Drug WarRant

It was bad enough last week to see the DEA’s ridiculous document titled Speak out Against Drug Legalization.

Well, Kerlikowske’s got his own. It’s a new ONDCP “fact sheet”: Marijuana Legalization: A Bad Idea. What was a bad idea was putting together this “fact sheet.” Embarrassing.

It starts out with a discussion of marijuana current use by young people and how that relates to perceived risk of marijuana. Of course, always missing from that discussion is the salient point: What if the young people are right in perceiving that the risk of using marijuana is low? But then, that’s the whole point of the ONDCP. They don’t care whether the risk is real. They only care that it’s perceived, and they’ll lie like crazy to accomplish that.

Then they get into the Bullet Points.

Marijuana use is harmful and should be discouraged

• Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects.

“Associated.” Milk is associated with refrigeration. Liberalism is associated with Marxism and Socialism. Conservatism is associated with Fascism. The colors red and green are associated with Christmas.

• Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory.

First, you don’t have to get “intoxicated” just like you don’t have to get “intoxicated” with alcohol, which causes worse problems. Second, to the extent those are true, they are short-term effects, not long-term. Third, some of those are a feature, not a harm, of marijuana intoxication.

• Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia.

Ooh, look — “associated.” And most of those studies have later been proven wrong by stronger and more comprehensive studies.

• Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.

All right, this is one of those lies that needs to be put away and buried 6 feet under. It’s such a blatant lie. You know that they know about the Tashkin study proving no link between even heavy marijuana use and head, neck, or lung cancer. That’s why they don’t say “marijuana causes cancer.” Instead, they vaguely talk about “carcinogens” in the hopes that you’ll interpret that to mean that marijuana causes cancer. It’s still a lie, and may be worth another Data Quality Act challenge.

Legalization would lower price, thereby increasing use

• A recent report from the RAND Corporation, “Altered State,” discusses how legalization would cause the price of marijuana to plummet, triggering Current Use of Major Substances in increases in use of the drug.

I love the use of the word “discusses.” It allows this “fact sheet” to ignore that the RAND report also said that they had no clue what would actually happen.

• Illegality helps keep prices higher. And because drug use is sensitive to price, especially among young people, higher prices help keep use rates relatively low.

Relatively low? Right… And regarding price sensitivity, drug use is relatively inelastic in price sensitivity. Back when I was in college, people would pay $15-30 for an ounce of marijuana. Today, they think little of paying twice that for an eighth. At most, you might get some substitution with price shifts. If marijuana prices get low, then maybe some people would switch from alcohol. And that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

• Use of the legal substances alcohol and tobacco far outpaces the use of marijuana, a strong indication that laws reduce the availability and acceptability of substances.

When Salvia was legal, use of the illegal substance marijuana far outpaced the use of Salvia, a strong indication that laws don’t reduce the availability and acceptability of substances.

What are the actual facts?

“The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ” – British Journal of Psychiatry, February 2001.

“In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use.” – National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999.

“There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine).” – C. Thies and C. Register. 1993.

“The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to have been a factor in people’s decision to use or not use the drug.”
– California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977

Lots more here

Moving on…

• Our experience with even tightly regulated prescription drugs, such as Oxycontin, shows that legalizing drugs widens availability and misuse, even when controls are in place.

There’s a huge difference between misusing Oxycontin and misusing marijuana.

Tax revenue would be offset by higher social costs

• The costs to society of alcohol and tobacco – substances that are legal and taxed – are much greater than the revenue they generate.

And what has that to do with marijuana?

• Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion. Combined, these amounts are less than 10 percent of the estimated $185 billion in alcohol‐related costs to health care, criminal justice, and the workplace in lost productivity.

And what has that to do with marijuana?

• Tobacco does not yield net revenue when taxed. Each year, Americans spend more than $200 billion on the social costs of smoking, but only about $25 billion is collected in taxes.

And what has that to do with marijuana?

Legalization would further burden the criminal justice system

• Legalizing marijuana would increase use of the drug and, consequently, the harm it causes, thus adding to the burden on the criminal justice system. Arrests for alcohol‐related crimes, such as violations of liquor laws, public drunkenness, and driving under the influence, totaled nearly 2.7 million in 2008. Marijuana‐possession arrests under current laws in 2008 totaled around 750,000.

Wow, that one gets extra points for degree of difficulty. I think it was a double twisting backwards somersault. Not only did they conflate criminal behavior induced by alcohol with marijuana, but they actually used marijuana arrest rates that are based solely on the drug being illegal as a base line for estimating increasing arrests when you remove the illegality of it! So, not arresting people for marijuana will result in arresting more people for marijuana.

• Most people whose only crime is marijuana possession do not go to prison. A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes). Other independent research has shown that the risk of arrest for each “joint,” or marijuana cigarette, smoked is about 1 arrest for every 12,000 joints.

If that’s the case, then why keep it illegal? From that description, it’s like marijuana laws are either a lottery (certain random people have to pay the price for what everyone else is doing), or it’s used as a racist/classist tool to go after “undesirables,” while leaving most everyone else alone. This is supposed to be a vindication of current law?

Legalization would do little, if anything, to curb drug violence

• Marijuana accounts for only a portion of the proceeds gained by criminal organizations that profit from drug distribution, human trafficking, and other crimes, so legalizing marijuana would not deter these groups from continuing to operate.

It’s a good start. Then we can legalize all drugs and remove most of the rest of their proceeds.

• Under the most commonly proposed legalization regime – one that imposes high taxes on marijuana – violent drug cartels would simply undercut legal prices to keep their market share. With increased demand for marijuana resulting from legalization, these groups would likely grow stronger.

Yeah, maybe as strong as those big, violent tobacco cartels. Have you noticed that even with massive taxes on cigarettes, people still go into the gas stations and convenience stores and buy them?

Well, that’s it. Them’s the “facts.”

It really is embarrassing. And what makes it worse is actually seeing the United States Government White House seal on this. It drives home just how morally bankrupt our government can be, when it is pathetically eager to lie and distort in such a blatant manner.

The Drug Czar’s “blog”

Although the failure of these initiatives is a victory for parents, youth, and families across the Nation, with recent data indicating drug use on the rise in the U.S., we must continue the hard work being done every day to prevent drug use and its consequences.

Parents, youth, and families? I’m only surprised that they didn’t say “parents, youth, children, and families.”

Just an interesting little fact…

Meg Whitman spent $140 million on her campaign for California Governor.
Prop 19 spent about $4 million (and that included getting on the ballot).

Meg Whitman received about 3,029,919 votes
Prop 19 received about 3,359,776 votes

Link

Mexican authorities near the Pacific resort city of Acapulco discovered a hidden mass grave filled with what they believed to be victims of the country’s drug war, local media reported on Wednesday.

Authorities have dug at least 18 bodies out of the grave, newspapers El Universal and Milenio reported.

Mexican authorities jumped into action with this bold response:

Mexico on Wednesday welcomed a vote against the legalization of marijuana in the US state of California.

Oh. Right. If California had legalized marijuana, it might have caused Mexico to have some kind of drug war problems…

So just about every former Latin American leader has endorsed legalization. Is there a situation where Calderon could consider it?

President Felipe Calderon, who is leading a military crackdown on Mexico’s drug gangs, said before the vote that any kind of legalization would have to take place “integrally and globally.”

What does that mean? Has there been anything that has happened “integrally and globally” since Adam and Eve shared the apple?

Proposition 19 was huge.

Our work continues. It’s about educating and building a movement from the ground up so that the political leaders are forced to follow us, with a final goal of ending prohibition. Every new person we reach puts us that much closer. We know we can’t count on a Presidential decree or other deus ex machina intervention. It all depends on us.

But Proposition 19 was huge. Despite being a state initiative, it gave us an international stage to tell people about the costs of the drug war, to tell people about the violence of the drug war, to tell people about the racism of the drug war, and so much more. And oh, people listened.

No longer is the question one of whether marijuana will be legalized, but when.

Case in point:

There is a new campaign by Families in Action, called But What About The Children? Yes, of course, it’s the same old “what about the children” nonsense, but with a huge difference.

Check out what they’re saying…

Demand that policymakers who legalize marijuana guarantee the drug will not be marketed to children, like alcohol and tobacco are.

That’s right. Not if policymakers legalize marijuana, but when.

They continue:

Whether or not Californians approve Proposition 19 on November 2, it is the first of many on the horizon to legalize marijuana for recreational use and turn it into an unregulated commercial enterprise. If Prop 19 fails, proponents are planning similar ballot initiatives for 2012, not only in California but also in other Western states. Their strategy seems to be to legalize marijuana in enough states to force Congress to change federal law and legalize the drug nationwide. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank has introduced HR 2943, the first federal bill to legalize marijuana. (It is two sentences long.)

But What about the Children? Campaign
National Families in Action is launching But What About the Children? – a campaign to hold a legalized marijuana industry accountable for ensuring that children will not have access to the drug. The campaign holds that any marijuana legalization law should incorporate provisions to avoid what medical science has learned about alcohol and tobacco use in order to prevent marijuana use and addiction among children.

The entire campaign is about the assumption that marijuana will be legalized.

Of course, a lot of their claims and demands are nonsense, but what a change!

And who is on their advisory board? One of the worst prohibitionists out there — Robert DuPont — plus prohibition enabler extraordinaire Rosalie Pacula of Rand.

Change is in the works.

This is an open thread to discuss anything you wish as you wait for the Prop 19 results (although waiting is not all you can do — Get out the vote campaigns continue today).

---

OAKLAND, CA – The campaign working to pass Proposition 19, the California initiative to control and tax marijuana, will host a Get Out The Vote rally on Election Day, this Tuesday, in front of Oakland City Hall.

WHO: Oakland City Attorney John Russo; Prop. 19 proponent and Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee; former Wheatland police officer Nate Bradley; United Food and Commercial Workers union organizer Dan Rush; lawyer and mom Hanna Dershowitz and others
WHAT: Election Day Get Out The Vote rally
WHEN: Tuesday, November 2; 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
WHERE: Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland City Hall

While the rally itself lasts from 10:00 AM until noon, the first hour is targeted to press, and will feature short speeches by all the spokespersons.

---

I’ve also gathered a fair amount of interesting reading for you.

---

Comment: The war on drugs is already lost by Ian Dunt

What is losing? No-one really knows. In football there’s a final whistle. In politics, there are elections. But policies have no timer, only consequences. How bad must those consequences be for us to call it quits over the war on drugs? […]

Intellectually, pro-prohibitionists are a dwindling and pitiful breed. Alone and without allies they make their case to an empty room. Behind them, almost every government in the world supports their barbaric and simple-minded agenda. It is baffling. […]

Drug prohibition is philosophically wrong. It denies us the freedom to decide what we put in our own bodies. It is medically wrong. The black market allows drug peddlers to corrupt the substances in a bid to boost quantities, something which would be impossible if the product were regulated. It is socially wrong. It funds the black market and allows drug use to take place in a social netherworld, where addiction and crime are more likely to follow. It is logically wrong, in that decriminalisation tends to see usage and potency drop. When Jacqui Smith obediently followed Gordon Brown’s orders and re-classified marijuana, for instance, its usage was actually falling.

But a mugging here or a burglary there hardly compares to what this insane policy does to us strategically. […]

How much blood does it take before the prohibitionists admit defeat? At what point does their continued failure become a personal moral culpability? They are promoting a policy which kills our children, endangers our troops, counteracts our foreign policy and reduces much of the developing world to anarchy.

---

The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!

Comes now Russian drug czar Viktor Ivanov, who flew in and injected a bit of old-fashioned reefer madness into the debate. As only someone from the land of double-speak can put it, Ivanov warned of “psychiatric deviations” should California pass Proposition 19. Foreign Policy reports:

Viktor Ivanov, a former KGB officer and prominent member of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, even took the unusual step of going to Los Angeles earlier this week to “conduct a campaign against legalizing marijuana in California,” as he said in the interview. He also came to Washington this week to meet with U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske and U.S. Afghan envoy Richard Holbrooke to discuss anti-poppy measures in Afghanistan and call for an intensified program of aerial eradication.

He warns California, sternly:

“I’m afraid that the consequences of [legalization] will be catastrophic. Even the Netherlands, where they sell marijuana legally in coffee shops, they are now reversing on this. Because there, and everywhere, drug addiction is becoming stronger and the people who are addicted develop psychiatric deviations. They say, ‘What does God do when he wants to punish a person? He deprives him of his mind.’ “

The aptly titled Russian czar does speak with some authority, as his country does have a drug problem of its own. But I’m not sure that support from Ivanov — whose own government has an elastic definition of personal freedom — is an endorsement the anti-19 forces will embrace.

---

Mary Ann Sieghart: Restore sanity in the debate on drugs

America declared war on drugs 40 years ago. You’d think that by now, it might have won. Instead, any US teenager can buy cannabis, at higher strength and at a lower price. Meanwhile, severed heads are rolled across floors in Mexican discos and innocent people are scared to leave their homes in cities such as Ciudad Juarez, where the war on drugs has taken its highest toll.

---

Nora Volkow says something true:

One of the issues is that people believe how marijuana affects them is how it affects everyone, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“They base it on their own experiences, and it is possible you can smoke and have no ill effects. It’s also possible you can smoke until age 100 and have no ill effects.

---

5 Expert Takes on How U.S. Marijuana Legalization Would Affect Mexico

“Experts” are clueless and/or unwilling to actually consider real solutions, as evidenced by this extraordinary confession by “expert” Peter Rueter

Reuter: I am really struck by the lack of suggestions as to what the Mexican government should do other than just give up. I don’t have any good ideas, and nobody else does, either.

---

A Letter to the Undecided: Prop 19 by Jesse Levine

People sitting on the fence about proposition 19 remind me of people stuck in dysfunctional relationships. They know they should end the relationship but are plagued with anxiety about the future. I’ve tried to relieve some fear about legalization so that you might understand more clearly how futile and destructive marijuana prohibition is and why it should be ended. Prop 19 is down in the polls but the race is close. Please go end the states dysfunctional relationship with marijuana prohibition.

---

Author’s Novel Aims to Settle Debate Debate Over Marijuana Legalization

Of all the arguments that have been made over the past year in support of California’s initiative to legalize marijuana, perhaps the most convincing is the one found on page 237 of Katie Arnoldi’s novel “Point Dume.”

The drug cartels are growing marijuana on our public lands. Right this minute, there are millions of plants in grow-sites all around the country and especially in California. The chemicals they use are destroying wildlife, our national parks and designated wilderness. I’ve been into these grow-sites and have seen, first hand, the enormous environmental devastation. It is a problem that should not be ignored.

---

Marijuana legalization: why tea party might support Prop. 19 in… Christian Science Monitor?

Whether or not tea party conservatives and libertarians – the two main strands of the powerful political insurgency movement – will help put Prop. 19 over the top is an open question. But some commentators are seeing anecdotal support among many tea partyers for marijuana legalization in California. […]

Yet the poll numbers don’t necessarily indicate that things will turn out this way. Republicans oppose the measure by 65 percent to 25 percent, and those over age 60 are against it by 63 percent to 29 percent, according to the nonpartisan Field Poll.

---

California’s Slap At Our Drug-Fighting Allies — a particularly stupid editorial from Investor’s Business Daily, known for its stupid editorials.

Whatever the merits of legalizing marijuana in California, passage of Prop. 19 will create a legal mess at a time when Mexico’s war is becoming a higher foreign-policy priority for the U.S.

Although the measure’s prospects seem to be fading, passage could discourage Latin American friends from working with us on the drug problem and inadvertently bring back the old days of ignoring the problem.

---

Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die by Maia Szalavitz in Time.

The problem here is that correlation isn’t cause. Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang members are probably more 104 times more likely to have ridden a bicycle as a kid than those who don’t become Hell’s Angels, but that doesn’t mean that riding a two-wheeler is a “gateway” to joining a motorcycle gang. It simply means that most people ride bikes and the kind of people who don’t are highly unlikely to ever ride a motorcycle.

---

Whether Prop 19 Passes or Not, Legalization is Now Mainstream by David Borden

---

Hollywood Stars for Prop 19 (video)

---

Don’t forget to vote.

Mike Meno at MPP Blog posted this useful Marijuana Policy Election Day Scorecard and I don’t think he’ll mind if I re-print it here:

Voters all across the country will cast ballots tomorrow in elections that could alter the course of U.S. marijuana policy for years to come. Here are the 9 most important contests to watch for the movement to end marijuana prohibition:

1. California: Proposition 19 would make marijuana legal for all adults – it represents the best chance to date for a single state to overturn the failure of marijuana prohibition and offer an alternative for others to follow. It would make it legal for all adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, as well as grow a 25-square-foot marijuana garden on their property. It would also allow localities to tax and regulate marijuana sales, but it remains unclear how the federal government would react if Prop 19 passes. Website: yeson19.org
2. Arizona: Proposition 203, an MPP-backed initiative, would allow patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, and other life-threatening diseases to use marijuana with their doctor’s recommendation. Patients could purchase their medicine from tightly regulated, state-licensed dispensaries or grow their own if they live more than 25 miles from a clinic. Website: stoparrestingpatients.org
3. Oregon: Measure 74 would expand the state’s existing medical marijuana law by authorizing regulated, state-licensed nonprofit clinics to provide improved patient access to their medicine. The system would generate an estimated $3 to $20 million a year for the state through taxes and fees. Website: measure74.com
4. South Dakota: Measure 13 would allow patients suffering from cancer, AIDS and other serious ailments to use marijuana with a recommendation from their doctor. Patients could grow their own medicine or designate a caregiver to grow it for them. Website: sdcompassion.org
5. Vermont: VOTE Peter Shumlin for governor. Shumlin (D), the state Senate pro tempore, played a major role in passing Vermont’s medical marijuana law in 2004, and has been a staunch advocate for marijuana decriminalization. MPP has spent years lobbying for a decriminalization law in Vermont. With Shumlin as governor, Vermont would be well poised to pass decriminalization and expand its medical marijuana law by authorizing licensed dispensaries. Website: www.shumlinforgovernor.com
6. California: NOT Steve Cooley for attorney general. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley (R) is a rabid anti-marijuana zealot who has falsely claimed that all medical marijuana dispensaries are illegal, and that he would continue to arrest adults for marijuana crimes even if voters pass Proposition 19.  If he wins the election for state attorney general, he will become the state’s top law enforcement official and could reverse years of progress toward saner marijuana laws in California. Website: notcooley.com
7. New Mexico: NOT Susana Martinez for governor. Martinez (R), the leading candidate for governor, has said she will work to overturn New Mexico’s medical marijuana law if elected. New Mexico’s law enjoys wide popular support and is often described as the tightest-regulated law in the country. But Martinez believes federal law should trump a popular local law – despite the Obama administration’s promise of non-intervention in state medical marijuana laws. Website: donttakeawaymymedicine.org
8. Connecticut: VOTE Dan Malloy for governor. Malloy (D) has said that he “absolutely” supports decriminalizing marijuana, as well as medical marijuana legislation that would protect seriously ill patients from arrest. Outgoing Gov. Jodi M. Rell vetoed medical marijuana legislation in 2007. If Malloy were elected governor, proponents would be given renewed hope for passing a medical marijuana law in Connecticut. Website: danmalloy.com
9. Massachusetts: More than 70 local municipalities in Massachusetts will be voting on non-binding resolutions and public policy questions calling on the state government to pass medical marijuana or end marijuana prohibition entirely. These initiatives are a great opportunity for Massachusetts voters to send a strong message to their state lawmakers, as well as give local organizers a better sense of where things stand for future marijuana initiatives in Massachusetts. Website: masscann.org

Mark Kleiman, in a good post — Bullsh*tting Against Drug Legalization — takes a look at a new publication by the DEA and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (you know nothing good’s going to come from that alliance): Speak Out Against Drug Legalization

Kleiman handily dismantles the absurd claims in this government document that legalization won’t affect criminal activity and that there’s no proof of marijuana’s medical safety and efficacy.

The United States should be embarrassed by this document (of course, our government is way beyond embarrassment). It’s full of absolute nonsense. Check out this one example of a single bullet point:

• If we were to regulate marijuana, we would have to concede that it’s acceptable for society to profit from a person’s addiction. There were approximately 38,000 overdose deaths for illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription drugs during 2006, according to the Center for Disease Control. How much are those lives worth?

Is there any kind of coherent thought there?

Or check out the coherence of this one:

The “legalization lobby” claims that the “European model” of the drug problem is successful. However, since legalization of marijuana in the Netherlands, heroin addiction levels have tripled. Their “Needle Park” is a poor model for America.

Then there are portions which are absolutely hilarious:

In addition, the idealistic goals of [alcohol] prohibition went beyond what many initial supporters of prohibition thought they were supporting, and lacked flexibility that would allow policy adjustments to changes in the facts surrounding alcohol. In contrast, our nation’s current drug laws are built upon the Controlled Substances Act, which contains a series of increasingly restrictive schedules that allow for the appropriate regulation of various drugs, as well as a mechanism to move substances from one regulatory status to another should new information about the use of a controlled substance be established.

or how about this one (John Adams must be rolling in his grave)

John Adams, who helped draft the Constitution and later became our second president, declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern of any other.” This means that any and all just laws must be based on moral considerations. Our elected representatives are therefore bound to legislate morality.

I expect the right-wing political preachers to interpret Adams’ statement that way, but not anyone with, oh, an education.

As a separate note in his post, Kleiman asks:

Footnote If the Tea Partiers and their tame politicians were genuinely against nanny-state big government and for states’ rights, wouldn’t they favor repeal of the Controlled Substances Act? Under the theories they espouse, wouldn’t hey regard it as unconstitutional? Just askin’.

Yeah. Now, I realize that Tea Party isn’t really an organized entity, and that there are many people who follow the Tea Party who are strongly opposed to prohibition. Yet it baffles me (and concerns me somewhat) that you hear so little about drug policy as a Tea Party issue. Because Mark’s right. It’s a natural for being a core view for the Tea Party, assuming that the Tea Party truly opposes big government, and not just partisan-selected big government.

Zach Galifianakis on the Bill Maher show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeSmR2hfp-I

One more visual that demonstrates the absolute absurdity of marijuana laws.