Friday, January 5, 2007

New EU Poll Finds Strong Opposition to Marijuana Legalization in Europe That's the headline now at the Drug Czar's "blog". Yes, I know. I can't stay away, but I have an excuse -- they taunted me. Turns out, the widely-used argument used by drug legalization groups that Europeans are much "more open and accepting of marijuana legalization" just isn't true. Whoa. The drug czar is bringin' it! Accusing me and my ilk of playin' fast with the facts. Of course, their characterization of the view of legalizers is a little bit off -- generally, we've said more that European countries have led the way (in terms of their laws) in being more accepting of marijuana, and such acceptance has not shown ill effects -- rather the opposite, as a matter of fact. I don't recall that much has been said about the public's view of marijuana legalization being more open and accepting in Europe. Our view is that the public view of marijuana legalization is more open and accepting here in the U.S. than is reflected in the laws. But let's take a closer look at this new EU poll (pdf, page 44, data is on page 79 of the pdf document). Once again, we find that the Drug Czar takes data that ranges somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant and touts it as total vindication. The poll, including dozens of questions on a whole long list of attitudes about a variety of topics regarding participation in the European Union, includes one question about cannabis: Personal consumption of cannabis should be legalised throughout Europe. Totally Agree/Tend to Agree/Tend to Disagree/Totally Disagree/Don't Know The conclusion reached by the report's authors is: The high level of opposition to the idea that personal consumption of cannabis should be legalised throughout Europe provides further evidence that Europeans feel that there is too much tolerance nowadays. Wait a second. Read the question again. How could any answer to that question provide evidence for that conclusion? First problem: without noting the fact, the authors are referring back to an earlier question about whether criminals are treated too tolerantly (and the authors should have clarified that they weren't talking about tolerance toward marijuana). Second problem: The question gives nothing that could support such a conclusion anyway. People could very well think that marijuana should be further decriminalized and yet be opposed to legalization. The fact that the authors chose to make the assumption they did in their conclusion casts serious doubt on their credibility and makes you wonder if they had an agenda. Other problems with using the results of the poll in the way the Drug Czar does: 1. Context. The question is part of a large number of questions regarding peoples' attitudes about the European Union. There's a lot of concern over how much autonomy the countries of the European Union will be required to surrender. Answers to the question "Personal consumption of cannabis should be legalised throughout Europe." could easily be swayed by people's views as to whether it should be an EU issue or a local issue. They could very well be in favor of legalization and yet answer in the negative because they don't feel it should be discussed in terms of overall EU consideration (perhaps because there are more important things, or because it should be up to the individual countries). 2. The word "legalised" has baggage. As we often see here in the United States, legalization is equated in some people's minds with a complete absence of regulation. I've had people tell me "I'm opposed to legalization, but I think they should stop arresting people for marijuana." When I ask them if they think there should be fines, they say "No. But I don't want to see it freely available to children." In fact, they are in favor of legalization and don't know it. I don't know how much this misconception is prevalent in the EU, but obviously that would color the poll. 3. The question is too limited to really tell you anything. Just one question, with questionable context and meaning. If you really wanted to have that poll provide some meaningful results, you'd want to include more questions. Possibly something like "People should be jailed for personal possession of cannabis throughout Europe." and "Laws regarding personal possession of cannabis should be made the same throughout Europe." The fact that you're mixing "personal consumption of cannabis" and "throughout Europe" makes the equation so complex that you need a number of questions to really triangulate people's views in any kind of meaningful way that the drug czar would like to have you believe. 8:50:38 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Today's Drug War Chronicle and Open Thread Here's this week's issue. 12:43:27 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Private Cops Several people have pointed me to a disturbing article in the Washington Post -- The Private Arm of the Law -- about the proliferation of private security forces and their use by police departments. With the sleeve patch on his black shirt, the 9mm gun on his hip and the blue light on his patrol car, he looked like an ordinary police officer as he stopped the car on a Friday night last month. Watt works, though, for a business called Capitol Special Police. It is one of dozens of private security companies given police powers by the state of North Carolina -- and part of a pattern across the United States in which public safety is shifting into private hands. Private firms with outright police powers have been proliferating in some places -- and trying to expand their terrain. The "company police agencies," as businesses such as Capitol Special Police are called here, are lobbying the state legislature to broaden their jurisdiction, currently limited to the private property of those who hire them, to adjacent streets. [...] Private security guards have outnumbered police officers since the 1980s, predating the heightened concern about security brought on by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. What is new is that police forces, including the Durham Police Department here in North Carolina's Research Triangle, are increasingly turning to private companies for help. [...] "You can see the public police becoming like the public health system," said Thomas M. Seamon, a former deputy police commissioner for Philadelphia who is president of Hallcrest Systems Inc., a leading security consultant. "It's basically, the government provides a certain base level. If you want more than that, you pay for it yourself." [...] The trend is triggering debate over whether the privatization of public safety is wise. Some police and many security officials say communities benefit from the extra eyes and ears. Yet civil libertarians, academics, tenants rights organizations and even a trade group that represents the nation's large security firms say some private security officers are not adequately trained or regulated. Ten states in the South and West do not regulate them at all. Some warn, too, that the constitutional safeguards that cover police questioning and searches do not apply in the private sector. [emphasis added] This is disturbing on a whole bunch of levels. Will we see the lobbying efforts of private police like we do with the private prison industry? We have a tough enough time with corruption in the regular police force -- how will we control that with private cops? But here's the part that disturbs me the most. Imagine that the private cops get their wish and can patrol the adjoining streets. And assume the article is right in that private cops don't have the same constitutional limitations as regular police... I can envision a future scenario where the kind of abuses inherent in the structure of the multi-jursidictional drug task forces get brought to a whole new level.... Let's say a merchant's association (under heavy encouragement from the police) hires some private security guards. Since a whole lot of merchants (at least one on each main street) are involved, the security guards can patrol anywhere. Although ostensibly working for the merchant's association, the security guard works with a police task force going through town rousting people on the streets. The security guard, unfettered by constitutional restrictions, searches anybody they encounter who is young, black, hispanic, or poor, including those driving through. If he finds drugs he turns the person over to the accompanying cops for the arrest. So what rights do citizens have when it comes to private cops? 1:18:03 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []