Filed under: Hemp&Law, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, congress, ganja, hashish, hemp, hemp laws, marijuana, NORML, pot, prohibition, weed
Washington, DC – On July 30 something rather historic on a number of counts occurred in the nation’s capital. Firstly, Congress is for the first time in a generation ( 1978 ) taking a serious look at reforming components of cannabis prohibition laws. In today’s Congress, the support of the Congressional Black Caucus is pivotal to passing any substantive cannabis law reform. So I was so very heartened that Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and William Lacy Clay (D-MO) joined us on this very hot and oppressively humid day in DC, along with the always jocose Barney Frank (D-MA), the bill’s primary sponsor (along with Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX).
Second, the media attending the press conference on HR 5843, a bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession and use for responsible adults, fairly captured the event’s narrative, i.e., ‘it makes no sense to treat cannabis consumers like criminals’ and ‘why not start controlling cannabis in the same way society (and government agencies) already control alcohol products?’ with no double entendre or goofy ’stoner stupidisms’. You can view a CNN video of the press conference here.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/frank.marijuana/#cnnSTCVideo
Also, you can check out some YouTube footage here of my opening remarks.
Bill Piper from the Drug Policy Alliance spoke about the collateral effects that happen to citizens arrested for minor amounts of cannabis including, but not limited to: loss of student loans; denial to public housing, food stamps and job training; and denial of entry into the military and some government service jobs.
Rob Kampia from the Marijuana Policy Project discussed the broader implications of the federal government passing decriminalization legislation and how it could affect state efforts to reform cannabis laws, notably this November’s decriminalization initiative on the ballot in Massachusetts.
As has been noted by others who attended today’s press conference, there was a certain air of desperation coming from the part of the government who is responsible for supposedly ‘controlling’ currently illicit drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)chief propagandist David Murray attended the press conference, making himself available for questions afterwards and handing out his latest anti-cannabis handywork, and he seemed absolutely befuddled that anyone on the face of the planet could possibly compare cannabis and alcohol policies, and that there is no such thing as the responsible use of cannabis. Period. Even for medical purposes with a physician’s recommendation. Period.
Wow. Can you say, ‘flat earth’?
Indeed, there is much work to be done in cannabis law reform in the Executive Branch (which, astonishingly, is where ONDCP resides) and so-called anti-drug agencies. The tale Hercules and the cleansing of the Augean stables immediately comes to mind
As Chairman Frank noted in his prepared remarks, HR 5843 (and similar legislation HR 5842, which regards medical marijuana rescheduling) are not likely to come a full committee for vote until well into 2009. Given this candid assessment by Rep. Frank, for NORML members and advocates of cannabis law reform, there are still important phases that we can all help accomplish that will hasten passage of these important and reform-minded bills.
Rep. Frank and the other current co-sponsors of HR 5843 will be sending around a ‘Dear Colleague” letter soon encouraging other members of the House to join them early on in support of their bill for the decriminalization of cannabis for responsible adult use and, therefore, like all legislation in the Congress, the more co-sponsors of a legislative bill, the better chance the bill’s chance of passage.
With the change of presidency in the wings and a likely increase in the number of Democratic members being elected to the House of Representatives, NORML’s expectations for HR 5843 is for there to be both subcommittee and full committee votes on Judiciary regarding this important legislation late into 2009.
Importantly, NORML members and advocates of cannabis law reform, for the next six months, need to truly concentrate their advocacy efforts on actively recruiting each of our elected members of Congress to become co-sponsors of HR 5843. Of the many lobbying and advocacy efforts one can employ to advance cannabis law reforms in America, getting a federal cannabis decriminalization bill passed and signed into law is the single most politically achievable public policy advance that is likely to happen in Congress in the next few years.
As our democracy prescribes, states will continue to largely serve as the catalyst of change and innovation in public policy making regarding cannabis, and this is very likely going to continue to happen with more and more municipalities and states passing progressive cannabis laws–at some point, ultimately, positively affecting the federal government.
At least that is how it is supposed to work, right?
Complete Title: Finally, Congress Starts Moving on Reforming Pot Prohibition
Allen St. Pierre is the executive director of NORML.
Source: AlterNet (US)
Filed under: Hemp&Law, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, Colorado, drug law, ganja, hashish, hemp, hemp laws, marijuana, pot, weed
Colorado — Why this country allows its citizens to consume alcohol, but not marijuana, is a bit of a mystery. Both substances have mind-altering capabilities. Both substances, if abused, can destroy the lives of the user and anyone who crosses the user’s path.
But both substances can be used responsibly and moderately, according to Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
And perhaps most importantly, our government spends an inordinate amount of time and money arresting and prosecuting pot users — about 12 million citizens have been arrested on a marijuana-related charge since 1965, according to NORML, an organization that wants marijuana use to be legalized.
Frank announced this week that he would introduce a bill that would decriminalize the possession of less than a quarter-pound of marijuana. Advocates argue that because alcohol is a legal substance, marijuana should be, too. Instead, marijuana should be regulated in the same way as alcohol, and the threat of arrest should be limited for only those whose use affects someone else, such as in the case of driving while intoxicated by the drug.
Frank’s proposal seems to have merit, particularly when applied to medicinal marijuana users. Even in states that have passed laws allowing medicinal marijuana use, patients who use prescribed pot still are running afoul of federal laws.
While marijuana is the most frequently used illegal drug in the U.S., it seem highly unlikely Frank’s proposal will become law. Being “soft on crime” — and drug use is a crime — is a cardinal sin in American politics. When former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders dared to suggest that the legalization of drugs should be studied, she was publicly ridiculed.
But the success of the “War on Drugs” is debatable; there are reports that cocaine use is down, but the number of incarcerations for drug-related convictions has risen. The U.S. government reports it has spent $30 billion incarcerating those who break drug laws.
Additionally, a report from the United Kingdom’s government revealed that a tough stance on drug use has fueled price hikes for most drugs, which simply helps increase the profitability of businesses the war on drugs aims to destroy.
And despite comparisons between pot and alcohol — a drug many a Congress member has been known to use — the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration still considers pot to be a gateway drug to harder, more addictive and more damaging substances. Nevermind the fact that alcohol is a factor in a large number of local arrests, and that in 2006, 13,470 died in the U.S. in crashes involving a drunken driver.
It would be nice if Frank’s proposal sparked an honest debate about the effectiveness of the war on pot, especially in a nation grappling with the war on terror, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and facing the largest deficit in its history.
Source: Vail Daily (CO)
Website: http://www.vaildaily.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, ganja, hashish, hemp, hemp laws, legalization, marijuana, Massachusetts, pot, weed
Massachusetts — Though it would still be illegal, smoking marijuana in Massachusetts won’t be a crime later this year if voters approve a statewide ballot initiative in November.
The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy began in the fall of 2007 petitioning the state Legislature to make the punishment for possession of marijuana a civil infraction.
Currently, a person caught with marijuana faces up to six months in jail and up to a $500 fine, regardless of his or her age.
If the initiative passes, offenders 18 or older possessing one ounce or less would forfeit the marijuana and face a civil penalty of $100.
For offenders 18 years and under, parents or legal guardians would be notified. Offenders would also have to complete a program developed by the Department of Youth Services including 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of group discussion about the use and abuse of marijuana. If an offender 18 years and under fails to complete these requirements within a year, the fine increases to $1,000, and the person could be subject to a delinquency hearing.
Whitney Taylor, campaign manager, started the initiative process because it seemed like a good time to move forward.
“In the past there have been 30 non-binding questions and they have passed by an average win of 65 percent,” she said. “So when the public supports it and the Legislature doesn’t, this is the time to move forward.”
The committee needed 11,099 certified and validated signatures of registered voters in Massachusetts to have the question put on the ballot.
MassCann, the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, the Massachusetts chapter of NORML, the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, supports the initiative.
“MassCann has taken a vote and supports the initiative,” said Bill Downing, president of the Massachusetts chapter. “Decriminalizing is a step toward rational means of regulation of adult use.”
Area legislators have some concerns.
“I’ve had quite a bit of conversation with my colleagues, and I am concerned about marijuana being a gateway drug,” said Rep. Pam Richardson, D-Framingham, who sits on the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee. “I’m not 100 percent convinced reducing the penalty for possession of marijuana is a good idea at this time, however, I am keeping my mind open.”
“I haven’t read the question thoroughly,” Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, said. “Conceptually, I haven’t supported it in the past, and definitely will not be supporting it in the future.”
Though regulating adult use may be gaining traction in the minds of some, Ashland Police Chief Scott Rohmer thinks marijuana usage is intolerable.
“I would oppose (the initiative),” he said. “It’s an illegal substance and that’s how it should stay.”
Rohmer went on to say that Ashland Police see how drugs affect people’s lives and that when dealing with drugs, punishments should be harsh.
However, some residents had a different point of view.
“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Hougaboom of Natick. “Not to sound like a hippie, but it’s an herbal thing…and alcohol is just as bad, if not worse.”
“It’s got pros and cons,” said Jerry Gallant, of Framingham, of the decriminalization idea.
While he admitted the drug can have medicinal uses, Gallant believed there needed to be strict controls, like a doctor’s prescription, on how the drug might be used.
“But if it helps people, fine,” he said. “I don’t see anything wrong with it.”
“It shouldn’t be a crime. It doesn’t do anything, and it couldn’t do any worse than alcohol,” said Bernard Ellis, 82, of Ashland.
Anne DiVittorio of Milford said she was against it, citing the gateway drug argument.
“I see too many horror stories with it. For a lot of people, not everybody, it leads to (other problems).”
The 11 Massachusetts district attorneys oppose the initiative as well.
Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a statement, “The issue of decriminalizing marijuana is a slippery slope and sends the wrong message to our children. Today, marijuana is more potent than ever, with nine times the level of (Tetrahydrocannabinol) than levels found in strains of the drug three decades ago.
Compounding this is the fact that users of marijuana are 10 times more likely to be injured, or injure others, in automobile crashes. With young people using and abusing alcohol and other legal drugs at troubling rates, to add another element to this already dangerous equation would be extremely detrimental, irresponsible, and hazardous to our community as a whole.”
Others did not see the issue as so black and white.
“I’m so uncertain. I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing to provide more ways for people to get in trouble, but I’m undecided,” said Kathy Bogue, 46, of Framingham.
“I’m honestly neither for it nor against it,” said Matt Donovan, 22, of Framingham.
Some organizations, such as Mothers Against Destructive Decisions, have not formed a formal opinion yet, but a spokesman for the Massachusetts chapter, David DeIuliis, said MADD acknowledges driving under the influence of drugs impairs a person’s ability to drive, and that in some cases, drunken driving crashes also involve some level of drug impairment.
If the initiative passes in the November election, the new laws will be in effect on Dec. 4, 2008.
Staff reporter Peter Reuell and correspondent Ashley Studley contributed to this report.
Source: Milford Daily News, The (MA)
Website: http://www.milforddailynews.com
by John Gettman
The social and economic costs of drug abuse are often used to justify contemporary policies which treat marijuana use, cultivation, and sale as criminal offenses in most of the United States. These costs are frequently an excuse to refuse to consider whether alternative policies might be more effective. For example, it is argued that marijuana’s legalization cannot be considered because legalization would result in a substantial increase in its use and would produce unacceptable increases in the social and economic costs of drug abuse. This report challenges the premise of such an argument by looking at both the costs and results of current policies.
Certainly, there is widespread consensus that easy access to marijuana can be harmful to adolescents and people afflicted with mental illness such as schizophrenia. However, it is equally obvious that current laws making marijuana possession illegal have failed to protect these vulnerable groups.
After funding decades of scientific research, the United States Government has failed to make a convincing case that marijuana is more harmful to individual health than alcohol or tobacco. An examination of the scientific record is beyond the scope of this report, however it is relatively easy to support the assertion that the government has failed to convince many scientific and other experts, let alone millions of marijuana users, that the drug is more dangerous than alcohol. Consider the following offhand remarks reported by the national media during 2007.
A June 14, 2007 report by ABC News on marijuana cultivation features comments on whether marijuana is a gateway drug by Columbia University neuroscientist Dr. Carl Hart:
“I don’t know of any evidence to support the statement that marijuana is the biggest cause of addiction,” Dr. Hart told ABC News, who also challenged Walters’ claim that 60 percent of drug treatment goes to marijuana users. “About ten percent of the folks who ever try marijuana will become addicted or dependent, whereas about 15 to 20 percent of those individuals who [try] cocaine will become addicted,” he said, citing DEA statistics he’s studied.
“A quarter of the people who try heroin become addicted, Hart said, and a full third of those who try tobacco become addicted.
“Is marijuana a gateway drug?” Hart asked rhetorically. “It’s a difficult question because I think people focus on, ‘you try marijuana you’re going to go on to other drugs,’ when the vast majority of the folks who [use] marijuana do not go on to other drugs. But certainly, those individuals who’ve tried cocaine and they have tried heroin, most of them have used marijuana. And most of them have used alcohol underage, and most of them have smoked tobacco as well. So if you think about ‘gateway’ in that sense, certainly you can say it’s a gateway. But what is the meaning of gateway when you put it together like that?”(1)
A June 25, 2007 article in Newsweek regarding parent-sanctioned alcohol use by teens reported the following comment:
“Aaron White of Duke University Medical Center, who studies adolescent alcohol use . . . says parents should think twice about offering alcohol to teens because their brains are still developing and are more susceptible to damage than adult brains. ‘If you’re going to do that, I suggest you teach them to roll joints, too,’ he says, ‘because the science is clear that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.’”(2)
The Washington Post provided a profile of Dr. Drew Pinsky and his appearance before a group of conservative Congressional Staff members at a presentation sponsored by the Independent Women’s Forum advertised as a “Campus Sex and Dating Conference” hosted by House Minority Leader John Boehner. According to the Washington Post:
“The conservative National Review several years ago described Pinsky, host of the radio show ‘Loveline,’ as a ‘hip cultural warrior’ who delivers family values in a stealthy package. . . Turning to drug use, Pinsky asserted that, as a matter of health, marijuana ‘is certainly no worse than alcohol and cigarettes and maybe better.’”(3)
Just as there is a lack of consensus that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and thus requires greater legal suppression and criminal penalties rather than a regulatory and more public-health oriented public policy approach, there is also a lack of consensus and data that current policies are either successful at restricting access to marijuana, cost-effective, or both. The government publishes considerable data on marijuana, including its supply, use, availability, and price. Marginal changes in these figures are often spun by Administration officials as proof their policies are successful. Indeed, over the long-term, these data are reasonable indicators with which to evaluate the effectiveness of public policy.
But this data has two specific functions within the scope of this report. First, over the long term this data demonstrates the boundary of what the government asserts is acceptable performance for their marijuana-related policies. Despite the rhetoric and hyperbole that accompanies their annual strategies and budgets, consistent data suggests that marijuana use and supply have not significantly diminished over the long-term and are unlikely to diminish in the future. Second, these data provide us with additional boundaries within which to estimate the cost of this approach to marijuana laws.
We really don’t know the exact number of marijuana users, the precise amount of marijuana the market supplies, the specific frequency and amounts users consume and what they pay for it. But the extensive data supplied by the government gives us boundaries within which the precise figures can be found; they provide us with what modeling experts call a solution area. This report estimates the costs of marijuana laws within this context of current policy performance and available data.
The report opens with a critical appraisal of the government’s estimation of the costs of drug abuse with emphasis on the minor role of marijuana’s contribution to these costs. Section 1 also looks at the role of utilizing such costs in analysis of contemporary public policies that rely on criminal sanctions to control marijuana’s use, production, and sale in the United States.
Section 2 of the report reviews data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health on the extent of marijuana use in the United States since 1990, with particular attention to use by age group. This section also reviews information on the consumption of marijuana, frequency of use, the effects of developing tolerance to marijuana, and profiles of heavy marijuana use in order to provide some background on how the vast sums of marijuana available in the US are consumed by the using population.
Section 3 of the report reviews data from both the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the Monitoring the Future survey on the topic of the availability of marijuana. Despite law enforcement’s best efforts marijuana remains widely available to all age groups, particularly adolescents and teenagers. Survey data also indicates how many individuals sell drugs, providing additional understanding on the mechanisms by which marijuana is available in the nation’s schools – school children sell marijuana to other adolescents.
Section 4 presents data on the price of marijuana is provided from several sources. Historical and contemporary data are presented, including data derived from police purchases of marijuana, NSDUH survey data, and reports from High Times magazine on the price of marijuana in the United States. A composite price from these various sources is compiled to represent the price of marijuana over the last four years for use in placing a value on the annual supply of marijuana in the United States.
Section 5 provides data on the supply of marijuana and introduces three types of supply estimates. The first is based on seizures of marijuana by federal law enforcement agencies. Another source of supply estimates consists of reports from federal inter-agency committees as well as reports on marijuana’s availability by the Federal Research Service of the Library of Congress. A third approach to estimating annual supply is based on calculating the consumption of marijuana accounted for by data from NSDUH and its predecessor surveys. A composite supply estimate is derived by taking the average of 4 supply estimates from these various sources.
The economic value of the annual marijuana supply is generated by applying the price index derived in Section 4 to the supply estimate generated by Section 5. The budgetary impact of this value is derived in Section 6 with the use of data from the Office of Management and Budget on the tax revenue derived from the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. The reasoning behind this valuation is that the diversion of funds to the marijuana market represents a loss of capital to the taxable economy and subsequently a loss of tax revenue to local, state, and the federal government. The concluding commentary reviews the benefits and advantages of the regulation and legalization of marijuana.
