Prop 19 Analysis: Will Marijuana Legalization Increase Use?

As California moves toward the legalization of marijuana — next month, voters will decide on Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 — a key question remains: could the new law produce a whole generation of stoners?

Opponents of legalization say, yes, fearing it will lead to a massive increase in pot smoking among youth. But some supporters suggest the opposite: legalizing cannabis could de-glamorize it and ultimately prompt reductions in toking. Who's right?

That question is surprisingly hard to answer, but two recent research reports offer some potentially useful insight. The first, a Rand Corporation report that led to related testimony before the California legislature on Sept. 21, discusses the effects of price changes and taxation on consumption of drugs.

A newer report, released Thursday, comes from the new scientist-led International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP). It takes a historical look at how U.S. drug policy has affected use, and suggests how to regulate drugs effectively.

One thing the ICSDP report makes clear is that current U.S. drug policy has no effect on marijuana prices or use. While spending on federal drug law enforcement has increased 1,200% and marijuana arrests have risen 150% since 1981, the rate of marijuana use nationwide has bounced around, with no relationship to these efforts.

"No scientific evidence demonstrates an association between the amount of money governments spend on drug law enforcement and rates of drug use," says Dr. Evan Wood, a professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, founder of ICSDP and lead author of the report. "And some nations like the U.S., which spend the most have among the highest rates of drug use."

Meanwhile, according to national surveys, high school students continue to report that marijuana is universally available, purity has increased and prices have fallen.

The Rand report forecasts how legalization and taxation of marijuana could affect its market price and overall use in California. Although the public tends to view drug users, and addicts in particular, as too irrational and irresponsible to base their behavior on drug prices, research debunks these notions. Studies on legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, for example, show that taxing them and raising prices can often be quite effective in lowering consumption — even among the heaviest users. "After legalization, we expect a large price drop. That's the biggest take away message from this report," says Beau Kilmer, co-director of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center and lead author of the report. "We expect the price [of marijuana] to drop at least 80%. There are a couple of other figures out there, ours falls in the middle and you can quibble about the details but there's a general agreement that the price will drop."

The trick is to determining how high to set the tax — the price has to be high enough to minimize consumption, but low enough to avoid creating a black market. Kilmer says that the current price for an ounce of good sinsemilla (a type of highly potent marijuana) ranges from $250 to $400. "If that drops down to $50 to $60 an ounce, it would require a really large tax to get [the price back up to that level]. But if the tax is set too high, [we] worry about tax evasion," he says.

Experts disagree on how much tax evasion occurs under California's tobacco tax regime, with smokers ordering cigarettes by mail to avoid state taxes, for instance. Some put the figure at 1% to 4%, but the agency that administers the state's tobacco taxes has said that the rate is more like 15%. Either way, the majority of cigarette taxes do seem to be paid rather than evaded.

Kilmer notes, however, that if Prop 19 passes, each local jurisdiction can set its own tax rate, which could prompt a "race to the bottom," as localities compete for a piece of the pie. "Regardless of how you feel about Prop 19, how to stop a race to the bottom is going to be important for everyone. No one wins if we end up with a really low tax rate on a really low price," Kilmer says. To prevent that, he suggests that the state government could withhold certain types of funding to localities that set marijuana taxes under a certain limit.

But let's say the price of marijuana does end up dropping precipitously. What effect might that have on consumption? Neither report can answer that. "Ultimately, we don't come up with a conclusion at all on a consumption increase," Kilmer says, explaining that many factors other than price can affect use.
The highest rates of marijuana use reported in the U.S. were in the late 1970s and early '80s, despite harsh drug laws. At the time 60% of high school seniors reported trying marijuana at least once; by comparison, the rate in 2009 was 42%. And what became of Generation X? The kids seem to have turned out all right.

Other countries that have decriminalized or quasi-legalized marijuana — such as Portugal and Holland — also have not seen social disasters because of their drug laws. In fact, they have benefited from reduced enforcement costs and increased access to addiction treatment.

One study did find that rates of marijuana use among Dutch youth increased when "coffee shops" — cafes where selling and smoking of marijuana are permitted — were proliferating and being widely marketed. But, overall, even those elevated rates of use were no higher than U.S. rates under marijuana prohibition. "It wasn't the decriminalization, it was commercialization that could have caused this," says Kilmer.

Advertising and commercialization may end up being cause for concern in the U.S. as well, given that medical marijuana ads already seem to be sustaining some newspapers. But, then again, even if Prop 19 passes, marijuana wouldn't be completely legal — it would still be prohibited under federal drug laws, which could put pressure on the Obama Administration to enforce them (though this Wall Street Journal article suggests that supporting legalization measures could be a boon for Democrats — putting similar measures on other states' ballots could draw out some key voters on Election Day).
Many questions remain about what will happen if Proposition 19 passes, but the only result I can unequivocally predict is that drug policy debates will finally become less theoretical — and much more interesting.

- Article from TIME.

Sorry for not posting yesterday. Very Busy

Working on more awesome stuff to make this blog better. 

Here is a news clip, 

regular posting will resume as scheduled, See ya on Friday. 

Peace & Green

Cypress Hill Plan Marijuana Dispensary Chain

Stoner icons CYPRESS HILL are looking to cash in on the "inevitable" legalisation of marijuana in their native California by preparing to open their own dispensaries.

The hip-hop trio, who are among the celebrities leading the charge for the legalisation of the drug, insist it won't be too long before state lawmakers agree to allow weed lovers to smoke up a storm in special cigar store-like businesses, and Cypress Hill want to be a part of the explosion of 'hash houses'.

Bandmate B-Real tells Hustler magazine, "They have to figure out where you'll be able to purchase it (marijuana). I don't think it will be available in a normal liquor store right away. I think it will stay in (medical) dispensaries, but the dispensaries will change to being more like cigar shops.

"Then you'll see a Cypress Hill Shop. We're looking towards that now... We're going to be involved in some capacity."

- Article from Contactmusic.com.

Green Party U.S. Senate Candidate Calls for the Repeal of Federal Laws Criminalizing Marijuana

Duane Roberts, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, calls for repealing federal laws prohibiting marijuana from being used for “medicinal, recreational and industrial purposes.” Roberts urges passage of Prop 19 saying it will send a message to the political establishment:

“As I officially kick off my campaign for the U.S. Senate today, one of the first declarations I make is to call for the repeal of all federal laws on the books which make it a criminal act for people to grow, sell, and use marijuana for medicinal, recreational, and industrial purposes.

“According to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 800,000 people are arrested each year in this country for using a plant of which the evidence suggests is far less dangerous to consume than alcohol, tobacco, and some well-known prescription pharmaceuticals.

“This is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money. Not only does this clog the court systems and fill up the jails and prisons with non-violent offenders, but it diverts the limited resources of police, prosecutors, and judges away from pursuing individuals who engage in violent crimes against others.
“Repealing federal laws criminalizing marijuana will save the U.S. government billions of dollars it spends trying to eradicate this plant and give the people of each state an opportunity to experiment with different models of legalization, as California is doing with Prop 19.

“Recent polls suggest a majority of Californians support Prop 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. If this initiative passes, it will be for the first time since 1913 that it will be legal under state law for people to possess marijuana for personal consumption.

“Despite some flaws in the way it is written, I strongly urge all Californians to vote ‘yes’ on Prop 19. Don’t make perfect enemy of the good. Its passage will create huge shock waves throughout the entire political establishment — everywhere from Sacramento to Washington, D.C.

“By casting your ballot in favor of Prop 19, you’ll be sending a strong message to politicians across the nation that the one hundred year old witch hunt they’ve been waging against persons who grow or use marijuana — fueled by racism, fear, paranoia, and utter stupidity — is over with.”

- Article from Vote For Duane.

Marijuana's True Potency & Why the Law Should Change

 John McKay, the Seattle former U.S. attorney who who indicted Marc Emery for selling cannabis seeds, argues why the laws against marijuana should be changed.

 JOHN McKAY WROTE THE FOLLOWING:
I DON'T smoke pot. And I pretty much think people who do are idiots.
This certainly includes Marc Emery, the self-styled "Prince of Pot" from Canada whom I indicted in 2005 for peddling marijuana seeds to every man, woman and child with an envelope and a stamp. Emery recently pleaded guilty and will be sentenced this month in Seattle, where he faces five years in federal prison. If changing U.S. marijuana policy was ever Emery's goal, the best that can be said is that he took the wrong path.

As Emery's prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official, however, I'm not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety.
Congress has failed to recognize what many already know about our policy of criminal prohibition of marijuana — it has utterly failed. Listed by the U.S. government as a "Schedule One" drug alongside heroin, the demand for marijuana in this country for decades has outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it. Perhaps this is because millions of Americans smoke pot regularly and international drug cartels, violent gangs and street pushers work hard to reap the profits.

Law-enforcement agencies are simply not capable of interdicting all of this pot and despite some successes have not succeeded in thwarting criminals who traffic and sell marijuana. Brave agents and cops continue to risk their lives in a futile attempt to enforce misguided laws that do not match the realities of our society.

These same agents and cops, along with prosecutors, judges and jailers, know we can't win by arresting all those involved in the massive importation, growth or distribution of marijuana, nor by locking up all the pot smokers. While many have argued the policy is unjust, few have addressed the dangerously potent black market the policy itself has created for exploitation by Mexican and other international drug cartels and gangs. With the proceeds from the U.S. marijuana black market, these criminals distribute dangerous drugs and kill each other (too often along with innocent bystanders) with American-purchased guns.

Our wrongheaded policy on marijuana has also failed to address the true health threat posed by its use. While I suspect nothing good can come to anyone from the chronic ingestion of marijuana smoke, its addictive quality and health risk pale in comparison with other banned drugs such as heroin, cocaine or meth. Informed adult choice, albeit a bad one, may well be preferable to the legal and policy meltdown we have long been suffering over marijuana.

Not only does our policy directly threaten our public safety and rest upon false medical assumptions, but our national laws are now in direct and irreconcilable conflict with state laws, including Washington state. So called "medical" marijuana reaches precious few patients and backdoor potheads mock legitimate medical use by glaucoma and chemotherapy patients. State laws are trumped by federal laws that recognize no such thing as "medicinal" or "personal" use and are no defense to arrests by federal agents and prosecution in federal courts.

So the policy is wrong, the law has failed, the public is endangered, no one in law enforcement is talking about it and precious few policymakers will honestly face the soft-on-crime sound bite in their next elections. What should be done?

• First, we need to honestly and courageously examine the true public-safety danger posed by criminalizing a drug used by millions and millions of Americans who ignore the law. Marijuana prohibition has failed — it's time for a new policy crafted by informed policymakers with the help of those in law enforcement who have risked their lives battling pot-purveying drug cartels and gangs.

• Second, let's talk about marijuana policy responsibly and with an eye toward sound science, not myth. We can start by acknowledging that our 1930s-era marijuana prohibition was overkill from the beginning and should be decoupled from any debate about "legalizing drugs." We should study and disclose the findings of the real health risks of prolonged use, including its influence and effect on juveniles.

• Third, we should give serious consideration to heavy regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry (an industry that is very real and dangerously underground). We should limit pot's content of the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), regulate its sale to adults who are dumb enough to want it and maintain criminal penalties for sales, possession or use by minors, drivers and boaters.
Federal criminal law should give way to regulation, while prohibiting interstate violation of federal laws consistent with this approach. In short, policymakers should strive for a regulatory and criminal scheme like the one guarding that other commodity that failed miserably at prohibition, alcohol.
As my law-enforcement colleagues know well from chasing bootleggers and mobsters, this new regulatory and criminal approach will still require many years of intensive investigation and enforcement before organized criminal elements are driven from the vast marijuana market. DEA and its law-enforcement partners must therefore remain well equipped and staffed to accomplish this task: to protect our families from truly dangerous drugs and to drive drug cartels, gangs and dope dealers from our society.

John McKay is a law professor at Seattle University and the former United States attorney in Seattle.

- Article from The Seattle Times on September 3, 2010.

California Legislature Passes Marijuana Decriminalization Bill

Just hours before the state's legislative session ended Tuesday, the California Assembly voted to approve SB 1449, Sen. Mark Leno's bill to fully decriminalize simple marijuana possession. The bill passed the Senate in June and now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk.

The vote was 43-33 and largely along party lines. Democrats supported the bill 40-8, while Republicans opposed it 23-2.

Under current California law, possession of less than an ounce of pot is punishable by no more than a $100 fine, but is still a misdemeanor. That means people busted for a joint or a half-bag must be arrested, booked, and appear in court, and they get a criminal record. It also means meaningless work for the police and the courts.

Marijuana possession is the only California misdemeanor with a set maximum fine and no possible jail time. The Leno bill changes the offense to an infraction, meaning no arrest, no booking, no court appearance, and no criminal record.

"The penalty for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a fine of $100, with no jail time," Leno said on introducing the bill. "If the penalty is $100, with no jail time, that is an infraction. That is not a misdemeanor."

Keeping simple possession a misdemeanor has had "serious unintended consequences," the San Francisco Democrat said. "As the number of misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests have surged in recent years, reaching 61,388 in 2008, the burden placed on the courts by these low level offenses are just too much to bear at a time when resources are shrinking and caseloads are growing."

- Article from Stop the Drug War.

Video: More Marijuana News Talk

Canada's Conservatives Try Again with Mandatory Minimum Drug Bill

Canada's Conservative minority government hopes the third time is the charm for its controversial measure to increase sentences for marijuana cultivation and introduce mandatory minimum sentences for some drug offenses.


Now known as S-10, the measure will be taken up by the Senate when it returns from recess at end of next month.

 The bill is designed to "send a message" that "if you sell or produce drugs, you'll pay with jail time," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said when re-filing the bill in May.

Under the bill, anyone growing six or more plants for the purpose of drug trafficking could face a mandatory minimum six month jail sentence, with a one-year mandatory minimum for up to 200 plants and two years for up to 500 plants. Hash makers also face a one-year mandatory minimum.
The mandatory minimum sentences could be increased by half if any of a number of aggravating factors are claimed. These include whether a weapon was found on the premises, if minors were involved, if the location was unsafe, and whether pot production posed a danger to the public in a residential area.

The Conservatives' bill comes even as crime rates in Canada have fallen to a 30-year low and with majorities supporting marijuana legalization in recent polls.
"This is a terrible bill," said Jacob Hunter of Why Prohibition?, a web site set up by opponents of the bill to encourage online activism and social networking to defeat it. "I think the single worst provision is the 18-month mandatory minimum for making one pot brownie if the police can show you shared it
 with friends."

Advertisement

"The Conservatives have less than a third of the popular vote, and they think they have a mandate for these draconian measures," said Eugene Oscapella, an Ottawa law professor and head of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy.

Last year's version of the bill, known as C-15, made it through the House of Commons with the support of the Liberals, but was softened slightly by Liberals in the Senate. But before the amended measure could pass, Prime Minister Harper ended the parliamentary session, killing the bill for the year.

In power since the 2006 elections, the Conservatives have been unable to win enough seats to form a majority government. Right now, the Conservatives hold 143 seats of the 307 in the House of Commons, with the Liberals holding 103, the Bloc Quebecois 51, and the New Democrats (NDP) 51.
That means the Conservatives are once again going to have to win over members of other parties to pass S-10. With the NDP and the Bloc both in solid opposition, the Conservatives will have to pick up support from the Liberals, but whether they will be able to do so remains to be seen. Last time, Liberal support got the bill over the top in the House, but this year, the Liberals are preparing for a possible called election in the fall or winter and may have had an infusion of spine-stiffener on the issue.
"The Liberals are running around like the cowardly lion," said Oscapella, who expressed dismay at their lack of principle. "There is no sign yet that they are doing anything other than kowtowing to the government on this issue."

"Last time the Liberals did support C-15 in the House, but modified and delayed it in the Senate," said Hunter, who was slightly more positive about the Liberals. "They were terrified of being soft on crime. This time, I'm hearing the Liberals won't be so easily cowed. They feel they can counter the soft on crime attack by attacking the Conservatives on cost. It will be a purely political decision for the Liberals."

Noting that the parliamentary budget office has set the price-tag of S-10 at $10 billion, Hunter said the high cost would be a wedge to use against the bill. "This has emboldened the opposition to attack the Conservative's law and order crime agenda as too costly," he said. "Plus, crime is a historic low, and these mandatory minimum policies have been tried in the US to poor effect."
In the Senate, Conservatives do have an outright majority of 54 of 105 Senate seats -- if the two Progressive Conservative senators are counted. The Liberals have 49 seats, and there are two independents. Conservative strength in the Senate may explain why the Harper government decided to place S-10 in the Senate instead of the House of Commons.

Opponents of S-10 are gathering their forces. They will have months or perhaps even a year to
 mobilize opposition as the bill moves through the parliamentary process.

"There is a lot of opposition to this bill in the media, which is coming out strongly against mandatory minimums and in favor of ending the war on drugs," noted Oscapella. "Yet the government wants to plow ahead. Faced with strong opposition, the more adamant they are that they will succeed," he said.
"This is all the more depressing because for years, the excuse was that the US would never let us do drug reform," the Ottawa attorney continued. "Now the rhetoric and the attitude in the US is changing, and this would be a time for us to move forward, but we're set to move backward. It's like George Bush came to Canada."

NDP MP Libby Davies, the party's drug policy critic, has been a stalwart in the fight against earlier incarnations of the bill and is likely to do so again. While, the East Vancouver MP was out of the office this week, Davies spoke out against the new bill back in May when it was introduced.

"I have been working at every turn to stop this failed, George Bush style war-on-drugs Bill that proposes mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes," Davies said. "My NDP colleagues and I voted a resounding no when this bill was introduced in the House as Bill C-15, but it was passed with the support of the Liberal Party. Now we have a second chance to stop this wrong-headed and costly legislation. The Conservatives’ iron fisted approach that criminalizes drug users is taking Canada in the wrong direction."

Why Prohibition? and other activist groups are preparing protests across Canada on October 2, as well as bombarding parliament and the government with messages opposing S-10. And that will be just the beginning of the campaign.

It looks like the Liberals hold the key to whether S-10 passes or fails. In the months ahead, expect the pressure on them to increase dramatically. And let's hope for the Conservatives that instead of third time is the charm, it's three strikes and you're out.

- Article from Stop the Drug War.

Veterans Administration Unseat Marijuana From Schedule I?

On July 22, 2010 the Department of Veterans Affairs issued aDirective, specifically allowing VA patients the right to use Medical Marijuana without fear of federal interference. “Fourteen states have enacted laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana,” the Directive observes. “Medical conditions associated with the use of medical marijuana include, but are not limited to: glaucoma, chemotherapy induced nausea, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and chronic pain.”

The new Directive does not allow VA doctors to prescribe Marijuana to their patients, but for the first time, a federal agency has acknowledged that Marijuana has medicinal applications, and pledged not to interfere with patients who have a doctor’s prescription in the 14 states where Marijuana is accepted under law.

This is a critical point, and one that should get everyone’s attention: Is Marijuana still a Schedule I drug?

To be a Schedule I drug, a substance must meet 3 qualifications:

1. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision, AND
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, AND
3. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

With respect to Item 1, Safety: Marijuana ingestion has never been listed as a cause of  death; it is physically impossible for a human being to die from purposely ingesting too much Marijuana.

Item 2, the “No currently Accepted Medical Use” clause is clearly invalid across the 14 stateswhere medical marijuana is permitted by law: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. By definition, in each of these states, Marijuana does indeed have a “currently accepted medical use.”

Advertisement

Finally,  Item 3: Potential for Abuse. I submit that a rational adult might rightly conclude that many drugs — including alcohol and cigarettes — have a far higher potential for abuse than Cannabis. By the same token, given that at least 42% of the US population has tried Marijuanaat least once, it is evident that Marijuana should not be classified or grouped together with drugs like heroin, cocaine or meth-amphetamines.

In order to be a considered a Schedule I drug, Marijuana must fit each of these three classifications.

But, on July 22, 2010, an agency of the U.S. Federal Government directed its medical staff to accept the fact that Marijuana has medical value in the states where it is legal.

According to the definition of Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act, if a drug has any medical value, then it cannot be a Schedule I drug.

The precursor to this recent VA Directive may have been Gonzales v. Oregon, a 2006 Supreme Court decision — the first major case under Chief Justice John Roberts — wherein the Court held that state health care laws trump the power of the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to enforce federal drug laws.

In light of Gonzales v. Oregon, the VA’s acknowledgement that Marijuana has medical value now seems inevitable:  for all practical purposes, Marijuana is no longer a Schedule I drug.

Game Over.

- Article from Mens News Daily 

Feds Say Leonhart is ‘Right Choice’ for DEA, Despite Widespread Calls for Her Withdrawal

One month after MPP and an ideologically diverse coalition of drug policy reformers and advocacy groups called on President Obama to withdraw Michele Leonhart as his nominee for DEA administrator, a spokesperson for the White House has declared that the president is confident that the Bush holdover is the “right” choice for the job.

Mike Riggs has the story in The Daily Caller:

Obama is confident that Leonhart is the right choice, the White House staffer said, and that as of Friday the president wasn’t considering anyone else for the position. In other words, the response from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a chorus of concerns boils down to: Leonhart or bust.

MPP and others – including FireDogLake’s Jane Hamsher and the states-rights group the Tenth Amendment Center – pointed to Leonhart’s interim leadership of the DEA, which has included federal raids on state-legal medical marijuana providers and the denial of medical marijuana research applications, as evidence that she is continuing Bush-era policies that Obama promised to end. During the campaign, and in an October memo from the Department of Justice, the president and his administration pledged to end federal raids on state-legal medical marijuana providers.

But when Riggs asked the feds whether recent raids in California violate the spirit of the October memo, spokespeople for both the White House and DOJ seemed to backtrack on the president’s pledge.

But the White House and the Justice Department both told TheDC that Holder’s memo does not give dispensaries carte blanche to grow or sell marijuana, and that recent raids don’t conflict with what Obama expressed while campaigning.

“I wouldn’t say the memo ‘discourages’ certain raids,” a DOJ offical told TheDC. Rather, “it talks about prioritizing resources most efficiently.” And both the White House and the DOJ argued that the gist of the Holder memo was that the DEA would “not focus its limited resources on individual patients with cancer or other serious diseases.”

One can’t help but wonder, with the nomination of Leonhart, the ongoing raids, and this type of public about-face on the issue, if President Obama is now reneging on his campaign pledge to approach medical marijuana issues differently than his predecessor.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs thinks it’s absurd to even suggest such a thing. “I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush,” Gibbs said recently. “Those people ought to be drug tested. I mean, it’s crazy.”

Crazy is exactly right, Mr. Gibbs. I mean, it’s not like President Obama picked the same person George W. Bush did to lead the DEA, and has insisted on standing by her while she employs the same policies that were in place under Bush. Oh wait …

- Article from Marijuana Policy Project.

Top UK Doctor Calls For Drug Decriminalization

A leading doctor has advised the Government to consider decriminalising drugs as he thinks the blanket ban has failed to cut crime or improve health.

The call comes as chief police officers report a doubling in cases of homegrown cannabis.

A report by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the amount of cannabis being grown in the UK is at its highest ever level.

Commander Allan Gibson, Acpo's lead on tackling cannabis cultivation, told Sky News pressure must remain on drug growers.

"This is organised crime, it's getting invovled in what they see is lucrative business," he said.

"We need to make sure the risks to them are great - that they're being found out and they're crops are being taken away from them, but also the risk of going to prison and having their assets taken away from them."

But Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, a former president of the Royal College of Physicians, said drug laws should be "reconsidered with a view to decriminalising illicit drugs use".

He told Sky News: "The problem is that this policy we have had for 40 years of saying that we do not want drugs in society just isn't working.

"We cannot stop production from overseas and we cannot stop importation, but we can start treating heroin addiction as a medical condition.

"We see people in hospitals every day who are suffering not from heroin but from dirty needles, from impure supplies of the drug.

"It improves health, it gets them off of heroin and it stops the crime, it stops them stealing to feed the habit.""There has been some really successful projects providing, not every addict, but the hard end of the spectrum - so to speak - with clean heroin under controlled conditions.

Sir Ian conceded decriminalisation was a "difficult word" but added he was in favour of looking at a regulatory framework for illicit drugs rather than blanket prohibition.

Similar calls for reform of the UK's drugs laws last month were criticised by some politicians and campaigners.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said the legalisation of drugs "would simply create the mistaken impression that these substances are not harmful, when in fact this is far from the truth".

Sir Ian said: "I don't think anybody thinks heroin is not harmful - far from it."

The doctor added that evidence showed decriminalising heroin or other drugs "doesn't increase the number of drug users".

The aim was one of "helping people with addiction problems, rather than putting them in prison".

Nicholas Green QC, chairman of the UK Bar Council, said: "A growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences.

"It can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health.

"All this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage. If this is so, then it would be rational to follow suit."

The Acpo report found in just two years, the number of homegrown cannabis production bases has doubled.

They were most common in urban areas such asManchester, Birmingham andLondon - but West Yorkshire is where the most factories have been found.

Figures for 2009/10 showed 896 illegal commercial growing sites were found in the West Yorkshire Policearea, compared to 368 in 2007/08.

The Acop report suggests the reasons behind the surge are twofold.

Firstly, more organised gangs are opening up new premises and secondly, there is better police detection.

Ordinary-looking homes are used by criminals, but research also shows industrial and commercial premises along with farm buildings are now being used to grow cannabis.

The drug was reclassified from class C to class B in 2009, the publicity led to better awareness in communities and in turn led to police receiving more intelligence from the public.

Commander Gibson said: "There's no complacency here. We recognise it's now spread to all force areas in the United Kingdom.

"We're going to keep our foot on the pedal and we're going to make sure we gather the best intelligence.

"We want to make sure we not just closing down the gardeners but the people behind them.

"We're getting better at covert operations targetting them so they need to realise they are not safe in this business."

Last month, former drugs adviser Professor David Nutt said the UK needed a radical new approach to drugs laws, which may include the regulated sale of some substances.

He added that he believed the criminal approach to drugs has failed spectacularly.

However, there was a reluctance to change because most politicians were scared of losing votes if they were to tell the truth about the failed drug policy.

Professor Nutt was fired by the Labour government after saying ecstasy was less harmful than alcohol.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.

"The Government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach.

"Our priorities are clear: we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug-related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good."

- Article from Sky News.

'Unreported Crimes' Code for 'Cannabis Offences'

By Paul McKeever, Cannabis Culture

CANNABIS CULTURE - There is a perfectly logical – if disgraceful – reason why Canadian Treasury President Stockwell Day (a Conservative MP) cited “unreported crimes” as the reason for spending $9B on the building of more prisons. 

I submit that, with the phrase “unreported crimes”, Day is implicitly referring to cannabis offenses and other consensual drug-related offenses for which minimum prison sentences will be imposed if Bill S-10 becomes law.  The Conservative government’s announcement that it has expanded the range of things constituting “serious crimes” provides additional evidence to that effect.

After the media asked Day to justify that kind of spending while the federal government is claiming to be tackling the deficit, one might have expected Day simply to answer that the prisons were to cope with the effects of the government’s Truth in Sentencing Act. Parliamentary Budget officer Kevin Page has already estimated that the cost of implementing that Actalone will be in that range, and the Act passed into law months ago. Yet, with his expression of the government’s concern over “unreported crimes” Day implicitly foreshadowed an additional source of pressure on prison resources.

Most reasonable people no doubt share Liberal MP Mark Holland’s view that “unreported crimes” cannot be the reason for building prisons, because unreported crimes are crimes for which nobody is charged or imprisoned. However, that assumption overlooks a few things.

The number one reason for not reporting a crime is the belief that the crime in question is not one meriting police involvement or criminal penalties. Millions of Canadians actively cultivate, sell, and possess cannabis despite the threat of fines and imprisonment. Polls in recent years repeatedly indicate that the majority of Canadians want cannabis legalized even for recreational use. And as any fairly social adult will probably have witnessed, police are rarely called to arrest someone who is cultivating, selling, or possessing cannabis. There is, in point of fact, mass civil disobedience, and a benevolent conspiracy of silence, with respect to cannabis offences in Canada. For this reason, cannabis offenses are arguably one of the most frequently occurring – if not the most frequently occurring – “unreported crimes” in Canada.

As one source painfully acquainted with the effect of the Harper government’s Americanesque drug war agenda explains, the number of sexual assaults, homocides, and other violent offences is fairly constant, year after year, as is the number of people convicted of such offenses. Indeed, as the population ages, the number of such crimes will decrease. Even if incarceration durations for such crimes were doubled, that would hardly put a dent in the prison population. Billions of dollars in additional prison funding is not needed for those sorts of offences, but billions in additional funding will be needed to build prisons for the anticipated thousands of non-violent cannabis (and, to a lesser extent, other drug) offenders who Bill S-10 will soon subject to mandatory imprisonment.Day is not necessarily making the absurd suggestion that those whose crimes are not reported will be imprisoned. He is saying that those who are charged with committing a cannabis offence – a widely “unreported crime” – will soon be sent to prison in much greater numbers. The actual purpose of the government’s prison expansion plans is to accommodate the anticipated impact of the Conservative government’s “National Anti-drug Strategy”, when one of its key components – Bill S-10 – passes into law.

To understand what is at stake politically for the Conservatives, a bit of history must be kept in mind. In late 2006, the Harper government attempted to fulfill an election pledge to repeal the recognition of gay marriages. A late 2006 motion to revisit the issue of gay marriage failed, leaving unsatisfied social Conservative yearnings for a war against Canada’s changing culture. However, gay marriage was only one of two major cultural changes in Canada that steamed social conservatives in recent years. The other was Canada’s changing laws on cannabis.

A 2000 decision in Ontario’s Court of Appeal made cannabis a legal medicine (it remains so to this day, though federal and provincial governments have failed to provide adequate safeguards for physicians – who face concerns of losing their licenses to practice should they prescribe cannabis – and to ensure that patients have the cannabis they are prescribed). In 2002, a Senate report recommended that recreational cannabis be legalized, and a House of Commons report released shortly thereafter recommended that imprisonment be replaced with a system of stiffer fines (a recommendation known as “decriminalization”). The Canadian Alliance, then led by Stephen Harper, condemned those proposals on the ground that they would further inflame Canada-US relations at a time when Canada’s Liberal government had refused Canadian involvement in America’s war against Iraq (Harper’s Alliance opposition had indicated that it wanted Canada to join in the war against Iraq). Elections in 2004 and 2006 scuttled the Liberal government’s decriminalization plans, and Harper’s Conservatives formed a government with the smallest minority in Canada’s history.

By October of 2007, the legalization of cannabis was supported by 51% of Canadians (a number that crept up to 53% a year later). However, the Conservative government having let down its social conservative base with respect to gay marriage, it announced it would be launching a “National Anti-drug Strategy”.

Conservative MP Tony Clement (the same Tony Clement who is now trying not to smirk as he passes himself off as a libertarian defending long-form census takers from the abuse of government coercion) at that time was Canada’s Health Minister. On September 29, 2007, the Canadian Press quoted Clement thusly:

“In the next few days, we’re going to be back in the business of an anti-drug strategy,” Clement told The Canadian Press. “In that sense, the party’s over.”

Clement, together with none other than Stockwell Day (who was then Public Safety Minister), attended Prime Minister Harper’s October 4, 2007 press conference, wherein his $63M anti-drug strategy was announced. Given that the anti-drug strategy was a significant bone thrown to the Conservative party’s religious, social conservative constituency, rather than to the relatively secular majority of Canadians, it should not surprise the reader that the press conference was held at a Salvation Army headquarters (in Winnipeg).

Of the funding there announced, two thirds was to be directed at the social aspect of drugs, including a counter-cultural campaign. Harper explained:

What we are up against, in trying to resolve this problem – what the police are up against, what the people who deal in treatment and prevention are up against – is a culture that, since the 1960s has, at the minimum not encouraged drug use and often romanticized it; romanticized it, or made it cool; made it acceptable. And look, as a father, I don’t say all these things blamelessly. My son is listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean. And, you know, it’s just there, it’s just out there, I love these records, I’m not putting them away. But, that said, the reality is that there has been a culture that has not fought drug use! And that’s what we’re all up against! No easy solutions to that but we have seen, in the case of tobacco, a shift in the culture, in a way that has rendered tobacco use less and less socially or culturally acceptable. I think we need to do the same thing – I think we need to do it much more quickly and much more critically – in the area of narcotics.

(Almost two years to the day later – with pot culture icon Marc Emery imprisoned in British Columbia for his romanticizing of cannabis culture – Harper would attend a widely-reported arts gala to play piano and singthe pot-inspired Beatle’s tune “I get high, with a little help from my friends”.  Oh, the sickening hypocrisy.)

On November 20, 2007, the Harper government introduced Bill C-26. Titled An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Bill proposed doubling the maximum term of imprisonment for cannabis-related crimes: from 7 years, to 14 years. It also proposed a minimum sentence of 6 months imprisonment for the cultivation of 1 to 200 cannabis plants where the purpose of growing the cannabis was to sell it. Higher mandatory minimums were proposed for greater numbers of plants, or for other aggravating factors. The bill passed second reading on April 18, 2008, but the dissolution of Parliament for the 2008 election killed the bill. Bill C-26 was re-introduced as bill C-15 and passed third reading on June 8, 2009. It was then sent to the Senate.

In late 2009, Liberal Senators outnumbered Conservatives in the upper chamber. On December 3, 2009, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs adopted a motion by Liberal appointee Senator Serge Joyal wherein the 6-month minimum sentence for growing 5 to 200 cannabis plants (in the absence of aggravating factors) would be removed. Later that day, an infuriated Justice Minister Rob Nicholson appeared on CBC’s “Power and Politics” program, and exclaimed:

They’ve taken the mandatory penalty out, and so we’re very unhappy with this…we take this very seriously, and we believe that people should have a mandatory jail time for people who are in the business, in the grow-op business.

Liberal members in the House of Commons having supported Bill C-15, Nicholson accused the Liberal Party of using Liberal Senators do their “dirty work” for them.

Show host Evan Solomon asked the Minister a question akin to that put to Stockwell Day in early August:

What about the notion that this is going to be very costly. I mean, the government said on one hand ‘we don’t want to have a huge deficit, we want to control spending costs’. On the other hand, building more prisons and taking more people in is an expensive cost. How do you mitigate that?

Nicholson’s answer:

I can tell you that we wanna get the message out to people under the National Anti-Drug Strategy. Many people will be seeing advertisements running right now across this country, discouraging people, educating them about the problems of taking drugs in this country. We want to help individuals to get them off of drugs in this country and not to experiment with them.

In other words: imposing mandatory minimums will cause people to stop breaking the law, so fewer people will get imprisoned and the costs of prisons and incarceration will thereby be mitigated. With so many millions of Canadians growing, selling, and possessing marijuana despite its criminality, we are supposed to believe that what is perhaps the most “unreported crime” of all in Canada – cannabis “crime” – will suddenly tail off so much as to offset the effect of mandatory sentences of imprisonment imposed upon people who normally would not be sentenced to any jail time. The Minister’s credulity on this issue is almost unbelievable.

The amended Bill C-15 passed third reading in the Senate on December 14, 2009. It then awaited the final step in making a bill a law: royal assent.

Section 2 of the Royal Assent Act, 2002 provides:

2. Royal assent to a bill passed by the Houses of Parliament may be signified, during the session in which both Houses pass the bill,

(a) in Parliament assembled; or

(b) by written declaration.

The key words in that section are “during the session”. The effect of “prorogation” – wherein the Prime Minister advises the Governor General to end a Parliamentary session – is that all bills that have not received royal assent before prorogation die. On December 30th, 2009, just 16 days following third reading of bill C-15 in the Senate, Parliament was prorogued, killing the bill before it received Royal Assent.

Was the prorogation motivated, at least in part, by government’s desire to have C-15 passed into law without the Senate’s amendments? In other words: just how much priority is the Harper government placing upon its war on Canada’s cannabis culture? Consider three things.

First, it should be noted that the Senate had debated C-15 far more than any other bill in the Senate: 62 hours, 3 minutes. At the time of prorogation, only 2 other bills had passed the stage of third reading in the Senate: C-6 (regulating dangerous consumer products) had been debated for 37 hours, 42 minutes; and Bill S-8 (which implemented a tax-evasion treaty with South American countries) had been debated for 1 hour, 49 minutes.

Second, soon after proroguing Parliament, Stephen Harper appointed five more Conservative Senators. This was enough to give Bill C-15 a good chance of passing third reading in the Senate without amendments.

Third, before the new session of Parliament began, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was asked whether any of his crime bills would be re-introduced. He was not certain about any except one: Bill C-15, he said, was certain to be re-introduced.

Indeed, Bill C-15 has since been re-introduced in the Senate as Bill S-10, in its unamended form. Having already been debated on three days, Bill S-10 has yet to pass second reading in the Senate. With a greater number of Conservatives serving in the upper chamber, it now seems much more likely that mandatory minimum sentences for the tiny fraction of cannabis-using Canadians caught committing what are usually “unreported offenses” will soon be a reality.

Now, quite apart from the issue of prorogation, Nicholson announced in early August that the government had, on July 13, 2010, passed a new regulation that makes 11 less-serious offences “serious offences”.  Among them: “trafficking in any substance included in Schedule II in an amount that
does not exceed the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VII (subsection 5(4))”.  Cannabis and hashish are the two Schedule II substances referred to.  The new regulation makes trafficking in less than 3kg of either of those substances a “serious offense”.  The Canada Gazette summary for the regulation explains:

Expanding the availability of the criminal organization provisions creates the possibility that individuals may be subjected to longer periods of incarceration because it makes the use of the criminal organization offences possible. (emphasis added)

In addition to imposing longer periods of incarceration, the change essentially eliminates some of the pesky procedural hoops – also known as “due process in a free and democratic society” – through which police have to jump in order to arrest people for cannabis offenses.  Clearly, cannabis, and the Conservatives’ war on Canadian culture, continues to be top-of-mind for the Conservative government.

I submit that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Harper’s anti-cannabis culture war is actually the centrepiece of his entire government agenda for that large percentage of Conservative supporters who see cannabis users – and homosexuals – as plagues on Canadian culture.  The money be damned: this back-bone of the Conservative Party sees Canada’s popular embrace of legalization as a threat to the 1950’s style, clean-livin’ Canada of its spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child youth.  The so-cons see cannabis cultivators, sellers, and possessors as snakes from whom Godly government must deliver them.  If they cannot persuade Canadians to embrace their prohibitionist views, they will continue to demand of the Conservative Party that it lock-up cannabis-tolerant “liberals”, and leave them to rot.

I suspect strongly, and angrily, that we are going to need those prisons. However, I am reasonably sure that the majority of Canadians – given an alternative to seeing their children criminalized, marginalized, imprisoned, and otherwise having their lives destroyed so that religious conservatives will keep voting Conservative – would prefer an intervening election.

Paul McKeever is an attorney, leader of Freedom Party of Ontario, and producer of The Principle of Pot, a film about cannabis activist Marc Emery. Read his blog at http://blog.paulmckeever.ca

News: Miami Heat Player 'Udonis Haslem' Arrested On Marijuana Charges (w/ Video Included)

Miami Heat forward Udonis Haslem is facing felony drug possession charges from being stopped on a Miami-Dade parkway Sunday afternoon, the South Florida Sun Sentinel is reporting. Haslem and a friend were arrested during the stop.

The Florida Highway Patrol cited Haslem in carrying in excess of 20 grams of marijuana. Documents in the bag had Haslem's friend's name on it, who also said the bag was his, the officer wrote in his report.

Haslem's attorney, Eric Schwartzreich, doesn't feel the charges are just, and that his status as a professional athlete is the cause. He told the Sun Sentinel on Monday that the felony charges were filed "because of who Udonis Haslem is. Udonis Haslem shouldn't be charged with anything."


FanHouse first tracked this story on August 15 when Haslem was arrested.

The former Florida star and Miami native was cited for going 78 mph in a 60 mph zone and was also charged with four counts of possessing drug paraphernalia.

Haslem's bond was $9,000 and, according to Schwartzreich, he was released from jail Sunday evening.

Haslem has a tentative arraignment at 9 a.m. Sept. 14 but he does not have to appear at that hearing.

According to the NBA's "Marijuana Program," a player who commits an initial violation must enter the league's counseling program. However, merely being cited does not require immediate entry into the program.

Haslem's agent, Henry Thomas, noted that they have not yet been contacted by the league.

This comes just a month after the six-year veteran signed a five-year contract worth about $20 million to remain in South Beach. He indicated in an email to the South Florida Sun Sentinel that he turned down full mid-level exception offers from both the Denver Nuggets and Dallas Mavericks.

The 30-year-old has become a staple in the Heat lineup, helping anchor the frontcourt and proving to be a reliable big at both ends of the floor. He averaged 9.9 points and 8.1 rebounds last season, and owns a ring from 2006 when Miami won the NBA title.
Dustin Johnson is penalized for "grounding" in a so-called "bunker" ... NBA players Udonis Haslem and Lance Stephenson are in midseason form ... and the Giants' Jonathan Sanchez can't make good on his bold prediction.

WRITTEN BY: Jordan Schultz

Survey USA Poll Gives California Marijuana Initiative Ten Point Lead

The latest California poll shows support for Proposition 19, the initiative to tax and regulate marijuana in the state, at 50% - with 40% in opposition.

Support for Proposition 19, California's Tax and Regulate Cannabis marijuana legalization initiative is at 50% in the latest Survey USA poll, which was released today. The figure is unchanged from last month's Survey USA poll.

Some 40% of respondents opposed the initiative, which would allow Californians 21 or over to possess up to an ounce of weed and to grow up to 25 square feet worth. The initiative would also give counties and municipalities the local option of permitting, taxing, and regulating marijuana sales and cultivation.

Survey USA contacted 1,000 adult Californians, found 837 of them registered to vote, and polled 602 of them it considered most likely to vote. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.1%

This poll is in line with other recent polls, including one we reported on earlier this week that had support for a general marijuana legalization question at 51%. Like other recent telephone polls, today's Survey USA poll shows higher levels of support for legalization than the face-to-face polls, suggesting that some potential voters are reluctant to say they support a controversial idea like legalization, but may do so in the privacy of the voting booth.

Support for Prop 19 was stronger among men (55%) than women (45%), stronger among people under 50 (55%) than over (45%), and stronger among Democrats (60%) and independents (53%) than Republicans (36%). Prop 19 garnered majority support from blacks (54%) and whites (51%), but not Hispanics (45%) or Asians (44%).

Not particularly surprisingly, support for legalization correlates with support for liberal positions on other social issues. More than three-quarters (76%) of people who described themselves as liberals supported Prop 19, while only 27% of conservatives did. Nearly two-thirds of people who oppose the Tea Party (64%) and support abortion rights (65%) said they would vote for Prop 19. But the measure also won majority support from both gun owners (54%) and non-gun owners (51%).

Geographically, the poll showed the strongest support for Prop 19 in the Greater Los Angeles area (56%) and the San Francisco Bay area (53%). Support dropped under 50% in the Central Valley (45%) and in inland Southern California (38%).

Most of the polls so far have shown Prop 19 leading, but having a tough time getting over the 50% mark. Still, that suggests that Prop 19 can get to that magical 50% plus one by winning over even a very small percentage of undecided voters -- so long as it can keep the voters that it has and get them to the polls.

By Phillip Smith, Stop the Drug War (DRCNet)

Lawmakers Ready to Approve Use of Medical Marijuana

Medical marijuana will be available in Germany soon, with the centre-right coalition preparing to make groundbreaking changes to drug laws, a government health spokeswoman said this week.

Doctors could write prescriptions for cannabis, and pharmacies would be authorised to sell the plant once the law had been adjusted, a member of the junior coalition party, the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), said Monday.

Marijuana would also be permitted for use as a pain reliever for the terminally ill in hospices and other care facilities, making it a legal part of their emergency pain-relief stocks.

“With this, the sickest people will always have a pain-relieving substance available,” said Ulrike Flack, the FDP’s health policy spokesperson.

The new law will end a long-running struggle between German officials, doctors and health insurers over use of the proven herbal therapy for treating the pain stemming from diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis.

According to the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines (ACM), only 40 patients in the country are currently allowed a medical marijuana prescription – even though law enforcement generally tolerates small amounts for personal use.

Almost two years ago, the conservative Christian Democrats, the FDP and the centre-left Social Democrats all voted against loosening medical marijuana laws. Opponents had warned of the drug’s alleged potential for addiction and doubted its medical benefits.

- Article from The Local

Israeli Pot Smokers Say They Are Persecuted, Demand Investigation

More than 50 Israeli citizens contact government with a request that it look into 'waste of tax money' on police searches of them.

"Investigate the disproportionate investment of resources in going after marijuana consumers," asked dozens of Israelis of State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss on Sunday in a letter.

The letter, which bore dozens of signatures, starts off with a personal appeal. "I am 32-years-old, a combat officer in reserves, a manager on a government network, hold a Bachelors Degree with honors from Hebrew University. In short, I am a normative person and a contributing and tax-paying citizen. Unfortunately, the taxes I pay are used to persecute me and make me into a criminal without me having harmed anyone."

The letter noted that "tens of hundreds of thousands of entirely normative people smoke marijuana" and that the police "are doing everything in their capacity to persecute them."

The letter's authors claimed that the persecution has intensified in recent weeks, with the police searching private homes.

Fifty-six citizens signed the letter, complaining of body searches on passersby. They also noted that a man was recently apprehended for smoking a joint by undercover policemen during his beach wedding. "Where were these policemen when Arik Karp was murdered on the beach?" wondered the letter's signatories, claiming that the war against them is coming at the expense of the war on gruesome crimes.

The letter also made note of marijuana's medical benefits, and gave the lenient enforcement policy towards marijuana smokers in Europe, Canada, and the US.

Omer, one of the letter's authors, explained in a conversation with Ynet, "A stigma has been created around marijuana consumers – druggies. I contribute to society and have never harmed anyone, but it's enough for me to smoke a joint and be caught, and I immediately have a criminal record."

The letter also claimed that the said persecution pushes marijuana smokers into the hands of drug dealers, where they are exposed to harder drugs.

The letter emphasized that it does not seek to change the laws against smoking marijuana, but rather to point out the waste of resources in enforcing it.

State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss' office responded, "The state comptroller received the letter and will examine it."

- Article from Ynetnews on August 15, 2010.