Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Conservatives and the Drug War Martin at Media Crapola has the story about Martha Witherspoon, a 75-year-old great-grandmother, who just finished serving 15 years in prison for buying cocaine from a narc. Martin concludes his post with this strong point: Not to pick on the Right here, but Republican conservatives are the most vocal of the drug warriors, and they fervently believe that when it comes to GUNS, the adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people", while emphasizing the idea of personal responsibility. Yet, to suggest that "cocaine doesn't kill people,.... "etc. is roundly rejected. How can one inanimate object, like guns, be completely innocent of complicity while another inanimate object. like cocaine, be, in and of itself, capable of murder and mayhem, and worse? It just doesn't make any sense. This insanity has to stop. To repeat myself: DRUG PROHIBITION DOES MORE HARM TO OUR SOCIETY THAN THE DRUGS THEMSELVES. Good question. In a somewhat related item, the excellent Drug Policy Alliance is working on placing a series of ads titled "The RIGHT Response to the War on Drugs" in the New York Sun and Roll Call during the Republican Convention, with quotes like: "...I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years or so you saw the conservative coalition come out for an end to drug prohibition." -- Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform "Can any policy, however high-minded, be moral if it leads to widespread corruption, imprisons so many, has so racist an effect, destroys our inner cities, wreaks havoc on misguided and vulnerable individuals and brings death and destruction to foreign countries?" -- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winner (Economic Science, 1976), Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988) I think it's a great idea. At Drug WarRant, I believe that drug policy reform must be the goal of liberals, conservatives and everyone else (and it's going to take everyone to make the necessary changes). Why not help out with these ads? 8:28:41 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

"Tough" is not the solution to crime and poverty Eugene Volokh's post last night ("Crime and Poverty") links approvingly to "A Real Story of Two Americas" by Doug Kern at Tech Central and discusses the link between poverty and crime. Unfortunately, both Doug Kern and Eugene Volokh buy into the "we can solve the problem if we just indiscriminately put more people in jail longer" solution (only a slight exaggeration). Kern: "We need more: more prosecutors, more public defenders, more judges, more investigators, and more local jail space, to ensure that more criminals learn early and often that their crimes will be justly punished." Volokh: "If you want to help the poor, work to reduce crime -- which in large part (though not entirely) means arrest, prosecute, incapacitate, and thus deter criminals." [At least Eugene tempers his statement slightly] These statements are not new. They have been part of the standard "tough on crime" repertoire for decades. And the result? While the United States has 5% of the world's population, we have 25% of the world's prison population. From the most recent DOJ report: The nation's prisons and jails held 2,078,570 men and women on June 30, 2003, an increase of 57,600 more inmates than state, local and federal officials held on the same date a year earlier From July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003, the number of state and federal prisoners grew by more than 2.9 percent, the largest increase in four years. The federal system increased by 5.4 percent, and state prisoners increased by 2.6 percent. An estimated 12 percent of all black males in their twenties were in jails or prisons last June 30, as were an estimated 3.7 percent of Hispanic males and 1.6 percent of white males in that age group. Sixty-eight percent of prison and jail inmates were members of racial or ethnic minority groups. The problem is that the blind "tough on crime" philosophy just doesn't work, particularly as it relates to crime and poverty. What is needed is a "smart on crime" philosophy. Not just "more prosecutors, more public defenders, more judges, more investigators, and more local jail space" (we've already been doing that) but rather a serious look at how we use our criminal justice resources and the actual results of those efforts. The biggest problem in being "tough on crime" instead of 'smart on crime' is in the drug war - particularly since illegality and increased enforcement in that area actually makes crime more profitable. Let's say you arrest a drug dealer in a poor area. This doesn't reduce the availability of drugs - it creates a high paying job opening (in a neighborhood where McDonald's jobs aren't even available). You can be sure that someone will step in. Dealer two gets arrested and dealer three steps up (if lots of dealers get arrested, the price/profits increase until more can step in). Eventually these dealers are released from prison. They're back in the community with a history that makes crime their best option for making a living. Multiple families have been disrupted, likely putting them on government assistance, and the police have been running around getting glamorous drug busts (and showing off their seizures as if there's a finite pool of drugs) instead of investigating who stole the bicycles in Doug Kern's story. That is our current "tough on crime" approach. Just arresting more people and increasing sentences cannot work when it comes to the drug war. People want drugs (maybe even more so when beset by poverty) and resulting profits insure that drugs will be supplied, no matter how many people you jail for how long. Of course, my solution is a combination of legalization and regulation, which would eliminate the black-market profits that lure many of the poor (plus gangs, etc.) into criminal activity. That solution is coming, but not for some time. In the meantime, the answer is not "more" but "smarter." One very imperfect option (but smarter than current approaches) is to "decriminalize" (through well-commmunicated law enforcement policy) non-violent adult possession and sale of drugs. Send the message that, as long as you're discreet, we won't bother your drug activities. However, if violence or theft is involved, or sale to minors, we'll use all our resources to come after you (and then actually focus those resources that way). That's when getting tough is smart - when it provides a clear and attractive option. Note: this is different than "enhanced" sentencing (like for having a gun while selling drugs or selling to children) - the difference in 5 or 10 year sentences is often too abstract to criminals (and even our lawmakers can't keep up with all the sentencing laws) compared to the difference between law enforcement coming after you or not coming after you (a much more effective incentive). Poverty and Crime together provide a complex equation, but the drug war is a huge factor, and our current "tough on drugs/crime" approach is flawed, expensive, and demonstratively ineffective. 8:50:39 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

A new, authoritative book I might have to check this out, despite the steep $60 price tag: Medicinal Uses of Cannabis and Cannabinoids. From the press release: CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 13, 2004--The Pharmaceutical Press, the publications division of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, with offices in London and Chicago, has published the first edition of The Medicinal Uses of Cannabis and Cannabinoids. ... The publication is an authoritative review of the development of cannabis-based medicines and their applications in a wide range of therapeutic areas. It has been edited by Dr Geoffrey W Guy (Executive Chairman, GW Pharmaceuticals), Dr Philip J Robson (Senior Research Fellow, Department of Psychiatry, Oxford University and Medical Director, GW Pharmaceuticals) and Dr Brian A Whittle (Scientific Director, GW Pharmaceuticals). The approaches in the book seem quite detailed and it deals with the science, medicine, history, and legal aspects. (chapters include: 1. The History of Cannabis As a Medicine: 2. Growth and Morphology of Medicinal Cannabis: 3. The Breeding of Cannabis Cultivars for Pharmaceutical End-uses: 4. The Evolution of Cannabis and Its Coevolution with the Human Cannabinoid Receptor: 5. Receptors and Pharmacodynamics; Natural and Synthtic Cannabinoids and Endocannabinoids: 6. Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Experimental Models of Multiple Sclerosis: 7. Natural Cannabinoids: Interactions and Effects: 8. Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics of Cannabinoids: 9. Clinical Studies of Cannabis-based Medicine: 10. Cannabis in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: 11. Forensic Control of Cannabis: 12. A Review of Cannabis and Driving Skills: 13. International Control of Cannabis: Changing Attitudes: 14. Developing a New Cannabis Based Medicine). It could, perhaps, provide additional ammunition in answering prohibitionists. The other side of the coin, however, is that an important part of the focus may be on the development of patentable pharmaceutical products, rather than studying the medicinal value of the plant. (This is only natural, given the organization publishing the work.) Professor Tony Moffat, the Society's Chief Scientist, said: "This publication demonstrates the scientific credentials of cannabis and cannabinoids as medicines. It is hoped that the evidence presented will help to change the attitude of health professionals towards cannabis-based medicines and enable the international legislative change required to allow further collaborative research into prescription medicines." Regardless, the existence of such a volume is a positive step. 12:10:33 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []