The War on Pot

[Danimal]

from The National Review (a conservative magazine)

The War on Pot
Wrong drug, wrong war.

As the nation's "drug czar," John Walters is supposed to be saving us from the ravages of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. At least that was the original sales pitch for the "war on drugs" in the 1980s. But the war has evolved into largely a fight against marijuana, which no one has ever claimed is a hard drug. Walters is nonetheless committed, Ahab-like, to arresting every marijuana smoker in the country whom law enforcement can lay its hands on.

It used to be that drug warriors denied that marijuana was much of a focus for them, because they understandably liked people to think they were cracking down on genuinely dangerous, highly addictive drugs. No more. We are waging a war on pot, a substance less addictive and harmful than tobacco and alcohol, which presumably friends of Walters enjoy all the time with no fear of being forced to make a court appearance.

According to a new report by the Sentencing Project, in a trend Walters heartily supports, annual drug arrests increased by 450,000 from 1990 to 2002. Marijuana arrests accounted for 82 percent of the growth, and 79 percent of that was for marijuana possession alone. Marijuana arrests are now nearly half of all the 1.5 million annual drug arrests. Marijuana-trafficking arrests actually declined as a proportion of all drug arrests during this period, while the proportion of possession arrests increased by two-thirds.

Has the use of other drugs declined, prompting the focus on marijuana? No. According to the Sentencing Project: "There is no indication from national drug-survey data that a dramatic decrease in the use of other drugs led to law-enforcement agencies shifting resources to marijuana. Indeed, there was a slight increase in the use of all illicit drugs by adult users between 1992 and 2001. Over that same period, emergency-room admissions for heroin continued to increase." Drug warriors simply think it's a good thing in and of itself to arrest marijuana smokers.

Their crusade bears little or no connection to law enforcement. Crime generally has been declining from 1990 to 2002, even as pot arrests have increased. Are we to believe that crime is at its lowest rates in 30 years, but the nation is beset by rampaging marijuana smokers who are kept under minimal control only by ever-increasing arrests? Every major county in the country, except Fairfax, Va., saw an increase in marijuana arrests during the past 12 years. That Washington, D.C., suburb has not been notably overrun by hemp-crazed hordes.

The fight against marijuana isn't even working on its own terms. According to the Sentencing Project, since 1992, the price of marijuana has fallen steadily, declining by 16 percent. In 1990, 84.4 percent of high-school seniors said it was easy to get marijuana. In 2002, 87.2 percent said it was easy. Daily use by high-school seniors tripled from 1990 to 2002, going from 2.2 percent to 6 percent — the same level as in 1975.

As Allen F. St. Pierre, executive director of the pro-decriminalization group NORML, puts it, "Increased arrest rates are not associated with reduced marijuana use, reduced marijuana availability, a reduction in the number of new users, reduced treatment admissions, reduced emergency-room mentions, any reduction in marijuana potency, or any increases in the price of marijuana." Besides that, the war on marijuana is a smash success.

Marijuana is not harmless, and its use should be discouraged, but in the same way, say, smoking a pack of cigarettes a day should be discouraged. The criminal-justice system should stay out of it. Twelve states have decriminalized marijuana to varying degrees, fining instead of arresting people for possessing small amounts. They recognize that — as the authors of a new study for the conservative American Enterprise Institute argue — "the case for imposing criminal sanctions for possession of small amounts of marijuana is weak."

John Walters, of course, will have a ready answer for the ineffectiveness of the war on marijuana. It's the answer drug warriors always have — even more arrests.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

[Marcus]

yep, it's absurd.

[Speargun]

...We are waging a war on pot, a substance less addictive and harmful than tobacco and alcohol....

I have call BS on that one.
The only reason alcohol is more dangerous is because it is legal and can be bought at any corner store and is used by more people.
Tobacco is the same.
If pot was legal and as accessable as tobacco & alcohol, I think people would realize that it's worse than either.

Only in America can someone sue the tobacco company because cigarettes gave them cancer, then turn around and fight to have pot legalized.

[Danimal]

Originally Posted by Speargun

I have call BS on that one.
The only reason alcohol is more dangerous is because it is legal and can be bought at any corner store and is used by more people.

I call BS on you calling BS on that one!

Alcohol has been proven dangerous in any number of documented, peer-reviewed studies (I can link some if you want). Long-term use can destroy the liver or stomach, kill brain cells, and do any other number of nasty things. Cigarettes, too -- the scientific evidence is there. That doesn't stop me from drinking beer and dipping Skoal, though (and don't smoke pot)

There's no such evidence for pot. It has more tar per inhalation than cigarettes, but fewer carcinogens. More saliently, there's alot fewer inhalations per use. That is, a smoker might smoke 10 butts a day, but even the most die-hard stoner wouldn't smoke more than 2 or 3 joints a day (and wouldn't be able to function at that level). Pot doesn't cause cancer, doesn't destroy brain cells, and doesn't effect the heart.

If there were, then you'd see the DEA and ONDCP publishing real science instead of propaganda.

[Wayward Son]

They can't, because it can't be researched. It's illegal to use the stuff to do research here, so we're supposed to simply accept what is claimed about it from either side. No way to get independant data on the substance.

Doesn't cause cancer? Really? How do you know? I don't think it's possible to know, but I'd be amazed if it did not, or at least contribute to it. I think it's a safe bet that at least in the past, most pot smokers were also tobacco smokers. So if they got cancer, how would anyone be able to know if that came from one or the other, or both?

How do we, or can we, know that lifetime use of pot is not somehow conected to alzheimers or other brain problems many elderly people suffer with?

I have grave concerns of the trashing of our constitution & rights pursuant to the drug war, no question that the way we've been doing it has been ineffective. I don't particularly care about people smoking pot. But I also don't buy into the whole claim structure that the stuff is harmless, either. Reality is likely somewhere in the middle.

[Danimal]

Hrmm, good point on the cancer thing, Wayward Son -- you can't directly research the immediate effects of pot in the US. However, there are any number of epidemiological studies on long-term pot smokers, and none (that I can find) have any mention of cancer. Futhermore, I can't find any in countries that do allow such research. I'm gonna call this one the dog that doesn't bark -- if there were any such evidence, then the ONDCP would be blaring it from the rooftops.

re:alzheimers and other brain studies: all the research I've found has suggest the only neurological effects are on IQ -- and that hardly strikes me as surprising. "Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."
Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Cannabis," Current Opinion in Pharmacology, Feb. 2005, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 71.


In any event, I agree with you on the more important point: "I have grave concerns of the trashing of our constitution & rights pursuant to the drug war, no question that the way we've been doing it has been ineffective."

[WreckDiver]

Probably cause you didnt try hard enough,

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

Heres one. I found a whole bunch of studys, We (America) test Illegal items constantly.

Hell I tested my share when I was younger

Pot doesn't cause cancer

If you HONESTLY believe that then you need to pack up another bowl buddy and toke away. Next time you take a pull off the bong, bowl, or spliff, pull your shirt out and blow the smoke through it. Then do the same with a cigarette and compare the two, you'll be very surprised.

The only reason alcohol is more dangerous is because it is legal and can be bought at any corner store and is used by more people.

I have to call BS on that statement. First of all alcohol effects your judgment, fine motor coordination, and reaction time. During that time a person is happy, talkative, boastful. Soon afterwards it begins to effect your motor coordination and reflexes. Now you're staggering, have slurred speech, feeling nauseated and or possibly vomiting. Drink some more and you can lose all sensation, movement, and self-protective reflexes - better known as comatosed and possibly on the verge of losing your ability to even breathe.

You can smoke all the pot you want in a 24 hr period and never even come close to those conditions.

Ever heard of MAHD??? Neither have I cause Mothers Against High Drivers doesn't exist.

[WreckDiver]

Originally Posted by NsearchOFfish

Ever heard of MAHD??? Neither have I cause Mothers Against High Drivers doesn't exist.

Ok Bryan thats a stretch


Name one mother who is OK with their kids Driving High

[apexpredator]

Sure they can do research. Here (the US) contrary to popular belief is not the only country in the world. There are many places around the world that treat pot as either a decriminalized or completely legal substance. If we look to our neighbors to the north (Canada) there is a large population from which the data can and is gathered. As it was said before if there was ANY evidence of a link of cancer or heart disease (or any other serious health effect) linked to pot then the DEA and the government would beat that drum till the public went deaf. If you don't believe that then ask yourself why they would go to the length of making commercials that suggests that smoking a joint is parallel to fueling up the planes used in the 9-11 attacks.

The war on drugs is a miserably failed policy that drains our legal and penal system. Maybe we would have more space for violent criminals if we werent so busy locking up recreatinal drug users. When Nancy Regan began with the just say no campaign it was in response to crack and the cocaine cowboys. Here we are almost 25yrs later and I would dare to wager that there are not only more illicit drugs entering this country but their value is also greater than ever before. The corruption and violence steming from the black market born from a self imposed prohibition on drugs reaches the highest levels of government both here and abroad. When speaking recently to a Jamaican native whos family is involved in politics he described it (drug prohibition money/violence) as the number one threat to political and social stability in the caribbean.

[Wayward Son]

Yeah, that is a govt agency. Private researchers here have been denied permission to work with the stuff. This has been a part of the fight to legalize it for medical uses in various states. The feds position is that "it has no medical uses", and when private researchers have sought permision to work with it, they have been denied. The position is that they (the feds) have established that it has no medically useful purpose and that's that.

If this were handled in accordance with the constitution, the federal govt would have relatively little to do with it. They should be enforcing import/export, and have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The rest belongs in the hands of the individual states. CA and AZ wnat to legalize it in some form? Fine. NM and TX keep it criminalized? Fine. Each state passes the laws that its citizens supports. If it's such an aching issue to someone, they can relocate to a state that is more in accord with what they want. Or try to get the citizens in their state to agree to change things.

[apexpredator]

Waward I fully agree with you that this is an issue that should be regulated by the states. The federal government should not involve itself in the matter. There are several states that have legalized medical marijuana and the government constantly threatens to step in and intervene with laws that have been implimented by the residents of that state. I personally know someone who owes their life (at least the last 20+yrs of it) to medical marijuana. Not only that but that persons quality of life has improved so dramatically that it is hard to imagine what their life would be like without their medicine. That person and many like them live in constant fear that the goverment will step in because it finds medical marijuana is a threat to their complete control of these substances. Another reason they cite is that the federal government does not want anyone to associate anything positive coming from a susbstance they have been working to vilify for decades.

[Wayward Son]

One problem I have with the medicalization crowd is that they often operate fraudulently. I was living in AZ when this made it to the ballot twice. In both cases, George Soros was the big money behind it, and both times the proposed law as written was not what it was presented to be. Yet it was so heavily funded that people trying to get the facts out about it were totally outshouted, and it passed both times.

A simplistic sample of what I'm talking about is this: The law legalized not just pot, but ALL controlled substances. If a doctor wants to prescribe it, crystal meth or crack cocain are now legal as well as heroin or anything else, for undefined "medicinal purposes". Yet to listen to voters talk about it, they were mostly unaware of this. The general understanding was that the law would legalize pot by prescription for cancer patients & such.

1st off, from my POV, if Soros is attached to it, it prolly isn't a real good deal. 2nd, if it was such a good deal, why not be upfront about what it is you're really going to do? Why all the hard work to keep the focus on pot, change it away from other drugs no matter what it take, if what you really want is an informed citizenry to make an informed choice? Didn't pass my smell test.

But all that is a seperate set of issues from the federal war on drugs, and pot specifically.

[chasintail]

Originally Posted by NsearchOFfish

If you HONESTLY believe that then you need to pack up another bowl buddy and toke away. Next time you take a pull off the bong, bowl, or spliff, pull your shirt out and blow the smoke through it. Then do the same with a cigarette and compare the two, you'll be very surprised.

You been performing a self study?

[WreckDiver]