ISBN: 9781603581448 Year Added to Catalog: 2009 Book Format: Paperback Dimensions: 5 3/8 x 8 3/8 Number of Pages: 192 Book Publisher: Chelsea Green Publishing Old ISBN: 1603581448 Release Date: July 27, 2009 Web Product ID: 469
NORML first blogged about this federal legislation back in November, and encouraged supporters to contact their members of Congress in favor of this much-needed reform. This week the House did their part. Now it is up to the Senate to do theirs.
Said the measure’s House sponsor, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA). “Today our prison population is expanding at an alarming rate, with costs to the taxpayers that are unsustainable. … (This) bill passed … will assess the current crisis, reverse these disturbing trends and help save taxpayer money.”
House Bill 5143 is a companion bill to S. 714, championed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). Senate Bill 714 will establish a `National Criminal Justice Commission’ to hold public hearings and “undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, including Federal, State, local, and tribal governments’ criminal justice costs, practices, and policies. … The Commission shall make findings regarding such review and recommendations for changes in oversight, policies, practices, and laws designed to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence, improve cost-effectiveness, and ensure the interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice system.”
In January, members of the Senate Judiciary passed S. 714. The measure awaits action by the full Senate. Hopefully, this week’s House vote will spur the Senate into action.
Pop Star Joss Stone Under Attack for Marijuana Comment
Mason Tvert
Posted: November 16, 2009 10:43 AM
English pop singer Joss Stone has come under fire for highlighting the fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, a viewpoint that has sparked intense debate this month in the UK.
Weed has been given this evil stamp, but how is it dangerous? It's going to make you laugh your arse off? You might go to sleep? I think alcohol is much more harmful.
People beat the f**k out of each other on alcohol. But I don't smoke weed all day long.
I live in Devon and hardly ever go to clubs. When I do, I'll drink three or four beers then move on to a vodka. I don't want to take all those horrible drugs. Although some sound fun, so I might dabble now and then!
She was unapologetic about her outburst, adding:
I'm very honest and I've been punished for that over and over again. Every time I say what I think I get s*** for it. But that won't stop me from being an honest person.
Yet Stone is not alone, both in her belief that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and in the absurd treatment she is enduring for conveying this simple fact. Rather, she has some pretty solid back-up amongst the UK's scientific community.
COMMENTARY: Only by regulating marijuana can the government expect to control it
Only by regulating marijuana can the government expect to control it
By Paul Armentano
Posted Nov 06, 2009 @ 02:55 PM
QUINCY — If the editors at The Patriot Ledger truly believe that “to guide drug policy, you must take ownership of it,” (Our Opinion: “Legislature wise to address legalization of marijuana,” Oct. 20), then they should be advocating in support of legalizing and regulating marijuana – not opining against it.
Only through state government regulation will we be able to bring necessary controls to the marijuana market.
By enacting state and local legislation on the use, production and distribution of marijuana, state and local governments can effectively impose controls regarding:
Which citizens can legally produce marijuana;
Which citizens can legally distribute marijuana;
Which citizens can legally consume marijuana;
And where, and under what circumstances, is such use legally permitted.
By contrast, the prohibition of marijuana – even under decriminalization – provides Massachusetts law enforcement and state regulators with no legitimate market controls.
This absence of state and local government controls jeopardizes, rather than promotes, public safety.
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
By Steve Fox, AlterNet. Posted November 9, 2009.
Professor David Nutt didn’t play the game. As the chief drug policy advisor in the British Government, an unspoken part of his job description was to help maintain a public fiction about marijuana – or cannabis, as it is known in the U.K. and other parts of the world. Specifically, he was expected to further the misperception of cannabis as a substance worthy of being classified and prohibited in a manner similar to more dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine.
He made a big mistake at the end of last month. In a lecture at King’s College in London, he spoke honestly – and truthfully – about the fact that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and urged the government to factor the relative harms of substances into their policy-making. Moreover, he accused the British government of ignoring the evidence about the true harms of cannabis in order to reclassify the drug and increase penalties for possession.
Reacting with the logic and reason of pub patron after last call, Home Secretary Alan Johnson immediately demanded that Prof. Nutt resign as the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. He said Prof Nutt had "crossed the line between offering advice and … campaigning against the government on political decisions."
More accurately, Prof. Nutt crossed the line between deceiving citizens and being honest with them. The home secretary, a former member of Parliament, is no doubt comfortable with a little verbal jousting over public policy decisions. What he could not abide by was a top ranking official threatening the anti-cannabis mythology embraced at the very top level of government. Based on Nutt’s fateful bout of truthfulness, Johnson said he had “lost confidence” in Nutt as an advisor.
In a letter to Professor Nutt, Mr. Johnson explained how the system is supposed to work. He said: "As Home Secretary it is for me to make decisions, having received advice from the [Council] ... It is important that the Government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them ... I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities."
The Home Secretary’s chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson put a similar spin on this hostile reaction to fact-based statements to the public. "These things are best sorted out behind the scenes,” he said, “so that the government and their advisers can go to the public with a united front."
The Case for Marijuana Legalization and Regulation
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted October 28, 2009.
By any objective standard, marijuana prohibition is an abject failure.
Nationwide, U.S. law enforcement have arrested over 20 million American citizens for marijuana offenses since 1965, yet today marijuana is more prevalent than ever before, adolescents have easier access to marijuana than ever before, the drug is more potent than ever before, and there is more violence associated with the illegal marijuana trade than ever before.
Over 100 million Americans nationally have used marijuana despite prohibition, and 1 in 10 -- according to current government survey data -- use it regularly.
The criminal prohibition of marijuana has not dissuaded anyone from using marijuana or reduced its availability; however, the strict enforcement of this policy has adversely impacted the lives and careers of millions of people who simply elected to use a substance to relax that is objectively safer than alcohol.
NORML believes that the state of California ought to amend criminal prohibition and replace it with a system of legalization, taxation, regulation and education.
The case for legalization and regulation
Only through state government regulation will we be able to bring necessary controls to the commercial marijuana market. (Note: Nonretail cultivation for adult personal use would arguably not be subject to such regulations, just as the personal, noncommercial production by adults of beer is not governed by such restriction.) By enacting state and local legislation on the retail production and distribution of marijuana, state and local governments can effectively impose controls regarding:
which citizens can legally produce marijuana;
which citizens can legally distribute marijuana;
which citizens can legally consume marijuana; and where, and under what circumstances such use is legally permitted.
By contrast, the criminal prohibition of marijuana -- the policy the state of California has in place now -- provides law enforcement and state regulators with no legitimate market controls. This absence of state and local government controls jeopardizes rather than promotes public safety.
The Red Line between Love and Hate
June 30th, 2009
Steve Fox, MPP’s new director of state campaigns (who was also MPP’s federal lobbyist from 2002-2005), sends in the following dispatch:
While riding the Metro’s Red Line yesterday, I spotted former drug czar John Walters entering the train. When he ended up standing right beside me, I realized I couldn’t pass up the chance for a conversation.I know it sounds like a fruitless endeavor, but I’m an eternal optimist and thought, “Maybe if we have a casual lunch together, he’ll come to see the folly of keeping marijuana illegal.”
I opened with a polite, “Hello, Mr. Walters. I just wanted to introduce myself. I am Steve Fox and I work with the Marijuana Policy Project.”The chipper look on his face quickly changed. It looked like he had just thrown up in his mouth a little and was regretting the fact that he had nowhere to spit.
I said, “I know we have been on opposite sides of the issue, but I was wondering whether you would be interested in having lunch any time just to talk about our differences and to see whether we have any mutual interests.”He seemed to stifle a laugh and said, “I don’t think that would be worth our time. You know where I stand and I know where you stand.”This is not the first time I have been turned down for a date, so I let it slide right off. More importantly, I had more work to do. I had just eight more minutes to get him to support ending marijuana prohibition.
I don’t mean to spoil the ending, but it didn’t work. But it was a fascinating conversation nonetheless. The most interesting part is that he never broke character. I assumed he must, at some level, appreciate that most of what he said during his tenure as drug czar was either a distortion of the facts or completely ignorant of other available information. Boy, was I wrong.
He proceeded to give me all of his standard lines as if they were actually true and meaningful, like alleging (incorrectly) that marijuana is the leading causing of marijuana treatment admissions for teens, even more than alcohol.
U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk will call for legislation Monday that would toughen drug-trafficking laws regarding a highly potent form of marijuana, with penalties of up to 25 years in prison for a first-time offense.
The law would target offenders who sell or distribute marijuana that has a THC content exceeding 15 percent.
… Drug dealers are increasingly cross-breeding plants to produce high-potency variants of marijuana, which are called “kush” in street slang when they have 20 percent THC, Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran said. “When you amplify the strength of it, you are increasing the harm to the system,” said Curran, who supports the legislation, which would amend a federal law. “They are more dangerous behind the wheel of a vehicle. It’s not a good idea to have people that messed up.”
… The Republican North Shore lawmaker said he plans to release more information during a news conference in Chicago on Monday, where he will be joined by representatives from the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, the Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group and Waukegan Police Department.
Okay, where to begin? Well, we can start with U.S. Representative Mark Kirk. According to the Congressman’s website, Rep. Kirk is “pro-personal responsibility.” Unless, of course, we’re talking about allowing responsible adults (or patients) the choice to relax (or medicate) in the privacy of their own homes with a substance that is objectively safer than alcohol (or most prescription pharmaceuticals). Then, naturally, all bets are off.
Last week, following the federal government's release of a state-by-state survey of drug use and perceptions of harms of various drugs, the news media in Colorado reported that marijuana use was up significantly in the state.
Let's just pause and think about that for a moment. The news media reported that marijuana use was up up significantly in the state.
Now, most of us have been bombarded by the message that marijuana is "bad" or "harmful" our entire lives, and we know what to expect when the traditional media reports on an increase in marijuana use. So you probably assume at this point that the tone of the coverage was one of alarm and dismay. If you think that, you haven't been in Colorado over the past four years.
What has happened in the Centennial State over the past four years, you might ask? Well, the populace, including the media itself, has been constantly bombarded with one simple message: Marijuana is safer than alcohol -- both to the user and to society -- and it therefore makes no sense to punish adults who make the rational choice to use the less harmful substance.
The organization I head, SAFER, which stands for Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, has pushed this message through referendums on college campuses, two citywide ballot initiatives in Denver, a statewide ballot initiative campaign, and countless public demonstrations and press conferences. (You can get a sampling of the kind of media coverage we have generated by checking out our YouTube channel.)
SAFER's efforts appear to be having an impact. Consider first the survey mentioned above. Yes, it showed that marijuana use increased in the state. More importantly, Colorado was one of only three states in which the perceived risk of smoking marijuana once a month decreased by a statistically significant amount between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.
[LINK "decreased" to http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7state/AppC.htm#TabC-4 ]
In other words, it appears the people of Colorado are getting the message. They are starting to understand that the government has lied to them for decades and the truth is that marijuana is simply not all that harmful, especially in comparison to alcohol. They are beginning to see marijuana for what it really is -- a less harmful recreational alternative to alcohol -- and it appears some of them are logically shifting toward using the safer substance.
Perhaps most surprisingly, the evolving attitudes toward marijuana in the state are even being reflected in mainstream media coverage. Just watch this clip from the local Fox News station.
Not to spoil it, but here are the highlights: First, the anchor casually states that more Coloradoans are "putting down the bottle and picking up the bong." Then, after noting that marijuana use is up significantly in the state, the reporter asks, "Is this a good thing? It depends whom you ask." She then proceeds to ask a bar manager -- yes, a bar manager -- who says, "[Marijuana] is better for you than drinking, obviously... I don't think the side effects are quite as harmful." After letting me say a few words, the reporter ends by repeating a couple of concerns from local police. (Same old crap, of course.)
The conclusion to be drawn from this report, as produced by the local Fox News station? Yes, the increase in marijuana use in the state is a good thing.
Has there been a news report like this in the past? I don't believe so. Will this be the last news report like this? Absolutely not. It's just the first of many...
"This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana. This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you."- Mark R. Trouville, DEA Miami, speaking to the Associated Press (June 22, 2007)
Government claims that today's pot is more potent, and thus more dangerous to health, than ever before must be taken with a grain of salt.
Federal officials have made similarly dire assertions before. In a 2004 Reuters News Wire story, government officials alleged, "Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin." (Anti-drug officials failed to explain why, if previous decades' pot was so "gentle" and innocuous, police still arrested you for it.)
In 2007, Reuters again highlighted the alleged record rise in cannabis potency, proclaiming, "U.S. marijuana grows stronger than before: report." Quoted in the news story was ex-Drug Czar John Walters, who warned, "This report underscores that we are no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s -- this is Pot 2.0."
Predictably, in 2008 the mainstream news media ran with yet another set of 'news' stories alleging that the pot plant's strength had reached all-time highs. According to a June 12, 2008 Associated Pressstory:
"The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 through 2007. It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 percent in 2007, compared with 8.75 percent the previous year."
Or not. An actual review of the 2008 U-Miss data revealed this nugget of information: The average THC in domestically grown marijuana -- which comprises the bulk of the US market -- is less than five percent, a figure that's remained unchanged for nearly a decade. (See: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/FullPotencyReports.pdf, page 12)
Which brings us to this year. Naturally, the Feds are once again sounding the alarm, as reported today by CNN: "Marijuana potency surpasses 10 percent, U.S. says."
I suppose, if nothing else, the government's annual "new and improved pot" claims are good advertising for marijuana dealers. As for the rest of the public, it's time for a reality check.
First, it's worth noting that police and lawmakers made these same alarmist claims about the suddenly not-as-dangerous-or-strong-as-we-once-said-it-was pot of the 1960s, '70s, and 80s. These allegations were false then and they are still false now.
Second, THC -- regardless of potency -- is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe a FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC, and curiously, nobody at the University of Mississippi or at the Drug Czar's office seems to be overly concerned about its potential health effects.
Third, survey data gleaned from cannabis consumers in the Netherlands--where users may legally purchase pot of known quality--indicates that most cannabis consumers prefer less potent pot, just as the majority of those who drink alcohol prefer beer or wine rather than 190 proof Everclear or Bacardi 151. When consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.
Finally, if US lawmakers and government researchers were truly concerned about potential risks posed by supposedly stronger marijuana, they would support regulating the drug, so that its potency would be consistent and this information would publicly displayed to the consumer. (Anyone ever been to a liquor store that sold a brand of booze that didn't post its alcohol content on the label? Didn't think so.)
So let's review, shall we? Our federal government ostensibly wants fewer Americans to consume pot. So they spend billions of dollars outlawing the plant and driving its producers underground where breeders, over time, clandestinely develop stronger and more sophisticated herbal strains than ever existed prior to prohibition. The Feds then inadvertently give America's marijuana growers billions of dollars in free advertising by telling the world that today's weed is more potent than anything Allen Ginsberg, Tommy Chong or Jerry Garcia ever smoked in their heyday. In response, tens of millions of Americans head immediately to their nearest street-corner in search of a dealer (or college student) willing to sell them a dimebag of the new, super-potent cannabis they've been hearing about on TV. The Feds then demand more of your hard-earned tax dollars so they can get more Americans "off the pot."
Then next year we do it all over again: same time, same station.
"This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana. This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you."- Mark R. Trouville, DEA Miami, speaking to the Associated Press (June 22, 2007)
Government claims that today's pot is more potent, and thus more dangerous to health, than ever before must be taken with a grain of salt.
Federal officials have made similarly dire assertions before. In a 2004 Reuters News Wire story, government officials alleged, "Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin." (Anti-drug officials failed to explain why, if previous decades' pot was so "gentle" and innocuous, police still arrested you for it.)
In 2007, Reuters again highlighted the alleged record rise in cannabis potency, proclaiming, "U.S. marijuana grows stronger than before: report." Quoted in the news story was ex-Drug Czar John Walters, who warned, "This report underscores that we are no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s -- this is Pot 2.0."
Predictably, in 2008 the mainstream news media ran with yet another set of 'news' stories alleging that the pot plant's strength had reached all-time highs. According to a June 12, 2008 Associated Pressstory:
"The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 through 2007. It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 percent in 2007, compared with 8.75 percent the previous year."
Or not. An actual review of the 2008 U-Miss data revealed this nugget of information: The average THC in domestically grown marijuana -- which comprises the bulk of the US market -- is less than five percent, a figure that's remained unchanged for nearly a decade. (See: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/FullPotencyReports.pdf, page 12)
Which brings us to this year. Naturally, the Feds are once again sounding the alarm, as reported today by CNN: "Marijuana potency surpasses 10 percent, U.S. says."
I suppose, if nothing else, the government's annual "new and improved pot" claims are good advertising for marijuana dealers. As for the rest of the public, it's time for a reality check.
First, it's worth noting that police and lawmakers made these same alarmist claims about the suddenly not-as-dangerous-or-strong-as-we-once-said-it-was pot of the 1960s, '70s, and 80s. These allegations were false then and they are still false now.
Second, THC -- regardless of potency -- is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe a FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC, and curiously, nobody at the University of Mississippi or at the Drug Czar's office seems to be overly concerned about its potential health effects.
Third, survey data gleaned from cannabis consumers in the Netherlands -- where users may legally purchase pot of known quality -- indicates that most cannabis consumers prefer less potent pot, just as the majority of those who drink alcohol prefer beer or wine rather than 190 proof Everclear or Bacardi 151. When consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.
Finally, if US lawmakers and government researchers were truly concerned about potential risks posed by supposedly stronger marijuana, they would support regulating the drug, so that its potency would be consistent and this information would publicly displayed to the consumer. (Anyone ever been to a liquor store that sold a brand of booze that didn't post its alcohol content marked on the label? Didn't think so.)
So let's review, shall we? Our federal government ostensibly wants fewer Americans to consume pot. So they spend billions of dollars outlawing the plant and driving its producers underground where breeders, over time, clandestinely develop stronger and more sophisticated herbal strains than ever existed prior to prohibition. The Feds then inadvertently give America's marijuana growers billions of dollars in free advertising by telling the world that today's weed is more potent than anything Allen Ginsberg, Tommy Chong or Jerry Garcia ever smoked in their heyday. In response, tens of millions of Americans head immediately to their nearest street-corner in search of a dealer (or college student) willing to sell them a dimebag of the new, super-potent cannabis they've been hearing about on TV. The Feds then demand more of your hard-earned tax dollars so they can get more Americans "off the pot."
Then next year we do it all over again: same time, same station.
View Cart
Print this page.
