Marijuana Advocates Look to National Agenda

Marijuana Advocates Look to National Agenda
November 10, 2008

News Summary

Sensing momentum after the recent decriminalization success in Massachusetts, marijuana advocates are focusing on a national legalization agenda, the Boston Globe reported Nov. 8.

A bill introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that would decriminalize possession of up to 3.5 ounces of marijuana in the U.S. is cited as a starting point for hearings and discussion of the issue on a national level.

"We anticipate the bill will be reintroduced fairly early in the next session," said Keith Stroup, legal counsel and founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), who added that the expectation is for "legislative hearings this session, and maybe a vote on the floor of the House."

Frank said that much more time is needed before legislators would be willing to take a stand on the issue, however. "This is a case of people being ahead of the politicians," Frank said.

Residents of Massachusetts voted on Nov. 4 to make possession of up to an ounce of marijuana a civil infraction punishable by a $100 fine, joining Maine, New York, California, North Carolina, Oregon, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska and Nevada to become the 13th state in the U.S. to decriminalize marijuana possession. Similar efforts are under legislative discussion in New Hampshire and Vermont.

Some activists suggest that decriminalization efforts jeopardize the broader goal of marijuana legalization. "Decriminalization does make it easier on the people who get caught, but it makes it harder to get activists on board to change the laws," said Don Christen, founder of Maine Vocals and Maine Citizens for Medical Marijuana.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Chip on 10 Nov 08 08:11 PM EST

This is a great start and it's about time. The big picture is this; decriminalizing all drugs would decrease the amount of violent crime tremedously. The violence stems from the outrageously inflated prices caused by the drugs being illeagle. Just as with alcohol in the 1920's gangsters amassed huge fortunes on a product that has a demand with no supply. Decriminalizing drugs would take the incomes away from the gangs that are rampant in our cities today. Without the financial rewards it would be much easier for other organizations to give oppertunities for young people to get involved. A large part of the drug appeal is that people are dissilutioned with the inequality of our society. There is now some hope that the new administration is going to do something about this. It would be nice to know that my grandmother would not be mugged for her S.S.I. check by some poor guy that has a $100 a day drug habit instead of it costing him $5 and he goes to a job that pays him a fair wage instead not enough to live on.

Posted by jerry jan on 12 Nov 08 10:02 AM EST

Chip, the points you raise are common misconceptions about violence and the drug trade. By far the most violence arises, not from "gang turf wars" and such, but on the consumer level - from the aftermath of drug usage. That is, the activities connected with what happens after the drug sale to the consumer - crimes committed while under the influence and crimes committed in order to finance future purchases. You mention the hypothetical "poor guy" who mugs your grandmother. Decriminalizing all drugs will do nothing to stop him from using substances to the point he cannot hold down any job, decent wage or not.

Posted by John from Oceanside on 12 Nov 08 10:37 AM EST

Chipper you can be the guy that hires that $100 a day habit guy and see how long you stay in business, your customers will love to see him nodding on the counter.

Posted by Nikkole on 12 Nov 08 12:23 PM EST

Yeah, because there is no one addicted to alcohol that commits crimes to support their habits or while under the influence today, right, Chip? Now that it's no longer illegal, there are no problems associated with alcohol, right? Come on... While alcohol prohibition may have increased the strength and fortunes of the gangsters and mafia, its abuse among the general public was more limited in terms of the number of people who used at that time. Not saying it would for sure, but what if the decriminalization of marijuana and especially "all drugs" as you advocate COULD cause their use to spread more widely than its current scope. While decriminalization MIGHT reduce some of the crime associated with the drug trade, it could also offset any such reduction by an increase in the number of people suffering abuse, unable to hold jobs and therefore turning to criminal activity just to support their habits. This could result in a flat line in terms of the overall violence, or perhaps even a net increase. Are you prepared to live with that if that would be the result? Do you really want the US to experiment in such a reckless way with so many lives?

Posted by jerry jan on 12 Nov 08 12:34 PM EST

I agree with John from Oceanside and Nikkole. the problems caused by the use of a legal drug, alcohol, is certainly no justification for allowing greater access to other drugs. Do we really want a nation even more sedated than it already is? John from Oceanside - is that the east coast Oceanside (my hometown)?

Posted by Phil on 12 Nov 08 12:37 PM EST

Jerry Jan, can you provide any evidence that most violence associated with drugs is "in the aftermath of drug use." I think that is mistaken. I recall the study by Reinarman, et al of "drug-related" violence in NYC in the cracked out 1980s. They found the vast majority of "drug-related" violence was in fact "prohibition-related" (the Al Capone effect), with a smaller percentage being acquistive thefts by junkies, and the smallest factor being biopharmacological. Nikkole, you argue that making drugs legal would increase drug use and the problems associated with it. Any evidence for that? Are you going to start snorting coke if it becomes legal? The US has one of the toughest drug enforcement regimes in the Western world, yet we have one of the highest drug use rates, too. Doesn't seem like prohibition is working in that respect, so why should we continue to pay the price for all the negative consequences of prohibition?

Posted by jerry jan on 12 Nov 08 12:52 PM EST

Phil, good question and yes I can provide references for data that back up my statements, but I can't do so until I return home from my current travels. But stay tuned and I will within the next day or two. Also, there's massive evidence to back up the assertion that easier access equals increased use in populations over time. And greater use in populations indisputably leads to higher incidence of addiction. It seems to me that addiction is the wild card in this debate. How bad would it be? Harm reduction advocates say negligible. In my view, that's a head-in-the-sand stance. If mood-altering substances were made more accessible population-wide, it's very plausible that addiction rates would rise. And addiction rates wouldn't have to rise very much higher than they already are to produce catastrophic consequences.

Posted by Phil on 12 Nov 08 01:03 PM EST

Jerry Jan, I await with bated breath the evidence that most violence/criminality blamed on "drugs" is in fact the result of some biopharmacological process, as opposed to turf wars or acquisitive crime in a market with inflated black market prices. I also await any evidence that removing prohibition would result in a big jump in drug consumption. Since the whole world is locked in the global prohibition regime, real world examples are hard to come by. But we can look at the Dutch experience with marijuana. Consumption rates have been declining despite the easy availability of weed there. I think people who advocate prohibition have to justify why they would deprive other people of their freedom based solely on the substances they use. I don't think it is justifiable.

Posted by John from Oceanside on 12 Nov 08 01:17 PM EST

Jerry no I'm out here in where all stupid ideas come from California. We were able to stop Prop 5 last week, I think Californians are finally getting a clue.

Posted by CarlC. on 13 Nov 08 04:00 PM EST

After reading the various viewpoints it made me ponder a thought. For arguments sake let's say some drugs were legalized. And basde on the current climate of drug users, as I once was, is someone who is able to go purchase drugs daily for say $5 going to be satisfied with that 'fix'? or will they want more? which is likely the case? (as I most certainly did) which at that point is where the crime tends to happen. As a SAC just about all who have used/abused drugs have committed a crime or two. How do we address that? Even potheads commit crimes.

Posted by Gersh on 14 Nov 08 09:01 AM EST

CarlC; Is anyone using Vicoden, that is prescribed by a doctor, more likely to commit a crime? Just because they have vicoden? There is a world of drugs that people can legally have prescribed to them that get someone "high." There are a lot of drugs that you can legally purchase without a doctors permission that can get you "high." Do those drugs also fall under your claim of causing people to want more and commit crimes?

Posted by Gersh on 14 Nov 08 11:06 AM EST

Jerry Jan. Do you drink coffee? Coffee is an addictive drug. Does coffee consumption cause crime?

Posted by jerry jan on 14 Nov 08 01:43 PM EST

Gersh, the corrosive effects of addiction are not limited to incidence of crime. Addiction marginalizes a person in many ways. As I observe the way people use caffeine, I would say many are dependent, displaying the signs and symptoms of any addict whose emotional management increasingly depends on use of the chemical. Okay, they don't commit "crimes", but important aspects of their sense of self are compromised. I think that's significant. It's no coincidence that most Americans are sleep deprived. I avoid caffeinated products, though I confess to have used caffeine (one cup of coffee) on late night driving trips maybe twice in the past year. And I've accepted a coca-cola in a social situation on occasion.

Posted by jerry jan on 14 Nov 08 02:19 PM EST

Phil, I'll need to answer you in parts because of the length. I'll start with the latter part of your questions. Before Prohibition, per capita consumption of alcohol was around 2 gallons. Prohibition reduced that by half. After Prohibition per capita consumption rose steadily back up to 2 gallons within ten years. http://alcoholism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=alcoholism&cdn=health&tm=9&f=10&su=p284.9.336.ip_p736.8.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/AlcoholSales/consum01.htm. Here are some references offering data on high school substance use vs. post high school use rates (for both college and non-college 18-24 years olds): http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa29.htm; http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/drug_abuse.shtml.

Posted by jerry jan on 14 Nov 08 02:19 PM EST

The upshot is that illicit drug use doubles once teens enter an environment where use is perceived to be more normative. There seems to be less of a difference for alcohol, probably attributable to more aggressive prevention and demand reduction programs at colleges and universities, not to mention stepped up enforcement of alcohol restriction policies. An interesting treatment of the historic interplay between substance regulation, availability, and social ills can be found in "Hep Cats, Narcs, and Pip Dreams," by Jill Jonnes. Regarding violence and the drug trade, start with the web site for the National Center for Victims of Crime http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32348. Using Bureau of Justice statistics, they conclude that only 20% of arrests (related to "drug offenses," whether that's violent crime, property crime) were systemic to the drug trade - trafficking, distribution, etc. They go on to say though that "it is impossible to say quantitatively how much drugs influence the occurrence of crime." - arrest stats being the most concrete data available.

Posted by jerry jan on 14 Nov 08 02:20 PM EST

The study you cite from the early '80s NYC is, while interesting, not sufficient to draw large conclusions because that period of time was atypical. Crack cocaine was a relatively new product, having an explosive affect on the economies and social institutions involved, that make it unwise to draw any long-term conclusions, much less to base policy on. Here are some other books in the popular literature I've found helpful, maybe you're already familiar: "High Society: by Joseph Califano, "Off the Books" by Sudhir Venkatesh, "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser, "McMafia" by Misha Glenny. It's also worth reading the National Drug Control Strategy, available online. Underground economies don't disappear if their "product" become unprofitable. As you suggested, there is a complex interplay of many social, cultural, and even physiologic factors that contribute to why substance abuse, addiction, and the horrible drug trade exist as they do. I don't doubt the good intentions of people on different sides of this issue, but I think any policy that increases availability of addictive substance to a society is wrong-headed. Thanks for the exchange and sorry for the length of this.

Posted by vparent on 16 Nov 08 09:16 PM EST

jerryjan, the stats you published from the NIH on alcohol consumption before and after prohibition do not indicate that prohibition "reduced [consumption] by half." There are no stats listed for the years during prohibition because it is impossible to monitor illegal consumption. Therefore, as those stats are displayed, no conclusion can be drawn about consumption during prohibition. It is possible that consumption rose, dropped, or remained level during those years, according to the statistics you cited.

Posted by jerry jan on 16 Nov 08 09:24 PM EST

No, vparent, there's quite a bit of supporting data - public health markers like reduced alcohol-related hospital admissions, etc. From a public health perspective, Prohibition had some good points.

Posted by vparent on 17 Nov 08 06:56 PM EST

jerryjan - you may be able to make a good argument for that, but you seem to have difficulty citing the information you paraphrase. My comment was specifically about the stats you cite which do not support your argument. This is a problem many people have. They make generalizations as though quoting expert material, but then are not able to provide the citations that support those assertions. I'm not saying they don't exist or that you haven't encountered them, I'm just saying that for the purposes of the argument you are making in this comment section, you made an inference from the source your cited that was inappropriate. Your response again is just a simple negation of my comment and then more generalizations without evidence.

Officials Scramble to Comply with Mass. Marijuana Decriminalization

Mass. Mulls New Marijuana Bureaucracy

Mass. Towns Seek Ban on Public Marijuana Use

Mass. Towns Seek Controls Over Public Marijuana Use

ONDCP: What Americans Need to Know About Marijuana

Non-Medical Marijuana III: Rite of Passage or Russian Roulette?