In 2005, RAND published How Goes the â€œWar on Drugsâ€? An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy by Jonathan P. Caulkins, Peter H. Reuter, Martin Y. Iguchi, James Chiesa.
Presents a concise, accessible, objective view of where the United States has been, now stands, and is going in the future in its long â€œwar on drugs.â€ The authors assess the success of drug policies to date and review possible reasons why they have not been more successful. They consider the drug warâ€™s â€œcollateral damageâ€ and attempt to understand why alternative policies have not been tried. They also lay out some possible futures for drug problems and policy in the United States. The authors recommend that a mix of three drug control strategies-enforcement, treatment, and prevention-be timed to a drugâ€™s â€œepidemic cycle.â€ …
Despite this claim to be analyzing, looking to the future, and making recommendations, they refused to even consider one of the most important policy options that existed:
“Nor do we explore the merits and demerits of legalizing drugs, even though legalization is perhaps the most prominent and hotly debated topic in drug policy. Our analysis takes current policy as its starting point, and the idea of repealing the nationâ€™s drug laws has no serious support within either the Democratic or Republican party. Moreover, because legalization is untested, any prediction of its effects would be highly speculative.
That has been the state of drug policy analysis in this country for far too long. It’s essentially ‘We don’t know how it’ll work, and partly because we’ve been unwilling to discuss it, there hasn’t been enough political interest, so even though it might be the best policy, we won’t consider it.’ That’s political lackeyism, not policy analysis and guidance. And it’s certainly not leadership.
8 years later, now that Gallup has shown 58% national approval for legalizing marijuana, RAND is promoting its new page: Hot Topic: Marijuana Legalization, featuring articles from the past 20 years, under that new heading.
Isn’t it nice that they’re willing to talk about the “L” word?
Of course, back in 2005, they were perfectly willing to make recommendations regarding enforcement, treatment, and prevention, but today, they’re not willing to do so regarding legalization.
We do not have an official policy position on marijuana reform and more generally RAND does not advocate for or against legislation at any level of government.
Of course, that’s not really true, either. While RAND as an organization may not have explicitly given a policy position, they’ve continually produced reports that seemed designed (and sometimes even timed) to be usable by those opposing legalization referenda (without much countering when the data is misused).
And they haven’t been able to keep a leash on their rabid drug war supporter Rosalie Pacula (co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center) who has often appeared in the media bluntly in opposition to legalization.
We welcome RAND to the dialog. Now we encourage them to join the 21st Century.
It creeping. That “L” word is. Those who lacked the “vocabulary” are getting a crash course.
Drug Policy Research Center Hot Topic:
The RAND Drug Policy Research Center is a non-partisan research center dedicated to providing objective analysis and research to decision makers. We do not have an official policy position on marijuana reform and more generally RAND does not advocate for or against legislation at any level of government.
Top-Secret Document Reveals
NSA Spied On Porn Habits
As Part Of Plan To Discredit ‘Radicalizers’
The National Security Agency has been gathering records of online sexual activity and evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through incendiary speeches, according to a top-secret NSA document. The document, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, identifies six targets, all Muslims, as â€œexemplarsâ€ of how â€œpersonal vulnerabilitiesâ€ can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target’s credibility, reputation and authority.
No Thanks to Thanksgiving ecp
So much for Native American Heritage Month.
Native American Heritage Month and Day
are mostly superficial affairs
Does GMO Corn Really Cause Tumors in Rats?
By Tom Philpott September 21, 2012
So where does all of this leave us? This latest study is hardly definitive, but it provides a disturbing hint that all might not be right with our foodâ€”and shows beyond a doubt that further study is needed. Hansen and Schettler’s remarks to me about how proper studies would require a serious commitment of resources reminded me of just how little funding GMO safety studies get here in the United States, the global capital of GMO production and consumption.
Even RAND knows to go with the flow in an avalanche.
When Rand tool the marijuana profits for Mexico from $30>40 billion a year down to 3>4 billion with a pencil they lost any claim to being an uninterested party in marijuana legalization,,after all,,the CEO of Rand is also a board member on a pharmaceutical company.
We’re livestreaming Stereosonic festival for #WorldAIDSDay
Let’s dance RED and fight AIDS. http://rol.st/1jYfCLB
Every day 700 babies are born w/ HIV. We can get close to 0. Dec 1 is #WorldAIDSDay. Let’s DANCE @RED SAVE LIVES http://bit.ly/1fT3vSD
Making Sure Drugs Kill
You Can’t Stop AIDS Without Ending the Drug War
Bees, Weed and HIV
Ethan Nadelmann â€@ethannadelmann
Putin’s drug & AIDS policies seem designed to infect, torture and kill as many Russians as possible. What a legacy! http://on.ft.com
Ethan Nadelmann â€@ethannadelmann
I’m really proud of the work DPA does nationwide to reduce OD fatalities w/ 911 Good Sam laws, naloxone & more.
Beckley Foundation â€@BeckleyDrugs
WHEN WE GROW, This is what we can do (Full Documentary) #RT @CannabisNews @WeedFeed @MarijuanaPosts @CannabisTU
Rand corporation is a tool of the federal government and has a very long history of dishonest activity in support of prohibition.
James A. Thomson, RAND Corporationâ€™s president and chief executive officer since 1989 is also a director of Encysive Pharmaceuticals, which, in 2008, was acquired by 32 billion dollar per year- Pfizer.
Here is the study that Rand willingly removed under so-called pressure from the L.A. City Attorney’s Office:
Drop the ‘r’ from ‘grasping’ and I think you’ll find it more appropriate. The up-and-coming generations have no need to have the Gub’mint ask RAND to ‘study drugs’; as the old joke went,
FATHER: “Son, I’d like to talk to you about drugs.”
SON: “Sure, Dad, what do you want to know about them?”
Laugh all you want, but that’s the reality. In this case, RAND poses as the one-eyed man (who in this situation suffers from severe myopia) in the country of the blind, a source of information for the technically (illegal) ‘substance naive’ to draw upon for drug policy formation. Being, in the end, nothing but intellectual mercenaries, they”ll produce something that suits their client’s agenda. As they have.
But what happens when there are no clients?
The Millennials have no use for RAND and other anti-drug supporting think-tanks, as they already know what they need to…in most cases, from personal experience, thus negating the necessity for such studies…and their promoters.
As someone whose degree was in Sociology and PoliSci, and is acutely aware of demographic shifts, I am getting a real kick out of watching the paradigm shift, just like during the fall of Communism.
As someone who’s had the teeth and claws of prohibition bite and rake him, I’m having fun watching that paradigm unravel and those who supported it unravel with it, sliding further and further into History’s tar-pit like the dinosaurs they are. Their thrashing and bellowing as they sink into irrelevancy is music to the ears of any practitioners of cognitive liberty.
So…I don’t need RAND to tell me which way the wind is blowing. If anything, RAND had better start asking reformers instead of prohibs what they’re going to do next, so that they can at least appear to be ‘experts’.