This is simply not dicussed on a national level (4.00 / 1)

Ever, by anyone, even though a voting majority of American citizens has used marijuana and is (presumably) basically okay with its existence.

Unfortunately, it's understandable.  The media blowback would be completely out of sync with the zeitgeist of the nation, conservatives on TV would never, never, never, never shut up about it, and it would immediately take on a profound racial overtone in the context of Obama.

Hopefully erasing the disparity between crack and cocaine penalties will open the door to a better discussion on drug policy in America.

---

by: TValley @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:21:06 PM CST

One of my questions is #87! (4.00 / 6)

"Will your administration study the strengths and weaknesses of foreign health care systems (France, UK, Japan) in order to develop the best universal health care plan possible?"

Considering there were thousands of questions asked, that's not a bad showing.

And number 88 is none other than Mike Stark:

"There are 2 million prisoners in the United States. Now we've got a prison-industrial complex and political motivations for imprisoning even more people. Non-violent drug offenders shouldn't be labeled criminal. Are these concerns on your radar?"

Considering just 8,000 votes were enough to get a question into the top five, liberal blogs could have made a more concerted effort to get specific questions asked of the new administration. Perhaps we should come up with questions now and ensure that they are voted on during the next round.

---

by: existenz @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:26:25 PM CST

Write a diary, sir (4.00 / 1)

I will comment on it

---

by: TValley @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:46:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Or ma'am (4.00 / 1)

---

by: TValley @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:46:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sir, thank you (0.00 / 0)

I'll write a diary when I've got enough substance for one. For now, it's commenting time.

---

by: existenz @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 15:33:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

or... (4.00 / 5)

Actually 13 of the top 50 questions are about the war on drugs or marijuana. So either this is the most hugely under-discussed issue in the history of the world, or there was a vast stoner conspiracy to freep the site.

---

by: Chachy @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:36:03 PM CST

"vast stoner conspiracy to freep" (0.00 / 0)

Last month such an effort was called "Get out The Vote," and lauded. Now it's some sort of crime?



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 16:38:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i think you may be misreading the tone, a bit... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 17:20:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Um, holla! (4.00 / 1)

FWIW it's already a billion+ dollar (cash) industry which supports thousands of families, just in an unconventional way.

Commercialization will turn most of that those jobs into minimum-wage migrant work because, honestly, volume pot production is basically repetitive, menial, agricultural labor. It will also centralize profits at the top, much moreso than already happens.

So, all things being equal, I'd prefer to see decriminalization. It makes for grey markets, yeah, and there are problems around all this, crime, etc, but in terms of the markets that are created, I think it's a lot better. In terms of the economic impact, the fact that the scale of production is limited, and that labor can't be driven to the lowest common denominator means that the wealth is spread around quite a bit better than in your average American industry.

At the same time, decriminalization (e.g. California prop 215) drastically reduces the mass arrest effects, removes the ability for law-enforcement to selectively enforce penalties for simple use, etc. Much like in the Netherlands, there's a grey market around quantity production, but simple use is tolerated w/o criminal penalty. This is the ideal, IMHO.

I will also point out that bringing end-use out from behind the veil of criminal statute should reduce negative health and social effects. It's less likely that people get mixed up with real criminal elements, it's easier to talk about harm-reducting and treating addiction, etc.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:38:27 PM CST

"there are problems around all this, crime, etc." (0.00 / 0)

NPR:

Across the border from El Paso, Texas, the city of Juarez is being torn apart by a drug war.

The number of murders in Juarez has jumped from 300 in 2007 to roughly 1,500 this year.

Amid the drug war, robbery, kidnapping and extortion in Juarez have mushroomed unchecked, and U.S. residents are also getting killed in the violence.

But, yeah, the underground drug economy sure provides a lot of nice, middle-class jobs...

---

by: Chachy @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:49:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thats not due to marijuana alone (4.00 / 3)

lest you forget the effects of the CIA approved contra cocaine smuggling that led to skyrocketing demand for cocaine in the US. Legalizing marijuana would actually take a lot of money away from the mexican mafia and other drug runners, I assume, because it would take away a source of their income.

If we really cared about the insane situation in mexico, we would try to dramatically decrease damand for cocaine and crystal meth through treatment and rehab. We already fucked up crystal meth bad by not getting ahead of it when we had the chance in California in the 80's when it was just a bunch of bikers. I'd settle for a decrease in the disparity between powder and crack cocaine, to get rid of the rediculous disparities. Its criminal that we have resorting to outsourcing our drug problem to Latin America to create the highest murder rates in the world among the world's most unequal societies. Latin America is what the Republicans want the US to look like.  

---

by: essaywhuman @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:59:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

agree (4.00 / 1)

Legalizing marijuana would actually take a lot of money away from the mexican mafia and other drug runners, I assume, because it would take away a source of their income.

Yes, I know. That's my point. They'd no more profit from marijuana than they currently do from running moonshine across the border. But if it were merely decriminalized, as Josh Koenig suggests, they'd still have incentives to import across the border.

And yeah, the cartels profit from other drugs as well. But cutting off their ability to profit from weed would at least reduce their power, and the extent to which they'd be able to terrorize the Mexican population.

---

by: Chachy @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 14:14:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not to mention that with legal pot in the US (4.00 / 1)

We could make Amsterdam look like an amateur operation.

Not just Green jobs - Gold and Red, too!


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 14:28:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gotcha (0.00 / 0)

Misunderstood, thought you were arguing against legalization due to the crime. Some of my friends who I argue about this with have wild assumptions about the connections between legalization and crime. So much disinformation out there.

And that is hilarious Spitball.

---

by: essaywhuman @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 15:24:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gives whole new meaning to the term (0.00 / 0)

"Drug Czar".

I jest in all seriousness however.

The economic benefits of legalized marijuana are many. Not having to pay to arrest, prosecute, and jail users and sellers is one, and new tax revenues are another. It would largely be a domestic crop and would open the door to hemp production for non-smoking uses as well.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 16:17:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree (4.00 / 1)

But if it were merely decriminalized, as Josh Koenig suggests, they'd still have incentives to import across the border.

I disagree. As above, the Mexican mafia are not really all about moving weed in the first place, and if you want to talk about the impacts of the law, you have to recognize that the amount of pot smuggled from Mexico bound for California is quite low as a result of domestic production. Texas and Arizona, on the other hand, have huge markets.

There's cognitive dissonance in the notion that you can both create valuable tax base and "cut off their ability to profit." High risk activities like smuggling and/or running a criminal syndicate don't work when you have to compete against anybody who cares to repurpose their garage. Criminal behavior has an advantage only in a strict prohibition context.

Again, IMHO the most sane way to address this is through a mixed strategy of decriminalization as has worked elsewhere in the world. The alternative is to follow the model of Tobacco and Alcohol, which don't really provide any quality jobs outside of marketing and legal-defense.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 19:05:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

This isn't about pot. It's about drugs that pack a much greater price/weight ratio, and about smuggling and control over distribution. The amount of crystal and coke that move via Mexico has exploded over the past decade.

Which isn't to say people don't get killed over marijuana plantations, but it's a bit more rare. Even rarer in places (again, like the netherlands) where there's a semi-regulated grey market.

The point here is that the economic upsides of marijuana legalization specifically are maximized by stopping somewhat short of full-blown industrial commercialization.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 18:52:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmm (4.00 / 1)

Wouldn't Decriminalization mean it still couldn't be legally sold in stores, regulated, packaged, etc?

First, I'd disagree about your structuring of the current industry.  Truthfully, the big money is AT THE TOP in the hands of a few... the same way it would be if it was legalized.   These are the big growers and distributors in any drug... the guys the DEA wants to take down.      Many if not most use migrant labor (or its from Mexico or Canada) to harvest it... its just illegal.  So only the people getting the money and the legal status would change.

The big difference in wealth distribution from current to a legal model would not be the growers or wholesalers or even the distributors (sorry to use Weeds, but think Heyla in the first few episodes as this level)... it would be the replacement of dealers with retailers.  But it DOES open up a LOT of tax revenue and create a lot of new businesses...    mass marketed paraphenalia, bakeries, bars, shops, etc.    

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 20:53:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

While highly entertaining, "weeds" is not a terrifically accurate representation of the existing Marijuana industry.

The passage of Prop 215 has radically changed the landscape in California, as other decriminalization and limited production laws will do in other states. This is the model that works for other countries. The choice between prohibition and full-blown commercialization is a false one.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 21:19:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are talking Cali... (0.00 / 0)

vs the rest of the country. I don't think the setup will be the same.

Besides, legalization means NO FED MONEY going after it (something that despite state decriminalization is not the case on a federal level), it means that users can't be descriminated against, and it makes sure that for the most part the laws are even across the states or as even as they will be... so that we don't have to worry about different penalties when you cross state lines... something I believe would actually turn it into Federal jurisdiction.  To me legalization is the way to go.

(Yes I didn't want to use weeds, but was pointing out a classic generic drug distribution group... it may be different in California but its a similar setup in most of the other states and the hiearchal setup of most illegal drug organizations... even if it isn't an official or actual organization).

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 10:32:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A better drug question would be (4.00 / 6)

As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Vice-President Elect Biden requested a GAO study of Plan Colombia. The recent study found that despite providing $4.9 billion to the Colombian Military and National Police since FY2000, coca cultivation and cocaine production have actually increased 15% and 4%,respectively. Given this tremendous failure of Plan Colombia, how will your Administration's drug policies and foreign aid priorities differ from those of the past 2 administrations?

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

---

by: DFLer @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:39:17 PM CST

Cheap? (4.00 / 3)

You must have a good source :)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 13:51:04 PM CST

"Follow the Science" (4.00 / 1)

I don't expect Obama to make a "Legalize It" speech, but there's low profile steps he can take in this area with significant impacts.

  1. There's been a formal Cannabis Rescheduling Petition languishing in the FDA since 2002. The Secretary of HHS could direct the FDA scientists to conduct an expeditious review of the science, with a determination as to whether modern research supports the placement under Schedule 1. The Controlled Substances Act provides for Administrative rescheduling, subject to Congressional reversal. This would solve the medical issue.

  2. Current law contains provisions for growing agricultural hemp under license. A pair of North Dakota farmers, (one's the Republican Deputy Majority Leader of the State Assembly) have State Hemp Licenses in hand, and pending applications pending for Federal Licenses. Issue them.

  3. Actual Federal prosecution of illicit cultivation varies considerably by Federal Judicial District. The majority of States have abandoned mandatory minimum sentences, but draconian federal ones remain on the books. Leave the prosecutions (except in particularly egregious circumstances) to the States.

  4. Open a  peer-reviewed research on the Ibogaine cure for opiate, speed, and cocaine addiction. A single dose resets the brain's chemical switches, unlike more conventional drug substitution therapies. Itself a Schedule I Controlled substance. I convinced Toimmy Thompson to issue a single research license as his last act at HHS in 2005, alas by then the researcher had lost her funding. The proposal had been languishimng since 1998.




This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 16:43:05 PM CST

I concur (0.00 / 0)

Video games and some weed make for a cheap, enjoyable weekend. Especially in the cold winter months. This is a thread about playing Fallout 3 high, right?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 17:56:05 PM CST

Accuracy matters (0.00 / 0)

so I'd like to point out that "the number of arrests for violations of the marijuana laws hit an all-time high of 755,186 in 2003" is not the same thing as "750,000 Americans are arrested for [marijuana law violations] each year."

Let's set aside the representation of a peak figure as an annual one, which is relatively trivial. "Arrests" and "people arrested" are two completely different numbers. I think we can safely assume that many people who are arrested for simple possession of marijuana, for example, are arrested more than once a year, so the number of arrests will significantly exceed the number of people arrested.

It also seems likely that suspects in violent crimes (offered here for comparison) are less likely than drug suspects to be arrested multiple times a year, since they are more likely to be imprisoned for lengthy periods before trial and after conviction than are people arrested for drug crimes.

That simple, mistaken substitution of "number of people arrested" for "number of arrests" in the stopthedrugwar.org article Chris cites thus seems to raise a whole host of problems with the rest of their analysis, like a comparison of the number of arrests with the population of various states.

So how many people  were actually arrested for drug violations? I don't know, because the stophedrugwar.org source doesn't tell us.

I oppose the drug war, and I'm glad to see the issue getting some attention here, but I think our advocacy of any position needs to reflect careful use of language and rigorous use of statistics if we are to remain credible.

---

by: FearItself @ Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 08:57:03 AM CST

Another way to approach this issue (0.00 / 0)

is to deal with the question of why this is a federal issue at all.  Individual possession / retail sales should be left to the states (as can the medical marijuana question) with the federal government focusing on illegal trafficking only.  

This makes sense from a federalism perspective (the arguments for federal power over this are exceedingly weak), a due process perspective (having vastly different penalties depending on whether you get charged at the federal or state level without any standards is arbitrary), and an equal protection perspective (when there are no standards, there is reason to fear that different groups are being sorted into the federal versus state system.) A constitutional argument for this policy change, aside from being right, in my opinion, would help (at least a little) combat the argument that one would only support this if one wanted to use drugs.  Such an argument is foolish, of course, but a powerful tool in the hands of the forces of the status quo.

That leaves the larger question of decriminalization or legalization, and the rules that would go with such a choice, up to the state level.  We already can see that some states are taking a more sane approach to these issues, but the democratic process is impeded by the federal government.  As some states tried out different approaches, those that worked would be easier to advocate for in other states.  A few states making such a choice, in a context where it would have an impact (because the federal government allowed it to) could go a long way towards getting options heard that presently are considered too off the wall to even get a hearing.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM CST