The blogs.salon.com server goes offline December, 2009. All content is moving to http://www.drugwarrant.com
Drug WarRant
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Christian Science Monitor stinks up the joint
I didn't even know if I wanted to tackle this one (it can be tiring hitting the same points over and over), but it's a major editorial and it needs to be taken down a peg.
The push toward full legalization is a well-organized, Internet-savvy campaign, generously funded by a few billionaires, including George Soros.
Thanks for the compliments -- yes, we're definitely internet-savvy, much more so than our opponents. And then, yes, that generously funded swipe. Sure, all the funding that drug policy reform groups get is generous. But compared to the entire federal budget aimed at promoting prohibition? It is mere peanuts.
Now the Monitor takes aim at marijuana itself.
A harmless drug? Supporters of legalization often claim that no one has died of a pot overdose, and that it has beneficial effects in alleviating suffering from certain diseases.
True, marijuana cannot directly kill its user in the way that alcohol or a drug like heroin can. And activists claim that it may ease symptoms for certain patients -- though it has not been endorsed by the major medical associations representing those patients, and the Food and Drug Administration disputes its value.
Rosalie Pacula, codirector of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, poses this question: "If pot is relatively harmless, why are we seeing more than 100,000 hospitalizations a year" for marijuana use?
Emergency-room admissions where marijuana is the primary substance involved increased by 164 percent from 1995 to 2002 -- faster than for other drugs, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network.
First of all, why does Rand continue to employ this lying embarrassment -- Rosalie Pacula? She makes Rand look like some third-rate political action group rather than a research institution. This isn't the first time she's blatantly lied to promote marijuana prohibition.
We are NOT seeing 100,000 hospitalizations a year for marijuana use. That is an outright lie.
Radical Russ over at NORML stash takes Pacula on:
The way Rosalie puts it, you'd think 100,000 people were running into the ER and screaming, "Quick, doctor! I need help! I've taken marijuana and I think I'm going to die!" (in four years of doing this, I've only heard one such case...)
But the fact is that these DAWN statistics just survey the drugs people admit to using or what is detected in their body when they are admitted to the emergency room. DAWN doesn't measure the cause of why someone's in the hospital. If you smoked a joint, went to a restaurant, sat down for dinner and had the server accidentally drop scalding hot coffee in your lap, and you went to the hospital for the burns, and when asked, admitted you had smoked a joint that day, cha-ching, that's a "marijuana [as] the primary substance involved" in that admission. You might as well say iPods are harmful, because the number of people admitted to hospitals that own an iPod has skyrocketed since 1995.
The Monitor continues...
Research results over the past decade link frequent marijuana use to several serious mental health problems, with youth particularly at risk.
Was that with legal marijuana or illegal marijuana? Were there age restrictions? How large a percent of the population? Can you prove causation? Ahhh, you don't want to talk about that, do you?
And the British Lung Foundation finds that smoking three to four joints is the equivalent of 20 tobacco cigarettes.
Wait a second! Studies have shown that smoking marijuana doesn't lead to lung cancer. Is the British Lung Foundation claiming that smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes won't lead to lung cancer? Interesting.
While marijuana is not addictive in the way that a drug like crack-cocaine is, heavy use can lead to dependence -- defined by the same criteria as for other drugs. About half of those who use pot daily become dependent for some period of time, writes Kevin Sabet, in the 2006 book, "Pot Politics"
Sounds ominous. But it's completely ridiculous. You could as well say:
While video games are not addictive in the way that a drug like crack-cocaine is, heavy use can lead to dependence - defined by the same criteria as for other drugs. About half of those who play video games daily become dependent for some period of time... While chocolate milk is not addictive in the way that a drug like crack-cocaine is, heavy use can lead to dependence - defined by the same criteria as for other drugs. About half of those who drink chocolate milk daily become dependent for some period of time...
Just as valid.
He adds that physicians in Britain and the Netherlands -- both countries that have experience with relaxed marijuana laws -- are seeing withdrawal symptoms among heavy marijuana users that are similar to those of cocaine and heroin addicts. This has been confirmed in the lab with monkeys.
Now that's just hilarious.
Dr. Smallwood, I believe that marijuana user may have just exhibited a symptom similar to that of a cocaine or heroin addict.
Blimy, Dr. Van Wijk, you may be right, but I can't tell for sure. Let's go to the lab and ask the monkeys.
Similar symptoms? What does that mean?
Today's marijuana is also much more potent than in the hippie days of yesteryear.
Ah, those hippie days of yesteryear when we smoked stems. Didn't anybody watch
Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In? Somebody on the writing staff back then had to have had some pretty potent pot.
But that doesn't change what's always been known about even casual use of this drug: It distorts perception, reduces motor skills, and affects alertness.
That's kind of the point.
The Monitor goes on to some of the other stale arguments brought up in recent days...
Legalization of marijuana wouldn't help Mexico because the cartels would still have the other drugs. Yep, no point in reducing their income at all, unless we can reduce all of it at once. That's nonsensical.
Nobody's really in jail for marijuana possession so there's no need to legalize it. Since most of those apprehended don't go to jail, it can't really be that much of a bother to them. More nonsense -- just ask those who have lost financial aid, jobs, children, homes, cars, etc., etc.
It's unlikely that we'll raise $1.3 billion in taxes from legalization, so why bother? Besides, the black market will undercut it and so you won't reduce the black market (yeah, like the black market for avoiding cigarette taxes is as violent as the black market for illegal drugs.)
A government could attempt to eliminate the black market altogether by making marijuana incredibly cheap (Dr. Pacula at the RAND Organization says today's black market price is about four times what it would be if pot were completely legalized). But then use would skyrocket and teens (though barred) could buy it with their lunch money.
Lunch money. Yeah, that's a nice one. Why don't you try something like "babies will be able trade their mashed peas for it"? And that skyrocketing use? Care to cite some proof?
Indeed, legalizing marijuana is bound to increase use simply because of availability. Legalization advocates say "not so" and point to the Netherlands and its legal marijuana "coffee shops." Indeed, after the Dutch de facto legalized the drug in 1976, use stayed about the same for adults and youth. But it took off after 1984, growing by 300 percent over the next decade or so. Experts attribute this to commercialization (sound like alcohol?), and also society's view of the drug as normal [^] which took a while to set in.
Experts? Commercialization? Coffee shops? Care to mention that rates are still well below the U.S.?
As America has learned with alcohol, taxes don't begin to cover the costs to society of destroyed families, lost productivity, and ruined lives [^] and regulators still have not succeeded in keeping alcohol from underage drinkers.
Because marijuana behavior is just like alcohol behavior, right?
No one has figured out what the exact social costs of legalizing marijuana would be. But ephemeral taxes won't cover them -- nor should society want to encourage easier access to a drug that can lead to dependency, has health risks, and reduces alertness, to name just a few of its negative outcomes.
Well, since we don't know what it'll cost and whether problem use will increase at all, we should continue to spend billions of dollars arresting people who are not having a problem with marijuana and not actually address the issue of those who do. Sounds incredibly stupid.
[Parents] must let lawmakers know that legalization is not OK, and they must carry this message to their children, too. Disapproval, along with information on risk, are the most important factors in discouraging marijuana and cocaine use among high school seniors, according to the University of Michigan's "Monitoring the Future" project on substance abuse.
Now this is really messed up. Parents should tell their children that legalization is not OK? Not that drugs are not OK, but that legalization is not OK? Wow.
Today's youth are tomorrow's world problem solvers -- and the ones most likely to be affected if marijuana is legalized. Future generations need to be clear thinkers. For their sakes, those who oppose legalizing marijuana must become vocal, well-funded, and mainstream -- before it's too late.
Sorry, Christian Science Monitor, but it's too late. All the clear thinkers are on our side.
Thought for the day - the drug czar is against legalization
I must confess to being confused by the amount of apparent surprise that has greeted Gil Kerlikowske's recent statements that he is opposed to legalization.
Of course he is. He just got a new job - a government job that has Congressional oversight. And the job description for that new job, well, it wasn't a handshake and a promise, it wasn't a typed memo -- no, it was written into law by Congress and specifically includes:
"... and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that ... is listed in schedule 1.... and has not been approved for use ... by the Food and Drug Administration"
So, of course he's going to say he's against legalization. It's his job. I don't know if it's his personal view or not, but it certainly is his job to say it.
And, for the most part so far, Kerlikowske is treating the question like someone who's job it is to answer a particular way. "Legalization isn't in my vocabulary," "Legalization isn't on the plate," "Legalization isn't an option," etc.
If Walters got the question, he'd go on at length with detailed plausible-sounding (but still full of crap) reasons why marijuana should remain illegal. Kerlikowske offers up weak-ass nonsense and then merely retreats into "I'm not going to talk about it." Maybe it's because he doesn't have his repertoire built up yet, but it may also be that he just doesn't care - and as long as he's said legalization isn't an option, he's covered.
Q: Marijuana. Do you support legalization of marijuana? Kerlikowske: No. Q: And why is that? Kerlikowske: It's a dangerous drug. Q: Now, why is it a dangerous drug? Kerlikowske: It is a dangerous drug. There are numbers of calls to hotlines for people requesting help from marijuana. A number of people that have been arrested, and we test people and have data on this, that are arrested throughout the country, come in to the system with marijuana in their system, as arrests. Q: But that's -- you were talking to me before about causality and correlation. Kerlikowske: Right Q: So why is -- I mean, you could probably say that about sugar, caffeine, and, I don't know, bubble gum. Maybe not bubble gum. Kerlikowske: I would tell you this - that the legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me, and it certainly was made clear that it does not exist in President Obama's vocabulary.
Doesn't sound like a true believer to me.
If we ever want the 'drug czar' to stop opposing legalization, we need to change the language in Congress, and Kerlikowske could be giving us the opening to do that.
Everybody these days is calling for the discussion -- yes, even politicians!
If Kerlikowske was giving compelling reasons against legalization (assuming such existed), then it could be a problem, but by merely saying "I'm not going to talk about it" (or "it's not in my vocabulary"), he makes it obvious (or gives us the opportunity to make it obvious) that the authorizing language is preventing the discussion that everyone wants.
It's then easy to make the case to Congress that the Director can hardly "assist in the establishment of policies, goals, objectives, and priorities for the National Drug Control Program" if he doesn't even have all the vocabulary.
Personally, I love the "not in my vocabulary" line -- it's a great one to ridicule, and, if the one person in this country who has the most direct and specific employment reason to oppose legalization can't get any more enthused than that, then our opposition is pretty weak.
This is a screen shot of Fox News' Happy Hour, featuring Rebecca Diamond, interviewing Ethan Nadelmann about marijuana legalization in California.
Note that this takes place in a bar with tons of booze on the shelves behind Rebecca, and a screen tag saying "Legalizing Marijuana: High Times or Buzz Kill?"
Right at this point, Rebecca is saying:
Yeah, but, Ethan, I mean you know exact desperate times call for desperate measures, but should it because they're desperate for money, then sacrifice your standards and sayin' "Hey yeah, we're just going to let anybody smoke pot" - what could that do long term to the productivity of this state?
That's right - in front of bottles of gin and whiskey, and sounding a little bit like this wasn't the first place she'd been to that night (Listen to her attempt to say "We shall see" later in the piece.)
A Freakonomics Quorum. What Would Happen if Marijuana Were Decriminalized?. Strong opinions from Joel W. Hay, Robert Platshorn, Jeffrey A. Miron, Paul Armentano, and Mike Braun. (breakables warning when reading Hay and Braun).
Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee continues his effort to do something about marijuana laws, in a slightly unrelated hearing yesterday (one on crack and powder disparity), and goes off on another rant on Anslinger and jazz musicians. I love this guy. His questions were directed to Reps. Rangel, Jackson Lee and Waters. Here is the video. His part comes 53:50 into the video. (Thanks, Eric!)
The United Nation's Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC) has challenged the Federal Government on the lapses of its constitutional provision for immunity of public office holders, pointing out the need for it to institute the non-conviction based asset forfeiture legislation.
Senior Project Manager of UNODC, Oliver Stolpe, said the non-conviction based asset forfeiture which is a relatively new concept which is already in operation in some countries is important in countries where stolen assets are difficult to recover.
His words, "Non-conviction based asset forfeiture can provide a procedure that allows for confiscation of stolen assets without the need for a criminal conviction...
ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske was interviewed this morning on KUOW in Seattle.
The audio is available here. It's a nice extended interview, and gives you a chance to get to know Kerlikowske's style a little bit.
It's a mixed bag, with lots of pretty offensive stuff (of course) and some odd material where he puts on his tap shoes and dances up a storm.
Here are a couple of the exchanges...
Q: Is the DEA going to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities? Kerlikowske: The medical marijuana issue was one that Attorney General Eric Holder briefly discussed, and I have not had my first meeting -- 'cause I've only been on the job two weeks -- with the Attorney General Q: What have you accomplished, sir? Kerlikowske: I know, I know, and, well I'm ending the phrase "War on Drugs, so I think that was my..." Q: What's it going to be, police action on drugs? Preemptive strike? Kerlikowske: I don't have a new term for it, but I can tell you that, that having a different conversation is important -- but I haven't had a chance to talk to the Attorney General, and spend time in depth on the medical marijuana issues and the statements he made, but I certainly plan on doing that. Q: I notice that there was already, there was another raid in California by the DEA just, I think, in April. I think I saw one in April that happened. Are these -- I know that the DEA is not under your purview, but, what's your opinion? Kerlikowske: Well, I think that there - the one thing we can say about using law enforcement resources... Q: March 25th, I should clarify... Kerlikowski: ... is that the law enforcement resources are finite, there's just this limited number. Law enforcement agencies use their personnel for the most dangerous offenders, for the violent crimes, for the drug traffickers, etc. Medical marijuana doesn't quite rise to that level. That doesn't mean that it isn't illegal, and it doesn't mean that in cases it's not a front for some other type of activity, but I think that when I sit down with the Attorney General, and we actually get a chance to put this together in a more formalized fashion, we'll have answers for you.
Then he danced around needle exchange for awhile, concluding:
KerlikowskeIn the next nine months, we'll have the President's drug strategy put together. I'll have the opportunity to weigh in on the 2011 budget, and that's where we want to see where we're headed.
So the interviewer tried to nail him down, noting he had supported needle exchange in past jobs. Check out this move:
Kerlikowske: Needle exchange in Buffalo and needle exchange here in Seattle were not a law enforcement problem. They didn't cause difficulties from a law enforcement standpoint. It's much more complex than certainly just the law enforcement viewpoint, so that's one of the issues too, along with medical marijuana that I'll be spending time on.
-- ie, it's politics.
Marijuana legalization:
Q: Marijuana. Do you support legalization of marijuana? Kerlikowske: No. Q: And why is that? Kerlikowske: It's a dangerous drug. Q: Now, why is it a dangerous drug? Kerlikowske: It is a dangerous drug. There are numbers of calls to hotlines for people requesting help from marijuana. A number of people that have been arrested, and we test people and have data on this, that are arrested throughout the country, come in to the system with marijuana in their system, as arrests. Q: But that's -- you were talking to me before about causality and correlation. Kerlikowske: Right Q: So why is -- I mean, you could probably say that about sugar, caffeine, and, I don't know, bubble gum. Maybe not bubble gum. Kerlikowske: I would tell you this - that the legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me, and it certainly was made clear that it does not exist in President Obama's vocabulary.
Wow. Talk about a weak effort to defend not legalizing marijuana! It looks like he's just going to say "it's not an option" and not even try to really justify it.
Later on in the interview he gets detailed in talking about treatment and some international issues, showing that it isn't really that he's hamstrung about talking due to his short tenure -- it's just that he's hamstrung talking about things like marijuana and needle exchange.
[Thanks, Dashel]
Note: After the interview, the interviewer took questions from listeners. I didn't listen to all of them, but there were some very good ones who really nailed Kerlikowske on his points (including one who apparently had read The Drug Czar is required by law to lie and referenced the provisions.
All the recent talk of legalization is really bringing out the crazies. Check out this OpEd by James G. Harpring. I found myself picturing the propaganda newsreels in Starship Troopers as I read it...
By combating the production and use of narcotics, America is winning the war on drugs. By not capitulating to decriminalization and legalization efforts, America is winning the war on drugs. America is winning the war on drugs as society continues to recognize the extreme dangers posed by all forms of drug abuse. America is winning the war on drugs as we make continued efforts in interdiction, eradication, treatment and rehabilitation.
The war on drugs is one in which there are ever-changing fronts and, like a war on poverty or a war on disease, the war on drugs is one which is ongoing, long-term and without a specific end date. The production, importation and use of illegal narcotics constitutes a direct and imminent danger to the national security of the United States. Because international terrorism is inextricably linked with narcotics trafficking, there is no doubt that the investment in the war on drugs is both necessary and worthwhile.
Investing in the war on drugs must continue to be a national imperative. For the future of our society, America has no choice but to continue to fight and win each battle in the ongoing war on drugs. [emphasis added]
James G. Harpring is general counsel for the Indian River County Sheriff's Office.
FBI director schooled on marijuana by Rep. Steve Cohen
Watch this video now(no, it isn't another promo for Showtime's Weeds).
This is Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) completely taking it to FBI Director Robert Mueller. He forces Mueller to admit that nobody has died from marijuana and jumps all over him when the Director tries to bring up the gateway theory.
Scott Morgan has a good piece up What's So Funny About Trying to Legalize Marijuana? where he takes issue with people like William Teach at Stop the ACLU who mock those looking to legalize marijuana and then essentially agree that pot should be legalized. It's a syndrome that we see quite a bit.
Alisson Kilkenny: Cops Say to Legalize Drugs at Huffington Post. Nothing particularly new here to us, but a good article and always great to see LEAP and their view getting more press.
How about this for a promo for a TV show? To kick off its next season, Showtime's Weeds gives us a brief history of... weed.
Sheriff Raymond M. Martin has been the law for nearly 20 years in a struggling southern Illinois county. But federal prosecutors say he's been breaking it lately by peddling pounds of pot, some seized by his own department, often in uniform and from his patrol vehicle. [...]
The dealer grew unsettled over time and wanted out, but Martin would have none of that, Rountree wrote. At least twice, the sheriff pulled his service revolver and insisted emphatically to the dealer that making him "disappear" would be "that easy," according to the affidavit.
I may have more on this later. It was a bit.. odd. I felt like I needed to be reading between the lines at times. Sure, there was a lot of the standard stuff that a drug czar would say in such a presentation (justifying all the budget items with the drug war language of the past), but then there were statements like this:
There continues to be much discussion in the media about whether personal use of drugs should be decriminalized. What we cannot lose sight of during this discussion, is that we all agree addiction is a preventable and treatable chronic condition.
Notice the use of a non-sequitur instead of denunciation, and the offhand acceptance of the idea of discussion.
He also made another statement that we need to hold up to him whenever possible:
During my tenure, debate will be continuous and inclusive of disparate ideas.
Whenever I take apart one of Mark Kleiman's posts -- when I take him to task for understanding the failures of prohibition, yet being unwilling to consider drug policy reform points, or being unwilling to give up his "we can make prohibition work better" philosophy -- inevitably someone asks why I bother.
In addition to his web journalism, Mark is one of the nation's leading drug policy experts. His book Against Excess remains an essential reference. So he ought to know.
It is precisely because Kleiman is widely considered an expert, and is extremely knowledgeable, that I must hold him to account when his blind spots cause him to lose the ability for rational thought.
[Note: Kleiman's referenced post is not bad in itself this time, other than the reflexive need to find away to mention his latest idée fixe/silver bullet at the end.]
Jesse has been tearing up the cable networks promoting his book, but mostly demolishing some torture-apologist pundits. He takes a break from torture to speak plainly about the stupidity of our war on drugs with Geraldo.
When you prohibit something, it doesn't mean it's going away. It just means it's going to be run by criminals now, because it's not above board. The criminals eventually become so wealthy, they become more powerful than the government, which is a great deal of what's happening in Mexico right now.
Hey, I certainly don't agree with everything Jesse says al the time, but I gotta admire the man for his ability and willingness to cut through the B.S.
Bear in mind that the bill the governor says he'll veto is so drastically narrowed down that none of the purported concerns of law enforcement, whose direction he's supposedly been taking, have even a shred of validity. As passed, it would only have covered terminally ill patients, and even they wouldn't have been allowed to grow their own marijuana.
Tim Cavanaugh has the response to people who oppose legalization... for the kids.
Lust, introspection, carelessness, anger, booze, daydreaming, timidity, chronic recurring stupidity and other human beings have caused more misery in my life than weed has.
How can I keep all those away from my kids?
Or rather, how can I imprison hundreds of thousands of people and suspend at least half the bill of rights in a failed attempt to keep those away from my kids?
A major article in Foreign Policy by Editor in Chief Moisés Naím: Wasted
First, the recognition of the historical disconnect and the damage it causes...
This "it doesn't work, but don't change it" incongruity is not just a quirk of the U.S. public. It is a manifestation of how the prohibition on drugs has led to a prohibition on rational thought. "Most of my colleagues know that the war on drugs is bankrupt," a U.S. senator told me, "but for many of us, supporting any form of decriminalization of drugs has long been politically suicidal."
As a result of this utter failure to think, the United States today is both the world's largest importer of illicit drugs and the world's largest exporter of bad drug policy. The U.S. government expects, indeed demands, that its allies adopt its goals and methods and actively collaborate with U.S. drug-fighting agencies. This expectation is one of the few areas of rigorous continuity in U.S. foreign policy over the last three decades.
A second, and more damaging, effect comes from the U.S. emphasis on curtailing the supply abroad rather than lowering the demand at home. The consequence: a transfer of power from governments to criminals in a growing number of countries. In many places, narcotraffickers are the major source of jobs, economic opportunity, and money for elections.
Then, the tentative movement from that stupidity...
Fortunately, there are some signs that the blind support for prohibition is beginning to wane among key Washington elites. One surprising new convert? The Pentagon. Senior U.S. military officers know both that the war on drugs is bankrupt and that it is undermining their ability to succeed in other important missions, such as winning the war in Afghanistan. When Gen. James L. Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant and supreme allied commander in Europe, was asked last November why the United States was losing in Afghanistan, he answered: "The top of my list is the drugs and narcotics, which are, without question, the economic engine that fuels the resurgent Taliban, and the crime and corruption in the country. . . . We couldn't even talk about that in 2006 when I was there. That was not a topic that anybody wanted to talk about, including the U.S."
Moisés nails it with the conclusion...
The addiction to a failed policy has long been fueled by the self-interest of a relatively small prohibitionist community--and enabled by the distraction of the American public. But as the costs of the drug war spread from remote countries and U.S. inner cities to the rest of society, spending more to cure and prevent than to eradicate and incarcerate will become a much more obvious idea. Smarter thinking on drugs? That should be the real no-brainer.
Supreme Court rejects attempt to invalidate California's medical marijuana law
Maybe now the San Diego county officials will stop throwing their ridiculous (and costly) temper tantrum against medical marijuana and follow the state law.
The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to officials from San Diego and San Bernardino counties who challenged Proposition 215, an initiative approved by state voters in 1996 that became a model for laws in 12 other states. It allows patients to use marijuana for medical conditions with their doctor's recommendation.
Good.
I really did not expect the Supreme Court to take this one, so it's not that much of a surprise. It was a supremely stupid appeal and every court along the way had already rejected the counties' case.
"The purpose of the (federal law) is to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices," the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego said in the July 31 decision. [...]
"No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California's medical marijuana law," said Joe Elford, lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, which also took part in the case. He said the decision would strengthen his organization's case against the two counties and eight others that have refused to issue the identification cards.
The criticism is coming from a right-wing think tank who claims that the British government has been too lax.
It said the UK's policy of spending most of its drug budget on treatment was less effective than spending more on prevention and enforcement. [...]
The report's author said the UK's drug policy should bear down on the illicit use of all drugs and feature a tougher enforcement programme to reduce the supply of drugs.
Since that report is kind of bucking the trend, I thought I'd go see what the think tank was all about.
The Centre for Policy Studies believes in freedom and responsibility. One of Britain's best known and most respected think tanks, the Centre develops and promotes policies to limit the role of the state, to encourage enterprise and to enable the institutions of society [^] such as families and voluntary organizations - to flourish.
You can't make this stuff up. It's amazing how often "freedom" and "limited government" appear to be code words for using the state to lock more people up.
Want to help write a Congressional campaign policy?
Adriel Hampton is running for U.S. Congress in the 2009 special election for California's 10th District.
I'm asking for concerned citizens of every stripe to help me devise a strong anti-Drug War policy statement for my Congressional campaign. I've given it a brief jumping off point over at MixedInk, a collaborative writing technology that I'd like to see used more in government.
"When elected to Congress, I will immediately move to legalize and regulate the sale of marijuana. Tacit legalization through state-by-state decriminalization and "medical cannabis" (as tested in California since 1996) has proven a disastrous failure. Our prisons are dangerous and overcrowded, non-violent criminals who could easily be rehabilitated languish under harsh minimum sentences, and Mexican cartels and urban gangsters flourish. Prohibition of marijuana, like alcohol before it, has proved foolish and far too costly. Legalization would not only reduce drug-related violence, it would create funds for increased mental health funding and counseling for those who find themselves dependent on the drug."
Sometimes reading these things just makes you feel better. Russell Yohn, an Illinois resident, writes a letter to the editor.
Before approving any federal legalization of marijuana, it might be well to consider such questions as the following:
Companies, how would you like to be compelled to employ drug users whose use of marijuana makes them less productive and more often sick?
Workers, how would you like to be compelled to work with drug users whose marijuana use makes them open to various mental disorders?
Landlords, how would you like to be compelled to rent to mentally ill and sometimes violent marijuana users, who often steal to pay for their drugs?
Renters, how would you like to be compelled to have marijuana-smoking neighbors, exposing your children to them and their intoxicating smoke?
Those who wouldn't like to do this might consider that there can be no assurance that following any federal pot legalization, the quite justified discrimination against marijuana users in these situations would be outlawed. Compelled to employ unproductive workers, quality and profits would be seriously reduced, forcing many employers to curtail or end their operations, throwing even productive workers out of work.
The only way to be certain that such an unfair ban of needed discrimination never occurs is to defeat any federal legalization of marijuana (now being sponsored). State laws for medical or any other uses of marijuana are steps to federal legalization and, therefore, threats of such a possible development.
Friday, I dropped this item into the Open Thread...
Santa Monica Mirror has a really stupid piece by Steve Stajich: Five Reasons We Won't Be Legalizing Pot. This may be the five most moronic reasons I've heard to date.
"Hello, Governor? Please explain how legalizing marijuana will reduce teen pregnancy. (PAUSE) Our lines our open. (PAUSE) Governor, please call with that answer. (PAUSE) Again that phone number..." Apparently the Spliff-inator has looked at the stats regarding teen sexual behavior and teen pregnancy and concluded, "What's needed here is more access to marijuana." Will Bristol Palin bring her baby to Sacramento and explain how life might have been different if only she'd been too (legally) stoned to have sex?
Steve Stajich responds:
Pete... I was delighted to get into [Salon.com], even by way of your critique of last week's column.
I guess I could accept that my Five Reasons would be "lame" or "soft" because I'll readily agree that they don't, any of them, justify a drug "war" or the resources invested in a drug war. And the waste of a drug war seems to be the drive of your page, so I understand your reaction or practical need to harvest content that buoys that angle. I certainly agree that drug war-mentality government efforts are troubling to say the least.
But I think it was inaccurate to call the points I made "stupid." I don't think they are empty-headed or so without merit that they meet that criteria. The headline did not suggest that these were the only five reasons or top reasons in any way... just five aspects of legalization that might be considered in the "debate" the governor was proposing. Perhaps you would consider adjusting your posting... although please continue to drive people to the Mirror's online edition.
Yours, Steve Stajich
I really am grateful for the fact that Steve took the time to respond, and appreciate his acknowledgement that a government drug war mentality is troubling. It's often surprising to hear from someone I have mentioned, particularly when I have done so in a somewhat unflattering way. It's slightly disconcerting, because I have been raised to be polite to people, and now that I've heard from Steve, I feel like I, in some way, know him, and feel a tiny but guilty for denigrating his work in such an off-hand way.
So instead of the glib reaction I gave Friday, let's take a moment to analyze Steve's piece in greater detail.
First, I didn't say that his points were stupid. I said that the article was stupid and the points were moronic....
...OK, that doesn't really help.
Let's try again. Steve admits that the points aren't the only ones, and that they might be "lame" or "soft" because they don't, by themselves justify a drug war. But the problem is much deeper.
In the context of having a debate about legalization, the only points brought up in his article are, in fact, false arguments based on dis-proven and exaggerated stereotypes (perhaps intended to be humorous, but falling flat) and other meaningless and incorrect ideas.
They're really no different than...
In a discussion about homosexual marriage, a columnist suggests that we'll need to discuss the impact on health care from the cost of removing all those gerbils from peoples' asses.
In a discussion about ending segregation, a columnist suggests that we'll need to assess the zoning impact of accommodating all of the watermelon patches.
In the example at top, I can't really even tell from the sarcasm if Steve is calling up the stereotype that marijuana causes increased teen pregnancy or that marijuana causes the inability to have sex (thereby decreasing teen pregnancy), but either way, that has absolutely nothing to do with legalization.
As far as the rest...
While opening up access to intoxicants is not quite the same as realizing revenue gain from state gambling, information on gambling addiction and its destructive impacts is always neatly left out of ads for state lotteries and Native American casinos. Would we do the same with legalized pot? At a certain point, state governments and voters must own-up to the fact that realizing revenue gain on a legalized activity means the people's representative government is socializing and endorsing the behavior involved. We're already playing a hypocritical game of pretend with state sponsored gambling; now we're going to run "Hey Kids, Don't Get High at School!" spots on TV with money realized from marijuana sales!?
Don't we get revenue from alcohol, tobacco, and a million other things that the government taxes, but doesn't necessarily encourage? Isn't, in fact, the whole notion of "sin" taxes a kind of recognition that government discourages it? The only way that government would be endorsing pot is if they gave it away for free in schools.
Theoretically, making it illegal for younger teens to have alcohol prevents any teen drinking problems... right? Drunk driving and teen drinking statistics seems to show some holes in that. Does the governor wish to publicly address school teachers and say "Best of luck with more dope on the streets, you know, because now we're selling it at Walgreens." Go ahead with any "They'll get it anyhow if they want it" responses; one way they won't get it is by having their older brother or sister buy it from the responsible adults of California. Jeeze, Arnold... we're having problems keeping diabetes-inflicting sugar and fat out of schools! Do you hang with school teachers at all?
Does this make any sense at all? Making alcohol illegal for teens didn't stop teen drinking problems so making pot legal for adults will cause teen pot problems? Steve cancels out his own argument, showing that making pot illegal doesn't keep it away from teens (which we already know). Sure, maybe we should have a discussion as to whether it's better for teens to get pot from criminals who don't card, or from their brother who skirts the law, but there's certainly no evidence that selling it at Walgreens is going to make it easier for teens to get.
What's holding back American manufacturing and productivity? That's right: Our workers don't have any state-endorsed pot to smoke during lunch breaks. How different the stories of GM and Chrysler if only we'd had the good sense to make it easier (and revenue producing!) for line workers to smoke a "fatty" with their morning coffee. Of course it would be against company rules and policy, just like drinking on the job, which has never been a problem.
"Smoke a 'fatty' with their morning coffee?" Really? And state-endorsed pot again? Steve's got a pretty poor view of American workers if he thinks that just because marijuana is legal, all our workers are going to be constantly stoned on the job. Sure, there are some who get drunk or show up hungover or are stoned or tired regardless of the laws, and you know what? Good managers fire those people and hire people who work during work hours and enjoy themselves during other hours.
Destructive behaviors don't necessarily fluctuate by substance. A drunk driver or husband can bring the pain, whether it was beer or wine or bottle goods. My local hardware store locks up the spray paint so that kids can't just boost a can and go huff it somewhere. So let me say that it's not specifically about marijuana. Our nation's experiments with legalizing the drugs tobacco and alcohol have been less than successful. Drunk driving deaths and alcohol-fueled violence, disease and death from tobacco; the state realizes revenues from these substances yet no one is arguing we should widen access (for more state funds) to either of those. Sorry, Arnold. It's not really a "debate." It's more like, uh, you just talking... again.
What does any of this have to do with marijuana? These are just nonsense and distractions from the debate. The last two sentences are apparently really about Steve, not the Governor.
Sorry Steve. Happy to send more readers to the Mirror's online edition, though.
A Freakonomics Quorum. 
