Friday, March 13, 2009

New York open thread So I was looking out the window at one point last night and saw a guy walk by, and I exclaimed "Hey, there's a guy walking by with a cat on his head!" and the person I was talking to, without looking up, said "Yeah, I hate that guy." And I remembered I was in New York. I saw "Hair" last night on Broadway. It's in previews and I think it's just about 95% there. Really good show. Had the entire audience on their feet clapping and singing at the end, with about a hundred audience members on stage (and I've still got those tunes going through my head). "Hair," of course, was about the counter-culture in the 60's and the show's message of peace, love, and psychedelic drugs was controversial then -- much less-so now. It's time for "Hair" again - not only as an historical piece, but as an opportunity for a new affirmation. I loved seeing the audience -- multiple generations, from those who may have seen it when it first opened in 1967, to the 10-year-old kid brought by his mother. There were teenagers with flowers in their hair as well as folks with white hair or no hair. And nobody had any trouble with the nudity or the pot smoking. Of course, while the nudity was real, the pot smoking was fake (stage cigarettes for the cast) and I did have a couple of moments when I realized that this would be an amazing show to watch while high, and I thought about the fact that you can drink a six-pack and go enjoy a sporting event, but you can't smoke a joint and go watch a musical. Why? There really is a buzz in the air. Legalizers are being kept busy. LEAP's Howard Wooldridge debates Ron Brooks on Al Jazeera (some audio problems) Drug Czar Appointed, Makes Ridiculous Remark For too long, we have operated, as the Vice President said, in silence when it comes to making our country drug free and reducing the demand for drugs. Time Magazine: Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy? Halfway decent article, but Joel W. Hay is a real moron: Joel W. Hay, professor of Pharmaceutical Economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. "It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." He adds: "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones." What a load of crap. I guess Joel's OK with people getting killed in the streets, then, and drug gangs getting rich. He doesn't mind that as long as we're able to jail people who get high responsibly. 11:23:30 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

CNN piece on legalization at noon Eastern Thanks to daksya in comments for the head up. Noon today, Eastern time, on CNN Mark Kleiman will be debating somebody from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition on drug legalization. Mark has already charted the course of the debate, including what his opponent's arguments will be. Oddly, he seems, in my mind, to be conceding before the debate begins. Mark says the LEAP rep will (parenthetical responses are Mark's): 1. Assert that prohibition results in violent drug markets that wouldn't exist under legalization. (True.) 2. Point out that Mexico and Afghanistan are suffering badly from the drug war, in ways that threaten U.S. national security. (True.) Well, if they agree on the big points, then what's left? 3. Claim that since "anyone who wants drugs can get drugs now," legalization wouldn't increase consumption, or that if it did increase consumption it wouldn't increase abuse. (Ludicrously false, as the example of alcohol illustrates.) 4. Claim that legalization would reduce access for kids by limiting the supply to legal an therefore regulated channels. (Ludicrously false, as the example of alcohol illustrates.) You see, Mark has this bizarre notion, totally unsupported by any facts, that everything is alcohol. That somehow, any new legalized substance will automatically reach the societal use/abuse level of alcohol, and do so without affecting the levels of alcohol use/abuse. This is nonsense. Alcohol is one drug. Heroin is another. Cocaine is another. Marijuana is another. Each has its own profiles for use and they're different. Even alcohol has differences of use/abuse within itself (compare beer to single-malt scotch, for example). There is also substitution that occurs when legal status changes. Some alcohol users may switch to cocaine, some to marijuana. Sure, there will be shifts, and some drugs will see increased use/abuse, while alcohol may see decreased use/abuse all depending on a host of factors. But in general, those who are likely to abuse drugs (whether due to psychological, financial, genetic or other factors) are going to do so whether a particular subset of abuse-potential drugs is legal or not. Their drug of choice may change, but their numbers won't change significantly. Certainly not enough to offset all the other benefits of ending the war on drugs. I think Kleiman may also be wrong here in asserting what the LEAP opponent will say. The LEAP rep is actually more likely to assert that drugs are potentially very dangerous and need to be regulated. Kleiman thinks that prohibition can regulate drugs, and that's just false. His final point - that his opponent will: 5. Refuse to specify the set of taxes and regulations that ought to replace prohibition. This is silly and childish on Mark's part. It's not LEAP's job to set taxes and regulations. There are tons of models and all of us would be happy to discuss which models would work the best in different situations (and no, nobody with half a brain thinks that alcohol would be the model for all drugs). The reason we often don't talk specifics, is that we're usually shut down before we get that far as we're constantly told that even an "open, honest national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics" is unacceptable. And we're not just told that by politicians in Texas. You know, when it comes to suggesting options of taxes and regulations for legalized drugs -- some concrete information for politicians to consider -- if only there were a type of person with a skill set -- an academician maybe, or somebody who works with a think tank. People who specialize in, say, public policy. It looks like I'll miss the debate. Document it here. I'll put up a transcript later if one is available, and Mark promises to post the video. Update: It's going to be Jack Cole and according to Tom Angell, it'll be at 12:15 on CNN International. This should be good. 10:19:55 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []