There is a global movement towards recognizing that drug prohibition is a failed social policy. It is now time to explore how we will regulate the market for all currently illegal drugs. Specifically, what kind of models should we use in a post-prohibition world? This survey is intended to be a detailed exploration of this question.
Enjoy / think / share.
View the results so far.
DrugSense FOCUS Alert #457 – Wednesday, September 29th, 2010
Today the Los Angeles Times printed an OPED you may wish to forward
to your conservative friends.
You may forward this FOCUS Alert. You may also email any FOCUS Alert
from this webpage http://www.mapinc.org/focus/
Please also consider writing a letter to the editor about this OPED.
Professor Miron’s Cato Institute study is on line at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf
by Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock
State and federal governments in the United States face massive looming fiscal deficits. One policy change that can reduce deficits is ending the drug war. Legalization means reduced expenditure on enforcement and an increase in tax revenue from legalized sales.
This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government.
Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs.
The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs.
Drug Policy Question of the Week – 9-29-10
As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 9-29-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3083
Question of the Week: How many people arrested just for possessing marijuana?
The Federal Bureau of Investigation compiles arrest data through a system called the “Uniform Crime Reporting Program.” This system collects data for 29 different offenses as submitted to it by law enforcement agencies. The annual report generated from these data called “Crime in the United States – 2009” was released on September 15th.
In 2009, there were an estimated 13.7 million arrests in the United States. This total was down by -2.3% over the same total for 2008. Over the 14-year span from 1996 to 2009, all arrests totaled more or less the same number.
In 2009, there were an estimated 1.7 million arrests for drug abuse violations, representing the total arrests for all illegal drugs. This total, too, was down by -2.3% over the prior year and was more or less the same sum as fourteen years ago.
In 2009, there were an estimated 858 thousand arrests for marijuana, including simple possession, trafficking, and sales. This total was up by +1.2% over the prior year. However, marijuana’s percentage of total drug arrests has grown from about a 40% to over 50% during the fifteen year 1995-2009 period.
In 2009, 88% of marijuana arrests or 759 thousand were for simple possession, representing a jump from about a third to about a half of all drug abuse violation arrests over the last fourteen years. The fourteen-year average annual growth rate for marijuana arrests of +3.1% contrasts starkly to the negligible growth rates for total drug arrests and for all arrests.
These facts and others like them can be found in the Marijuana chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.
Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected].
Drug Policy Question of the Week – 9-19-10
As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 9-19-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3070
Question of the Week: Is today’s marijuana more potent?
The DEA states on it’s website that,
“Although marijuana grown in the United States was once considered inferior because of the low concentration of THC, advancements of plant selection and cultivation have resulted in higher THC contained in domestic marijuana.”
A 2004 report called, “An Overview of Cannabis Potency in Europe,” from the EMCDDA [European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction] says that,
“The information on which the claims have greatly increased cannabis potency have been made is not always clear.”
To clarify the issue, officials in the United Kingdom have issued the “Home Office Cannabis Potency Study 2008.” It found that,
“The mean THC concentration potency in sesamia samples was 16.2%” and that the “mean THC concentrations potency of traditional imported cannabis samples was 8.4%.”
From the last 420 Drug War News show, we recall that the Dr. ElSohly of the University of Mississippi has been analyzing seized cannabis samples since 1985. Potency percentages from his 2009 report are currently listed as Fact #14 in the Drug War Facts Marijuana chapter.
Using the data to reduce peaks and valleys, finds a three year average potency from 2005-2008 for sensimilla was 11.2% THC and for herbal marijuana, 5.8% THC. The three year average percentage change in cannabis potency was +3.9% for commercial marijuana and –1.3% for sensimilla.
That European Monitoring Centre Report explains the difference between the US and British data by concluding that,
“It most be assumed that the quality of herbal cannabis consumed in the US more than 20 years ago was unusually poor but that in recent years, it has risen to levels typical of Europe.”
These facts and others like them can be found in the Marijuana chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.
Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected].
With the recent release of the FBI’s 2009 Uniform Crime Report numbers, the Crime and Marijuana Chapters of Drug War Facts have been updated with these additions:
Fact 2. (2009, 2008, 2007, 1973 – drug arrests) “In 2009, arrests for drug law violations declined slightly (-2.3%) to 1,663,582. A small decrease also occurred in alcohol violations to 1,440,409 for Driving under the influence, 570,333 for liquor law violations, and 594,300 for drunkenness. Violent crime arrests in 2009 equaled 581,765, with 1,728,285 arrests for property crimes. Arrests for all offenses totaled 13,687,241, down -2.3% over 2008.”
Fact 3. (1980-2009 – total, marijuana and drug arrests by year) “Although the intent of a “War on Drugs” may have been to target drug smugglers and ‘King Pins,’ over half (51.6%) of the 1,663,582 total 2009 arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana — a calculated total of 858,408. Of those, an estimated 758,593 people (45.6%) were arrested for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000, a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.”
This aforementioned table lists Total Arrests, Total Drug Arrests, Total Marijuana Arrests, Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests, Marijuana Possession Arrests, Total Violent Crime Arrests, and Total Property Crime Arrests by year since 1995 and including numbers for 1990 and 1980. All of these values have been validated against their source reports, with each of their URLs referenced in the citation … that’s with the exception of 1990 and 1980, which are only available by hard copy.
Fact 4. (1995-2009 – marijuana arrests percent share of total drug arrests by year) “The following table references the drug and marijuana arrests columns in the “US Arrests” table. It pairs “Total Marijuana Arrests,” “Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests,” and “Marijuana Possession Arrests” against “Total Drug Arrests” to arrive at the percentage each has of the total for the respective years. This table shows the growing dominance of marijuana arrests among total drug arrests in the U.S., rising from a percentage of 39.9% of total drug arrests in 1995 to 52.6% of such arrests in 2009. Further, while arrests for sales and trafficking have wavered a few percentage points around 5-6% of total drug arrests, the numbers driving marijuana’s increased dominance of drug arrests are those for simple possession, jumping from 34.1% in 1995 to 45.6% in 2009. Arrests for marijuana possession have risen from about a third to about a half of all drug abuse violation arrests over the fifteen year 1995-2009 period.”
The referenced table lists percentages calculated form the aforementioned “U.S. Arrests” table.
Fact 5. (1996-2009 – drug and marijuana arrests percent change over prior year) “The following table references the total, drug, and marijuana arrest columns in the “US Arrests” table. It shows the percentage change over the prior year for “Total Arrests,” “Total Drug Arrests,” “Total Marijuana Arrests,” “Marijuana Trafficking & Sale Arrests,” and “Marijuana Possession Arrests.” Total Arrests in the United States have steadily hovered between 13.6 million and 15.3 million over the fourteen year period (1996-2009), with the annual percent change for that time span averaging -0.7%. Drug arrests have ranged between a low of 1.5 million in 1996 and a high of 1.9 million in 2006, with an average percent change over the fourteen year period of +0.9%. The percentage change values for marijuana arrests confirm their upward trend. Total marijuana arrests in 2009 (858,408) are +45.7% higher than those in 1995 (588,964). The year that the percentage growth in marijuana arrests peaked – 2003 – began a five-year upward trend largely driven by arrests for marijuana possession. For simple possession, the average annual percent change covering 1996-2009 equaled +3.1%; in contrast, that value for trafficking and sales was +1.3%.”
This table, too, references the “U.S. Arrests” table.
These FBI tables and reports document that marijuana has been THE target of the drug war. It is tragic to note that marijuana trafficking and sales arrests stood at their highest value ever of 99,815 for 2009, a +6% increase over 2008. The arrests for marijuana possession of 758,593 in 2009 represented the second highest value in their category.
Source: “Crime in the United States 2009,” FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2010), Table 29, and Arrest Table: Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations, .
On the heels of
yet another study which found that supervised injection sites encourage patrons to seek treatment, the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, an organization funded by the Drug Free America Foundation, whose mission is, among other things, “To advocate no use of illegal drugs and no abuse of legal drugs” and “To oppose legalization of drugs” is complaining to sympathetic media that they are being bullied by harm reduction advocates.
Specifically, the DPNOC’s “Director of Research,” Colin Mangham is upset that his reputation is being damaged by a lawsuit filed against him for “publishing” lies and distortions about InSite, Vancouver’s supervised injection facility, and harm reduction in general, in an online “journal” owned by the DFAF.
I am reminded of Ben Stein’s move “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” in which Stein whined that proponents of “intelligent design” and critics of evolution are being discriminated against in colleges, universities and anywhere else empirical evidence and the scientific method are still respected. At least we know we have them on the back foot for a change.
Supervised injection site epitomizes warped philosophy in Downtown Eastside
By Mark Hasiuk, Vancouver Courier September 15, 2010
[snip]
“The best thing you can say about harm reduction advocates is that they are reductionists–they are reducing a complex human problem to a simple thing,” said David Berner, the newly appointed executive director of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, an abstinence-based organization (soon-to-be headquartered in Vancouver) founded by former Conservative MP Randy White. “We need to get money and human energy back into prevention, education and treatment.”
[snip]
But criticizing Insite can come with a price. In the high stakes world of harm reduction, where government grants provide vital lifeblood, reputations are brutally defended. Critics targeted and bullied.
Just ask Colin Mangham.
Last September, the Portland Hotel Society, co-operators of Insite, slapped a defamation and slander lawsuit on Mangham, a 60-year-old research scientist and addictions expert whose 2007 RCMP-funded report published in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice questioned the findings of Insite researchers. “Statements made about improving public order, saving lives and getting people into detox are misleading and based on data that just isn’t there,” said Mangham, during a recent phone interview from his home in Langley.
[snip]
Where are the transitional fossils? The evidence for common ancestry and decent with modification just isn’t there.
Ten years in, Vancouver’s great harm reduction experiment keeps rolling along, leaving rows of victims in its wake. Addicts get sicker, critics assailed, while an entire neighbourhood rots from the inside out.
Wonder if this is what Philip Owen had in mind?
By Dr. Andrew Weil, Founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine
If an American doctor of the late 19th century stepped into a time warp and emerged in 2010, he would be shocked by the multitude of pharmaceuticals that today’s physicians use. But as he pondered this array (and wondered, as I do, whether most are really necessary), he would soon notice an equally surprising omission, and exclaim, “Where’s my Cannabis indica?”
No wonder — the poor fellow would feel nearly helpless without it. In his day, labor pains, asthma, nervous disorders and even colicky babies were treated with a fluid extract of Cannabis indica, also known as “Indian hemp.” (Cannabis is generally seen as having three species — sativa, indica and ruderalis — but crossbreeding is common, especially between sativa and indica.) At least 100 scientific papers published in the 19th century backed up such uses.
Then the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made possession or transfer of Cannabis illegal in the U.S. except for certain medical and industrial uses, which were heavily taxed. The legislation began a long process of making Cannabis use illegal altogether. Many historians have examined this sorry chapter in American legislative history, and the dubious evidence for Cannabis addiction and violent behavior used to secure the bill’s passage. “Under the Influence: The Disinformation Guide to Drugs” by Preston Peet makes a persuasive case that the Act’s real purpose was to quash the hemp industry, making synthetic fibers more valuable for industrialists who owned the patents.
Meanwhile, as a medical doctor and botanist, my aim has always been to filter out the cultural noise surrounding the genus Cannabis and see it dispassionately: as a plant with bioactivity in human beings that may have therapeutic value. From this perspective, what can it offer us?
Supports Evidence-based Drug Policies
Former RCMP Chief Superintendent, BC Health Officers Council Also Place Community Health and Safety Above the War on Drugs
September 9, 2010 [Victoria, Canada] – Victoria City councillors will vote today to ratify their unanimous endorsement of the Vienna Declaration, a recently released document that highlights the failure of the global ‘War on Drugs’ and calls for a transparent review of the effectiveness of current drug policies.
The City of Victoria voted to endorse the Vienna Declaration at its Governance and Priorities Committee meeting on September 2. With today’s ratification, Victoria will become the second city in Canada to support the Vienna Declaration, which has also been endorsed by Toronto, Ontario and over 17,000 people and organizations.
“Scientific evidence shows that drug use is a public health issue that cannot be resolved through excessive reliance on law enforcement. We require a balanced and evidence-based approach to effectively deal with the issues surrounding illicit drugs,” said Victoria Coun. and acting Deputy Mayor Philippe Lucas.
Widespread endorsement of the Vienna Declaration clearly demonstrates to policymakers and lawmakers the growing public support for an alternative to drug prohibition that is based on sound public health and scientific evidence of what works.