria, then putting people in jail, or even giving them a ticket or fine, for smoking pot is harming them for no good reason. Since harming persons for no good reason is immoral, marihuana prohibition according to the harm assessment strategy is immoral.

This article, however, does not attempt to make the above strictly moral arguments against the prohibition of marihuana. Instead, it will focus on the economic costs of keeping marihuana illegal, and attempts to make the economic case for re-legalizing marihuana. This is not to say that an economic case for marihuana re-legalization is not simultaneously a moral case, of course it is. An efficient health care system means fewer deaths. An efficient economic system means people are better off -- they get more of what they need or want, at a cheaper price.

Decisions about how to spend scarce police and legal resources are moral questions. If we spend one dollar on ensuring that Jones does not smoke pot, that's one dollar less to ensure that Smith does not have her car stolen, or gets it back should someone make off with it. Rational public policy requires dealing with the opportunity costs of spending a dollar here rather than elsewhere; rational public policy demands that we deal with trade-offs between policy priorities.

So it is a moral question that we are facing. And there is every reason to believe that keeping marihuana illegal is not just immoral, it's deeply, profoundly irrational. From a rational public policy perspective, marihuana prohibition is, to be charitable, unwise. It may very well be the most unwise public policy around. At least, it is difficult to find public policies that cost so much, benefit us so little, and destroy as many lives as marihuana prohibition. Or so I will argue.

COSTS AND BENEFITS

How much marihuana is being circulated in Canada? The exact numbers are difficult to pin down. What we do have, however, are reports on the amount of marihuana seized in Canada, polling data on use, as well as estimates by various groups, including the 2002 Senate Special Committee Report on Illegal Drugs.

The United Nations issues an annual World Drug Report. The latest 2008 report states that, in 2006, law enforcement in Canada seized 13154.075 kg [13.2 tonnes] of cannabis herb,2 47594.279 kg [47.6 tonnes] of cannabis plant,3 and 27730.066 kg [27.7 tonnes] of cannabis resin.4 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police issues an annual Drug Situation Report.
The most recent version available is the 2007 Drug Situation in Canada report. According to the report, "an estimated 50,000 kilograms [50 tonnes] and over 1.8 million marihuana plants were seized in Canada" in
2007.5 Approximately 90 per cent of the marihuana seized was seized from the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia.

Chart 1: Cannabis seizures in Canada
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/blog-articles/view/the-price-of-pot-prohibition#

The Drug Report estimates the total street value of all seized cannabis and cannabis derivatives (marihuana plant, marihuana herb, hash, and hash oil) at $2.3 billion dollars. Since the total street-level value of all illicit drugs seized by Canadian law enforcement was estimated at
$2.6 billion, marihuana and its derivatives represent the overwhelming majority of seizures.6

Relying on the annual Drug Report data, the 2002 Senate Special Committee Report on Illegal Drugs concluded that approximately 800 tonnes of cannabis circulates in Canada. The Senate report suggested that approximately 50 per cent of this total is Canadian-made. That yields an annual 400 tonnes of cannabis produced in Canada for circulation. Assuming that these numbers remained constant through to 2007, the ratio of seized to delivered cannabis is 50 out of 800 tonnes, or 6.25 per cent.

The Senate report suggested that the amount of cannabis circulating in Canada is greater than the 800 tonnes figure. There are at least two good reasons to believe that the amount of cannabis circulating in Canada is greater, possibly much greater, than the 800 tonnes cited.

For one, the staggering proportion of Canadians telling pollsters that they have tried or continue to use marihuana strongly suggests a larger figure. According to the 2004 Canadian Addiction Survey published by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 14.1 per cent of all Canadians reported using cannabis in 2003 -- nearly double what was reported in
1994 at 7.4 per cent -- while 30 per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds, and 47 per cent of 18- to 19-year-olds reported using cannabis in 2004. Nearly half, 44.5 per cent, reported using cannabis at least once in their lifetime. The 2007 UN World Drug Report had 16.8 per cent of all Canadians using marihuana in 2006, the highest amongst developed countries.

Secondly, the Senate Report was making calculations on the basis of figures obtained earlier than 2002, when they issued their report. Given the upward trend of use in Canada, as well as an increase in population, this suggests that cannabis availability has increased as well as demand.

COST OF PROHIBITION: LOST POTENTIAL TAX REVENUE

Depending on taste preferences, one gram of marihuana produces between one and three marihuana cigarettes, according to Stephen T. Easton's analysis for the Fraser Institute.7 That means the average marihuana consumer is willing to spend between $3.33 to $10 per marihuana cigarette, assuming a street value of $10 per gram, as the RCMP does. A standard tobacco cigarette has 0.8 grams of tobacco per cigarette. If all marihuana cigarettes were made just like tobacco cigarettes, that would result in retail prices of $8 for a marihuana cigarette, and $160 per pack of marihuana cigarettes at 20 cigarettes per pack, holding commodity price constant at $10/gram.

Stephen T. Easton has estimated that it costs approximately $4.70 to produce one gram of marihuana using 2002 production methods and techniques, in an illegal market. At wholesale prices, each marihuana cigarette would cost between $1.60 to $4.70 to produce,8 or $3.76 at 0.8 grams, the amount of tobacco in tobacco cigarettes. That yields $5.30 in profit for every gram, $4.24 in profit for every 0.8 grams. This amount is available for taxation.

In what follows, I have made use of three different assumptions to estimate the size of the domestic marihuana market, and to generate the amount of revenue open to taxation. The first method is to assume half of the marihuana in circulation is consumed annually; the second is to update Easton's calculations for the Fraser Institute with more recent data about population size and the proportion of Canadians who use marihuana; while the third takes Jeffrey A. Miron's calculations for the U.S. marihuana market and applies a crude conversion based on population size to generate potential revenues in Canada.

If half of the marihuana in circulation were consumed by Canadians (400 tonnes), and if taxes consumed the profits, that would yield an astonishing $2.12 billion in revenue every year.

The above estimates of production costs are conservative. It is much more likely that the cost of production would dramatically decrease if marihuana were legalized. Let us conservatively estimate that production costs would be halved. Let us further assume that we don't want increases in consumption, so we adjust the tax to compensate for a decrease in production costs. Using these assumptions, we can expect
$3.06 billion in revenue.

Alternatively, we can use the cost of producing medicinal marihuana for Health Canada as our guide. Prairie Plant Systems Inc. produces marihuana for Health Canada, charging the government $328.75 per kilogram (Health Canada charged patients $5,000 per kilogram, or $150 per 30 gram bags, or $5 per gram, a 1,500 per cent markup) in 2007, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act by the Toronto Star. That means a cost of $0.33 per gram. At a cost of $0.33, that would yield $3.87 billion in taxable revenue, or $3.95 billion in 2009 dollars.

Easton used different methods to come to similar usage statistics.
Easton took the number of users of marihuana in Canada and made assumptions about how many marihuana cigarettes they smoked per month (18.7), multiplied that number by the weight of each cigarette (0.4 to 1.0 grams), and, for the year 2000, came up with 159.4 tonnes as the low figure (assuming 0.4 grams per marihuana cigarette), and 413.4 tonnes as the high figure (assuming 1.0 gram marihuana cigarettes). That would yield $1.22 billion (low) to $3.16 billion (high) of revenue open to taxation in 2004 dollars, or $1.33 billion (low) to $3.46 billion (high) in 2009 dollars.

We can adjust Easton's measurements to account for the higher population and usage statistics in 2006. Easton used 7.4 per cent of the Canadian population as having used marihuana, data consistent with 1994 figures.
In 2006, however, rates of use in Canada have more than doubled, at 16.8 per cent of the population, according to the UN's World Drug Report.
Since the Canadian Addiction Survey may be a better gauge of use, we will use the 14.1 per cent of all Canadians 15-and-older figure obtained in 2004. Canada's population was 31.9 million in 2004, giving us 4.5 million users. Per Easton's assumptions, these users smoked, on average,
18.7 marihuana cigarettes per month, giving us a domestic marihuana market of 404.3 tonnes (low) or 1,010.6 tonnes (high). That yields taxable revenue of $3.14 billion (low) to $7.73 billion (high) in 2004 dollars, or $3.44 (low) to $8.46 billion in 2009 dollars.9

A third method might be to use U.S. consumption and expected revenue figures, and adjust them for Canada. Jeffrey Miron estimated that the U.S. government could expect annual revenue from taxes at US$6.7 billion. Miron arrived at this figure by using the 2000 estimates of total expenditure on marihuana by Americans provided by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and assuming a tax rate similar to taxes levied on alcohol and tobacco. The ONDCP estimates that US$10.5 billion was spent by Americans on marihuana in 2000 [p. 3], which would be
US$12.6 billion in 2006, after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, taxes represent 24.5 per cent of total alcohol cost, and 61 per cent of tobacco costs [Miron, p.14]. Miron therefore assumes that taxes would account for 53.2 per cent of the total cost of marihuana. Assuming rates of use for Canada and the U.S. were identical, Canada could expect revenue of US$670 million per year, or CAD$717 million (U.S. expected tax revenue divided by 10), or CAD$748 million adjusted for inflation.

This last method may significantly underestimate the potential tax revenue in Canada. For one, Miron assumes that expenditure on marihuana has remained constant from 2000 through 2006. This is unlikely.
Secondly, Canadians consume more marihuana than Americans. According to the ONDCP, 12.6 per cent of Americans reported using marihuana in 2001, compared to 14.1 per cent of Canadians in 2003, and 16.8 in 2006 (the highest rate amongst all developed nations). Finally, there is some reason to believe that Canadians will tolerate higher tax rates.
Assuming taxes accounted for 76.5 per cent of total costs (as we earlier assumed after production costs were halved), we could expect $1.06 billion in revenue, or $1.11 billion adjusted for inflation.

That gives us a range of $748 million to $8.46 billion in potential revenue open to taxation. The lowest and highest numbers are very unlikely. Excluding those (as well as the $3.95, $3.46, and $3.44 billion figures, to be conservative), we have a range of $1.33 to $3.06 billion in annual revenue open to taxation. This number does not include potential additional revenue from increased tourism, which would be very likely (especially from the U.S.). Since we excluded the highest number, which assumed increased consumption, we are also not accounting for any possible increase in consumption, which is also likely. This range is conservative. It can be restated as: $2.195 billion +/- $865 million.

Chart 2: Expected revenue
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/blog-articles/view/the-price-of-pot-prohibition#

(Inflation calculator:
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html)

Some might object that fewer people will consume marihuana purchased in the legal, taxed environment, and will continue to use black market, or illegal marihuana, or grow their own. There is no reason to believe this. First, we have assumed black market prices at $10/gram. Given the option of buying regular or black market marihuana at the same price, there is no reason for someone to choose the black market. While people could grow their own marihuana, there is no reason to believe that this would take up anything but an insignificant proportion of the whole.
People can currently grow their own tomatoes and cucumbers, but few do.
Similarly with tobacco, which is a weed just like marihuana. The most obvious comparison is to alcohol, which saw a switch from home-made booze to professionally-produced alcohol almost immediately after repeal of prohibition. With the assurance of quality and the decrease in potential violence that comes from a legal regime, we can assume that nearly all marihuana will be purchased in the legal and taxed environment, rather than in the illegal, or homegrown, and untaxed market.

COST OF PROHIBITION: ENFORCEMENT TRADE-OFF

In addition to expected tax revenues of between $1.33 to $3.06 billion per year, we would see significant law enforcement savings as well.

It is difficult to estimate the total cost of enforcing marihuana laws in Canada. There are many reasons for this. It is difficult, for example, to estimate the percentage of time a regular police officer spends on marihuana-related enforcement activity, compared with her other police activities, when out on patrol.

But we have to do the best we can, with the evidence we have at our disposal. In 2001, the Auditor General of Canada estimated that federal law enforcement agencies spent $450 million between 1999 and 2000 on drug control, enforcement, and education, with 95 per cent of the costs attributed to enforcement alone. For enforcement only costs, the Auditor General reported the following break down by enforcement activity:

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency: $10 to $32 million

Correctional Services Canada: $169 million

Department of Justice: $71 million

National Parole Board: $4 million

RCMP: $168 million

Total enforcement cost: $422 to $444 million.

Further, according to the Auditor General, 34,347 persons were charged with cannabis-related crimes -- including possession (21,381), trafficking (8,112), importation (157), and cultivation (4,697) -- out of a total of 49,585 persons charged under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in 1999. Cannabis-related charges therefore represent 70 per cent of all persons charged in 1999.

Assuming an efficient distribution of enforcement expenditure to persons charged, we would expect that federal law enforcement agencies spent 70 per cent of their law enforcement budget on cannabis-related crimes.
That would yield a total of $295.4 to $310.8 million in cannabis-related enforcement costs in 1999, or $8,600.46 to $9,048.83 per person charged.
This figure includes the estimated annual cost of housing prisoners, which is approximately $57,000 per year in provincial jails, and $88,000 per year in the federal system. Adjusted for inflation, we get a total enforcement cost of $363.7 to $382.7 million, or $10,590.19 to
$11,942.29 per person charged in 2009.

Assuming a constant cost-per-person-charged rate, we can estimate more recent costs of cannabis enforcement. According to Statistics Canada, the number of persons charged with cannabis-related offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has fluctuated significantly from
1999 to 2007, 2007 representing the most recent data available. From a high of 41,128 persons in 2002, to a low of 29,503 in 2005. In 2007,
32,472 persons were charged with cannabis-related charges. At $10,590.19 per person charged, we get $343.9 million in cannabis-related enforcement costs in 2007, and at $11,942.29 per person charged, we get
$387.8 million. The following chart provides us with detailed figures for all cannabis-related charges from 1999 until 2007, as well as estimated cannabis-specific law enforcement expenditures using the above crude estimate (notice that Statistics Canada provides a different number for persons charged in 1999 than the Auditor General's report. I am not sure which numbers are correct).

Chart 3: Cannabis-related charges
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/blog-articles/view/the-price-of-pot-prohibition#

In total, a legal marihuana regime would see cannabis-related enforcement cost savings for federal law enforcement agencies between a low of $312.4 million (using 2005 estimates) to a high of $491.2 million (using 2002 estimates) per year. That money could be diverted to other law enforcement priorities (most likely), spent on other priorities like health or education (less likely), or returned to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts (unlikely). These numbers should be treated with some caution. This is because many costs associated with cannabis are dealt with at the provincial level, and we can anticipate continued costs, like roadside testing for drugged driving. The significance of this cost to the total, however, is likely negligible.

SOCIAL COSTS OF LEGAL MARIHUANA

To accurately assess the economic case for marihuana legalization, we need to look not just at potential tax revenue and potential law enforcement savings, we need to also assess the potential social costs of marihuana use.

According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse's The Cost of Substance Abuse 2002, the social cost of substance abuse, including alcohol, tobacco, licit and illicit substances, is approximately $38.9 billion dollars,10 or $44.5 billion in 2009 dollars. They break these costs down as follows. Indirect costs, in terms of productivity loss, amount to $24.3 billion, or 61 per cent of the total cost. Direct health care costs amount to $8.8 billion, or 22 per cent of the total. Direct law enforcement costs are set at $5.4 billion, or 14 per cent, while other direct costs are estimated to be $1.3 billion, or three per cent.

According to the study, tobacco accounted for $17 billion of the total cost (42.7 per cent), while alcohol accounted for $14.6 billion of the total cost, (36.6 per cent), leaving $8.2 billion (20.7 per cent) attributable to all illegal drugs. We will adjust for inflation after figuring out the numbers in 2002 dollars.

We need to know what proportion of the $8.2 billion ($8,224.3 million) in social costs is attributable to marihuana, and what cost we could expect if marihuana were re-legalized. Direct law enforcement costs from all levels of law enforcement (including federal) come to $2,335.5 million, according to the study. If marihuana were re-legalized, cannabis-specific enforcement costs would be negligible. Subtracting the total law enforcement costs from $8,224.3 million gives us $5,888.8 million, or $5.9 billion still to be distributed.

Direct health care costs amount to $1,134.6 million for all illegal drugs. In a separate study using the same data as The Cost of Substance Abuse 2002 study, the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse revealed the cannabis-specific health care costs as $73 million per year, while all other illegal drugs accounted for $1,061.6 million, or $1.06 billion (a surprising ratio of 14.54 to 1).11 Of the $5.9 billion total social costs still to be distributed, we can eliminate $1.06 billion as a health care cost due to non-cannabis illegal drugs, while putting aside
$73 million as a definite health care cost of cannabis. Subtracting both numbers from the total, we get $4,754.2 million, or $4.8 billion still to be distributed.

Productivity loss caused by all illegal drugs is $4,678.6 million. The study uses two primary methods of inferring productivity loss -- death and morbidity (potential years of life lost plus acute care hospital days). The most significant portion of this figure is due to "long-term disability" at $4,408.4 million, with "premature mortality" at $248.5 million. Apart from driving-related deaths, no death has ever been attributed to the use of cannabis. We can use the direct health care cost numbers as a proxy for indirect productivity loss due to "long-term disability." At a constant ratio of 14.54 to 1, we get $303.2 million as a result of "long-term disability" for cannabis only. We can assume that this is the only significant cost in terms of productivity loss due to cannabis only.

These findings are consistent with the conclusions of the 2002 Senate Report, which surveyed the findings from the 1992 study by the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, and concluded that, "Except in the case of traffic fatalities, cannabis is not a cause of death and involves none of this type of social cost. Morbidity corresponds to losses attributed to problems caused by drug use as measured by the difference between the average annual income of users and of the population in general. Here, two further observations about cannabis should be noted. A large proportion of cannabis users are young people who are not yet part of the workforce; and cannabis use involves none of the addiction and attendant problems that follow from heroin or cocaine use. It is, therefore, the costs that can be attributed to cannabis in this regard are likely minimal. If one accepts the methodology of the authors, cannabis in itself entails few externalities, which are the main measures of the social cost of illegal drugs."12

We are now left with $75.6 million after subtracting the total productivity loss costs from the remaining $4,754.2 million. This amount falls into categories like awareness, education, and research, thus it is not possible to further break down this figure.

The total cannabis-only social costs, then, are $376.2 million, plus some proportion of $75.6 million. $451.8 million represents the absolute upper bound in terms of social costs, assuming that all of the "other costs" were cannabis-specific. Adjusting for inflation, we get a total of anywhere between $430.65 to $517.19 million.

Chart 4: Expected social cost of legal cannabis http://www.c2cjournal.ca/blog-articles/view/the-price-of-pot-prohibition#

CONCLUSION

Maintaining prohibition of marihuana costs the Canadian government $1.33 to $3.06 billion in lost taxable revenue (or, $2.195 billion +/- $865 million), and approximately $400 million in law enforcement costs.
Meanwhile, the social costs of marihuana are minimal, estimated at between $430.7 to $517.2 million per year. Considering only domestic costs and benefits, the decision to continue to keep marihuana illegal is, from an economic point of view, profoundly irrational.

Adding to the irrationality is the fact that, currently, criminal gangs are seeing the benefits of marihuana prohibition through an enormous revenue stream provided by the prohibition on marihuana. We could expect the same devastating impact on criminal gangs with marihuana re-legalization as we witnessed after the re-legalization of alcohol.
Marihuana prohibition enriches gangs. Small wonder gangs in Canada approve of prohibition, and hope that marihuana remains illegal.

This article has not considered what may be the most significant cost of re-legalizing marihuana -- impact on our trade relationship with the United States. Research should be undertaken to estimate the potential U.S./Canada trade-related costs of re-legalizing marihuana in Canada.

Peter Jaworski is a PhD Candidate in Philosophy at Bowling Green State University and a Director of the Institute for Liberal Studies (www.liberalstudies.ca). He holds an MSc from the London School of Economics and an MA from the University of Waterloo.

REFERENCES

CBC News (2009), "Illegal Drugs: Canada's growing international market,"
CBC News, June 24, 2009.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/06/24/f-unitednations-drug-report-canada-ecstasy.html
(accessed: June 25, 2009)

Dupuis, Tanya and Robin MacKay (2009), "Bill C-15: An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to Make Related and Consequential Amendments to Other Acts," Legislative Summary, Library of Parliament.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&amp;ls=c15&amp;source=library_prb&amp;Parl=40&amp;Ses=2
(accessed: June 9, 2009)

Easton, Stephen T. (2004), "Marihuana Growth in British Columbia,"
Public Policy Sources, Fraser Institute, May 2004.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/marijuanaGrowthinBC.pdf
(accessed: June 8, 2009).

Gardner, Dan (2009), "It's time for a serious look at our drug policy,"
The Vancouver Sun, March 7, 2009.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/time+serious+look+drug+policy/1364334/story.html
(accessed: June 10, 2009)

Jaworski, Peter (2002), "Friedman and Freedom: An Interview with Milton Friedman," The Queen's University Journal, March 15, 2002.

Miron, Jeffrey (2008), "The Budgetary Implications of Drug Legalization," The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/budget_2008.pdf
(accessed: June 8, 2009).

Rehm, J. et al. (2006), "The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada 2002,"
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
http://www.ccsa.ca/2006%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-011332-2006.pdf
(accessed: June 9, 2009)

Reid, Scott (2001), "Should we end Prohibition?" Policy Options, Institute for Research on Public Policy, October, 2001.
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/oct01/reid.pdf (accessed: June 4, 2009).

Single, E. et al. (1996). "The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada: A Cost Estimation Study," Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Single, E. et al. (2001), "International guidelines for estimating the costs of substance abuse: summary of 2001 edition," Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
http://www.ccsa.ca/2003%20and%20earlier%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-004034-2001.pdf
(accessed: June 9, 2009).

Thomas, Gerald and Christopher G. Davis (2007), "Comparing the perceived seriousness and actual costs of substance abuse in Canada," Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
http://www.ccsa.ca/2007%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-011350-2007.pdf
(accessed: June 9, 2009).

Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001), "What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs," December, 2001.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/american_users_spend_2002.pdf
(accessed: June 8, 2009).
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2002), "Drug Use Trends," Fact Sheet, October 2002.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/drugusetrends.pdf
(accessed: June 5, 2009).

Auditor General (2001), "2001 December report of the Auditor General of Canada," Chapter 11 -- Illicit Drugs -- The Federal Government's Role.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200112_11_e_11832.html
(accessed: June 10, 2009)

Senate Report (2002), "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy," Final Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/committee_senrep.asp?language=e&amp;parl=37&amp;Ses=1&amp;comm_id=85
(accessed: June 10, 2009).

United Nations (2009), "World Drug Report 2008,"
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html (accessed:
June 8, 2009).

RCMP (2009),"Drug Situation in Canada -- 2007," Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2009. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/drugs-drogues/drg-2007-eng.htm
(accessed: June 8, 2009).

Abt Associates (2001), "The Price of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2000," Office of National Drug Control Policy, October 2001.

Statistics Canada. Table 252-0014 - Adult and youth charged, by detailed offences, annual (number unless otherwise noted), CANSIM (database).
http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&amp;CNSM-Fi=CII/CII_1-eng.htm
(accessed: June 8, 2009)

About Peter Jaworski

Peter Jaworski is a PhD Candidate in Philosophy at Bowling Green State
University and a Director of the Institute for Liberal Studies
(www.liberalstudies.ca). He holds an MSc from the London School of
Economics and an MA from the University of Waterloo.

_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world