These three articles were posted in the June 7th edition of the Los Angeles Times.Please take the time to read them all and post your opinions or thoughts.
DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA
The War on Drugs Has Caused Too Much Collateral Damage: Even the Ill Face Stigmatization by Using an Alternative to Harsh Pharmaceuticals.
By Marie Myung-Ok Lee
I'm on the phone getting a recipe for hashish butter. Not from my dealer but from Lester Grinspoon, a physician and emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. And not for a party but for my 9-year-old son, who has autism, anxiety and digestive problems, all of which are helped by the analgesic and psychoactive properties of marijuana. I wouldn't be giving it to my child if I didn't think it was safe.
I came to marijuana while searching for a safer alternative to the powerful antipsychotic drugs, such as Risperdal, that are typically prescribed for children with autism and other behavioral disorders. There have been few studies on the long-term effects of these drugs on a growing child's brain, and in particular autism, a disorder whose biochemical mechanisms are poorly understood. But there is much documentation of the risks, which has caused the Food and Drug Administration to require the highest-level "black box" warnings of possible side effects that include permanent Parkinson's disease-like tremors, metabolic disorders and death. A panel of federal drug experts in 2008 urged physicians to use caution when prescribing these medicines to children, as they are the most susceptible to side effects.
We live in Rhode Island, one of more than a dozen states -- including California -- with medical marijuana laws. That makes giving our son cannabis for a medical condition legal. But we are limited in its use. We cannot take it on a plane on a visit to his grandmother in Minnesota.
Even though we are not breaking the law, I still wonder what my neighbors would think if they knew we were giving our son what most people only think of as an illegal "recreational" drug. Marijuana has always carried that illicit tang of danger -- "reefer madness" and foreign drug cartels. But in 1988, Drug Enforcement Administration Judge Francis L. Young, after two years of hearings, deemed marijuana "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. .. In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume."
Beyond helping people like my son, the reasons to legalize cannabis on a federal level are manifold. Anecdotal evidence from patients already attests to its pain-relieving properties, and the benefits in quelling chemotherapy-induced nausea and wasting syndrome are well documented. Future studies may find even more important medical uses.
Including marijuana in the war on drugs has only proved foolhardy -- and costly. By keeping marijuana illegal and prices high, illicit drug money from the U.S. sustains the murderous narco-traffickers in Mexico and elsewhere. In fact, after seeing how proximity to marijuana growers affected the small Mexican village of Alamos, where my husband spent much of his childhood, I was adamant about never entering into that economy of violence.
Because Rhode Island has no California-like medical marijuana dispensaries, the patient must apply for a medical marijuana license and then find a way to procure the cannabis. We floundered on our own until we finally connected with a local horticultural school graduate who agreed to provide our son's organic marijuana. But given the seedy underbelly of the illegal drug trade, combined with the current economic collapse, even our grower has to be mindful of not exposing himself to robbery.
Legalizing marijuana not only removes the incentives for this underground economy, it would allow for regulation and taxation of the product, just like cigarettes and alcohol. The potential for abuse is there, as it is with any substance, but toxicology studies have not even been able to establish a lethal dose at typical-use levels. In fact, in 1988, Young of the DEA further stated that "it is estimated that ... a smoker would theoretically have to consume ... nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response." Nor is it physically addicting, unlike your daily Starbucks, as anyone who has suffered from a caffeine withdrawal headache can attest.
Although it has been demonized for years, marijuana hasn't been illegal in the U.S. for that long. The cannabis plant became criminalized on a federal level in 1937, largely because of the efforts of one man, Harry Anslinger, commissioner of the then newly formed Bureau of Narcotics, largely through sensationalistic stories of murder and mayhem conducted supposedly under the influence of cannabis. Cannabis was still listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia, or USP, until 1941 as a household drug useful for treating headaches, depression, menstrual cramps and toothaches, and drug companies worked to develop a stronger strain.
In 1938, a skeptical Fiorello LaGuardia, mayor of New York, appointed a committee to conduct the first in-depth study of marijuana's actual effects. It found that, despite the government's fervent claims, marijuana did not cause insanity or act as a gateway drug. It also found no scientific reason for its criminalization. In 1972, President Nixon's Shafer Commission similarly concluded that cannabis should be re-legalized.
Both recommendations were ignored, and since then billions of dollars have been spent enforcing the ban. Public policy analyst Jon Gettman, author of the 2007 report, "Lost Revenues and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws," estimated marijuana-related annual costs of law enforcement at $10.7 billion.
I was heartened to hear California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent call for the U.S. to at least look at other nations' experiences with legalizing marijuana -- and to open a debate. And given the real security threats the nation faces, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement that the federal government would no longer conduct raids on legal medicinal marijuana dispensaries was a prudent move. Decriminalizing marijuana is the logical next step.
Marie Myung-Ok Lee teaches at Brown University and is working on a novel about medical malpractice.
THE PRICE OF LEGALIZING POT IS TOO HIGH
Deterrence Is Preferable to Encouraging Marijuana Use, Which Would Follow Alcohol and Tobacco in Soaring Costs to Society.
By Kevin A. Sabet
Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reignited a heated debate when he called for a civilized discussion on the merits of marijuana legalization. Indeed, the governor was responding to new public opinion polls showing greater interest in the policy idea -- and with the mounting problems associated with the drug trade in Mexico and here at home, it is hard to blame anyone for suggesting that we at least consider all potential policy solutions.
One major justification for legalization remains tempting: the money. Unfortunately, however, the financial costs of marijuana legalization would never outweigh its benefits. Yes, the marijuana market seems like an attractive target for taxation -- Abt Associates, a research firm, estimates that the industry is worth roughly $10 billion a year -- and California could certainly use a chunk of that cash to offset its budget woes in the current economic climate.
What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, healthcare costs would rise and productivity would suffer. Legal alcohol serves as a good example: The $8 billion in tax revenue generated from that widely used drug does little to offset the nearly $200 billion in social costs attributed to its use.
In fact, both of our two already legal drugs -- alcohol and tobacco -- offer chilling illustrations of how an open market fuels greater harms. They are cheap and easy to obtain. Commercialization glamorizes their use and furthers their social acceptance. High profits make aggressive marketing worthwhile for sellers. Addiction is simply the price of doing business.
Would marijuana use rise in a legal market for the drug? Admittedly, marijuana is not very difficult to obtain currently, but a legal market would make getting the drug that much easier. Tobacco and alcohol are used regularly by 30% and 65% of the population, respectively, while all illegal drugs combined are used by about 6% of Americans. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is de facto legalized, lifetime use "increased consistently and sharply" after this policy shift triggered commercialization, tripling among young adults, according to data analysis from the Rand Corp. We might expect a similar or worse result here in America's ad-driven culture.
An honest debate on marijuana policy also carefully considers the costs of our current approach. Arrest rates for marijuana are relatively high, reaching about 800,000 last year. Though these numbers are technically recorded under the category of "possession," the story that is seldom told is that hardly any of these possession arrests result in jail time (that is why former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made headlines when he aggressively arrested public marijuana users and detained them for 12 to 24 hours in the 1990s).
One of the most astute minds in the field of drug policy, Carnegie Mellon's Jonathan Caulkins, formerly the co-director of Rand's drug policy research center, found that more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution, and that the records of most of the remaining prisoners had at least some suggestion of distribution involvement (many prisoners plea down from more serious charges to possession in exchange for information about the drug trade). Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession, he found. He noted that this figure was consistent with other mainstream estimates but not with estimates from the Marijuana Policy Project (a legalization interest group), which, according to Caulkins, "naively ... assumes that all inmates convicted of possession were not involved in trafficking." Caulkins concluded that "an implication of the new figure is that marijuana decriminalization would have almost no impact on prison populations." This is not meant to imply that marijuana arrests do not have costs, but rather, that these concerns have been highly exaggerated.
Finally, legalizing marijuana would in no way ensure that the most vicious drug-related problems -- violence, economic-related crime, street gang activity -- would disappear. Most of those problems stem from the cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine markets. Marijuana's share of the black market is modest (the cocaine market is three times larger), and the money that is spent on the drug is spread over so many users and distributors that few are working with amounts that motivate or encourage high levels of crime.
Moving beyond the simplistic and unrealistic option of legalization, what can we do to reduce marijuana use and the costly harms it brings? Increasing the ferocity of enforcement isn't the answer, but increasing its potential for effectiveness through deterrent methods might be. Programs like Project HOPE in Hawaii, which perform regular, random drug testing on probationers and others and implement reliable, swift (but short) sanctions for positive screens, have shown remarkable success. Innovative solutions, grounded in sound research on prevention, treatment and enforcement, present the shortest route out of marijuana-related costs. But an open market for the stuff? That doesn't pass the giggle test.
Kevin A. Sabet worked at the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Clinton and Bush administrations. He is currently a consultant in private practice.
LAWYERS, GUNS AND MONEY: THREE REASONS TO END THE DRUG WAR
Legalizing Marijuana Would Add to State Coffers, Empty Prisons and Reduce Violence.
By Brian O'Dea
In 1986 and 1987, I was one of the "masterminds" behind the importation and sale of about 75 tons of pot from Southeast Asia in the United States. It was the culmination of a 20-year career as a drug smuggler, a deal that netted more than $180 million wholesale.
All that government saw, of course, was the sales tax when we spent our illegally gotten gains. Oh sure, there were some forfeitures once our organization was finally rounded up some years later. But had rational minds prevailed over the last 70-plus years, government would have reaped huge benefits -- in direct sales taxes -- from groups such as ours. Rather than accept the fact that an estimated 30 million pot-smoking Americans cannot possibly be criminals, our society has seen fit to waste almost $1 trillion on its "war on drugs." Not only has that approach not worked, the entire situation has been exacerbated by it.
A cascade of bad outcomes follows a policy of prohibition. The worst may be the dangerous, bloody criminal activity it promotes. In my day, guns weren't automatically part of the picture, but they are now. The illegal drug trade is the currency that funds and inspires a vast, violent and well-armed gangster class.
You've heard the news from Mexico. Since the government there has tried to rein in the drug cartels, 10,000 people have been killed. Last month in the state of Michoacan, Mexican security forces arrested 27 elected officials who are under investigation for their ties to narco-trafficking. In Toronto -- where I live some months out of the year -- police in April arrested 125 people in a sweep that netted AK-47s, sawed-off shotguns, 34 handguns and large quantities of cocaine, marijuana and Ecstasy.
In April in Los Angeles County, 400 law enforcement personnel conducted a "gang sweep" that officials said "dismantled" a dangerous gang that sold methamphetamine, Vicodin, marijuana and cocaine. It took a year of law enforcement's time to put the cast together, and the gang was responsible for at least one killing over the last year.
Take away the currency of illegal drugs and you take away the guns, the violence and the associated corruption.
Columnist Steve Lopez wrote about a judge in this newspaper: "I'm sitting in Costa Mesa with a silver-haired gent who once ran for Congress as a Republican and used to lock up drug dealers as a federal prosecutor, a man who served as an Orange County judge for 25 years. And what are we talking about? He's begging me to tell you we need to legalize drugs in America."
Another Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said in early May that he was willing to at least begin a debate on our policies about marijuana. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) calculates that taxing marijuana use alone would bring in $1 billion a year in cash-strapped California.
Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper, in whose jurisdiction I was sentenced to 10 years in prison, supports legalizing marijuana and other illicit drugs. "It's time to accept drug use as a right of adult Americans, treat drug abuse as a public health problem and end the madness of an unwinnable war," he wrote in these pages in 2005.
Stamper is an advisory board member of LEAP -- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
According to LEAP, "After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled, making building prisons the fastest-growing industry in the United States." More than 2.2 million of our citizens are incarcerated on drug charges, and every year we arrest 1.9 million more, guaranteeing those prisons will be busting at their seams. Every year, the war on drugs cost U.S. taxpayers $69 billion.
It is time we stopped treating drug addiction, a medical condition, with law enforcement. It's time to repatriate the vast quantities of money that are being hidden, removed from the country and going untaxed, and it's time we keep those same vast sums from funding violent crime. It's time to end modern prohibition. It didn't work for alcohol; it isn't working for drugs.
Brian O'Dea, one of the biggest marijuana smugglers in U.S. history, is also a reformed addict and a former drug counselor. He is now a film and television producer and the author of the just-published "High: Confessions of an International Drug Smuggler."
I personally dont have a problem with weed i think dont think it is as bad as sum other drugs in the world, here in the UK the goverment cant decide how harsh this drug is so rather sayin its not so harsh they now sayin it can b just as bad as sniffin a line whitch i think is stupid. i also this pot should b legalised for all the good it can bring sum pple, at the end of the day if pple dont like it they dont have to smoke it.
}
Comments