Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Schwarzenegger calls for a discussion on marijuana legalization This is how politicians cover themselves. "I think it's time for a debate (regarding taxing and regulating the sale of cannabis for adults). I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries? It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could move to that." As Scott Morgan notes: I like what's happening with this "let's debate it" line we keep hearing lately. It's a way for public officials to show interest in the subject without alienating anyone who feels strongly about the issue. [...] Considering the famous Schwarzenegger-smoking-pot video that's all over the web, some will accuse him of hypocrisy should his position ultimately fall anywhere short of outright support for legalization. Still, it's notable in and of itself that we're beginning to see politicians shifting away from knee-jerk opposition to reform, in favor of the more open-minded position of endorsing a debate on the subject. All we've asked for is an open and honest debate. If we can truly have that, we'll win. More at NORML. 10:31:54 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Students sue to stop drug testing This kind of student awareness is gratifying to see. A Shasta County Superior Court judge will rule Wednesday on a temporary injunction sought by a group of students hoping to block Shasta Union High School District's drug-testing policy. [...] An injunction would allow students in the district to participate in band, choir and other extracurricular activities without having to take drug tests. One of the students suing the school district wants to participate in a state flute competition this weekend. When randomly selected earlier this year, the student refused to take the drug test. Do you know what that student had to go through to be selected to be in a state flute competition? The hours of practice and dedication! I work with music students every day and they are extraordinarily bright and hard working. They have to be to attempt that career path. This flautist is not likely to be a problem for the school, so why are they going after her for drug testing? Well, the answer is that school officials aren't allowed (yet) to test all students, so they have to come up with rationale to test as many as they can, and they use the extra-curricular activity approach as one way to do it. How? He also argued that some of these activities could be dangerous for students impaired by drugs or alcohol. FFA students work with livestock at many of their competitions and students performing in show choir employ complicated lifts in their dance routines, he said. "We have targeted the group most at risk of being harmed," Kelley said. Bull. That doesn't even pass the laugh test, let alone the smell test. And what about playing the flute? The truth is that targeting extra-curricular activities is a horrible approach. Students who are actively involved in music and theatre and FAA and other positive after-school activities are more likely to be well-balanced in their lives. Does that mean that all of them are going to be completely drug-free? Of course not, no more than any other group. However, they are much less likely to have a drug problem than students who have no positive extra-curricular activities. So even the tiniest possibility that your drug testing policy will deter students from participating in these activities is harmful. And given the value of these activities, every dollar you spend on drug testing could be more productively spent on band. 9:43:26 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Black Markets One of most important advantages we talk about regarding legalization and regulation is getting rid of the violence, destruction, and corruption that is an inevitable part of the massive black market operation that is an inevitable by-product of prohibition. Clearly our message is getting out there, because we're now starting to hear push-back from prohibitionists (and prohibition apologists) on that very talking point. The usual response goes something like this: "Some claim that legalization will eliminate black markets, but that's false. There will always be black markets as long as drugs are taxed, regulated or controlled." And yes, they're technically correct. The only way to completely eliminate any chance of a black market for a demand commodity is to have absolutely no taxes or regulation (economic freedom is an enemy to black markets). But their argument is specious and pathetic. There's all kinds of black markets. When a 22-year-old buys a six-pack for his 19-year-old brother, that's a black market transaction. But it's hardly comparable to Al Capone during liquor prohibition. Say you live in South Carolina, where the tax on cigarettes is $.07 per pack and you're visiting a friend in New Jersey, where it's $2.57 per pack. Your friend may ask you to bring a couple of cartons with you when you visit and he'll reimburse you. Despite the massive differential in taxation, it's unlikely that the thought of the potential profit is enough to make you kill your neighbors and put their heads on pikes as a warning to other South Carolinians not to mess with your cigarette smuggling business. So, yes, there will be black markets, but the prohibitionist argument is as stupid as saying "Sure, this treatment will cure your cancer, but you'll still have a runny nose, so we probably shouldn't do it." The fact that there will still be minor black market transactions in regulated legalization can be instructive -- it will help us be cautious about setting taxes too high, or regulations too stiff, in order to limit the "sniffles." But the most important thing is legalization, to cut out the worst of the black market -- the cancer that is destroying us. 12:11:24 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []