The War on Drugs : FAIL

If you want to take the time to understand why the war on drugs is a huge failure, and what we can do about it, you can't do better than absorbing the following video of Cliff Thornton, Director of Efficacy in Hartford, CT.

Springfield judge on side of common sense; marijuana law goes back to committee

Seems like I'm having an exceptionally busy week but I want to find time to remark on two events in Springfield, MA this Monday.

First, Councilor James Ferrara's attempt to circumvent new state law by making marijuana an arrestable offense-- as well as increasing the fine by $300-- was sent back to committee Monday night after possibly more opposition than expected.

Ferrara said he's heard that Chicopee, a neighboring city, was planning to increase fines for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, and he didn't want Springfield to become a haven for pot smokers. Yup, that's right, all the area pot smokers, whether they reside in Springfield, Chicopee or not, are going to say, Hmmm...$300 fine in Chicopee, $100 fine in Springfield.....Let's all head to Springfield to smoke a joint. Yes, indeed, Springfield is a haven for pot smokers.....

The ACLU's Bill Newman said increasing the fine would likely clog the court system, as a $100 fine is payable but a $400 fine might go unpaid. Newman was representing a group I'd never heard of, the Liberty Preservation Association of Massachusetts, Inc., which seems to be Libertarian, and about a dozen of whose members also came to the City Council hearing.

A considerably more controversial event came about after Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II threw out evidence against a suspected drug trafficker, saying that he did not believe the testimony of two of the arresting officers. That's the third time in recent months that a Hampden Superior Court judge has refused to believe evidence presented by officers, and the second time for Moriarty. Unfortunately, in the first case, the man who was set free then went on to kill another man at Springfield's Mardi Gras strip club this past January. I'm sure that case was on Moriarty's mind when he made his ruling on Monday; he knew he'd be wide open to criticism, but still he did what he thought was the right thing. the Springfield Republican reported on police reaction and anger here.

Debate on the local forums has been pretty one-sided, with most people saying the judge was clearly on the side of the criminals, and only a few pointing out that no, the judge was on the side of the law. Moral of the story: if you want to arrest someone and have the charges stick, you've got to do it the right way.

You know that moment in life where something you've always believed is overturned by personal experience? My own very minor experience of an arrest for possession of marijuana became one of those "Aha!" moments.

Forty years ago, when it really did seem like a revolution was around the corner two friends and I were sitting in a parked car in Cambridge, MA and we had just finished smoking a joint. We had about another quarter ounce in the glove box, but otherwise, no marijuana was visible.

Suddenly a police officer knocked on the window of the car, and as we rolled down the window, I imagine he was hit with a strong whiff of an illegal substance. He told us that he was going to arrest all three of us then and there, but that it would go easier on us in court if we just turned over anything we had rather than making him search, and like idiots, we did.

Flash forward to our day in court, where we had a public defender and a little better sense of our rights but were still basically naive-- 3 eighteen year old white kids.

The officer was called to testify, and the ADA asked him the circumstances of our arrests.

"I was walking by the car and could smell marijuana. I looked in the window of the car," he said, "and I could see a bag of marijuana right there on the seat."

Well, we were so astounded at his lie that we let out three very audible gasps. The judge let the case finish up and then found us not guilty, clearly not believing the testimony of the arresting officer. What a relief.

That was the end of my belief that all police officers always tell the truth. I have not replaced it with a belief that all police officers always lie, but through the years I've personally been aware of at least thirty similar situations, not counting those I've learned about through the media.

I have a flare and a fondness for the law which probably started when I was a kid reading about Clarence Darrow's great labor and criminal cases. I do believe unjust laws are made to be broken and I know that sentiment is not limited to my generation. But I respect the intent of the law, which, at its best, is simply a set of rules defined collectively about how we live in a fair and safe society.

My message to the criminal justice system is simple: If you want to enforce the law, do it by following the law.

Hands off my marijuana law!

One would think that when 65% of Massachusetts' voters said that we approved of decriminalizing marijuana, that that would tell our elected officials all they need to know about the will of the people. But oh, no! The law is less than a month old and already municipal officials are trying to toughen the penalties.

Massachusetts joined eleven other states on January 2 when we voted to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, replacing a criminal penalty with a civil fine of $100. Almost immediately, law enforcement officers began complaining that the law was unclear and would be difficult to enforce. In particular, officers said that those offenders who were issued citations could easily give a false name. Maybe that could happen in Boston, but it certainly won't be happening in small towns and every other city where police are quite likely to know the faces of most of the population. I'm not sure what the penalty for giving a false name to the police is in Massachusetts, but why add insult to injury?

The state has already issued opinions that the new law does not mean schools must now tolerate marijuana possession in schools, and that employers can continue to forbid marijuana possession in the workplace. But a Cape Cod lawmaker, Rep. Cleon Turner, D-Dennis, plans to propose a law making three unpaid citations to possession in a one year period a criminal misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, as well as a law to make explicit the right of schools and workplaces to ban marijuana on the premises.

Apparently most lawmakers haven't caught up with the public's growing distaste for the war on drugs as it's been fought the last thirty years, because now some municipalities want to get in on the act and make their anti-drug position very clear.

Framingham's Board of Health wants to add smoking marijuana to the already in place law against smoking cigarettes in restaurants and other public places, and institute a series of fines for establishments that allow such smoking to take place.

The Methuen City Council wanted to increase fines for possession of less than an ounce of pot to $400, but compromised at $200 after public opposition.

Now , this Monday, the Springfield's City Council will consider Councilor James J. Ferrera III's proposal to make smoking marijuana in public an arrestable offense with a $300 fine (emphasis mine).

The proposal is supported by Police Commissioner William Fitchet but talk to many law enforcement officers off the record, and they'll tell you they support decriminalization of marijuana. Many want to bring the drug war to an end altogether. Members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), not all of whom are retired, make a strong case for decriminalization based on their first-hand experience.

Meanwhile I expect that a lot of law enforcement officers are not going to go out of their way to issue citations; in fact the first citation under the new law issued in Massachusetts came after a Springfield police officer arrested a man for possession of crack cocaine and illegal firearms possession.

For the first time in a number of years, we have a chance for a sensible drug policy to prevail in this country. let's hope local officials don't drag their feet.

World's tiniest violin: new marijuana law bewilders some law enforcement officials

Yesterday was the first day that Massachusett's new law decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana goes into effect but a number of Massachusetts law enforcement officials are claiming they don't know how to enforce it.

"I think there are a lot more questions than answers right now," Lawrence Police Chief John J. Romero said of the law. "I don't think anybody knows how this is going to play out." Boston Globe, Dec. 25.

In the same article, Berkshire District Attorney David F. Capeless, president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said he wonders if police officers who light up a joint after work will be able to be disciplined beyond the $100 fine the new law requires.

Some of this bewilderment on the part of law enforcement officials may actually be an attempt to get the Legislature to delay or overturn the law, which was one of three ballot questions on November 4. Capeless has already asked Gov. Deval Patrick to ask the Legislature for a delay, which Patrick had declined to do.

The question was overwhelmingly approved by Massachusetts voters on November 4 with 65% of the voters agreeing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana should be a civil rather than a criminal offense.

Some police chiefs are simply declining to enforce the law, hoping that will force the Legislature's hand.

Andrew J. Sluckis Jr., chief of police in Auburn, said his 39 officers would not be issuing $100 citations for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, as required under the ballot initiative known as Question 2.

"If the Legislature enacts some changes, we'll be happy to do it in the future, but as it stands now we're not going to be issuing civil citations," he said. If an officer spots someone smoking marijuana, he said, "We will confiscate it and the person will be sent on their way."

"It is frustrating," he added, "because we have to deal with a law that is almost non-enforceable at best." Boston Globe, January 3.

Two problems in particular are cited by law enforcement officials:
There's no check-off box in their current citation books, and
Because the offense is civil rather than criminal, people may choose to give false names to officers without fear of penalty.

Not all cities and towns are refusing to enforce the law, however. Worcester and Boston police officers have received training memos about how to enforce the law, and on Friday, a Springfield police officer issued what may be the first citation in the state to a Holyoke man. The man will have much more to worry about than a $100 fine, though: he was also caught with sizable amounts of heroin and crack cocaine.

The vast majority of marijuana smokers, however, being largely indistinguishable from the general population, will simply be enjoying the freedom from fear of arrest that the new law brings. It's been a long road.

Photo from Wikimedia.

Marijuana decrim: local DAs will follow the law-- for now

Hampden County District Attorney announced yesterday that he was dropping all charges currently pending for possession of small amounts of marijuana and intended to act as if the law turning possession of marijuana into a civil offense was already in place.

Question Two passed overwhelmingly in Massachusetts on Election Day, and because of its strong community support-- 65% in favor-- Bennett said he would not work for the repeal of the law, which is set to go into effect December 4.

Bennett will also end a diversion program in his office which is heavily populated by those arrested for possession of marijuana.

Other district attorneys are not sure if they will attempt to have the law repealed, which would require action by the Massachusetts Legislature. Given the commonwealth's fiscal crisis, the estimated $30 million savings may be enough incentive for the Legislature to leave the issue alone.

Proponents of marijuana reform estimate

Massachusetts makes the right choices

For once, the value of organizing is clear: Massachusetts has rejected Question One, eliminating the state income tax, and approved Questions Two and Three, decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana and banning dog racing. I can't remember if there's ever been a time before in any election when everything went the way I believed it should go.

I am particularly glad for the people whose lives can no longer be ruined by a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana.

Springfield Republican endorses decrim of marijuana

I was pleased yesterday morning to see that the Springfield Republican has endorsed Question Two. Here's the editorial:

Marijuana reform right for Bay State by The Republican Newsroom, Wed., Oct. 22, 2008

You have friends and family members and co-workers who have smoked marijuana. You may have even indulged a bit yourself back in the day.

Few people today would argue that someone who had been caught with a small amount of marijuana for his or her own personal use should be denied, say, a job. Or a student loan. Or an apartment. Or a professional license.

But that's exactly what could happen under current laws that are in place in Massachusetts. Question 2 on the November ballot seeks to right that wrong by making possession of an ounce or less - for personal use - a civil rather than a criminal offense.

Opponents of Question 2 - most notably district attorneys - argue that first-time offenders are directed to programs outside the criminal-justice system and thus leave no record of their transgression. But that's because the district attorneys currently in office choose to handle it that way. A successor could opt for a completely different tack, marking each offender for life.

Question 2 takes that possibility off the table.

Someone caught with a bit of pot would have the marijuana confiscated, would be assessed a $100 fine - and that would be that. There would be no criminal proceedings, no record to be accessed.

Question 2 is sound and sensible public policy.

It does not make marijuana legal. It does not make it OK to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana. It does not change a single law on the books regarding the sale or distribution of marijuana.

And it deals with youthful offenders in the most rational way: by getting the family involved. Juveniles caught with marijuana would have the citation delivered to a parent or guardian, and would have to complete a drug awareness program and perform community service.

Across the nation, there are 11 states that have passed laws similar to Question 2. Some have been in place for decades, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the change has led to increased marijuana use or a decrease in general order.

This reform is right for Massachusetts. We urge voters on Nov. 4 to support Question 2.

In the Comments section following the editorial, one woman worried that if Question Two passes, her mother's nurse, the school nurse and the school bus driver will all be able to smoke pot without consequences. This attitude always astounds me-- that people think that others would start smoking pot if it were decriminalized. If they wouldn't start smoking, why would others? In any case, the eleven other states that have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana have not seen any increase in marijuana use. So why should it happen here?

Arise and a few other organizations were going to have a press conference in support of Question Two next week but we were dissuaded from doing so by decisionmakers at the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy. Somehow the half dozen messages we've left at their office since this summer, saying we wanted to be involved in the campaign, didn't get through until just this week. Their position is, why give the district attorneys and other opponents a platform from which to respond? Instead, CSMJ is focusing on paid political ads. Check out their website for some great examples. You may have already seen the ads on TV or hreard them on the radio. Let's hope that hearing law enforcement officials say that it's time for reform will change enough minds.

Save $30 million - decriminalize marijuana!

A Boston Globe article this morning about Dictrict Attorneys' opposition to decriminalizing an ounce or less marijuana happens to mention that three of the DAs admit to having smoked themselves! If they had been caught, none of them would be lawyers and district attorneys today.

The state could save $30 million a year by not running those arrested for simple possession through the criminal justice system, according to a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University.

Studies of other states that have decriminalized marijuana have not shown an increase in marijuana use. Believe me, if there was any study that shows decriminalizing marijuana has bad consequences, the DAs would be talking about it big time.

Let's be smart and vote YES on Question Two.

Local DAs, police chiefs come out against decriminalizing marijuana

Sen. Joe Biden said something interesting in his debate the other night-- that whether he agreed with people or not, he had learned never to question their motives.

I wish I could be like that, but....when I see the local district attorneys, sheriffs and police chiefs gathered in opposition to decriminalizing an ounce or less of marijuana, the focus of Massachusett's Question Two, I have to ask myself....how important to their job security is it that no cracks appear in the wall of drug prohibition?

Arguments against Question Two, which would turn a possession of small amounts of marijuana from a criminal offense into a civil one, only make sense if you ignore history, common sense and the facts.

The U.S. already has an excellent example of what happens when a substance that should be a matter of personal choice is criminalized. The thirteen years of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. during the early part of the twentieth century created a huge black market and allowed organized crime to become the American institution that it is today.. Prohibition led to the corruption of many law enforcement officials. Stronger alcohol was developed so that a little went further. The U.S. government lost $500 million a year in tax revenue.

Worst of all, prohibition turned millions of ordinary citizens into lawbreakers.

At today's press conference, Berkshire County District Attorney David F. Capeless, said that a first offense by someone 17 or older would lead to an automatic six month continuance, and that the case would be dismissed if someone stayed out of trouble for six months.

What he didn't say is that one single arrest for possession of marijuana leads to a criminal record that will affect housing, employment, benefits and military service.

Hampden County District Attorney Bill Bennett said that Question Two is " is a green light to drug dealers to target young children, especially high school students, to buy and use drugs." Mr. Bennett seems not to know how wothe minds of high schoolers work very well. And if this is so, shouldn't we recriminalize alcohol? How about cigarettes? How many lawbreakers do you think we'd have in Massachusetts if we did?

I have family members and friends who intend to vote against Question Two. They take a "Just say no" approach-- if you don't want to get arrested, don't break the law. They've never smoked, never will, and aren't missing a thing except, fortunately for them, the tar that smokers drag into their lungs. Far be it from me to say that non-smokers are missing out on anything. Marijuana. is not a necessity of life . It is simply one of life's pleasures.

When prohibition was finally repealed in 1933, organized crime took a huge loss in profits. We won't see that in Massachusetts if Question Two passes because decriminalization is not the same as legalization. By keeping marijuana illegal we lose potential tax revenue and lose out on the opportunity for regulation. At this point in time however, I would be satisfied just to see marijuana smokers be able to live without fear of arrest.

PS. Not all law enforcement officials think drug prohibition is a good idea; I wrote about it here. If you want to see what ABC's John Stossel thinks, go here.

PPS: Twelve states have already decriminalized marijuana and if there were any great upsurge in drug use or violent crime in those states, the DAs would have made sure we know about it. More than 71,000 Massachusetts residents were arrested for simple possession of marijuana from 1995-2002. Consider the personal cost as well as the financial cost and vote Yes on Question Two.

Will you publicly support decriminalizing marijuana?

Arise is looking for individuals and organizations in Western Massachusetts who would be willing to support publicly this November's ballot Question Two, decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana. Any takers?

If only everyone who has smoked or currently smokes would come out and say so. I won't out them, but I've smoked with more well-known and well-respected residents of this city than you can shake a stick at.

Unfortunately, many people are in professions where they would be instantly fired if they admitted they have smoked or do smoke marijuana. But how about publicly agreeing that a civil fine is better than a criminal record for those in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana?

If you're willing to stand with us, you can call Arise at 413-734-4948.

From the Marijuana Policy Project:

Opponents of Massachusetts' marijuana decriminalization ballot initiative just can't stop lying.

Here are some the lies they're flooding the media with, in a cynical attempt to scare voters into defeating the measure on November 4:

• Marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco — because tobacco takes a long time to kill you and alcohol has health benefits. (Yes, you read that right.) That's according to Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter.

And here are four gems from the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association:

• “By empowering drug dealers with decriminalization of marijuana, we would be empowering them to continue their violent ways: carrying and brandishing weapons; ripping off kids who get in over their heads; engaging in bloody turf wars; and indiscriminately assaulting or murdering when things don't go the way they want.”
• “Marijuana arrests are strongly associated with violent crime — dangerous criminals who make the wrong choice time and time again.” (In reality, research shows unmistakably that marijuana — unlike alcohol — is almost never the cause of aggression or violence.)
• “Very few arrests involving marijuana charges are for simple possession.” (In reality, according to FBI statistics, a full 89% of marijuana arrests are for simple possession.)
• The initiative “will allow drug dealers to operate with impunity and make it easier for them to do business with your children.”

Marijuana arrests increase, 90% for simple possession

According to the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, released on Monday, nearly 1.9 million people were arrested on drug charges in the United States last year, some 872,000 for marijuana offenses. While overall drug arrest figures declined marginally (down 84,000), marijuana arrests increased by more than 5% and are once again at an all-time high. Drug arrests exceed those for any other type of offense, including property crime (1.61 million arrests), driving under the influence (1.43 million), misdemeanor assaults (1.31 million), larceny (1.17 million), and violent crime (597,000).

You can read more about it at Stop the Drug War.

If you live in Massachusetts, Vote YES on Question Two-- decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Stop this madness.

Have the state DAs broken campaign Finance Laws?

From AP:

Backers of Mass. Pro-pot Issue Take On Opponents

teve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer

September 17, 2008

Associated Press

BOSTON — Backers of a pro-marijuana ballot initiative charged Wednesday that 11 district attorneys from Massachusetts violated campaign finance laws and twisted the truth about the question.

Whitney Taylor of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy said the DAs raised and spent money to oppose the question before forming their Coalition to Save Our Streets. Campaign finance laws require groups to form a committee before raising and spending money.

The question would make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a civil rather than criminal offense punishable by a $100 fine.

Opponents say such a change in law would essentially normalize use of marijuana, while supporter say it would reduce a burden on the criminal justice system by sparing those found with small amounts from facing a criminal record and jail.

Taylor's group has filed complaints with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and the Attorney General's office against the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association and the public relations firm hired to handle opposition to the question.

"This was an attempt to keep their organization as covert as they could for as long a possible," Taylor said. The group also named Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett and Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz individually.

The district attorneys planned their own press conference later Wednesday.

Taylor said state records show the district attorneys began raising money as early as July 18, but didn't file a statement of organization with the state until Sept. 5.

Taylor's group has raised far greater sums than the district attorney's group, according to campaign finance reports.

The district attorneys raised just $27,670, virtually all of it from their own campaign accounts, while Taylor group has raised nearly $650,000.

The vast majority of the money raised by Taylor's group came from outside Massachusetts, including a $400,000 donation from billionaire financier and liberal activist George Soros and $180,000 from the Washington DC-based Marijuana Policy Project.

Taylor also faulted the district attorneys for using their state web site to urge voters to oppose the question, and for misrepresenting the initiative.

In a statement on the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association web site, the district attorneys say if the question is approved "any person may carry and use marijuana at any time, thus 'normalizing' its use."

The district attorneys and other critics say the question could threaten recent positive trends in marijuana use among teens. They also said there's a link between marijuana use and crime, car accidents and workplace safety.

"Do you really want to encourage your kids to smoke dope?" a statement on the DA's web site reads in part.

The district attorneys also said that existing law is fair.

Massachusetts law requires that a first-time drug offender be placed on probation and that, at the successful conclusion of probation, "the case shall be dismissed and the record shall be sealed," according to their statement.

If the question is approved, Massachusetts would become the 13th state to lift or ease criminal penalties on marijuana possession.

Support Question Two: decriminalize less an an ounce of marijuana

Five weeks until the election. Here in Massachusetts, we've got an opportunity to turn possession of small amounts of marijuana from a criminal to a civil offense.

The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy released a list of endorsers at a Boston press conference yesterday. Endorsers include:

• Tom Kiley, Massachusetts' first assistant attorney general
• Sergeant Howard Donohue, a 33-year veteran of the Boston Police Department
• Lieutenant Thomas W. Nolan, a 30-year veteran of the Boston Police Department, now a professor at Boston University
• Dr. Robert Meenan, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health
• Lester Grinspoon, M.D., associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
• Jeffrey Miron, Ph.D, senior lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Economics
• Massachusetts state Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D), chair of the Joint Committee on Elder Affairs and vice-chair of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight
• Massachusetts state Rep. Frank Smizik (D), chair of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture
• John H. Halpern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
• Charles Barron, professor at Boston College School of Law
• ACLU of Massachusetts
• the Union of Minority Neighborhoods

All eleven Massachusetts District Attorneys have signed onto a statement against Question Two at their website which you can find here. Although the DAs would like to portray Question Two as outside the mainstream, the truth is that more and more people, including current and former law enforcement officials, see the drug war as a war that is meant to be waged, not won.

Last Saturday, the Boston Globe ran the following editorial from a law enforcement officer. Read it well and then VOTE YES ON QUESTION TWO.

The solution to the failed drug war

By Jack A. Cole September 13, 2008

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/13/the_solution_to_the_failed_drug_war/

WAR AND RACE dominate the presidential campaign, but one nation-shaping war with profound racial consequences eludes the political radar: the drug war.

I was a frontline soldier in this self-perpetuating, ineffectual effort that has swallowed more than a trillion tax dollars and currently yields nearly 2 million arrests every year for nonviolent offenses. I helped incarcerate some 1,000 young people as part of this irredeemably wrongheaded attempt to arrest our way out of our drug problems. Those arrests will follow them to their graves.

I know they follow me.

But while no other country locks up as large a percentage of its citizens, the specific impact on minority families has been one step short of the reinstitution of slavery: from media portrayals of marijuana-crazed Mexicans, opium-crazed Asians, and cocaine-crazed blacks, this war has always been about race.

The 1980s produced a jump in the number of cocaine-related stories focused on minority use, yielding grave concern and a dramatic increase in the minority prison population. Many people, of course, assumed that minorities were disproportionately involved in drugs. Even a seemingly street-wise show like "The Wire," which correctly abandoned all hope for this war, supported that impression, portraying virtual swarms of drug-involved blacks.

In fact, according to Federal Household Surveys, whites, blacks, and Hispanics use drugs in direct proportion to their percentage of the population. So, for example, blacks, who are 13 percent of our population, account for 13 percent of our drug use. Yet, according to US Bureau of Justice Statistics, of convicted defendants, 33 percent of whites received a prison sentence and 51 percent of African-Americans received prison sentences. Moreover, the US Sentencing Commission found that black drug defendants receive considerably longer average prison terms than do whites for comparable crimes.

This is not a geographical fluke: a 2007 Justice Policy Institute study found that in Florida blacks were 75 times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs while driving than whites; in 1991, blacks were 7 percent of St. Paul's population but 62 percent of those arrested on drug charges; and in Onondaga Country, Syracuse, N.Y., black people are currently 99 times more likely to go to prison for drugs than white people.

There are more black men in US prisons today than there were slaves in 1840, and they are being used for the same purpose; working for private corporations at 16 to 20 cents an hour. Half the states have private, for-profit prisons whose lobbyists are demanding longer mandatory-minimum prison sentences. Indeed, American blacks are incarcerated at nearly eight times the level of South African blacks during the height of apartheid.

Inner-city communities are devastated not by drug use but by the same turf-war street violence that accompanied alcohol prohibition and that dramatically decreased once that drug was legalized and regulated. Almost one in seven African-Americans are denied voting rights largely because of drug arrests, and countless minorities are denied intact families, college loans, driver's licenses, and jobs because of selective enforcement of a prohibition that, even fairly enforced, prevents no one from using drugs.

But things are changing, as resistance grows in precisely those communities hardest hit by this failed policy.

In 2006, the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators passed a resolution condemning the failed war on drugs and calling for treatment rather than incarceration. That resolution was echoed by a similar resolution passed unanimously by all 225 mayors at their national conference in 2007. And a national association of black police officers is expected to officially endorse the call for an end to drug prohibition.

I represent Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an international organization of sworn antidrug warriors who know that we must end this prohibition in order to legalize and regulate all drugs, thus wresting control from the cartels and street thugs who prey on children.

Ending this prohibition is a singularly potent civil rights issue. It is a remarkable movement, led by both white and minority law enforcement officials.

In an election infused with racial overtones, we wonder which politicians will be brave enough to follow.

Jack A. Cole is executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Who said this?

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

John D. Rockefeller, one year before prohibition ended in 1933.

Now substitute drugs.

This letter is quoted by David Borden, Executive Director of Stop the Drug War.org. in his editorial, How Long Does an Experiment Need to Continue Before It's Declared a Failure? Check it out.
Thanks for the tip, Cliff Thornton at Efficacy.

Will we decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts?

This November, Massachusetts voters will have a chance to vote on a proposal to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, turning it instead into a civil offense punishable by a fine.

If our state mirrors the national average, then probably a third of Massachusetts residents have smoked marijuana. Nationally, 97 million Americans admit to have tried it. I myself have smoked with a number of people whose names would be well-known in the region. Of course, this was in the late 70's and early 80's, before the War on Drugs had reached the extreme proportions that it has now.

The number of people who are being incarcerated for drug offenses in this country continues to rise. 43.9 percent of the nearly two million arrests for drug abuse violations in 2006 were for marijuana offenses. Of these, 738,916 people were arrested for possession alone.

Besides the impact of incarceration on those incarcerated, the War on Drugs costs an astounding amount of money and is responsible for many deaths. In 1999, the combined local, state and federal expenditures to fight this War on Drugs exceeded $30 billion. The U.S. is getting ready to send at least $350 billion to Mexico to help its Drug War efforts.

And look how well it's working!

People may agree or disagree on the harm marijuana does, yet I can't imagine anyone making a sensible case for marijuana's doing more harm than two legal substances, alcohol and tobacco. Florida, in fact, just did a study on the lethality of legal prescription drugs compared to illegal drugs (alcohol and tobacco not included) that showed that deaths caused by misuse of legally prescribed drugs was three times as great as deaths from illegal drugs. By the way, the study could find no deaths linked to marijuana use.

If the Massachusetts ballot initiative is passed, the state will save about $30 million next year-- the current cost of low-level marijuana possession arrests and proseecution. It will also:

• Amend the current criminal statutes so that adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana for personal use would be charged with a civil infraction and fined.
• Remove the threat of a CORI report for minor marijuana possession charges.
• Maintain current penalties for selling, growing, and trafficking marijuana, as well as the prohibition against driving under the influence of marijuana. Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy.
  

I hope there will be forums and opportunities to talk about this referendum proposal as we head toward fall elections. If, for some reason, you're unsure about the wisdom of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, please take the time to educate yourself. But I already know how I'm voting. In both human and financial costs, we just can't afford to go on the way we're going.

Rep. Frank to introduce marijuana decriminalization bill

Maybe we're finally coming to our senses about the decriminalization of marijuana. The New Hampshire House of Representatives has passed a decriminalization bill, although The Senate and the Governor are opposed. Twelve other states have already decriminalized possession. Massachusetts has a binding decriminalization question headed for November's ballot. And now Cong. Barney Frank, D-MA, has announced he's going to introduce a federal bill decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.

The Drug War Chronicle is doing its usual excellent job tracking decriminalization efforts and has this to say about politicians speaking out against decriminalization:

Right now politicians on either sides of the aisle in both states are talking a lot of madness, its all over the place. I recommend checking out the MA and NH sections of Mapinc.org to see some of the offenders. However if you really want to see someone make a fool of them self in public check out Democratic Representative Martin Walsh from Dorchester Testify his take on the bill he "knows nothing about." He is quickly becoming an internet star at http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kx4gM_B17RE

Image from Ablogination.

Intoxicants

Woke up to
nails scattered on the floor:
catnip liberated from its secret drawer:
Jets and Sharks flick their tails
from chairs and windowsills

Speaking of intoxicants: I heard Ethan Nadelmann from the Drug Policy Alliance on National Public Radio a week or so ago. He was commenting that what elected officials and policy makers say behind closed doors about decriminalization and medicalization of marijuana is very different from what they feel they can say publicly.

An estimated $4 billion is spent annually on the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of marijuana offenders.

For one law officer’s take on the War on Drugs, check out former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper’s book Breaking Ranks.