NY Times Gets it Partially Correct

The NY Times has a new editorial about the ongoing war on drugs. I believe they get it partially right, but in the end, fall flat from anything profound. Quotes:

If we have learned one thing in the protracted war on drugs, it is that reining in illicit drug trafficking will require more than fighting cartels south of the border. Nothing can be achieved unless this country curbs its own demand for illegal narcotics.
...

Mexico and Central America certainly need help to better fight the drug gangs moving narcotics into the United States. But it is clearly not enough. Washington has funded coca eradication efforts in the Andes for years. It has given the Colombian government more than $5 billion since 2000. Thousands of police have died in Latin America fighting the traffickers. Yet all the blood, tears and cash have had virtually no impact on the amount of drugs in the United States.

The federal government needs to do more to slow the flow of money and guns that finance and arm the cartels in Mexico and Central America. There is little hope of ever defeating the traffickers abroad if the government isn’t doing enough to reduce demand at home.

They are correct that demand reduction is what our focus should be on, but wrong to endorse the drug war. Kind of weird to endorse a failing portion of policy (and no, I do not believe combining supply reduction with demand reduction will suddenly result in any type of success in stopping the drug supply.. the only portion of success from such a policy would be from demand reduction). Supply-side interdiction doesn't work. It's also playing into ONDCP hands to quote statistical achievements since 2000, as long-term trends show drug use is actually up since the early 90's.

Is it already considered possession in Massachusetts to have marijuana and its by-products in your bodily fluids or anywhere on you?

Arguably so. I found two definitions that allude to this:

Chapter 94c, Section 1

“Marihuana”, all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; and resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.

Chapter 94c, Section 31

(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

(1) Marihuana

It appears to me that the Marijuana Policy Project hasn't created any new penalties. It looks like internal possession of marijuana in your fluids or anywhere on your body already was illegal in Massachusetts (which makes me wonder how many other states define marijuana like this). The MPP probably included the language for the reasons they already cited in their Reason interview.

This means there is absolutely no worthwhile reason not to support the Massachusetts initiative. Here are your options:

Option #1: Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana or of any amount of marijuana in your bodily fluids or on your skin constitutes a criminal misdemeanor, a $500 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, and up to 6 months in jail. Best case scenario is probation with records being sealed upon your first offense. You only have a possibility of probation on your second offense and will have a criminal record (you could be jailed, and probation may not happen at all if you don't plead guilty). With the criminal misdemeanor comes collateral sanctions for the convicted such as: suspension of their driver's licenses, forfeiture of their professional licenses, loss of their right to own a firearm, and ineligibility for adoption, student aid, and unemployment benefits.

Option #2: Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana or any amount of marijuana in your bodily fluids or on your skin constitutes a civil fine of $100 that you simply send through the mail and forfeiture of the marijuana. Since it is a civil fine, there are no collateral sanctions for the convicted.

I choose Option #2 hands down. This isn't rocket science people. If the initiative could have been written better, we should be disappointed, but that isn't a reason to not vote for a huge step forward. In fact, if someone is willing to vote against this initiative and says they favor decriminalization at the same time, I have to question their sincerity and their motives.

Reason Online on Mass. Decriminalization

Reason Online has picked up the decrim story and interviewed the MPP about it. Perhaps we were all too quick to judge?

The Marijuana Policy Project, the D.C.-based group backing the initiative, says internal possession is already arguably illegal in Massachusetts. MPP says it included internal possession to keep the initiative simple and to preclude the government from punishing a positive test result more severely than holding a bag of pot.

Maybe I was onto something after all. Btw, when I said I was extremely uneasy about supporting the initiative, that doesn't mean I don't support it. It means I think the initiative could have been better written, but it's still positive. Overall I think the outright opposition to the initiative is a bit overdone.

Mass. Decriminalization Part 3: Yeah they screwed up

I'm completely disappointed with the Marijuana Policy Project and the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body. I have strongly supported MPP's Nevada initiatives in the past, as well as their Alaskan initiative to tax and regulate marijuana, but this latest initiative has pissed me off.

When I first read it, I believed that they were trying to include metabolites with possession and it would simply count as part of the possession charge so law-makers wouldn't attempt to circumvent the initiative by criminalizing metabolites. If that was the intent, they failed miserably. I apologize for my misinterpretation, and I admit I read it in a biased way thinking that any initiative the MPP is funding would surely not be so incompetent, but alas, facts are facts.

After reading the initiative's language several times, it is fairly clear that the way it reads will qualify inactive metabolites as being guilty of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana even when no physical marijuana is present.

If I don't convince you, look at what the Massachusetts's AG said:

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.

Now that we know what the initiative will do, it's time to ask ourselves if we can support it. If the initiative were to pass, it would save the state millions of dollars of taxpayer money and would prevent thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens from obtaining a criminal record. It would also save police time and money by encouraging LEO's to simply issue a ticket like you would get for a traffic violation.

On the other hand, this initiative is flawed in that it would create the first ever (to my knowledge) penalty for simply having inactive metabolites of marijuana in one's system, even when not having ANY marijuana on you. Does this outweigh the positives? I don't think so because it would violate the 4th amendment to just start randomly searching people and fining them, and the penalty itself is a small fine, but it makes me extremely uneasy outright endorsing the initiative.

Mass. Decrim Continued

I may have already changed my mind on the Mass. decrim, although I will have to look at it further. As I see it right now, the initiative is intended to prevent Mass. law-makers from writing a law that would criminalize fluids with THC metabolites. However, the initiative is worded so awkwardly that it may actually be used for just the opposite, namely to charge people with possession of marijuana for simply having bodily fluids. Besides the "and" clause discussed before, Pete pointed out on CNews that it is also ambiguous because it says one ounce or less. If you take that literally, no amount of marijuana could qualify as "less than an ounce" which means you could be criminalized.

I'm not a lawyer, so this is all up in the air as far as I'm concerned. I believe the Marijuana Policy Project was well intentioned with the initiative, but someone screwed up, and it could cost us big. Even if you could be charged with possession for just fluids, the initiative could still be argued to be better than current law since it is jail time/ probation for one ounce or less of marijuana. It may come down to the proposal being better than current law, but not perfect. However, I can completely understand people opposing the initiative. I don't know how I feel about it right now and I'm anxious to see MPP's response.

Grinspoon confused on Mass. Decriminalization Initiative?

A recent op ed by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a strong marijuana legalization advocate, has charged that the Mass. initiative will create new penalties for having metabolites in the body. Quite the contrary, the initiative does no such thing.

The Op Ed can be read here: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/23/thread23501.shtml

Grinspoon charges: "The new offense is internal possession of marijuana metabolites. Anyone discovered to have any of these metabolites in his body fluids or hair would be prosecutable."

The initiative text that Grinspoon is referring to: "As used herein, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana” includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body."

This seems a little ambiguous, but as the language reads here, I believe it means that the one ounce or less of marijuana means both having marijuana on you plus the bodily fluids. This is written this way to prevent law-makers from writing a new set of penalties for simple bodily fluids in order to maintain prohibition, the exact opposite of what Dr. Grinspoon asserts. If the language had read "includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol or having cannabinoids...", he would be right on target.

I can see how you could read it and get the impression that it means metabolites alone can constitute a fine, but I think the "or" before the THC along with "includes" establishes that the fluids would have to accompany possession.

Retroactive Lower Crack Sentences?

Looks like some progress may be on the horizon. Those draconian crack sentences may actually be lowered soon.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is considering retroactive changes that could mean shortened sentences for nearly 20,000 federal prisoners convicted of crack cocaine related offenses.

The commission heard Tuesday from a federal judge and advocacy groups who favor making the change retroactive, and from the Justice Department and others who oppose it.

Guidelines that went into effect November 1 already have reduced the disparity between sentences for crack possession convictions and convictions for possessing cocaine in powder form.

Before the changes, a criminal found guilty of having one gram of crack cocaine would receive the same penalty as someone with 100 grams of the powder version.

First, why is this a good thing? Penalties against harder drug use are too harsh and do virtually nothing to help someone that may be suffering from dependence issues. There is a lot of double-talk going on from government officials about how their laws "help" people, but you don't help an addict by locking them up in prison. If we are going to help addicts, we should focus on harm reduction measures and well-funded treatment, not incarceration. So many people feel that the harm from incarceration of the drug user is insubstantial. It really makes me wonder how many people out there don't even qualify a drug user as a person.

Not to be negative, but why the hell is this just now taking place? We have known these penalties are insane for way too long now, yet we have kept them the same. Oh well I guess I should just be happy with what I get.

Democrats on marijuana decriminalization

Democratic Presidential Candidates on Marijuana Policy:

Mike Gravel- Legalize it

Dennis Kucinich- Legalize it

Chris Dodd- Decriminalize it

Hillary Clinton- Just medical marijuana

Barack Obama- Just medical marijuana

Bill Richardson- Just medical marijuana (although he seems willing to admit the drug war is a failure and very strongly supports medical marijuana)

Joe Biden- Just medical marijuana

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/508/democratic_debate_presidential_candidates_marijuana_decriminalization

And there you have it. The positions are out there. I can't tell anyone how to vote, nor do I personally feel votes should be cast on a single-issue. Nevertheless, positions on marijuana progressiveness should weigh in heavily on our decision. The drug war needs to end, and marijuana is step one along with a discussion of harm reduction measures for other substances.

Oh yeah one more thing:

Senator Edwards, why [do you oppose decriminalization]?

Edwards: Because I think it sends the wrong signal to young people. And I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we're sending the right signals to young people.

What a cliche, dumb response. You know, it gets old hearing the same old bs time and time again from prohibitionists without any further explanation. We never hear about the signals that an unregulated, multi billion dollar illicit drug market sends to kids. You never hear from politicians how teens can purchase marijuana easier than regulated alcohol. Nobody wants to hear about that. Furthermore, what is so horrible about marijuana and why isn't it possible to decriminalize or even legalize something but still discourage its use? Isn't that what we do with tobacco and isn't it working?

Latest UK Figures In

You soften a marijuana law, usage will go up, right? That's what a lot of people believe and would like everyone to believe, but it doesn't always happen that way. The latest UK figures are in.

The latest British Crime Survey figures suggest that cannabis use by the country's young people has fallen since marijuana was reclassified in 2004.

The British Home Office released figures indicating that the percentage of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who have used cannabis in the past year fell to 21 percent -- about 1.3 million people -- in 2006-2007 from 25 percent in 2004, The Guardian reported Thursday.

The figures also showed a 54 percent rise in the number of cannabis seizures since the "confiscate and warn" policy was adopted by police in 2004.

Besides usage going down after softening the marijuana policy, I find it really interesting that cannabis seizures have gone up. You would think pot usage is more out of control with cops finding more pot, but the reality may be quite different. It could be police are more willing to report and seize cannabis with a more pragmatic law in place. The same thing happened in the U.S. when Missouri law was changed to a fine only offense for cannabis.

Portland Initiative to Legalize Marijuana and Medical Marijuana Under Attack

A petition is being circulated in Portland, Oregon that would legalize 1 ounce of less of marijuana for adults 21 year of age or older. I think such legislation is great to highlight the issue. But opponents are ready not only to oppose this, but to attempt to overturn the Oregon medical marijuana law that passed:

The opponents of Oregon's medical marijuana program, passed twice by voters, have been very active in recent weeks and months preparing legislation that could overturn the voter endorsed law. Police in Oregon have also been busy conducting grow raids all over the state. The DEA also moved into Oregon, bringing more pressure and scrutiny on the program. Since moving in, the federal agency has tried without success to subpoena the names and personal information of a number of OMPP patients.

Overturn the law against voter approval? They have a little less than 15,000 registered medical marijuana patients with a population of 3.7 million people. Those 15,000 patients were recommended to use marijuana by over 2500 physicians. This isn't some quack operation they are running, these people are in pain and marijuana is medicine for thousands of people.

Check out this article countering The Oregonian.

There is a small amount of abuse going on in the Oregon program and law enforcement and opponents of the program are highlighting it and over emphasizing the few negatives and are completely ignoring any positive result. They are bitter towards a plant because of a cultural stigma that has nothing to do with the reality of the substance.

If you want to fix the medical marijuana problem, move it to schedule 2 and regulate it in pharmacies on the Federal level. We all know that isn't going to happen. Hell they can't even secure a steady private source for research purposes to get it through FDA testing. So the reality is people in pain either suffer or state laws can be passed to give them some relief. I will choose the latter while we continue to push for Federal reform.

UK: Cop Calls For Legalization

I've been busy with work, but I thought this was worth noting:

Richard Brunstrom wants to legalize drugs. That wouldn't be news except for the fact that he's one of Britain's top cops. And since the chief constable announced his quixotic quest to overhaul the nation's drug laws, Brunstrom has convinced his superiors at the North Wales Police Authority to sign off on the plan and forward it to British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Click here to read his 30-page proposal, entitled Drugs Policy: A Radical Look Ahead. This is the gist of Brunstrom's argument: "This system has not worked well. Illegal drugs are now in plentiful supply, and have become consistently cheaper in real terms over the years. The number of users has increased dramatically. Drug related crime has soared equally dramatically as a direct consequence of the illegality of some drugs, and the huge profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organized criminality."

And the typical response:

The government has said it is 'emphatically against' drug legalisation.

This is typical bullshit. There's never any real reasoning behind this opposition except something along the lines of "it will increase use". But usage is not the only way to measure the harm society experiences with respect to drugs. To any prohibitionist reading this, the idea of drug legalization is not to make some utopia and solve all drug related programs, but maybe just maybe it will be better than our current paradigm that we can't seem to crawl out of. You already had your chance to completely eliminate drugs from society, and not only did it fail, but it made things worse. Don't just let the cop speak, but hear him out and seriously consider his arguments.

Give drug law reformers a chance

Take a look at these two bullets.

• But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

• With more than 23,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit www.MarijuanaPolicy.org.

The first is the National Rifle Association, which is the largest pro gun lobby in the United States. The second is the Marijuana Policy Project, the largest pro marijuana law reform organization in the U.S.

We have some in the drug law reform community that think the current approach by the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project, and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws is misguided. This is far from the truth. I think these organizations are doing a fantastic job in the face of entrenched opposition that is ingrained in the thinking of the majority of American society.

The reason that the MPP doesn't have 3 million members has little to do with the organization and more to do with free loaders and "it aint gonna happen" pro legalizers. Despite the limited funding, MPP and allies have made a contribution to drug policy reform in many states, and continue to build support on the Federal level. Perhaps it's time to quit denouncing the organizations and start urging like-minded thinkers on this issue to contribute both money and time.

Study: Taxpayers Lose $41.8 Billion Every Year Due to Marijuana Prohibition

Forbes has written about a new study that shows a substantial amount of money taxpayers are losing out on due to marijuana policy.

The study, "Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws," by Jon Gettman, contends that marijuana sales are mostly the province of teenagers and young adults. His numbers also imply that the industry is supported, in both demand prices, by a relatively few extremely heavy users.

Based on government assumption that some 28.7% of U.S. gross domestic product ends up as tax revenue on a federal, state or local basis, the $113 billion could yield $31 billion in taxes. Assuming that marijuana offenses, which are 5.54% of all arrests, take an equal share of the country's $193 billion in annual criminal justice expenditures, Gettman finds another $10.7 billion in annual savings.

The report is available at www.drugscience.org, the Web site of The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform, Gettman's organization.

Away from the headline numbers, a closer examination of Gettman's work carries a couple of interesting surprises. The annual 31 million pounds of pot consumed works out to a daily consumption equivalent by American pot smokers of 1.5 to 1.75 of the 85-by-25-millimeter (length and circumference, respectively) standard joint that the U.S. government rolls for in its studies. Most users don't fire up that much, however.

I find the study particularly interesting since it seems much less conservative than the previous study endorsed by Milton Friedman. The truth is probably somewhere in between this study and Friedman's.

Long-term is the key

If you've looked at this movement and how it is progressing at all, you should realize by now that drug policy reform is not something that will happen overnight. America is not going to wake up one morning and say all at once "Drugs should be regulated. The black market is causing violence, corruption, and harm to society! We should try a new approach."

I wish it were the case, but this movement makes progress in small increments. If you are making a donation for your first time to drug policy reform, one thing to keep in mind is your one-time donation is not going to change things by next week. Expect no short-term gain from your investment (unless you are donating to a ballot initiative in your state), but rather a long-term gain that will eventually lead society in a positive direction on this issue. With this in mind, donations and letter writing should not be a one-time event, rather a life-long one. Donations to reform should be spread out in increments with at least one per year. You should write letters to your state and Federal officials at least 3 times per year, and they should be personal to make the most impact. Donations should be affordable, and everyone in the reform community should work to better than financial situation in order to have the ability to donate more money in the future at no further burden on their family or self. This is of course the minimum. Activists could put time into signature collecting, personal visits to law-makers, letters-to-the-editor, etc... and they should if they want to be serious. But other considerations may hamper those activities for whatever reasons.

So work on investing and making incremental donations. Better yet, sign up for a monthly pledge program. The MPP and NORML both have one. This will also help those organizations prepare better for future expenses. Remember, this effort is going to go on for years, and it will be a battle state-by-state. There will be victories and defeats, but we must maintain and expand the movement so we can succeed in the long-run.

Action Alert: DEA Raids California Medical Pot Facility

I received an email today detailing how the DEA began raiding a medical marijuana facility in California:

Right now, the DEA is currently raiding the River City Patient Center in Sacramento, California — the longest established medical marijuana dispensary in the city. Protesters have gathered outside the building in support of the collective.

And yesterday, the DEA began threatening landlords in the Santa Barbara area who lease space to medical marijuana dispensaries — activity that’s legal under California state law — with federal prison time and forfeiture of their properties. Several dispensaries closed right away.

No matter what state you live in, will you please take a few minutes to write all three of your members of Congress to protest this federal interference in state law? MPP’s action center is easy to use: You can send one of our pre-drafted letters, or you can personalize the letter.

Please take the time to write a personal letter since they have more of an impact.