In the midst of the students and conservative stalwarts in business attire at CPAC, Howard Wooldridge stands out like a sore thumb — but not because of his cowboy hat and big belt buckle. It’s his T-shirt, which loudly proclaims “COPS SAY LEGALIZE POT ASK ME WHY.” And people do, one and two at a time, in the convention hall and the hotel lobby at the Marriott Wardman Park, and he’s always happy to oblige (even when in the middle of an interview).
“In short,” he says to one student, “the cops can either arrest Willy, or the pedophile who’s stalking your 14-year-old sister.” A self-identified conservative libertarian, Wooldridge hones his pitch from there, talking about devolving marijuana policy to the states or the budget cuts that have caused layoffs in police departments or the relative dangers of alcohol by comparison or even marijuana’s medicinal properties. But, even though he says only a “slight majority” of attendees at CPAC agree with him on legalization — “it was more like 70-30 when Ron Paul was big here” — he says “you gotta go where people disagree.”
Wooldridge, a former Lansing, Michigan police officer who helped found Citizens Opposing Prohibition after stints at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and NORML, didn’t start off his law enforcement career opposed to marijuana prohibition — but it only took about three months for him to get there. “It took the first three months because I saw quickly that alcohol-related [crime] was generated by the use of alcohol,” including drunk driving, bar fights and domestic violence. “The marijuana represented a violation of law, but not a public safety problem.”
Marijuana prohibition, he notes, drives up the cost of using and creates incentives for users to commit crimes to feed their habits, Wooldridge said: “we create too many crime victims because [users] need the money.” Ending the black market for drugs ends the incentive for users to steal to support their habits and reduces crime overall, Wooldridge asserted, “and killing the black market is my primary goal.”
Wooldridge noted that it isn’t only crime victims who get ripped off: taxpayers do, too. “We made about $13 billion chasing the green plant,” he said, referring the federal funds distributed to law enforcement to help with drug interdiction. “Police departments are losing officers all the time” because of budget cuts, and forfeiture laws create “a perverse incentive to go after the marijuana dealer” as well.
“At the end of the day, I’d give drugs the same rules as alcohol, minus the advertising,” Wooldridge said. “My job should go back to what it used to be: public safety. Personal safety should be up to individuals and their friends and family.”
The federal Liberal party has voted to legalize marijuana at their convention this past weekend. It is unclear how they will proceed, as they do not know at this time if it will be full legalization or subtle decriminalization, but at the very least the whole issue of marijuana will be debated with an open mind. Which will bring in scientific data to the debate. Finally, politicians who are listening !
MONTREAL — Canada’s Liberal Party overwhelmingly passed a motion Sunday proposing the legalization of marijuana on the last day of its national convention, at which Michael Crawley was chosen as its new leader.
The motion says that, if elected, a Liberal government “will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving.”
Under the motion, the Liberals also promised an amnesty for all Canadians previously found guilty of simple or minimal possession of marijuana and to clear the offenses from their criminal records.
The motion passed with 77 percent of the vote.
The convention also decisively rejected a motion that called for studying the election of Canada’s head of state, thereby severing all official links with the British crown. Queen Elizabeth II is currently the country’s head of state.
With his election, Crawley, an energy industry entrepreneur, takes over the leadership of the once-mighty party in the lead-up to the next federal elections.
“I am re-energized by all of you,” Crawley said at the convention in Ottawa. “The party is clearly focused on the future.”
The Liberals, who governed the country of 34 million people for much of the last century, were reduced to a paltry 34 seats in May elections, forcing leader Michael Ignatieff to step down after losing his seat.
By Kim Bolan, Postmedia News November 22, 2011 VANCOUVER -
Four former Vancouver mayors have endorsed a coalition calling for an end to pot prohibition in Canada that they blame for rampant gang violence.Larry Campbell, Mike Harcourt, Sam Sullivan and Philip Owen all signed an open letter to politicians in B.C. Wednesday claiming a change in the law will reduce gang violence.The former mayors support the position of the Stop the Violence BC coalition, which recently released a survey showing most B.C. residents favour an end to the current marijuana laws.The letter says “marijuana prohibition is – without question – a failed policy.
“”It is creating violent, gang-related crime in our communities and fear among our citizens, and adding financial costs for all levels of government at a time when we can least afford them. Politicians cannot ignore the status quo any longer, and must develop and deliver alternative marijuana policies that avoid the social and criminal harms that stem directly from cannabis prohibition,” the letter says.
The letter was sent to MPs, members of the provincial legislature and city councillors and is designed to drive debate on new marijuana policies.”It is unconscionable, unacceptable and unreasonable that the criminal element in B.C. is allowed to grow and thrive in B.C. due to inaction on the part of the politicians,” said Sullivan, who served 12 years as a city councillor before being elected mayor of Vancouver in 2005. “Politicians must play a key role in the development of new policies that can really provide safer, stronger communities.”The coalition said that a recent poll showed B.C. residents don’t have faith that politicians can design policies that effectively reduce criminal, health and social harms stemming from the illegal marijuana trade.The Angus Reid poll showed that just 32 per cent of British Columbians trust municipal politicians to develop an effective marijuana policy.
Trust in federal and provincial politicians is even lower – at 28 per cent federal and 27 per cent provincial.Meanwhile, far more British Columbians say they distrust municipal 62 per cent, provincial 69 per cent, or federal 68 per cent politicians to design policies to effectively reduce harms stemming from the illegal marijuana trade.Campbell, who is now a senator, challenged politicians to “prove the public wrong.”"Politicians have tremendous access to information, expertise and the levers of power, and must use all of the tools at their disposal to fight gang violence by implementing rational marijuana policies,” Campbell said.
The Angus Reid poll was commissioned by the anti-violence coalition, made up of academic, legal, law enforcement and health experts.The coalition is promising to keep the pressure on with continued polling and reports.”These poll results reinforce the fact that British Columbians are way ahead of those they have elected in recognizing the destructive outcomes from marijuana prohibition,” said Dr. Evan Wood, a coalition member and Director of the Urban Health Research Initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.”It’s time politicians of all stripes consider the gang violence and criminal activity resulting from marijuana prohibition, and enact policies that reflect the desire of British Columbians for change.
Over the past several years, a changing attitude has fallen across the nation in regards to the prohibition of drugs. While the main shift has occurred in numerous states in regards to medical marijuana policies, other changes have occurred in the crime and punishment arenas, as states struggle to make ends meet and are forced to look at alternatives to the traditional lock ‘em up and throw away the key method.
Do these changes signal an end to the War on Drugs or merely a hiccup in the status quo?
Seventeen states now have medical marijuana laws and thirteen have decriminalized simple possession of marijuana (NORML). This doesn’t mean it’s legal to possess pot, merely that it’s only punishable by a fine when found in small amounts. However, civil citations for marijuana possession that are the equivalent of a traffic ticket certainly change incentives for local law enforcement.
Of those states with medical marijuana laws, there are extremely varied programs, laws, and regulations in place to keep things running smoothly. No state has yet legalized marijuana but a recently released Gallup poll shows American support for legalization is at an all-time high, with 50% of those surveyed being in support while only 46% were opposed. Even when it comes to other drugs, the country seems to have a more treatment-based approach than ever before. Encouraged in part by a lack of funds, states have been forced to look at alternatives to the harsh sentences that began several decades ago.
New York State, for example, repealed the extremely harsh Rockefeller Laws, doing away with many mandatory minimum sentences. At the federal level, the law that sent people to prison for crack cocaine at a rate 100 times more severe than those convicted of powder cocaine crimes, was reduced to be at least a little more fair, reducing the disparate sentence to only 18 times that of powder cocaine.
While States Loosen Laws, The Federal Government Tightens its Grip
These facts alone seem to suggest that the Drug War may be on its way out. But others seem to suggest otherwise. The federal government has resisted the medical marijuana movement, despite promises that they would keep their nose out of the business of the states. Recently, marijuana dispensaries in California began shutting down after receiving letters from U.S. Attorneys that there would be consequences if they didn’t cease business. Numerous raids have been conducted on dispensaries in several states at the hands of federal enforcement agents. All of this because marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the federal statutes, which has no exceptions for medical marijuana laws at a state level.
Lawmakers from both parties and opposite ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum are becoming more open to criminal laws that focus on treatment and reducing recidivism rather than imprisonment. But it isn’t clear how far these new attitudes will go.
Changing sentencing laws and practices to reduce the number of people being sentenced to years in prison reduces the cost to taxpayers and may have a positive effect on recidivism, when paired with treatment and other support measures. But lawmakers must be cautious that they aren’t only concerned with reducing costs. Sending addicts back onto the streets without help for their illness could create a revolving door. Drug Courts and other measures that treat drug crimes as violations of law and a public health issue seem to have the most promise.
Drug Laws Reform Around the World
Countries have been able to end drug prohibition with positive results but not simply by cutting drug crimes out of the penal code and failing to follow up. In Portugal, for instance, drugs were legalized in 2001, making them the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for drug possession of any kind. But this change was accompanied by a national treatment program where anyone caught in possession would be offered optional drug treatment. Despite the fact that this treatment was completely optional and there are no negative consequences if you decline it, Portugal has seen major changes over the past decade. In the first five years, drug use among teens dipped and HIV infections did as well. More than twice as many people sought treatment after the law change than before.
Lawmakers are often concerned that lax drug laws will lead to increased violence and other crimes. But a recent study from the United Nations suggests otherwise. Of all the countries studied, the Netherlands, who do not enforce most drug laws, had a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 people, the lowest of any country examined. Those with higher homicide rates were countries where the War on Drugs was in full swing.
Is the United States ready to end the War on Drugs? Perhaps not. The people seem more amenable than ever to legalizing marijuana, which could be a step in the right direction. But the powers that be will be harder to convince. Perhaps the only thing that will further push lawmakers towards eventual cease-fire in this war is a continued economic crunch paired with the knowledge that this war is costing the country an average of $500 per second.
This article first appeared on DrugPossessionLaws.com.Ben Brewin is a Boston-area blogger, and contributes to many different U.S. criminal law blog sites.
This week’s news that support for the legalization of marijuana has reached a record high of 50% ought to bother Obama’s re-election team a little bit. No, not because pot’s more popular than the president, although that really says a lot. The problem, rather, is that Obama’s heavily publicized and widely praised promise to respect state medical marijuana laws has recently been shattered into more pieces than the campaign can count.
In only a few short months, the Obama administration has presided over a vicious series of political assaults on medical marijuana patients and providers across the nation, carried out by numerous federal agencies. The situation just continues to get more ugly and insane from one week to the next:
Federal prosecutors have threatened to arrest state employees for administering state laws, resulting in stalled programs and reduced patient access.
U.S. Attorneys in California recently revived the Bush era tactic of threatening to seize property from landlords who rent to medical marijuana facilities.
After 9 years of failing to respond, the DEA recently denied a petition to reschedule marijuana, ignoring a vast body of scientific evidence proving the drug’s medical efficacy.
Federal threats have caused numerous banks to close the accounts of businesses that provide medical marijuana to qualified patients.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms issued a surprising statement that medical marijuana patients may not purchase firearms.
The IRS is shaking down medical marijuana providers for millions of dollars based on an obscure tax provision aimed at drug traffickers.
A federal prosecutor even threatened to target newspapers that run ads for medical marijuana services.
And, of course, the DEA continues to raid tax-paying businesses that are legal under state law.
As the American people appear all but prepared to end our war on marijuana once and for all, the federal government is busy doubling down on the even-more-mindless battle against people who use the drug medicinally. The disconnect is staggering and continues to expand as support for full legalization surges into the majority, while medical marijuana maintains the massive 80% national support it’s had for some time now.
Today, at this very moment, support for the cause of marijuana reform has never been greater, and tomorrow it will be greater still. The surging momentum of the issue is generating discussion all around us, even by the media that once ignored it, which now misses no opportunity to cover the controversy over cannabis.
Alas, it seems the only person not talking about it is our president, who campaigned as an agent of change, who once spoke with seeming sincerity of the need to “rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,” who was elected after promising to reform federal enforcement priorities in medical marijuana states, and who earned universal praise from the press and the public when his administration announced its intention to do just that.
Whether deliberately or through a willful failure to follow the issue at all, Obama has thrown all of it away amidst an extraordinary stampede of over-the-top anti-pot posturing that makes Bush’s drug war leadership look lazy by comparison. The situation is spiraling as we speak into new depths of absurdity, and many of the people who’ve made things this bad are busy brainstorming ways to make it worse.
Still, if there is one lesson to be learned from the recent history of marijuana policy in America, it is that support for reform is galvanized when the law is enforced in a manner that shocks the public conscience. The Obama Administration’s past attempts at pandering to demands for a more measured criminal justice philosophy prove that he was once paying attention. Now, as the tension escalates with each new federal threat, Obama’s silence on the matter is becoming conspicuous and embarrassing.
The time has come for the president, and no one else, to come forward and explain to the American people why war is still being waged against patients and providers in states that permit the medical use of marijuana. What the people want has been perfectly clear for a long time, and if we can’t have it, we deserve an honest answer as to why.
By James Slack14th October 2011Liars, hypocrites, ignorant fools everywhere. Legalize the dame drugs already ! What are you afraid of ? Things could not get any worse than they are. Politicians addressing the drug problem should be tested for their competence and understanding of the issue. Lou
Controversial: The Government’s advisers would not have this man criminalised for cannabis possession
A controversial panel of government advisers last night called for a radical liberalisation of drugs laws – with even class-A users escaping punishment.
Instead of being hauled before the courts, those caught in possession of hard drugs for personal use, such as heroin and ecstasy, would be sent on courses to educate them.
Possession of class A drugs such as cocaine is punishable by up to seven years in jail or a fine, class B, such as cannabis, by up to five years or a fine, and class C, such as speed, by up to two years or a fine.
The proposal was immediately dismissed by the Government. The ACMD’s position has led to clashes with ministers, and last night it earned itself another rebuke from the Home Office, which reminded its members that ‘drugs destroy lives’. Home Office officials added: ‘We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws.’
Professor Les Iversen, ACMD chairman, is arguing for the UK to be more creative in dealing with those caught in possession of drugs.
Professor Les Iversen, ACMD chairman, is leading the call for the drug laws to be relaxed
‘The policy of decriminalising the possession of all drugs would lead to more than 30,000 users avoiding prison or other criminal sanctions each year. The council also suggests drug users could have their driving licences and passports confiscated as part of a civil penalty.’
Dealers would still face criminal charges. ‘Such approaches may be more effective in reducing repeat offending,’ it said.
About 35,000 people were sentenced for drug possession in 2009. A further 11,490 were given an on-the-spot fine, many for possession of small amounts of drugs, and 43,000 were cautioned.
The ACMD added that anyone caught with drugs who is also involved or linked to other crimes would be dealt with through the court system.
The Home Office said: ‘Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery. Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer.’
The ACMD has been demanding a softer approach for years. Under Labour, the panel twice said cannabis should be a class C rather than class B drug, and suggested downgrading ecstasy from A to B.
Wide-ranging: The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs believes the law change should apply to any drugs, including cocaine (above)
Former chairman Professor David Nutt was sacked by the Home Secretary in October 2009 for saying cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and nicotine, and arguing that it had been upgraded to class B for political reasons. He also said taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than an ‘addiction’ to horse riding.
Critics hoped for a change of direction this year after the appointment to the ACMD of Christian GP Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, who took a tough stance against cannabis.
He said children should be taught not to take drugs, rather than being given advice on taking them safely. But he was forced out in a row over his hardline views on homosexuality.
Yearly over 1.5 million people are arrested for pot in the US!
It all began long ago, in the 1900′s, when more than a million Mexican laborers poured into the Southwest, taking jobs that were in short supply already. Since this was during the Great Depression, Americans began blaming the immigrants for everything. Since many of these Mexicans liked to smoke marijuana, it wasn’t long before Marijuana was blamed for everything from crime to poverty. It wasn’t long and pot became pulic enemy number one.
California, nine States passed legislation outlawing immigrant populations from smoking pot between 1906 and 1927. During this time, one senator told the Texas legislature: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (pot) is what makes them crazy.”
Criminalization Moves East
After 1930, anti-pot laws spread to the eastern states, but by then the government expanded to include African-Americans involved in jazz, making them their demographic target user. Harry Anslinger, the first director of the newly established Bureau of Narcotics told Congress in 1937:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, results from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”
Anslinger’s racist and biased remarks was regularly published in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst. Considering Hearst owned considerable timber interests, many believe to this day, that his support of the anti-hemp initiative was really because he feared hemp-based paper would end up replacing tree-based paper for newspaper contracts. Unfortunately, the infant hemp industry seemed to threaten these rich men’s monopoly in the pulp and paper industry. In fact, in 1937, Popular Science predicted that hemp would become a billion dollar industry. Jack Herer concluded in 1985 that the DuPont corporation had plenty to do with the criminalization of cannabis in his book, The Emperor Has No Clothes (available for free as an ebook from AssEtEbooks.com), pointing out that DuPont owned the patent for creating paper from wood pulp, which would have seriously been threatened by hemp based pulp.
The War on Drugs
Whether Anslinger was on the take by DuPont doesn’t really matter. He was ambitious and saw the fear of marijuana as his ticket. The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties wrote: “William Randolph Hearst, whose papers led the fight, offered Anslinger space in his papers and magazines, and Anslinger gladly availed himself of the opportunity. He published one article after the other with scare stories warned against the dangers of hemp.
Anslinger was instrumet in having the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 passed, making the possession or transfer of cannabis illegal throughout the U.S. In the 1969 Supreme Court case Harvard professor turned LSD advocate, Timothy Leary vs. United States, this law was declared unconstitutional. Effectively Congress repealed the Tax Act and replaced it with the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, keeping pot illegal.
With propaganda calling cannabis the great corrupter of youth, alcohol consumption became the number two cause of death, after lung cancer.
Today, due to education about the dangers of their use, alcohol and tobacco consumption is dropping. And although marijuana consumption peaked about twelve years ago, it is again on the rise, particularly among today’s youth, in spite of anti-pot propaganda. Considering new studies have completely overturned the gateway myth surrounding marijuana (check out my article, New Research Suggests Marijuana is NOT Gateway Drug as Believed), it is indicated that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol.
Still, the media would rather not publish such information, for fear of advocating marijuana use. Instead, it continues to publish anti-marijuana propaganda, naming it drug abuse education, and saying it is necessary to warn people of the dangers of drug abuse. Education such as this, no matter how well intentioned, will not prevent use, abuse or addiction.
Surveys suggest that 41% of Americans have tried marijuana and that 52% of Americans now favor legalization.
Regardless of marijuana’s growing acceptance, most of our elected officials still won’t come out of the closet to support the use of medical marijuana because they don’t want to appear pro-legalization. They still believe this as political suicide, though I believe that this could actually produce a winning ticket.
If Marijuana were Legalized America might not even Notice
Should the legalization of marijuana ever be passed, many experts feel mainstream America might not even notice the difference. Studies and statistics show that society would not fall apart if marijuana were legalized. Few would smoke more pot, commit more crimes or be to lazy to go to work. Only the nearly 900,000 people who are arrested for pot each year will be spared a tremendous amount of pain.
However, things won’t change anytime soon. Pot’s continued criminalization has been championed, under and over the table by the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, the prison-industrial complex and many law enforcement agencies, all of which have something to loose should marijuana ever be legalized.
And so marijuana remains illegal.
Opposing Industries
The idea that alcohol and tobacco companies would oppose looser restrictions on marijuana may seem ridiculous. Both industries are in the business of making people feel good, after all. However, research discovered that pot is more a substitute for alcohol and tobacco than a complement.
Amanda Reiman, a UC Berkeley social scientist, published a 2009 study in the Harm Reduction Journal that 40 percent of her patient population had substituted cannabis for booze somewhere down the line, worrying tobacco and alcohol companies about losing market share to marijuana.
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, otherwise known as, NORML, used a Freedom of Information Act in 1991, requesting to examine the nonprofit that provides anti-drug resources to parents funding called the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. They discovered that half of the organization’s capital came from the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries!
In a CNN interview about a California Beer and Beverage Distributors $10,000 donation to Public Safety First, an organization fighting against California’s Prop 19, Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER (a Colorado-based pro-pot advocacy group), said:
“Every objective study on marijuana has concluded that it’s a far safer substance than alcohol. Clearly what we’re seeing here is that the alcohol industry is trying to prevent competition. They realize that marijuana is the next most popular recreational drug after alcohol and they want to insure the booze keeps flowing and the pot does not.”
However, there are those who feel that these industries are actually playing both sides of the fence, considering that no one is better positioned to start selling legal marijuana than the alcohol and tobacco industries.
Pot Arrest Statistics
Marijuana arrests are close to a record high in spite of continued efforts to control its smuggling into the United States and to eradicate its cultivation domestically. In 2009 alone, more than 1.7 million people were brought in on marijuana-related charges, with over half being arrested for simply smoking pot.
According to a report by Drug Science public policy analyst Jon Gettman, enforcing America’s pot laws costs taxpayers $10.7 billion yearly. And that doesn’t count the strain on our criminal justice system or the disruption of the lives of those who find themselves in the criminal justice system with a record for smoking pot. Although lately even some police organizations have spoken out for the legalization of marijuana, “No group is more opposed to the legalization of marijuana than law enforcement,” said NORML spokesman Allen St. Pierre. “They aren’t just arguing for preserving the current status quo—they want stiffer penalties and more restrictions and the reason is simple: it’s job security.” At least 30 percent of the work of law enforcement currently revolves around marijuana prohibition, with pot accounting for more than 50 percent of all drug arrests according to Allen St. Pierre. Although I’m sure there are plenty of police associations accross America that oppose the legalization of marijuana, maybe even actively lobby to keep it illegal, there are also some police groups actively speaking out for the legalization of marijuana, the most prominent of which is probably, L.E.A.P., or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. LEAP is made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of our existing drug policies.
If you want to do a comprehensive examination of the cannabis issue, I strongly recommend you read, Otherwise Law-Abiding Citizens: A Scientific and Moral Assessment of Cannabis Use, as Matthew Stolick is highly accurate in his scientific analysis, offering a truly interdisciplinary look at this highly political issue, he clearly articulates the reasoning behind the categorical rejection of legal cannabis use by the United States and other nations.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy says America’s War on Drugs is a total failure. In a new initiative, the Commission has made some important new, gamechanging recommendations in its Drug Policy Report (read my article, The Global Commission on Drug Policy says War on Drugs is Total Failure) on how to bring more effective control over the illicit drug trade. You may also want to check out my articles Is Marijuana really the Wonder-Drug that could Help Millions or actually a Menace of Society?, New Research Suggests Marijuana is NOT Gateway Drug as Believed and Why Parents Should Support the Legalization of Marijuana on my Addicts Not Anonymous blog. When will America say, enough already, lets end this futile War on Drugs that’s never going to work and put the cartels, smugglers and local dealers out of business? What is it even the business of our government to tell us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies? When where do we draw the line of our personal freedom? If you are like me, and you’ve have had enough of the War on Drugs, then do what you can to promote peace. Contact NORMAL, write your Congressman or hold a rally in your town. I suggest you download from, AssEtEbooks.com for free and without obligation, How to Coordinate a Campaign for Change, a practical guidebook for coordinating campaigns for real change, from forming a campaign group, recruiting, inspiring and motivating your members to lobbying officials, dealing with the media and writing speeches – in short everything you will need to achieve real, positive steps towards the legalization of marijuana.
If you have any thoughts or beliefs you would like to share with Conspiracy Watch readers, please feel free to leave a comment bellow.
Senate Bill 1014 reduces the penalties for the adult possession of up to one-half ounce of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor (formerly punishable by one year in jail and a $1,000 fine) to a non-criminal infraction, punishable by a $150 fine, no arrest or jail time, and no criminal record. The new law similarly reduces penalties for the possession of marijuana paraphernalia.
Connecticut’s new law is similar to the existing ‘decriminalization’ laws in California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Oregon where private, non-medical possession of marijuana is treated as a civil, non-criminal offense.
Five additional states — Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio — treat marijuana possession offenses as a fine-only misdemeanor offense. Alaska law imposes no criminal or civil penalty for the private possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults.
Lawmakers in California and Kentucky previously enacted laws this year reducing penalties for marijuana possession.
A grown-up discussion of marijuana laws would be welcome during the election campaign. The current approach isn’t working, as two recent news stories have demonstrated.
Last week, the Ontario Superior Court found Canada’s laws against possessing and growing marijuana are unconstitutional. Justice Donald Taliano found the federal government allows medical marijuana use, but has created regulations that make access difficult and sometimes impossible, which violates patients’ rights.
Until that is fixed, people have the right to grow and possess marijuana, the court found. Taliano gave the government three months to appeal or change the regulations; the government, predictably, has chosen to appeal.
And also last week, B.C. Hydro said it is suing grow-op owners who bypassed power meters to steal electricity. It’s pursuing 19 claims for $2.1 million, or an average of $110,000.
B.C. Hydro also repeated its estimate that grow-ops are stealing $100 million worth of electricity a year. (That estimate has climbed as the Crown corporation attempts to justify its $1-billion smart-meter plan.)
Using B.C. Hydro’s figures for average grow-op power use, that means there are about 17,000 grow-ops stealing electricity in B.C. Other operators take the chance of paying for power or using generators. And there are roughly 4,000 outdoor grow-ops, according to research.
That means there are more than 22,000 marijuana grow-ops in the province. At least 40,000 people are likely employed, at least part-time, just tending the plants. The legal agriculture sector employs 32,000.
That suggest several realities. First, there is an enormous market for marijuana, inside and outside the province, which indicates many people don’t believe it should be illegal and ignore the law.
Second, we are asking police and the courts to take on a hopeless task. There would never be enough resources to find 22,000 grow-ops.
And third, we are following a drug policy that does not work. It hasn’t reduced marijuana use. It has cost billions in enforcement, court and prison costs. And it has created a lucrative revenue stream that has funded the growth of criminal gangs across Canada.
It has now been 39 years since the LeDain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs reported. After three years of hearings and research, it recommended the federal government decriminalize marijuana and that provinces introduce controls on use, possession and production. In short, treat marijuana like alcohol. The commission also recommended the federal government continue research on the impact of the changes on use and possible problems.
It’s widely accepted — including by courts, health experts and the public — that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco, alcohol and hard drugs. It poses less risk of addiction, damaged health or social problems, and use does not lead to crime or violence or other drugs.
That is not to say that it is entirely benign. Any intoxicant has negative effects for some people.
But there is no fact-based case for treating it differently than alcohol or wasting so much money on ineffectual enforcement of laws that lack public support.
There has been little discussion of the issue.
The Conservatives oppose decriminalization because it “sends out the wrong message,” according to Rob Nicholson, who was justice minister. It’s unclear what that message is. The party also favours tougher punishment, including mandatory jail time for anyone growing six or more pot plants.
The Liberals oppose the mandatory jail time, but don’t support broader decriminalization. The New Democrats propose decriminalizing possession, but would apparently continue current policies on grow-ops and sales.
Only the Greens have proposed legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana.
Do you get high? If so, you have a lot of company. Although no country has yet legalized marijuana, almost half of the world’s 147 nations have, to some extent, decriminalized it. In the United States, according to an April 2009 Zogby poll, 52 percent of the population now favors legalization—the largest percentage ever.Despite marijuana’s growing acceptance, most of our elected officials are still reluctant to advocate for the cause. As Rick Doblin, President of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)—a nonprofit that has advocated on behalf of medical marijuana since the 80s—points out: “Most politicians still won’t come out in favor of medical marijuana because they don’t want to appear pro-legalization. And they’re afraid of appearing pro-legalization, because they’re scared of being accused of wanting to give drugs to children.”
And it’s unlikely things will change anytime soon. Pot’s continued criminalization has been championed, sometimes overtly, often covertly, by powerful groups—among them law enforcement agencies, the alcohol and tobacco industries, pharmaceutical companies and the prison-industrial complex—who have repeatedly shaped laws and public opinion to reflect their views.
So weed remains a crime, albeit a very popular one.
Pot Arrest Statistics
Pot arrests are at a near-record high. According to FBI statistics, in 2009 more than 1.7 million people were brought in on marijuana-related charges—almost half of them (758,593 to be exact) for simply smoking pot (as opposed to growing or dealing it). According to “Lost Revenues and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws,” a report written by Drug Science public policy analyst Jon Gettman, enforcing America’s pot laws costs taxpayers an annual $10.7 billion. Not to mention the overburdening of our criminal justice system and disruption of the lives of those who find themselves with a criminal record for smoking an occasional joint.
“If an arrest leads to a conviction, as it often does,” says American Civil Liberties Union policy advocate Mark Cooke, “it can lead to a lifetime of collateral consequences. These include loss of employment, loss of housing, loss of voting rights, loss of federal financial aid for college, seizure and forfeiture of property, termination of child visitation rights and deportation for legal immigrants. If an arrest results in incarceration, the offender will face lower job prospects and have diminished earning capacity. Even if someone is merely arrested for using marijuana and doesn’t actually get charged, they will still bear the stigma of being labeled a criminal.”
Meanwhile, medical marijuana has come to be seen as something of a wonder drug. Researchers have declared it one of the most successful palliatives in the medicine chest—beneficial in the treatment of pain, nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), lack of appetite, migraines, fibromyalgia, cancer, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, Lyme disease, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette’s syndrome and many more. “There’s nothing in our current pharmacopoeia that comes close,” says Michael Backes, owner of the Cornerstone Research Collective, a Los Angeles-based medical marijuana dispensary and research organization.
All this pro-pot sentiment is not new. One of the earliest laws passed in the New World—a 1619 Jamestown colony law—required all settlers to grow cannabis (some of this was for domestic use, but much was at the “request” of our colonial masters who used the plant for everything from rope to medicines). Two hundred years later there were more than 8,000 hemp plantations in the colonies—with nothing less than 2,000 acres counting as a plantation.
So how did we get from hemp being as American as apple pie to U.S. prisons overflowing with marijuana offenders?
Hemp under attack
Hemp is a British word for a number of varieties of the cannabis plant that contain very low amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the plant’s main psychoactive chemical, as opposed to marijuana—a variety of cannabis with high THC content. It was a respected part of agriculture in America until the dawn of the 20th century. That’s when everything changed—thanks primarily to xenophobia magnified by economic pressures.Between 1900 and 1930, more than a million Mexican laborers poured over the border into the Southwest. Unfortunately, with jobs in short supply, especially during the depression years, Americans began looking for someone to blame for their economic woes.Mexicans became a favorite target. And since the stereotype of the time was that these same Mexicans liked to smoke marijuana—in 1919 the Chicago Tribune called it “a weed from the Mexican desert”—it became guilt by association. From 1906 through 1927, California, Wyoming, Texas, Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas and Nebraska all passed legislation outlawing the pot-smoking habits of their immigrant populations. Some argue this effort was entirely motivated by economic factors, others feel it was plain old racial discrimination. In the mid-1920s, as CBS News recently reported, one senator told the Texas legislature: “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (pot) is what makes them crazy.”
Criminalization Moves East
Anti-pot laws spread to the eastern states after 1930, but this time the target user demographic expanded to include African-Americans—specifically those involved in the jazz scene. In 1937, the first director of the newly established Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, told Congress: “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, results from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”
Anslinger’s racist tirades often showed up in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst. Since Hearst owned considerable timber interests as well, many have claimed his devotion to the anti-pot cause was really a fear of hemp-based paper out-competing pulp paper for newspaper contracts. But Hearst had help.
In his 1985 book, The Emperor Has No Clothes, author Jack Herer concluded that the DuPont corporation had plenty to do with the criminalization of cannabis. DuPont owned the patent for creating plastics from coal and oil, and another for creating paper from wood pulp—two processes that would have been seriously threatened by hemp. Shoring up this claim is the fact that Andrew Mellon was both DuPont’s biggest backer and the Secretary of Treasury under Hoover, and it was Mellon who appointed Harry Anslinger to office.
Anslinger’s War on Drugs
Anslinger’s ambition and lack of scruples were legendary. Whether he was on the DuPont take (or just under orders from Mellon) really didn’t matter. He wanted power and fast—and saw old fears about marijuana as the ticket to ride. According to the authoritative Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties: “William Randolph Hearst, whose papers led the fight, offered Anslinger space in his papers and magazines, and Anslinger gladly availed himself of the opportunity. He filled article after article with scare stories that not only warned against alleged dangers of hemp, but also were overtly racist: ‘Two Negros took a fourteen-year-old girl and kept her for two days under the influence of marijuana. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis.’”
Because of Anslinger, the Marihuana [sic] Tax Act of 1937 was passed, making the possession or transfer of cannabis illegal throughout the U.S. This law was declared unconstitutional in the 1969 Supreme Court case Leary v. United States (that’s Leary, as in Harvard professor turned LSD advocate, Timothy Leary), so Congress repealed the Tax Act and replaced it with the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, which kept pot illegal. And, excluding the use of medicinal cannabis, that’s about where we stand today.
Or stood.
Recent surveys have found that 41 percent of Americans have tried marijuana. While California’s Proposition 19, which would have decriminalized the drug’s recreational use, was defeated, it still garnered the support of 44 percent of the voters. Should legalization ever become the law, some experts feel we might not even notice the difference.
“We already know,” says Keith Stroup, head legal counsel for NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), “that very few people are going to get up and not go to work tomorrow because marijuana is legalized. The gears of society will not grind to a halt. The biggest differences will be that the nearly 900,000 people who are arrested for pot each year will be spared a tremendous amount of pain. I also think driving accidents will go down. Surveys show that a lot of people won’t drink if they can smoke and, while cannabis impairs driving, studies also show that the accidents resulting from booze are significantly worse than those resulting from marijuana—drunk people speed up, stoned ones slow down.”
Law Enforcement“No group is more opposed to the legalization of marijuana than law enforcement,” says NORML spokesman Allen St. Pierre. “They aren’t just arguing for preserving the current status quo—they want stiffer penalties and more restrictions and the reason is simple: it’s job security.” According to St. Pierre, at least 30 percent of the work of law enforcement currently revolves around marijuana prohibition, with pot accounting for more than 50 percent of all drug arrests.Police groups clearly offer the most visible opposition to legal pot; they often work behind the scenes as well. In 2008, Eric Steenstraw, president of the industrial hemp activist organization Hemp Now, helped manage to get bipartisan bill AB 684, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, passed. This state law would have allowed California farmers to legally supply manufacturers with hemp seeds, oil and fiber that they now obtain from Canada, China or other places where growing the crop is permissible. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill almost immediately. “I was told afterwards,” says Steenstraw, “that it was John Lovell—the main lobbyist for the California Narcotics Officers Association (and three other major California law enforcement organizations)—who got to the Governor. That was the only opposition we got and it was enough to kill the bill.”
While Lovell worked hard to get AB 684 vetoed, he actually had help. “There were 16 different law enforcement agencies who opposed the bill,” he says. “I only represented four of them. But Steenstraw’s correct about law enforcement’s opposition. There’s just no easy visual way to differentiate hemp from cannabis, and if this bill would have gone into effect, it would have seriously undermined major marijuana cultivation enforcement efforts.”
The Alcohol and Tobacco Industries
Alcohol industry product (iStack Photo)The idea that alcohol and tobacco companies would oppose looser restrictions on marijuana may seem odd. After all, both industries are in the business of making people feel good. But a number of researchers have found that pot turns out to be more of a substitute for alcohol and tobacco than a complement. In 2009, Amanda Reiman, a UC Berkeley social scientist, published a study in the Harm Reduction Journal showing that 40 percent of her patient population had substituted cannabis for booze at some point. Other studies found that when pot smokers can’t find marijuana they binge drink instead. Simply put: the tobacco and alcohol companies are worried about losing market share to weed.
In 1991, NORML used a Freedom of Information Act request to examine the funding records of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, a nonprofit that provides anti-drug resources to parents. They discovered that 50 percent of the organization’s capital came from the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. So embarrassing was this revelation that, according to St. Pierre, “ever since, these industries have tried to hide their marijuana opposition.”
But with legalization pressures mounting last summer, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors came out of the closet and donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, an organization fighting against California’s Prop 19. In a CNN interview about the donation, Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER (a Colorado-based pro-pot advocacy group), said: “Every objective study on marijuana has concluded that it’s a far safer substance than alcohol. Clearly what we’re seeing here is that the alcohol industry is trying to prevent competition. They realize that marijuana is the next most popular recreational drug after alcohol and they want to insure the booze keeps flowing and the pot does not.”
Some experts also feel that these industries are actually playing both sides against the middle. “The tobacco industry has a long history of opposing legalization,” says St. Pierre, “but no one is better positioned to start selling legal marijuana. They already know how to process and market dried vegetable matter. In fact, a few years ago, when everyone was suing the tobacco industry, the court documents revealed that one of the big British tobacco companies—a company that specialized in menthol cigarettes—had run experiments to try and figure out how to mentholate cannabis and how to market the result to the African-American community.”
A prisoner serves his time. (iStock Photo)The business models for private prison corporations are all the same: buy land, build cells and let law-enforcement agencies fill those cells. With a marijuana arrest made every 38 seconds—more than 15 million since 1973—housing pot prisoners is big business. “Private prison corporations spend big dollars supporting anti-marijuana legalization groups for this reason,” says St. Pierre.There are many others in the marijuana-conviction food chain. “Because judges now allow drug offenders to choose between treatment and jail,” says Mike Meno, spokesman for the pro-pot advocacy organization, the Marijuana Policy Project, “more people are now admitted to treatment centers for marijuana than any other drug. This [treatment center] revenue stream goes away if marijuana becomes legal.”And then there are hundreds, if not thousands, of subsidiaries further downstream. Critics have pointed, for example, to helicopter manufacturers (whose products are used for pesticide spraying, drug-war enforcement, etc.), pesticide peddlers and, well, even drug lords. In a 2009 article for the Huffington Post, David Sterry reported that Joaquin Guzman Loera, reputed head of the infamous Sinaloa Cartel (and number 701 on the Forbes list of the wealthiest men in the world), officially thanked U.S. politicians for keeping drugs illegal and making him rich.
Sperry wrote: “According to one of his closest confidants, he [Loera] said, ‘I couldn’t have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama. None of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you.’”
Regardless of the economic, medical and other benefits of hemp—and despite evidence showing marijuana may be safer than alcohol—pot remains officially lumped in with dangerous and highly addictive narcotics like cocaine, amphetamines and heroin. It’s no wonder, with so many powerful organizations secretly pursuing no-holds-barred anti-legalization agendas. Until they reverse their stance, it’s a good bet that pot will remain an illegal activity in America.
–
Steven Kotler is the author of The Angle Quickest for Flight, West of Jesus: Surfing, Science, and the Origins of Belief and A Small Furry Prayer: Dog Rescue and the Meaning of Life. His non-fiction has appeared in more than 50 publications, including the New York Times Magazine, LA Times, Wired, Popular Science, GQ, Outside and National Geographic. He writes The Playing Field, a blog about the science of sport, for PsychologyToday and is op-ed editor and chief investigative reporter for ecology site, EcoHearth.com. More at StevenKotler.com.
