So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[AFK]

Of course I do suppose that in your line of work the "probably neither is right" assumption is not a very useful or productive one, so you have to make an informed decision and pick a position. However, just because you have to take a position doesn't suddenly make that position more right, or even just as right as the position that "both may be likely and it's kind of hard to say".

Well my position is easy because marijuana IS illegal.  And whether it is legal or illegal it still has the same impacts on adolescents who use it.  I don't concern myself, in my day to day job, with what might be years from now.  My discussions here are my personal opinions informed by my professional experience.  But in my day to day job, marijuana is illegal, many kids are using and getting addicted, and so that is what I'm dealing with.  The here and now. 

[AFK]

there is a movement brewing amongst some college and university Presidents to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  Anyone want to guess why University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18?

Personally, in the Netherlands, I always thought it was a very sensible idea for people to learn to deal with alcohol first (beer at 16), and only get their driver's license later (18).

Cause you wouldn't go to driving lessons while drunk. But you might come to the bad idea to drive home after your first "alcohol lessons", cause you already been driving for 5 years, after all and know you can handle that car.

And by the way the reason the University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18 is to lower their exposure to liability lawsuits.  Which is a giant red flag as why you don't want to lower the drinking age.  Their motivation is based upon their knowledge of what happens when someone 18-20 does drink. 

It may only rise 4 or 5%.  But when you multiply that by the number of young people in the US, that becomes a lot of kids.  Even a 3% increase would be a lot of kids.  So on a percentage basis it may seem marginal, but when you look at the raw number, it would impact many lives.

That's usage, or kids that actually waste their lives due to abuse cause they get access?

And how much would that be in absolute numbers?

What if you offset that to the absolute numbers of kids that currently get into trouble due to marihuana use with their career plans or college plans (like you said), broken families cause dad went to jail / lost his job / house bashed in or whatever it is they do?

In my experience that is overstated and over dramatized.  And I would further argue that states where kids are getting into that level of trouble with the law, and who are having their houses "bashed in" have bad enforcement policies that need to be more sensible.  I'll repeat what I've said many times now.  The solution to bad enforcement policies is not legalizing the substance.  It is advocating for better and more sensible enforcement policies. 

Because if I understand you correctly, you say that one must be higher than the other. If you'd show us the figures, I think you'd convince a lot of people ITT (myself included, pertaining to legalisation of weed in the USA, that is).

If you have a sensible enforcement policy in place, yes one would likely be higher than the other.  And yes, Maine is rather progressive when it comes to these policies and we are probably far ahead of the curve in that area.  So the solution I would advocate for is for other states to employ Maine models and to do a better job of helping kids and not throwing the book at them. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.

Well my experience with the "repressive laws" is they've been the impetus to get kids straight.  We've had countless kids who've gone through our residential program, or our outpatient program, or our drug court program who've gone on to college and become very successful.  And many of them will tell you, if they hadn't got caught, if they hadn't been referred to one of these programs, they'd still be doing the drugs and going nowhere.  And I know the experience of my agency is not unique and that those stories are told all across the US.  

I don't see how decriminalization or legalization would do any of the following things:
• cause treatment programs to evaporate
• make it legal for underage people to get high
• increase access to marijuana to minors

What seems to have happened in the Netherlands is that the coffee houses ran the underground dealers out of business. If I'm not mistaken, it's much more effective to monitor the flow of pot and bust businesses that sell to underage people rather than hoping to keep tabs on every last goon actively working to avoid detection that may or may not have an ethical bone in his body.

"It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation..." sounds awfully disingenuous. They came to a conclusion that is incompatible with your claim about a nation's drug policy being connected to rates of using marijuana.

Yes, and I think their conclusions are inconclusive.  I don't believe they properly took into consideration all of the variables that influence prevalence. 

This still sounds disingenuous. As a social scientist, you know that all the variables that influence prevalence cannot be taken into consideration.

What makes your conclusions MORE conclusive?

I also did not claim that the ONDCP fabricated anything. I said they lied. And to further clarify, they lied by omission. Yes it's true that there was an increase in usage by young people after it was made available in coffee shops, but the nature of that use was experimental not chronic and abusive. Most did not continue using it. And, the increase in usage fit with trends of use in other nations with very different drug policies. Not only is it a lie by omission but also a fine example of the ex post facto fallacy.

But, um, no.  It is not a lie to report that usage went up when usage went up.  What you are quibbling about is interpretation of what the data means.  Because you have come to a different conclusion about what the data means compared to the ONDCP does not mean that one of you are lying.  It may mean that one of you is more correct about the interpretation, but that is decidedly different than lying. 

Interpretation of data is not a minor concern. Knowingly taking a piece of data out its larger context, thereby distorting its meaning in fundamental ways is lying and not a valid interpretation. It is a lie by omission.

By the way, I was walking down the street last night and I ripped a massive fart. Milliseconds later, the porch light of the house I walked by went out and a car door slammed.

Part of the research I cited refers to a study done 14 years ago—that doesn't invalidate their findings. More recently conducted studies are included in the research I linked to which also support the author's conclusion. If you have evidence that competes with it, or demonstrates some sort of error in their methodology, let's see it.

I think it is an incomplete study and one that, as I said, didn't properly take into consideration many variables that impact substance usage.  Things are different in 2009 than they were in 1995.  While usage has been trending down in the past year or so amongst adolescents, it is certainly higher than it was in 1995.  But I cannot ignore what I know about adolescent behavior to fully expect legalization will lead to more adolescents experimenting with and using marijuana. 

What specifically did it not take into consideration?

Again, the research I linked to includes a number of studies, some of which where completed more recently than 1995. These all point to drug policies having little effect on usage rates. You're claiming that criminalizing pot has an effect on reduced rates of usage. I'd like to see how much evidence you have to support this position.

I would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.

Well my experience with the "repressive laws" is they've been the impetus to get kids straight.  We've had countless kids who've gone through our residential program, or our outpatient program, or our drug court program who've gone on to college and become very successful.  And many of them will tell you, if they hadn't got caught, if they hadn't been referred to one of these programs, they'd still be doing the drugs and going nowhere.  And I know the experience of my agency is not unique and that those stories are told all across the US. 

How does growing up with a dad in jail help kids out? How do fines that seriously effect low income families, help kids out? How does a multi-billion dollar trade get monitored for the most serious abuses (selling to kids) when all but the most petty pot dealers have a serious incentive to stay off the radar?

I don't doubt for a minute that you have massively benefited the kids who have gone through your agency and many others. But I also don't see your work as contingent on criminalizing marijuana either.

[LMNO]

I don't see how decriminalization or legalization would do any of the following things:
• cause treatment programs to evaporate
• make it legal for underage people to get high
• increase access to marijuana to minors

I can answer that last one.  Imagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I don't see how decriminalization or legalization would do any of the following things:
• cause treatment programs to evaporate
• make it legal for underage people to get high
• increase access to marijuana to minors

I can answer that last one.  Imagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

Yes, and that's why the Prohibition was a shining success.

There was no black market run by the Mafia and other violent, experienced criminals.

And if there was an explosion in organized crime, they were the kind of decent lads to only sell to people of age.

Yeah!

I also heard that during the Prohibition bar stools were made up of a larger ratio of empty space to atomic particles.

[LMNO]

Um, you're overthinking this.


If pot were available in every 7-11* in the country, and could be sold to any 21-year old, it would be far easier for a 12-year-old kid to get access to pot than it is right now; much like beer currently is.  If beer were illegal, and could not be purchased in every 7-11, then it would be more difficult to aquire.


Please note the lack of absolute language in the above.  Kids can still get pot.  The argument is that it would be easier to get pot if made legal, which means more kids could get it more often.









*Which is being used as shorthand for every convenience/liquor store/bodega

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Um, you're overthinking this.


If pot were available in every 7-11* in the country, and could be sold to any 21-year old, it would be far easier for a 12-year-old kid to get access to pot than it is right now; much like beer currently is.  If beer were illegal, and could not be purchased in every 7-11, then it would be more difficult to aquire.


Please note the lack of absolute language in the above.  Kids can still get pot.  The argument is that it would be easier to get pot if made legal, which means more kids could get it more often.









*Which is being used as shorthand for every convenience/liquor store/bodega

Yet, most underage people I know seem to have an easier time getting marijuana than beer... cause a dealer doesn't check your ID.


RWHN, I'll be putting together the quotes you asked for, it will take a bit of time though

Also, I don't think you're unfunny etc... We just disagree on this particular topic. It's cool to disagree.

I think (and it should be more clear when I post with quotes etc) that much of the 'lies' told by the government on this topic fit the example in the last few pages. Cases where we have multiple studies and the US only mentions the bits that are pro-prohibition. That's the giist of what the GAO statement said... whatever the drug czar needs to do to push the current policy is fine, even if that means half-truths, 'interpretations' of data that support their position etc. Just a few weeks ago the current Drug Czar stated that marijuana is dangerous and has 'no medical benefit'. Yet, there are scores of studies which disagree and the FDA must also disagree as Marinol is approved as having medical value.

Only telling part of the truth is not telling the truth. Only quoting studies that agree with your position is not honesty. When the government makes a habit of that, its difficult to trust anything they say on the topic. For Erissake, that's the sort of thing that the last administration appears to have done with the Intel on Iraq. They didn't 'lie', they just interpreted the data differently and ignored the data that didn't support their position because they disagreed with the methodology.

So more stuff coming, but I don't really keep all the quotes etc in a handy notepad, so I'll nee to go get sources etc

HOWEVER, YOU PUNOFABITCH just because we disagree here doesn't mean I think any less of your awesome contributions to the site.   

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, if anyone happens to have access to PDF files, I'll be quoting a lot from the book "Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics," by Appalachian State University Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Matthew Robinson and Associate Professor of Political Science Renee Scherlen. I'm looking for a pdf version, because the copy I borrowed went back to the owner who now lives in Louisiana.

I should probably just buy a copy, but its $60.

So if a PDF is found, please link it so we can all read it.


UPDATE: Amazon had it for under $30, so I'll have a copy by Friday. Still looking for a PDF copy though, I don't want anyone accusing me of cherry picking quotes from the book.

[P3nT4gR4m]

1 possible reason kids might get into heroin

Because it's illegal and, therefore, edgy and impressive to their friends. When you're setting yourself up as a smack dealer (non-user) and you want to grow your market and milk the shit out of it till they're all dead, the first thing you do is invite the "cool kids" round for a free taster. You know the cool kids - they steal stuff and break in places and no one fucks with them cos if they do they get hospitalised. Once the cool kids are hooked all the little runts that look up to them are hooked in no time. Smack economy is simple - in order to get your next hit you need cash/valuables and for your average user that means you do some crime and acquire said payment. The guy at the top is a 21st century Fagin with the dope being how he keeps his band of robbers robbing. I know this because a guy I used to run pot for got into selling heroin - he made a fucking fortune and never looked back.

You make drugs legal, you remove this whole scenario. The whole drug economy only works because it's illegal. And the whole drug economy is the only reason kids are being hassled into trying it in the first place.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Imagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

It's not that simple.  If beer were made illegal, a black market would be created for it, and many people who don't make beer now would start making it.  So the difference would be that instead of getting it from stores and bars they would get it from friends and neighbors, and they would no longer need fake IDs.

I'm not trying to say that banning booze would increase kids' access to it.  I don't know whether it would or wouldn't.  I'm just saying that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Also, aside from the question of increasing/decreasing access, illegalization of booze would mean that the government no longer has a say in ingredients or production process, meaning the black market version is potentially more dangerous.  That's probably not a serious issue with black market beer, but it was a big problem with prohibition era distilled spirits, and it's a problem with black market drugs today.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

But, that does seem to be the current trend. In the 1990's particularly, arrests and convictions (at the state level) increased dramatically for simple possession. A study published in 2006 (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524483) had the following result:

The study found that since 1990, the primary focus of the war on drugs has shifted to lowlevel
marijuana offenses. During the study period, 82% of the increase in drug arrests nationally
(450,000) was for marijuana offenses, and virtually all of that increase was in possession offenses.
Of the nearly 700,000 arrests in 2002, 88% were for possession. Only 1 in 18 of these arrests
results in a felony conviction, with the rest either being dismissed or adjudicated as a misdemeanor,
meaning that a substantial amount of resources, roughly $4 billion per year for marijuana alone, is
being dedicated to minor offenses.

(I don't assume these people to be unbiased as they are focused on reducing sentencing etc)

Yet during that same time, ONDCP claimed that these sorts of arrests had decreased, because they used federal statistics. Feds are arresting mostly dealers etc... but local law enforcement is still incarcerating non-violent possession offenders. Maybe thats 'data interpretation', but it seems awfully close to not being truthful.


However, before I sound like a completely paranoid ass, I would like to point out that even the ONDCP now seems to disagree with the past reports by the ONDCP... I just found this summary which has some interesting conclusions and statements... they appear opposite of the ONDCP position over the past several years. This is obviously not a policy paper, but I think it makes some very forward thinking statements which seem MORE IN LINE with most reports I've read... as opposed to past documents which seem at odds with similar reports from other sources.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/20082705/ONDCP-White-Paper-Summary-Email


The last Drug Czar touted how well the Drug War was going. ONDCP published lots of POSITIVE numbers... However, this ONDCP doc now says:

Despite incarcerating millions of Americans and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, illegal drugs remain cheap, potent, and widely available, and the harms associated with them – addiction, overdose, and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C – continue to persist in every community. Meanwhile the war on drugs is creating problems of its own - broken families, increased poverty, wasted tax dollars, prison overcrowding, and eroded civil liberties.  America desperately needs a coherent and compassionate national drug policy that reduces the problems associated with both drugs and the war on drugs.

The ONDCP has over the past decade claimed that most drug violations that result in prison... are SERIOUS OFFENDERS. This ONDCP doc says:

The United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration rates, with less than 5 percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners. The incarcerated population has grown from 500,000 in 1980 to 2.3 million today, of which almost one-fourth are for drug law violations.   In addition, nearly one-third of the roughly 5.1 million probationers and parolees in 2007 were supervised on account of a drug law violation. The U.S. incarcerates more of its citizens for drug law violations than all of Western Europe (with a much larger population) incarcerates for all offenses combined.

The United States lags behind much of the advanced industrialized world, and even many developing nations, in making sterile syringes widely available to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, enacting life-saving overdose prevention policies, ensuring that people with drug-related problems have on-going access to healthcare, and making methadone and other quality drug treatment readily available to those who seek it. When it comes to the most widely used drugs in the U.S. – alcohol and tobacco – comprehensive public health strategies have reduced misuse and saved lives without incarcerating millions of Americans. Applying similar strategies to marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs could reduce the problems associated with those drugs while also reducing incarceration.

Here's a good idea that also flies in the face of past ONDCP documents:

Our country's failed drug policies persist in part because of ineffective evaluation and assessment.  There are two problems.  First, the key measurements - drug seizures, arrests and annual surveys of drug use – tell us little of importance and mostly distract from more important criteria.  Second, many programs persist even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they fail to meet their stated objectives. What is needed are a new set of criteria for evaluating the success or failure of federal drug policies.  Key measurements should focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drugs and prohibitionist policies. Programs proven to be ineffective or counterproductive should be eliminated.

There are many other good statements in this doc, including an admission that the main focus of ONDCP historically was focused on reducing drug use, but that it should instead be focused on reducing harm associated with drug use. They also seem to admit that the current view of all drugs being equally bad is not working:

Whatever one's views on drug use as a moral issue, there should be no argument that certain kinds of drug use are more problematic than others, with some drug use relatively benign in the context of the grave consequences associated with other types of drug use. And yet, ONDCP's historically undifferentiated views on drug use – where marijuana is as serious as methamphetamine – distorts this obvious dimension.  Moreover, ONDCP's focus on drug use rates obscures whether drug policies actually reduce the negative consequences of drug use, such as overdose fatalities or new HIV or hepatitis C infections.

In short this appears to be one of the few documents which I have read that has been produced by someone at ONDCP which agrees with most other studies.... AND DIsagrees with ONDCP's past studies. Up to this point Drug Czars have claimed we're winning, reducing the users, reducing the kids that try it... and now this documents concludes with:

While the Four Pillars model could provide the optimal framework for a national drug policy, implementing such an approach in the United States would be complicated by the daunting task of mitigating the profound consequences of its failed 40-year war on drugs.

I note that the document references Pres. Obama several times, and both he and his current Drug Czar have expressed these views in the past... However, the disparity between the admissions in that document and the 'reports' from the ONDCP in the past seem at odds.

I'll still be digging into a more detailed review of government statements which appear false to me... but I think this sampling here at least indicates that there is some disagreement in the ONDCP about the veracity of their past statements.

That's listed as a "summary email" for a whitepaper by ONDCP. "  The Role of an Effective Office of National Drug Control Policy" August 2009 However, I can't find the full document which may have different conclusions than the available summary. RWHN, if you can get a copy of the full whitepaper I'd love to read it.

[fomenter]

well done Dr rat .... thanks for looking all that up for us....

[Telarus]

I've got some similar news from the United Cannabis Ministries email list that I've been lurking on for quite some time (we can get into the religious use of cannabis later):

-Recently, the AMA (American Medical Assocaition) changed it's stance on the scheduling of cannabis:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-american-medical-association-ea-2009-11-17

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marijuana-ama11-2009nov11,0,3003312.story

The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research.

The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD.

-LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) noticed that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) still claims on its website that, "The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance." So they started an email bombing campaign to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice warning them that they may be in violation of the DATA QUALITY ACT.

-The DEA recently (yesterday or today) removed the offending language, "The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance." from their website.

Interesting developments when put into context by Ratatosk's find.

[AFK]

Sorry.  This was a particularily draining retreat.  I am spent and will not be able to get to the stuff Rat posted today.  I will make an effort sometime later to address what was posted.  I just can't deal with it right now. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sorry.  This was a particularily draining retreat.  I am spent and will not be able to get to the stuff Rat posted today.  I will make an effort sometime later to address what was posted.  I just can't deal with it right now. 

Before we continue this, though... I want to apologize to you. I come to PD.com for the LULZ and the interesting discussions. I would HATE to have to talk about data security all the time. I don't come here to preach legalization or convert bad punsters. If the discussion is draining to you and if its detracting from your enjoyment of pd.com then let's stop the conversation.

There are far too many interesting things we can discuss, to get caught up in a debate that will likely end in frustration for everyone.