Drug WarRant

I’ve heard about this a couple of places now, but Jacob Sullum does a great job of expressing it:

The ACLU of Pennsylvania recently filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a couple whose newborn baby was kidnapped by Lawrence County Children and Youth Services (LCCYS) because her mother recklessly consumed an “everything” bagel from Dunkin’ Donuts the day before the birth.

This is just another one of those outrages of the drug war. Children are often taken away from their parents just because of the presence of drugs without even the bother of demonstrating harm. And here, a false positive drug test (the test itself was, I believe, unconstitutional) based only on poppy seeds, and they take a newborn from her mother!

I’ve been meaning to post this and now this is the last evening to fill out the survey at JustSayNow.com

Where do we go from here?

Give them your thoughts.

Earlier, some commenters were speculating regarding how many plants you could grow in a 25′ square plot, as allowed in Prop 19.

Well, if you grow them like Kangativa does in Australia, you couldn’t even fit one!

Via Toke of the Town, where we learn that these plants grow up to 18 feet tall and yield up to 10 pounds.

This may be the most incoherent (and utterly stupid) argument against legalization I’ve ever heard, and it was publicly presented by a professional columnist and publisher of a massive internet conglomerate of news and opinion sites who holds a doctorate in American history.

I just don’t know if I think marijuana should be legalized at all. Maybe it’s that I’m getting into my 40s. And maybe I’m a hypocrite. I of course know people who smoke grass. And I don’t have any problem with it. Decriminalized? Yes, I think probably so. But that’s not the same as legalization. It’s very different actually. And let me be clear that I think our drug laws are catastrophic. They create endemic violence first in our major cities and now along the borders and it’s led to generations of Americans rotting in prison. The whole war on drugs is an unmitigated disaster. And the fact that people can’t use marijuana for clear medical reasons is crazy. But do I think it should be like alcohol? Anyone over 18 or 21 can buy it?

I remember, many years ago, talking to my father about the idea of legalization. And bear in mind, my Dad, God bless him, smoked a decent amount of grass in his day, said he didn’t like the idea. One reason is that he was already a bit older by that time. But he had this very contradictory and hard to rationalize position which was that he was fine with people smoking pot but keeping it at least nominally illegal kept public usage in some check. Again, how to rationalize that in traditional civic terms? Not really sure. But frankly, I think I kind of agree.

Wow. That’s just unbelievable. I’ll leave Jacob Sullum to properly fisk the ridiculous statements Josh makes.

What really gets me is that he is so willing to accept the damage caused by prohibition. Does he really not care about those costs? Is he saying that he’s fine with continued prohibition because at least nobody like him (of his class/color/position) is suffering?

I wonder what would happen to Josh if he made a similar statement about abortion, or gay rights…

I just don’t know if I think abortion should be legalized at all. Just decriminalize it. Most women know doctors who will take care of them in secret if they need it, and having the doctors subject to arrest will at least somewhat keep the frequency of abortion in check.

— or —

I just don’t know if I think homosexuality should be legalized at all. I mean I’m fine with two men having sex, but keeping it at least nominally illegal keeps it from being, you know, public. [not real quotes]

He’d be torn apart by the liberal masses.

A question for liberal pundits and politicians: given the widespread and rampant destruction and racism of prohibition, why is it that you are more squeamish about defending a person’s right to ingest a relatively harmless plant, than you are about defending the right to kill babies or the right to stick a penis in someone’s anus?*

…

*obligatory disclaimer before people get upset: That statement was entirely for effect. I am essentially pro-choice and very much pro-gay rights.

Yes, the National Institute on Drug Abuse is hosting Drug Facts Week, November 8-14, which is somewhat akin to the KKK hosting Black History Month. Their partners in this enterprise are: Discovery, MTV, and Partnership for a Drug Free America, plus federal, state, and local agencies.

We’ve talked before about NIDA’s lack of interest in the facts.

Tomorrow is Drug Facts Chat Day. But don’t get excited and think that you’ll be allowed to participate in this chat — you have to be an authorized pre-registered school with a special code.

I’m really looking forward to listening to the winners of The MusiCares® and GRAMMY Foundation’s® Teen Substance Abuse Awareness through Music Contest in Collaboration with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

I haven’t bothered linking to the ton of post-Prop 19 articles out there, but have noticed a positive trend: there has been very little coverage that treats it as a loss to drug policy reform — almost everything is about how Prop 19 energized the discussion, made the “L” word mainstream, and is the first step to at least some kind of reform.

I think the best wrap-up I’ve read is “It’s No Longer a Matter of If, It’s a Matter of When” by Brian Doherty at Reason.

He discusses a fascinating aspect of the lead-in to Prop 19 (I know many here had questioned why some of the top reform organizations were initially on the sidelines…)

When Lee launched 19, most other elements of the drug law reform movement, from NORML to the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) told him he was picking the wrong year, that he was moving ahead too early.

They eventually came on board after 19 made the ballot, and at the press conference Ethan Nadelmann of the DPA (whose most prominent supporter George Soros came in with a last-minute million dollars for the campaign that helped sponsor a rush of TV ads) admitted that “I was among those who initially tried to discourage Richard from going forward. We said ‘wait until 2012.’…I called Richard a couple of weeks ago to say, ‘Win or lose, you were right. Even if we don’t prevail, the transformation in public dialogue, not just in California but nationally and internationally, has been nothing short of stupendous. The debate over marijuana legalization has been elevated to legitimacy.’”

And now we also have data. As ezrydn and others here in comments have noted, there is a treasure trove of information available about voting for legalization because of this initiative.

Here’s one of the most disturbing and ironic bits of data:

In fact, 67 percent of those who think government is doing too much were anti-19, as were 60 percent of those “angry” at the federal government and 71 percent of Tea Party supporters.

Of course, part of the problem (in addition to the hypocrisy of many so-called “anti-government” voters) is that it is ridiculous to assume that the vast population out there knows as much about drug policy as we do. Thus, misconceptions can actually drive large portions of the voting population, particularly with an issue that is as “new” to them as voting for drug policy reform.

That’s why we have to do the job of educating people. Even one at a time will work, if enough of us are doing it.

The Prop 19 vote has given me a number of opportunities to talk to people about reform who might not otherwise be interested in the conversation. I hope the rest of you are taking advantage of similar opportunities.

Megan McArdle, in the Atlantic, follows up on a conversation (across different blogs) by Andrew Sullivan, Tyler Cowen, Kevin Drum and Ilya Somin regarding whether changing attitudes as people age means that marijuana legalization is doomed. Will Pot Become Legal?

Kevin Drum: I know this won’t be much solace to everyone who worked on Prop 19, but…..this isn’t so bad, really. Given the automatic headwind of getting people to vote Yes on anything, the additional headwind of a big Republican turnout, plus the general nervousness that middle class people have about drugs, a loss this small is actually sort of encouraging. All we need to turn this around in a few years is for 4% of voters to change their minds.

Tyler Cowen: I don’t see marijuana climbing the legalization hill, if it can’t make it through current-day California. We’re seeing the high water mark for pot, as aging demographics do not favor the idea.

Andrew Sullivan: That assumes that today’s younger anti-prohibition generation will get pro-prohibition as they age. But is that true? Maybe having kids changes things, but my experience of ageing boomers is that they’re not anti-pot at all.

Ilya Somin: My tentative conclusion is that it’s probably more of a generational effect. This is not just a difference between the very young and the rest. Rather, each successive age group is much more pro-legalization than those older than them. Even 50–64 year olds were 12 points more favorable to Prop 19 than the over-65s.

Megan McArdle: In my experience, the big dividing line is having kids. […]

Before the pot-smoking parents start crawling out of the woodwork to tell me that I’m totally wrong, that there are lots of parents who support legal marijuana–I’m not saying this happens to every single person who has a kid. But in my experience, as the kids approach the teenage years, a lot of parents do suddenly realize they aren’t that interested in legal marijuana any more, and also, that totally unjust 21-year-old drinking age is probably a very good idea. […]

Maybe we have reached the high-water mark of this sort of personal liberty. As the baby boomers age, they will be less interested in directly exercising their right to smoke pot, which means that even if they still support legalization, they will be less motivated on the issue. […]

There’s no particular reason to think that marijuana legalization belongs to the select few notions that actually live to become settled institutions.

It’s a good discussion, and I think a combination of factors are involved here. Yes, as Megan indicates, some people become mommy-and-daddy monsters when they have kids, and it distorts their previous views on just about everything. And I agree with Ilya that generational factors are clearly at play in political views that carry through life.

One thing missing from this discussion is that we, as a people, are getting smarter (or at least better informed). Because of the efforts of groups like LEAP and SSDP and NORML and SAFER and DPA and Stop the Drug War and MPP, and this blog, and all of you, we’re beginning to actually counter the decades of government propaganda and lies.

While there will still be an aging factor, each successive generation knows more of the truth, and is therefore more likely to support reform.

Sure, many parents will still put their concern about the safety of their children ahead of their previous interests in personal liberty and pot-smoking, but now more and more they’ll realize that ending prohibition is what’s needed to safeguard their young.

Legalization is inevitable in becoming a settled institution, not because a majority of the population will necessarily decide they want to be able to smoke pot, but because the alternative is too destructive to society, and we’ll be there to educate the population so they know that truth.

It was bad enough last week to see the DEA’s ridiculous document titled Speak out Against Drug Legalization.

Well, Kerlikowske’s got his own. It’s a new ONDCP “fact sheet”: Marijuana Legalization: A Bad Idea. What was a bad idea was putting together this “fact sheet.” Embarrassing.

It starts out with a discussion of marijuana current use by young people and how that relates to perceived risk of marijuana. Of course, always missing from that discussion is the salient point: What if the young people are right in perceiving that the risk of using marijuana is low? But then, that’s the whole point of the ONDCP. They don’t care whether the risk is real. They only care that it’s perceived, and they’ll lie like crazy to accomplish that.

Then they get into the Bullet Points.

Marijuana use is harmful and should be discouraged

• Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects.

“Associated.” Milk is associated with refrigeration. Liberalism is associated with Marxism and Socialism. Conservatism is associated with Fascism. The colors red and green are associated with Christmas.

• Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory.

First, you don’t have to get “intoxicated” just like you don’t have to get “intoxicated” with alcohol, which causes worse problems. Second, to the extent those are true, they are short-term effects, not long-term. Third, some of those are a feature, not a harm, of marijuana intoxication.

• Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia.

Ooh, look — “associated.” And most of those studies have later been proven wrong by stronger and more comprehensive studies.

• Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.

All right, this is one of those lies that needs to be put away and buried 6 feet under. It’s such a blatant lie. You know that they know about the Tashkin study proving no link between even heavy marijuana use and head, neck, or lung cancer. That’s why they don’t say “marijuana causes cancer.” Instead, they vaguely talk about “carcinogens” in the hopes that you’ll interpret that to mean that marijuana causes cancer. It’s still a lie, and may be worth another Data Quality Act challenge.

Legalization would lower price, thereby increasing use

• A recent report from the RAND Corporation, “Altered State,” discusses how legalization would cause the price of marijuana to plummet, triggering Current Use of Major Substances in increases in use of the drug.

I love the use of the word “discusses.” It allows this “fact sheet” to ignore that the RAND report also said that they had no clue what would actually happen.

• Illegality helps keep prices higher. And because drug use is sensitive to price, especially among young people, higher prices help keep use rates relatively low.

Relatively low? Right… And regarding price sensitivity, drug use is relatively inelastic in price sensitivity. Back when I was in college, people would pay $15-30 for an ounce of marijuana. Today, they think little of paying twice that for an eighth. At most, you might get some substitution with price shifts. If marijuana prices get low, then maybe some people would switch from alcohol. And that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

• Use of the legal substances alcohol and tobacco far outpaces the use of marijuana, a strong indication that laws reduce the availability and acceptability of substances.

When Salvia was legal, use of the illegal substance marijuana far outpaced the use of Salvia, a strong indication that laws don’t reduce the availability and acceptability of substances.

What are the actual facts?

“The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ” – British Journal of Psychiatry, February 2001.

“In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use.” – National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999.

“There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine).” – C. Thies and C. Register. 1993.

“The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to have been a factor in people’s decision to use or not use the drug.”
– California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977

Lots more here

Moving on…

• Our experience with even tightly regulated prescription drugs, such as Oxycontin, shows that legalizing drugs widens availability and misuse, even when controls are in place.

There’s a huge difference between misusing Oxycontin and misusing marijuana.

Tax revenue would be offset by higher social costs

• The costs to society of alcohol and tobacco – substances that are legal and taxed – are much greater than the revenue they generate.

And what has that to do with marijuana?

• Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion. Combined, these amounts are less than 10 percent of the estimated $185 billion in alcohol‐related costs to health care, criminal justice, and the workplace in lost productivity.

And what has that to do with marijuana?

• Tobacco does not yield net revenue when taxed. Each year, Americans spend more than $200 billion on the social costs of smoking, but only about $25 billion is collected in taxes.

And what has that to do with marijuana?

Legalization would further burden the criminal justice system

• Legalizing marijuana would increase use of the drug and, consequently, the harm it causes, thus adding to the burden on the criminal justice system. Arrests for alcohol‐related crimes, such as violations of liquor laws, public drunkenness, and driving under the influence, totaled nearly 2.7 million in 2008. Marijuana‐possession arrests under current laws in 2008 totaled around 750,000.

Wow, that one gets extra points for degree of difficulty. I think it was a double twisting backwards somersault. Not only did they conflate criminal behavior induced by alcohol with marijuana, but they actually used marijuana arrest rates that are based solely on the drug being illegal as a base line for estimating increasing arrests when you remove the illegality of it! So, not arresting people for marijuana will result in arresting more people for marijuana.

• Most people whose only crime is marijuana possession do not go to prison. A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes). Other independent research has shown that the risk of arrest for each “joint,” or marijuana cigarette, smoked is about 1 arrest for every 12,000 joints.

If that’s the case, then why keep it illegal? From that description, it’s like marijuana laws are either a lottery (certain random people have to pay the price for what everyone else is doing), or it’s used as a racist/classist tool to go after “undesirables,” while leaving most everyone else alone. This is supposed to be a vindication of current law?

Legalization would do little, if anything, to curb drug violence

• Marijuana accounts for only a portion of the proceeds gained by criminal organizations that profit from drug distribution, human trafficking, and other crimes, so legalizing marijuana would not deter these groups from continuing to operate.

It’s a good start. Then we can legalize all drugs and remove most of the rest of their proceeds.

• Under the most commonly proposed legalization regime – one that imposes high taxes on marijuana – violent drug cartels would simply undercut legal prices to keep their market share. With increased demand for marijuana resulting from legalization, these groups would likely grow stronger.

Yeah, maybe as strong as those big, violent tobacco cartels. Have you noticed that even with massive taxes on cigarettes, people still go into the gas stations and convenience stores and buy them?

Well, that’s it. Them’s the “facts.”

It really is embarrassing. And what makes it worse is actually seeing the United States Government White House seal on this. It drives home just how morally bankrupt our government can be, when it is pathetically eager to lie and distort in such a blatant manner.

The Drug Czar’s “blog”

Although the failure of these initiatives is a victory for parents, youth, and families across the Nation, with recent data indicating drug use on the rise in the U.S., we must continue the hard work being done every day to prevent drug use and its consequences.

Parents, youth, and families? I’m only surprised that they didn’t say “parents, youth, children, and families.”

Just an interesting little fact…

Meg Whitman spent $140 million on her campaign for California Governor.
Prop 19 spent about $4 million (and that included getting on the ballot).

Meg Whitman received about 3,029,919 votes
Prop 19 received about 3,359,776 votes