• Letter of the Week

    Letter Of The Week

    WE SHOULD RECONSIDER WHAT’S DRIVING OUR DRUG POLICY

    Bravo to Mary O’Grady for focusing on the economics of U.S. drug
    policy ( “The Economics of Drug Violence,” Americas, Oct. 11 ).

    In 1975 I was the lead Office of Management and Budget person on an
    interagency drug interdiction task force involving the White House
    Office of Drug Policy, the OMB, Justice Department ( Immigration
    Service-Border Patrol and Drug Enforcement Administration ) and
    Treasury ( Customs Service ). We presented conclusions to White
    House staff and to Treasury and Justice leadership based on estimates
    that we were interdicting about 5% of marijuana and about the same
    single-digit percent of “hard” drugs coming across U.S. borders.

    Resources devoted to the drug interdiction strategy were already
    enormous at that time. Officers of the U.S. government ( Border
    Patrol, Customs and DEA ) were actually involved in incidents of
    shooting at each other, in connection with claiming the enforcement
    “turf” between the ports of entry. Moreover, we estimated that a
    doubling of resources devoted to this interdiction task would yield a
    negligible increase in seizures and interdiction effectiveness, with
    a then unknown increase in profit margins to traffickers.

    U.S. drug enforcement policy has been tragically wrong-headed for
    more than a generation for several reasons. Foremost is the failure
    to look at drug policy with an economic, rather than an ideological,
    lens. Our policies of increasing investment in interdiction have
    raised profit margins for narco-terrorists, state-terror groups and
    criminal syndicates. Our policies of increasing “investment” have
    been driven by federal agency union leadership interested in
    increasing membership and the scope of their mission. Our inability
    as a nation to look at the deteriorating world of drug-financed
    terrorism and lawlessness may be the result of our policy of
    incremental increases. We are like the frog in the pot slowly being
    boiled to death. It is certainly a result of our failure to think
    seriously about supply and demand effects of U.S. drug policy.

    Like another conservative economist and observer of our failed
    policy, George Shultz, I favor legalization of marijuana. I will
    vote in favor of Proposition 19 on Nov. 2, as one step in the right
    direction.

    John A. Fisher

    Menlo Park, Calif.

    Pubdate: Thu, 14 Oct 2010

    Source: Wall Street Journal (US)

    Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n826/a02.html

  • Announcements - Cannabis & Hemp

    Medical Marijuana Advocate Michelle Rainey Dies From Cancer

    By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun

    Michelle Rainey

    Prince of Pot Marc Emery’s ex-business partner and blonde bombshell medical marijuana advocate, Michelle Rainey has died from cancer.

    She had lived with Crohn’s Disease since a teenager and in the last years of her life struggled against melanoma and lymphatic cancer.

    Her husband Jef Tek and mother Emilie were at her side, each holding a hand, when she succumbed Wednesday night in spite of last-ditch, high-dosage experimental cannabis treatment.

    The 39-year-old Rainey was the organizational force behind Emery’s pot-based business empire although their relationship deteriorated and they split after being hit with a 2005 U.S. drug-and-money-laundering indictment.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net

    The Drug Czar’s Lack of Vigor (and Rigor)

    By Jacob Sullum

    “People don’t want to see someone jump in from Washington and tell them how to vote,” drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said today while jumping in from Washington and telling Californians how to vote on Proposition 19. Kerlikowske, who visited a drug treatment center in Pasadena, told A.P. the Justice Department might take the advice of nine former DEA administrators and sue to overturn the pot legalization initiative if voters are foolish enough to ignore him. “The letter from the former DEA administrators, a number of whom are not only practicing attorneys but former state attorney generals, made it very clear that they felt that pre-emption was certainly applicable in this case,” Kerlikowske said.

    Not surprisingly, Kerlikowske did not cite any constitutional provision or case law that says California must ban what Congress bans or that states are obligated to punish whatever the federal government punishes. A.P. itself misleadingly frames the issue, saying Prop. 19 “would conflict with federal laws classifying marijuana as an illegal drug.” There is not a conflict simply because a state chooses not to replicate the federal criminal code.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net

    Prop 19: Should Californians Legalize Marijuana?

    On November 2, 2010, California voters will decide whether or not to legalize marijuana.

    If passed, Proposition 19 would control marijuana like alcohol, allowing adults 21 years of age and over to possess up to an ounce of pot for personal consumption and grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet. The initiative would also allow local governments to tax and regulate the commercial cultivation, transport, and sale of marijuana.

    In order to get a handle on the debate surrounding. Prop 19, we spoke to both supporters and opponents of the initiative.

    So what do you think? Should Californians legalize marijuana?

    Approximately 6 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

    Go to http://reason.tv for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net

    Is Eric Holder Serious About Enforcing the Marijuana Laws?

    When the majority says marijuana should not be a crime the law loses its legitimacy.

    By Kevin Zeese

    It is hard to imagine that Eric Holder’s letter threatening to “vigorously enforce” federal law if California votes for legalization of marijuana is serious. It seems timed to manipulate voters in California, but in this year when political elites are hated it is likely to backfire and lead Californians to vote to end the failed marijuana war.

    During one of the greatest failed experiments in American history, alcohol prohibition, a turning point was when New York told the federal government it would no longer enforce laws against alcohol. That left it to the federal government to enforce the law. Already “the feds” as they were derogatorily known were hated in rural areas where alcohol was often produced and the feds came in and disrupted their commerce. Then, the biggest urban area refused to enforce the law. The result, alcohol prohibition ended a few years later.