cannabisnews.com: Why California Should Just Say No To Prop. 19

function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Why California Should Just Say No To Prop. 19');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25906.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}












  Why California Should Just Say No To Prop. 19

Posted by CN Staff on August 25, 2010 at 10:48:33 PT
Commentary 
Source: Los Angeles Times  

Calif. -- Californians will face an important decision in November when they vote on whether to legalize marijuana. Proponents of Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, rely on two main arguments: that legalizing and taxing marijuana would generate much-needed revenue, and that legalization would allow law enforcement to focus on other crimes. As experts in the field of drug policy, policing, prevention, education and treatment, we can report that neither of these claims withstand scrutiny.
No country in the world has legalized marijuana to the extent envisioned by Proposition 19, so it is impossible to predict precisely the consequences of wholesale legalization. We can say with near certainty, however, that marijuana use would increase if it were legal, because some people now abstain simply because it is illegal.We also know that increased use brings increased social costs.Proponents of marijuana legalization often point to Amsterdam's "coffee shop" marijuana sales, rarely mentioning that the Dutch have dramatically reduced what at one time were thousands of shops to only a few hundred — after being inundated with "drug tourists," drug-related organized crime involvement and public nuisance problems. During the period of marijuana commercialization and expansion, there was a tripling of lifetime use rates and a more than doubling of past-month use among 18- to 20-year-olds, according to independent research.Closer to home, in a nationally representative roadside survey, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 8% of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for marijuana. The vast majority were tested using an oral swab procedure that makes it highly unlikely that the use occurred more than four hours prior.A 2004 meta-analysis published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review of studies conducted in several localities showed that between 4% and 14% of drivers who sustained injuries or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Because marijuana negatively affects drivers' judgment, motor skills and reaction time, it stands to reason that legalizing marijuana would lead to more accidents and fatalities involving drivers under its influence.Regarding the supposed economic benefits of taxing marijuana, some comparison with two drugs that are already regulated and taxed — alcohol and tobacco — is worth considering. People don't typically grow their own tobacco or distill their own spirits, so consumers accept high taxes on them as retail products. Marijuana, though, is easy and cheap to cultivate, indoors or out, and Proposition 19 would allow individuals to grow as much as 25 square feet of marijuana for "personal consumption."Why would people volunteer to pay high taxes on marijuana if it were legalized? The answer is that many would not, and the underground market, adapting to undercut any new taxes, would barely diminish at all.The current healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with alcohol and tobacco far surpass the tax revenue they generate, and very little of the taxes collected on these substances is contributed to offsetting their substantial social and health costs. For every dollar society collects in taxes on alcohol, for example, we end up spending eight more in social costs. That is hardly a recipe for fiscal health.A recent Rand Corp. report, "Altered State," found that it is difficult to predict estimated revenue from marijuana taxes, and that legalization would increase consumption but could also lead to widespread tax evasion and a "race to the bottom" in terms of local tax rates.Another pro-legalization argument is that it would free up law enforcement resources to concentrate on "real" crimes. Two of us are former police chiefs, who in our combined careers protected five of America's largest cities, including New York, Houston and Seattle, and served as elected heads of the nation's largest professional police associations. We interacted with tens of thousands of officers, and it is our experience that an overwhelming majority of police professionals does not support legalizing marijuana.Law enforcement officers do not currently focus much effort on arresting adults whose only crime is possessing small amounts of marijuana. This proposition would burden them with new and complicated enforcement duties. The proposition would require officers to enforce laws against "ingesting or smoking marijuana while minors are present." Would this apply in a private home? And is a minor "present" if they are 15 feet away, or 20? Perhaps California law enforcement officers will be required to carry tape measures next to their handcuffs.As should be evident, despite the millions spent on marketing the idea, legalized marijuana can't solve California's budget crisis or reduce criminal justice costs. Our combined opposition to this ill-considered scheme spans four different administrations and represents the collective wisdom of a former secretary of Education, a governor, a mayor and teacher, an Army general, a drug policy researcher and two police chiefs. Our opposition to legalizing marijuana is grounded not in ideology but in facts and experience.This commentary was written by Gil Kerlikowske, John Walters, Barry McCaffrey, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett, directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the administrations of Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Published: August 25, 2010Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/URL: http://drugsense.org/url/86FYrCWsCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help    
     
     
     
     





Comment #27 posted by museman on August 27, 2010 at 09:24:37 PT
Why America Should Just Say No To YOU
If American citizens continue to allow Professional liars to determine the 'moral, legal, ethical, and socially accepted' parameters of their daily lives and reality, the cost and damage to the future minds of America is irrecoverable. Once the lies have successfully displaced the truth, the dumb and dumber start waving flags, having tea parties, shooting and lynching people who question their 'rightness.'Once the truth is no longer the high ethic of Law - displaced by statistical manipulations (lies)- prohibitions of personal liberties grow like mold on a stack of drywall left out in the rain.Once the 'representative democracy' is replaced by exclusive clubs of special economic/social classes of people, instead of just 'the people' there is no 'representative democracy' only a Republic governed by the perpetuated status quo of the elite.Once these liars have managed to convince enough of the current brain dead, nine-to-five slave classes, they can successfully rewrite the dictionaries and history. Common sense becomes replaced by contrived nonsense.Of course the lies are well on the way to displacing all of perceived reality with the global social manipulations going on in the name of various Grand and Glorious lies, like 'anti-terrorism' (who's the terrorists?).When I was born, and until Reagan's regime, I was a sovereign individual with an unabridged right to be secure in my person and home, without probable cause (of an actual 'crime') or due process. I could also roam at will through the mighty forests, and the land. Not so any more.There is no constitutional right and guarantee since the names on the bottom list -including the f-ing presidents- came to power.Rome has risen again, like a beast that was mortally wounded but come back to life.Cannabis is a great liberator, which is why all narrow-minded control freaks like lawyers, cops, politicians and religioidiots spew their small minded rhetoric for the small-minded to take up and make war against the Real Humans, many of whom are well aware of the wonders of Cannabis.Just say no to lies, fraud, and unconstitutional powers. Tell them to their face -if you dare.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by FoM on August 27, 2010 at 05:16:02 PT
Afterburner
I am so thankful that Obama not McCain is our President. The economy was on it's way down for years now. At least Obama is trying to do something about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by afterburner on August 27, 2010 at 04:23:05 PT
FoM #15
"I am an Obama supporter too."It is hard to find media coverage of the Obama administration that is not just short-term reactionary politicking. I was surprised at the long-term vision in the following article:Recovery Act: How the Stimulus Is Changing America.
By Michael Grunwald Thursday, Aug. 26, 2010.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013683,00.html?xid=rss-top-aolBTW, if anyone is still on the fence or over the fence about Prop. 19, consider the opposition who wrote this screed! If *they* don't want it, it must be good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by observer on August 27, 2010 at 01:22:32 PT
re: ''Do Not Currently Focus Much Effort''
"Observer We actually don't know anything--whether that's true or not. FoM, anyone have the stats for arrests in 2009? (It isn't on NORML)."Sure we do. We know this is a false (and weasel-worded) statement: "Law enforcement officers do not currently focus much effort on arresting adults whose only crime is possessing small amounts of marijuana."For example,"In 2007 the Department of Justice reported that there were 1,841,182 drug arrests in the United States; 
the report also stated that there were more drug abuse arrests than any other category of offenses. 
Marijuana arrests http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/about/index.html accounted for 47.4% of the drug abuse arrests."
[Marijuana Arrests Feed Insatiable U.S. Prison System, (June 2009) 
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/marijuana-arrests-feed-insatiable-u-s-prison-system ]etc. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by ekim on August 26, 2010 at 18:43:51 PT
some info 
http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/22558-dr-andrew-weil-is-on-our-side/page__pid__197510#entry197510Dr Andrew Weil Is On Our Side Cannabis Cures Cancer DVD http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/22708-this-is-scary/page__pid__199391#entry199391This Is Scary Courts rule Government can track with GPS without warrant 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #22 posted by FoM on August 26, 2010 at 18:39:44 PT

rchandar 
I'm sorry I can't help you on that one. I haven't seen anything on arrests recently.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by ekim on August 26, 2010 at 18:26:56 PT

one city ---- how about the entire Country
On the Upper East Side of Manhattan where the mayor lives, an average of 20 people for every 100,000 residents were arrested on the lowest-level misdemeanor pot charge in 2007, 2008 and 2009.During those same years, the marijuana arrest rate in Brownsville, Brooklyn, was 3,109 for every 100,000 residents.That means the chances of getting arrested on pot charges in Brownsville — and nothing else — were 150 times greater than on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

http://cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25818.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by rchandar on August 26, 2010 at 15:56:17 PT:

Observer
We actually don't know anything--whether that's true or not. FoM, anyone have the stats for arrests in 2009? (It isn't on NORML).
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by observer on August 26, 2010 at 11:56:03 PT

''Do Not Currently Focus Much Effort''
Chief drug war propagandists (those who would toss you in prison for using cannabis) say, "Law enforcement officers do not currently focus much effort on arresting adults whose only crime is possessing small amounts of marijuana."We know this statement to be false. We know this statement to be the opposite of the truth. Much "law" enforcement in North America is obsessed with ferreting out and punishing (lucratively punishing) made-up, make-work newly-minted cannabis "crimes". This is why the majority* of police who deliberate** on the expediency*** of anti-marijuana-user laws, either actively support cannabis prohibition or silently consent to it. ___* with notable exceptions, like http://LEAP.cc ** Deliberation, n.: The act of examining one's bread to determine which side it is buttered on. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"*** Joh.11:50, et al. 

http://drugnewsbot.org
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by observer on August 26, 2010 at 10:38:57 PT

analysis
[1]
Californians will face an important decision in November when they vote on whether to legalize marijuana . 

(Sentence 1) re: "legalize" - Any mention of lessening the harshness of drug laws is portrayed as a sinful "legalization". Only total prohibition (or more jailings) will be righteous. (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 ) 
 
 
[2]
Proponents of Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, rely on two main arguments: that legalizing and taxing marijuana would generate much-needed revenue, and that legalization would allow law enforcement to focus on other crimes . 

(Sentence 2) re: "crimes" - It is prohibition, claim prohibitionists, that saves people from drug crazed, whacked out, high flying drug users. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) 
 
 
[3]
As experts in the field of drug policy, policing, prevention, education and treatment, we can report that neither of these claims withstand scrutiny . 

(Sentence 3) re: "experts" - When dealing with drug abuse, crime... our surrogate parents, the experts, seem to provide easy and fast solutions. (Morris E Chafetz, M.D., "The Tyranny of Experts")
 
 
[4]
No country in the world has legalized marijuana to the extent envisioned by Proposition 19, so it is impossible to predict precisely the consequences of wholesale legalization . 

(Sentence 4) re: "legalized", "legalization" - With God on Their Side (prohibitionists assure us), only the continued rooting out of the sinful drug users (total prohibition) will do. All else is portrayed as the slippery slope to total legalization of all drugs for toddlers. (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 ) 
 
 
[5]
We can say with near certainty, however, that marijuana use would increase if it were legal, because some people now abstain simply because it is illegal . 

(Sentence 5) re: "marijuana use" - The rhetoric of prohibition will assume that "use" and "abuse" are identical. (Use is Abuse (propaganda theme 4) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme4.htm#alluseisabuse ) 
 
 
[6]
We also know that increased use brings increased social costs . 

(Sentence 6) re: "social costs" - The health of the "community" (read: government) is assured, prohibitionists explain, because drug users are punished. Jailing drug users is thus painted as upholding society. (Survival of Society (propaganda theme 3) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme3.htm#3 ) 
 
 
[7]
Proponents of marijuana legalization often point to Amsterdam's "coffee shop" marijuana sales, rarely mentioning that the Dutch have dramatically reduced what at one time were thousands of shops to only a few hundred  after being inundated with "drug tourists," drug-related organized crime involvement and public nuisance problems . 

(Sentence 7) re: "organized crime" - Drug war propaganda insinuates drugs are evil, because they are linked with hated groups. (Hated Groups (propaganda theme 1) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme1.htm#1 ) re: "crime", "problems" - Prohibition propaganda rarely misses an opportunity to link crime, violence, and insanity with "drugs". The propagandist insinuates that prohibited drugs cause evil, and if it weren't for "drugs" bad things would not exist. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) re: "legalization" - Drug policy options are presented as either total prohibition, or as total "legalization." No middle ground is contemplated in the "zero-tolerance" world of prohibition. Absolute prohibition executed with religious fervor and purpose! (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 ) 
 
 
[11]
A 2004 meta-analysis published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review of studies conducted in several localities showed that between 4% and 14% of drivers who sustained injuries or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the active ingredient in marijuana . 

(Sentence 11) re: "accidents" - Drugs, the prohibitionist explains, are a wicked bane on modern man. Why if not for the noble drug war (i.e. jailing drug users), exclaims the propagandist, then people will run amok, and violence, death, psychosis, and plague shall cover the land. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) 
 
 
[12]
Because marijuana negatively affects drivers' judgment, motor skills and reaction time, it stands to reason that legalizing marijuana would lead to more accidents and fatalities involving drivers under its influence . 

(Sentence 12) re: "accidents" - Prohibitionists claim use of currently illegal drugs causes crime, death, illness, lunacy, mania, melancholy, and all means of sin and degradation. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) re: "legalizing" - Onward prohibitionist drug warriors, fighting the epidemic and scourge in the battles of the war against drugs! (Drugs declared evil by politicians, that is.) (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 ) 
 
 
[18]
The current healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with alcohol and tobacco far surpass the tax revenue they generate, and very little of the taxes collected on these substances is contributed to offsetting their substantial social and health costs . 

(Sentence 18) re: "criminal" - The rhetoric of prohibition asserts that insanity, crime, and violence are caused by drugs, or are controlled by prohibition. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) 
 
 
[19]
For every dollar society collects in taxes on alcohol, for example, we end up spending eight more in social costs . 

(Sentence 19) re: "society", "social costs" - The survival of society is assured, -- says the propaganda of prohibition -- as long as drug users are punished (jailed). (Survival of Society (propaganda theme 3) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme3.htm#3 ) 
 
 
[22]
Another pro-legalization argument is that it would free up law enforcement resources to concentrate on "real" crimes . 

(Sentence 22) re: "crimes" - Prohibitionist propaganda claims that horrible dangers are caused by "drugs." (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) re: "pro-legalization" - Anyone who disagrees with prohibition is silenced and attacked as part of the problem. No dissent is permitted. (Dissent Attacked (propaganda theme 8) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme8.htm#8 ) 
 
 
[23]
Two of us are former police chiefs, who in our combined careers protected five of America's largest cities, including New York, Houston and Seattle, and served as elected heads of the nation's largest professional police associations . 

(Sentence 23) re: "America" - Prohibitionists assert that the survival of the community, society, the nation, the world, etc. are at stake. Only continued and increased punishments for drug users can be contemplated, because, say prohibitionists, society will otherwise fall apart. (Survival of Society (propaganda theme 3) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme3.htm#3 ) 
 
 
[24]
We interacted with tens of thousands of officers, and it is our experience that an overwhelming majority of police professionals does not support legalizing marijuana . 

(Sentence 24) re: "legalizing", "support legalizing" - Drug policy options are presented as either total prohibition, or as total "legalization." No middle ground is contemplated in the "zero-tolerance" world of prohibition. Absolute prohibition executed with religious fervor and purpose! (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 ) 
 
 
[25]
Law enforcement officers do not currently focus much effort on arresting adults whose only crime is possessing small amounts of marijuana . 

(Sentence 25) re: "crime" - Drugs, claim the prohibitionist, cause insanity, violence, and terrible sickness. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) 
 
 
[27]
The proposition would require officers to enforce laws against "ingesting or smoking marijuana while minors are present."

(Sentence 27) re: "minors" - Prohibitionists play on parental fears by exaggerating the dangers to children of drugs. Adults must be jailed (reason prohibitionists), because kids might be corrupted with drugs. (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme5.htm#5 ) 
 
 
[31]
As should be evident, despite the millions spent on marketing the idea, legalized marijuana can't solve California's budget crisis or reduce criminal justice costs . 

(Sentence 31) re: "criminal" - Drugs, scream prohibitionists, cause all bad things in life: crime, violence, insanity, etc. If not for prohibition (i.e., jailing drug users), then criminality, violence and psychotic behavior would explode upon the land, the prohibitionist assures us. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) re: "legalized" - Drug policy options are presented as either total prohibition, or as total "legalization." No middle ground is contemplated in the "zero-tolerance" world of prohibition. Absolute prohibition executed with religious fervor and purpose! (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 ) 
 
 
[33]
Our opposition to legalizing marijuana is grounded not in ideology but in facts and experience . 

(Sentence 33) re: "legalizing" - Onward prohibitionist drug warriors, fighting the epidemic and scourge in the battles of the war against drugs! (Drugs declared evil by politicians, that is.) (Total Prohibition or Access (propaganda theme 7) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme7.htm#7 ) 
 
 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by FoM on August 26, 2010 at 09:58:11 PT

dongenero
He can't. The description of the drug czar's position is he must resist all forms of legalization. We should eliminate the position. It serves no one.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by dongenero on August 26, 2010 at 09:19:00 PT

Kerlikowski
Kerlikowske is the current ONDCP official mouthpiece. I would sure like to see him have to publicly stand up and defend the misinformation in this propaganda piece, line by line, and then participate in Q and A about the war on marijuana, with some real journalists, no screened questions.It would never happen. Their message only exists in the absence of a counterpoint of truth.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by FoM on August 26, 2010 at 08:14:30 PT

JoeCitizen
I am an Obama supporter too. The drug czars past or present will say what they must say. They can't voice anything but opposition. At least the drug czar's office has been downgraded under Obama. We don't know how much of this article is written by our current drug czar or former drug czars. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by JoeCitizen on August 26, 2010 at 07:56:30 PT

Very disappointed in Kerlikowske
I had hoped for better from Gil Kerlikowske than to put his name on tripe like this.Walters and Bennett are hard-core Drug Warriors, even if Bennett is hugely hypocritical to be so (degenerate gambler and perennial drunk.)Barry McCaffrey has told so many lies to cover up the murders he ordered in his army days, that telling a few more about drugs is as easy as breathing for him.Lee Brown is such a company-man than he'd tell you the sky was green if that's what his talking points said.Martinez I don't know as well.I feel like I want to refute all the misinformation and misstatements in the article, but there would be nothing left of it if I did. This is the proverbial pack of lies.I see this article as a pretty bad sign as far as the future of cannabis prohibition under Obama. I'm a big supporter of the President, but putting a former cop in charge of ONDCP, and letting him sign his name to lies like this, right alongside the monsters who helped get us to this place...it's just not good.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by Hope on August 26, 2010 at 07:25:22 PT

experts in the field of drug policy, policing, ...
The ones that got us in this god awful, deadly, destructive expensive prohibition mess in the first place! Yeah... we should be hanging on their every word...NOT!Self styled "Experts".When I was a child, a teacher told me to always be wary of so called "Experts". He said, "Remember (and I did). An ex is a has been and a spert is nothing but a big drip anyway."Plus all these particular "experts" are liars... big time... some more... professional liars. No way did all those "experts" "write" this opinion piece. That's ridiculous to even imagine. They just signed onto it. And another subtle deception slipped into this opinion? You betcha. The way that last paragraph is written it tries to make it look like, at first glance, that "Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush" all signed this piece. They didn't!I first thought, "Well at least good old, try to be honest, Jimmy Carter didn't sign on to it"... then I realized that none of those guys signed onto it, at all. It's only the freaking Czars, "directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the administrations of....".Freaking liars.I bet they all have lifetime pensions for their "service" to this country. Freaking czars.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by Vincent on August 26, 2010 at 06:48:08 PT:

The "authors" of this garbage
 "Two of us are former police chiefs, who in our combined careers protected five of America's largest cities, including New York, Houston and Seattle, and served as elected heads of the nation's largest professional police associations"."Former police chiefs", eh? That one sentence sums up the whole objective of this foolishness--oops! I meant "article". 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by rchandar on August 26, 2010 at 05:15:53 PT:

This Article
I'm actually glad we got this post. Mainly because it shows why we should disagree with the writers.That Kerlikowske signs his name to this criticism of Prop 19 tells me a few things: he is against changing the MMJ policy from Eric Holder's direction that the Feds "will not" prosecute dispensaries and growers, to a potential ground where they "cannot" prosecute them. Medical marijuana policy is discretionary, it is not law. The Dutch coffee shop policy is law, and is not at all discretionary.And that's why Kerlikowske is not a good arbiter. He cites statistics. One, that California isn't capable of training and supervising police to carry out what it calls for. That's just ridiculous: teen crimes have been a focus of California law enforcement as long as I can remember. The number of highway fatalities: come on, that if anything shows that pot heads are usually not the cause of any problems. Paying taxes: that's a crock. Prop 19 would make a great deal of tax money. The amount legally allowed for cultivation: that's actually not that much. If anything, a viable above-ground industry must compete for its independence from cartels who grow much larger amounts.Therefore, I disagree with what Gil is saying. I think the best route is to pass this law, then use a case as a court challenge which would go to the Supreme Court. Then, we could draft a policy that replaces discretion with law--what we are aiming for in any event.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by Storm Crow on August 25, 2010 at 20:19:17 PT

About those "social costs"
Culturally, Canada and the US are reasonably similar. http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/cannabis/bck/7Cannabis, Tobacco and Alcohol Use in Canada
Comparing risks of harm and costs to societyA quote from the article-"In terms of social costs, the vast majority of the social costs of cannabis are enforcement-related while the vast majority of tobacco costs are health-related. The social costs of alcohol are about evenly distributed between health care and enforcement.In terms of costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user. On the enforcement side, costs for cannabis are the highest at $328 per user—94% of social costs for cannabis are linked to enforcement. Enforcement costs per user for alcohol are about half those for cannabis ($153), while enforcement costs for tobacco are very low.ConclusionThe harms, risks and social costs of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco vary greatly. A lot has to do with how the substances are handled legally. Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances, which explain their low enforcement costs relative to cannabis. On the other hand, the health costs per user of tobacco and alcohol are much higher than for cannabis. This may indicate that cannabis use involves fewer health risks than alcohol or tobacco. These variations in risk, harms and costs need to
be taken into account as we think about further efforts to deal with the use of these three substances in Canada. Efforts to reduce social costs related to cannabis, for example, will likely involve shifting its legal status by decriminalizing casual use, to reduce the high enforcement costs. Such a shift may be warranted given the apparent lower health risk associated with most cannabis use." 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by John Tyler on August 25, 2010 at 18:32:18 PT

vote to relegalize
It took all of these guys (Gil Kerlikowske, John Walters, Barry McCaffrey, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett) to write this bogus drivel. It may impress their pals in prohibition land, but no one else is convinced.  Let’s be real here. The cannabis industry is a fact. In fact, it is currently the largest agricultural industry in California. It is not going to go away. Just about anybody that wants some cannabis, can get some cannabis somewhere. It used to be legal a few decades ago, and it was OK, but small minded, greedy, hateful people did evil work to make it illegal. It should be relegalized and it will be OK again. Legal cannabis will be just fine. A vote of cannabis relegalization is a vote for freedom.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 25, 2010 at 17:23:18 PT

Google to Run Marijuana Ads That Facebook Wouldn't
URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/google-to-run-marijuana-ads-that-facebook-wouldnt/62050/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Rainbow on August 25, 2010 at 14:08:10 PT

Bush jr???
Sorry but I would be curious to know what word Bush jr added to this article, that would be all he is capable of."We also know that increased use brings increased social costs."Yes we know you have been doing this to the people for 35 years. Funny how they answer their own thoughts. What a bunch of loosers.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by GentleGiant on August 25, 2010 at 11:49:29 PT:

The Inny, Minny, Miney, Moes of the Drug Czars
As I was reading, I was already feeling the slant as I read on till I got to the end to find out who wrote this BS. Jesus! These guys are greatly responsible for jailing millions of oridinary people, plus our kids. And for what? By a bald-faced Lie! They were all put in jail, just because of the government's hell-bent absolute fraud that has been imposed on us for seventy-three years now. These guys are either flat evil or purely stupid for not questioning the truth about marijuana from past administrations.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by dongenero on August 25, 2010 at 11:17:20 PT

Prohibition Heads of Status Quo.
"This commentary was written by Gil Kerlikowske, John Walters, Barry McCaffrey, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett"Is it any wonder? What I wonder is, did it really take that many dunces to come up with such a collection of propaganda, misinformation, half truths and lies? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by runruff on August 25, 2010 at 11:16:34 PT

Gosh all my heros!
Gil Kerlikowske, John Walters, Barry McCaffrey, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett, directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the administrations of Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.
 They left out Mark Souder?This list should be enough to show who has been leading this draconian war on the people. They should all be convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by ekim on August 25, 2010 at 11:07:38 PT

listen to NPR report 
Law enforcement officers do not currently focus much effort on arresting adults whose only crime is possessing small amounts of marijuana. http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=8-23-2010Black Men's Jail Time Hits Entire Communities
[30 min 18 sec] 
Transcript 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by b4daylight on August 25, 2010 at 11:04:05 PT

Its this or the other. 
 Feds injecting  propaganda into a local paper. 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on August 25, 2010 at 10:52:14 PT

exile
I can't get this image out of my head of putting all these guys on a boat and pushing them out to seaSort of like Captain Bligh in "Mutiny on the Bounty"

[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment