cannabisnews.com: T.O. Cops Wary of Token Fine for Drugs





T.O. Cops Wary of Token Fine for Drugs
Posted by FoM on May 05, 2000 at 07:43:06 PT
By David Sands, Edmonton Sun
Source: Edmonton Sun
Veteran Toronto drug cops say Alberta might want to think twice about encouraging a more blase attitude towards marijuana possession. But they concede cops in Hogtown find it much easier to ticket marijuana smokers and know they'll plead guilty to get a free pass in an Ontario court. 
"It comes down to community standards, and here you're generally looking at an absolute discharge in court," said Det. Rick Chase of the Toronto police drug squad. "These people wind up with no criminal record - that goes back to community standards. I'll use the term 'Upper Rubberboot, Alberta,' and say standards there, I believe, would be different. "The judge or justice of the peace sees fit there to send a message that it's a community outrage to possess this drug." Alberta Justice Minister Dave Hancock told The Sun this week he'd like to examine ways to keep minor possession charges from clogging the justice system. Edmonton interim police Chief Bob Wasylyshen said yesterday he'd also like to see minor dope cases use less time in the justice system. "I strongly oppose decriminalization, however, I believe it's important to streamline the process to ease the burden on the courts." Chase, a 15-year veteran of drug investigations in Canada's biggest city, said courts and cops there routinely deal with pot as quickly as the law allows. "I am not one of those who agrees that marijuana is necessarily so harmless. But because we are so busy here, and the community standards are that marijuana is such a soft drug, it is dealt with very quickly. "The law says you could be jailed for up to six months for a summary conviction for possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana. Here it's very very unlikely anything approaching that would ever happen." But an even softer approach - such as setting a specific fine and letting tokers mail in a cheque just like a speeding ticket - is going too far, Chase said. "That probably would free us up even more, especially the uniformed officers who make most possession busts, but as far as I am concerned that's letting it go too far." Colin McDonald, a detective in Toronto's 52 street crime unit in the city's downtown, says he's seen Canada's differing views of pot smoking on the rap sheets of people he's arrested. "We see criminal records on some of these people from arrests somewhere else in Canada. Here it's a ticket and in court, generally, an absolute discharge." A cop for 24 years, McDonald said that's not necessarily the way it should be, but it is the way it has to be in the busy city. Published: May 5, 2000Copyright © 2000, Canoe Limited PartnershipRelated Articles:Feds Just Say No, Cannabis To Stay Illegalhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread5582.shtmlTicket Pot Smokers To Keep Courts Clearhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread5570.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by J. Bills on May 05, 2000 at 12:15:01 PT:
Prohibitionists Do Not Learn from History(Part 5)
A WISER COURSE: ENDING DRUG PROHIBITION (Continued) Indeed the available data indicate that the vast majority of the American population that uses now-prohibited drugs does so with moderation. According to United States government statistics, more than 75 million persons in the United States household population have used prohibited drugs. The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that close to 40 million Americans continue to consume these substances. Yet, only a comparatively minuscule number of deaths due to drug overdoses, 4,242, occurred in 1991 according to medical examiner data compiled by the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Once the distinction between use of prohibited drugs and abuse is acknowledged, the available statistics show that the vast majority of Americans who use drugs do not abuse them. Based on our experience with American states' and foreign decriminalization of marijuana, it appears that decriminalization does not lead to greater levels of use nor to abuse. Likewise there is evidence to support the proposition that the decriminalization of the so-called "hard drugs" does not lead to increased rates of addiction. Perhaps most importantly, data analysis strongly indicates that social factors wholly apart from the criminalization of drugs account in the greatest measure for reduced rates of use. Based on the evidence, it would not be unfair to say that the predicted, post-legalization explosion in the use of drugs has been greatly overstated and that use in continued moderation would be the much more likely result. European countries, such as the Netherlands, have benefitted from an approach to drugs that focuses on "harm reduction" rather than draconian measures to enforce prohibition. CONCLUSION The Special Committee on Drugs and the Law has spent the better part of a decade examining this country's "drug problem" and the mechanisms utilized to manage it, principally a federal and state system of criminal proscription. In recent years, the criminal penalties for possession and distribution of proscribed drugs have increased, with mandatory sentences being imposed at both the state and federal levels. The prison population in the United States has more than doubled in the past ten years, largely as the result of these prohibitionist laws. The scarce resources of the federal and state judiciary have been increasingly devoted to drug cases. Despite all of these efforts, the drug war rages on. The Committee recognizes the urgent and compelling need to make additional resources available for education and treatment. We believe that even at increased levels, however, treatment and education are not enough to control this country's drug problem. The Committee opposes the present prohibitionist system and recommends the opening of a public dialog regarding new approaches to drug policy, including legalization and regulation. KATHY HELLENBRAND ROCKLEN, CHAIR (1994) 
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by J. Bills on May 05, 2000 at 12:07:44 PT:
Prohibitionists Do Not Learn from History(Part 4)
A WISER COURSE: ENDING DRUG PROHIBITION (Continued) Ending drug prohibition would enable the Court and our society to recognize the right of individuals to alter their consciousness (the most private of matters), so long as they do not harm the persons or property of others. In New York and elsewhere in the United States, wild shootouts in urban areas are frequently publicized. These reports reveal that innocent bystanders in these areas are often caught in the cross-fire. It is, however, far from clear that the use of or need for prohibited drugs causes this sort of violent crime. Rather, the available evidence tends to support the conclusion that it is the prohibitionist laws against drugs that cause the violent crimes that people generally deplore. So-called "drug-related crime" is often related only indirectly to the drugs themselves, resulting instead from the illegal black market in drugs that is, in turn, spawned by laws prohibiting the legal sale of drugs. For example, the Los Angeles police have long known that the lucrative black market in cocaine has provided the incentive (as well as the financing) for the bloody gang turf wars in that city. Similarly, it is estimated that 40% of the homicides in a study of 414 homicides in New York City precincts were indirectly attributable to black market trafficking in drugs. Further supporting the fact that it is drug prohibition rather than drug use which is causing the alarming "drug-related" violence saturating our culture is the historical precedent of alcohol Prohibition which was accompanied by the same type of violence. There is no reason to believe that black markets would not disappear with the ending of drug prohibition. Common sense indicates that without the immense profits guaranteed by the necessarily restricted nature of the outlets, there would be little advantage to maintaining such black markets. The current patterns of drug-sale related turf violence would be substantially, if not wholly, undermined. Proponents of the "war on drugs" often eagerly declare that the draconian prohibitionist laws of the state and federal government are causing a decline in drug use. The evidence, however, tends to show that "the number of heavy drug users in the United States is undiminished." In addition, recent surveys show an increasing number of high school students using marijuana and lysergic acid diethylamide ("LSD"). Even proponents of the "war on drugs" candidly admit that "drug abuse cannot be entirely eliminated." Some experts have estimated that the government has spent close to $500 billion dollars over the past 20 years to enforce the prohibitionist laws against drugs, while during the same period use levels rose and the number of arrests and the amounts of drugs seized increased unabated annually. 750,000 people were incarcerated for violating the prohibitionist drug laws during a twenty-year period, costing an average of $25 billion annually and $61 billion for 1991 alone. Although the vast majority of Americans polled stated that they would not take now-prohibited drugs if they were legalized, many people voice the concern that use would escalate sharply upon legalization. Implicit in the idea that use of drugs would rise upon legalization is the assumption that the current prohibitionist laws discourage many people from using them. The available evidence tends to show that Americans can and do voluntarily control their use of drugs. The recent decline in middle class use of drugs as well as recent declines in alcohol and tobacco consumption have been attributed by many experts to factors (such as education, health and fitness awareness, and social pressures) other than the prohibitionist laws against drugs. Experts have recognized these other factors as the basis for the current levels of use of drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) rather than the existence of prohibitionist laws. Indeed some observers have cited the prohibitionist laws against drugs as a significant factor leading to increased use and greater numbers of addicts than we would otherwise have: [T]he growth of addiction over the last four decades in the US had little to do with price reductions or, for that matter, with the growth of real income. The crucial factor in the spread of the drug habit has been the unrelenting pressure exerted by legions of street pushers in the continuing endeavor to widen the circle of the customers. In other words, the crucial factor in spreading the drug habit has been the super profits made possible only by governments' illegalization of the trade." The prohibitionist laws, therefore, seem to have little impact on an individual's decision whether to use drugs. Another useful example is the experience of the ten states that decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal consumption in the 1970s. There was no increase in the level of marijuana use in those states. Indeed marijuana consumption declined in those states just as it did in states that retained criminal sanctions against marijuana. In 1976, the Dutch decriminalized marijuana consumption, although possession and small sales technically remained illegal. The level of use actually declined after decriminalization. Indeed marijuana use in the Netherlands is substantially lower than in countries waging a "war on drugs," including the United States and, at least until recently, Germany. Among Dutch youths aged 17-18, only 17.7% used marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, as opposed to 43.7% of Americans. Only 4.6% of the Dutch had used marijuana at least once in the past month, as opposed to 16.7% of the Americans. While indicating clearly that prohibitionist laws do not prevent the use of drugs, these statistics also tend to show that legalizing now-prohibited drugs, at least marijuana, does not inevitably cause an increase in use.  Others addressing the issue of whether the levels of use of now prohibited drugs would escalate to overwhelming proportions after legalization (as many prohibitionists have predicted) have likened possible patterns of illegal drug use to patterns of alcohol use, with which we have a solid familiarity. They point out that Western cultures have handled alcohol consumption with tolerable skill for centuries and point out that most of the American population that drinks occasionally, or even every day, exercises moderation. (End Part 4)
The Entire Report Online
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by J. Bills on May 05, 2000 at 11:49:22 PT:
Prohibitionists Do Not Learn from History(Part 3)
A WISER COURSE: ENDING DRUG PROHIBITION by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York June, 1994 The Committee has concluded, in some cases reluctantly, that the costs of drug prohibition are simply too high and its benefits too dubious. The Committee believes the necessary inquiry cannot begin in earnest so long as our nation remains committed to the illusion that drug use can be prohibited at an acceptable cost. Only by recognizing that this is no longer true can we fashion a method of controlling drugs other than the current coercive drug laws, which have been largely ineffective and which are sapping the vitality of our cities, our legal system, and our society as a whole. It is the Committee's hope that this report will advance the discussion of this important issue. One of the most tangible, measurable effects of the "war on drugs," has been the creation of a "prison state". According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's statistics, one million arrests are made annually for violations of the federal and state drug laws. As a result of these massive numbers of arrests each year, "the United States has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available." One of the more insidious effects of the "war on drugs" has been the gradual erosion of the rule of law and the public's civil liberties. Several interrelated elements contribute to this particularly destructive consequence of the current drug laws. The large sums of money appropriated for law-enforcement create enormous, self-perpetuating bureaucratic agencies, such as the United States Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA"), which fight for independence and scarce public resources while making little headway against the "drug problem." These agencies have ample motivation to exaggerate or distort the extent and danger of "drug abuse" so as to justify (and thereby insure) their continued existence. Being inherently biased, they have great potential to ignore the public's true welfare. The fact that drug prohibition breeds corruption has been known for decades. Every day there are news stories of law enforcement officers being arrested for their involvement with drug dealers. The sums of money involved in the drug business are too great and too inviting for the law enforcers not to seek their share. Corrupt police behavior creates a further disillusioned public. In addition, just as organized crime became entrenched during Prohibition, the current prohibitionist regime is currently subsidizing the mafia and other organized crime groups because of the highly inflated prices on the black market. There is no reason to believe that recognized market forces cease to apply where the drug business is concerned. There is public recognition that youths and unemployed adults often cannot just say "no" to drugs when saying "yes" as a dealer or a dealer's helper is much more profitable than are the alternatives. Children living in poor, urban neighborhoods are particularly susceptible to being drawn into illegal drug-related activities by visions of status anCriminal prosecutions for violations of the federal and state drug laws appear to be disproportionately d easy money. Laws against drugs thus discourage many youths and adults from productive legitimate employment that would benefit society. Criminal prosecutions for violations of the federal and state drug laws appear to be disproportionately directed against minorities. Understandably, there is widespread public concern that the drug laws are selectively enforced with vigor against the poor and disenfranchised, while rich and middle class drug users are permitted to indulge without serious fear of legal consequences. The pursuit of a "drug-free" society has resulted in a panoply of intrusions into the lives of United States citizens: The Bill of Rights is in danger of becoming meaningless in cases involving drugs. Tenants charged with no crime are evicted from homes where police believe drugs are being sold. Public housing projects are sealed for house-to-house inspections. The Supreme Court has permitted warrantless searches of automobiles, the use of anonymous tips and drug-courier profiles as the basis for police searches, and the seizure of lawyers' fees in drug cases. Property on which marijuana plants are found can be forfeited even if the owner is charged with no crime. Prosecutors have been allowed to try the same person at the state and federal levels for the same drug-related crime. A few examples will illustrate the erosion in individual civil liberties occasioned by the "war on drugs." In 1991, the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, upheld the constitutionality of a police tactic of boarding long- distance buses and asking permission to search passengers' baggage, overruling the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that such an encounter with the police is so inherently coercive that no consent given for such a search could be truly voluntary. The Florida v. Bostick decision was merely one of a number of rulings since the early 1980s which authorized police stops and questioning of airline, train, and bus passengers without the level of suspicion generally required for Fourth Amendment search and seizure purposes. The search for tell-tale evidence of drug use has even descended to the level of compelling federal employees to give urine samples for analysis, without regard to whether such a privacy intrusion is related to job performance. The public -- led by the government -- appears to be willing to jump on the bandwagon "to restrict civil liberties, and even accept warrantless searches of homes and cars, in order to reduce the use of illicit drugs." Forfeiture has become one of the most publicized and controversial weapons in the government's anti-drug arsenal. Any assumption, however, that the law would be deployed only against "drug kingpins" and major players has proved unwarranted as small time dealers and marginal users are more often targeted: Under Zero Tolerance, which targets casual drug users, the government has seized thousands of cars, boats, and homes because occupants or guests allegedly carried drugs. In 1990, seizures exceeded $527 million, and they are expected to exceed $700 million in 1991. The U.S. Marshalls Services now has a $1.4 billion inventory of seized assets including more than 30,000 homes, cars, businesses and other property. Although the Ninth Amendment guarantees that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," our society has struggled to find a balance between individual liberty and privacy and governmental intrusion. Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized certain activities as being beyond the reach of most state or federal governmental intrusion (e.g., birth control, abortion during the first trimester, and the possession of adult pornography in the home), drug use has never been found to be within the "right of privacy" that the Court has forged. Because the law, as it stands today, does not recognize the right to use drugs, the "war on drugs" has become "in effect, if not in intention, a war on drug users." Year after year, state and federal laws that prohibit the possession of drugs, demonize and criminalize the users of drugs, estimated to be at least 20 million in the United States alone. Yet, "[d]rugs have been used to alter consciousness in most societies throughout history, and different drugs have been considered acceptable at different times and places." As Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar have stated: Of all the Prohibition era mistakes we are now repeating, the most serious is trying to free society of drugs by the use of force. There is no reason to believe that the inclination to ingest substances that alter consciousness can be eradicated. A drug-free society is an impossible and probably an undesirable dream. . . . Our present drug policies are immoral because they require a war of annihilation against a wrongly chosen enemy. We will never be able to regulate the use of consciousness-altering drugs effectively until our ends are changed along with the means that serve them. (End Part 3)
Media Awareness Project
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by J. Bills on May 05, 2000 at 11:30:53 PT:
Prohibitionists Do Not Learn from History(Part 2)
The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs(Continued)"Consumers Union recommends an immediate end to imprisonment as a punishment for marijuana possession and for furnishing marijuana to friends.""The usual argument for continuing to imprison marijuana offenders that the results of further scientific research should be awaited-is sophistical and brings both the law and scientific research into disrepute. What it tells young marijuana smokers, in effect, is something like this: "We will continue to imprison you for marijuana offenses because scientists are searching feverishly for some justification for imprisoning marijuana smokers, and they will no doubt find one some day." Even if marijuana ultimately proves as damaging as alcohol, which seems very unlikely, imprisonment is hardly the treatment of choice for users.""Consumers Union recommends, pending legalization of marijuana, that marijuana possession and sharing be immediately made civil violations rather than criminal acts. Including marijuana offenses under the criminal law has two major adverse effects on marijuana smokers, even if there is no imprisonment. First, a criminal record bars an individual from government employment and from a wide variety of other jobs and activities. Second, engaging in criminal behavior has a subtle but significant effect on the self-image of individuals. Because they are criminals under the law, they begin to think of themselves as criminals. Lacking respect for the marijuana laws, they may lose respect for other laws as well. Taking marijuana possession and sharing offenses out of the criminal law altogether will contribute to respect for law." "Consumers Union recommends that those now serving prison terms for possession of or sharing marijuana be set free, and that such marijuana offenses be expunged from all legal records. It is hard to think of a more dramatic way to demonstrate this country's earnest desire to bridge the generation gap and to right grievous miscarriages of justice. Respect for law will surely increase."The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse Drug Use In America: Problem in Perspective Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972 Federal 1. Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. 2. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit, would no longer be an offense. 3. A plea of marihuana intoxication shall not be a defense to any criminal act committed under its influence, nor shall proof of such intoxication constitute a negation of specific, intent. State 1. Cultivation, sale or distribution for profit and possession with intent to sell would remain felonies (although we do recommend uniform penalties). 2. Possession in private of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense. 3. Distribution in private of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving a profit, would no longer be an offense. 4. Possession in public of one ounce or under of marihuana would not be an offense, but the marihuana would be contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. 5. Possession in public of more than one ounce of marihuana would be a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $100. 6. Distribution in public of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration or insignificant remuneration not involving a profit would be a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $100. 7. Public use of marihuana would be a criminal offense punishable by a fine of - $100. 8. Disorderly conduct associated with public use of or intoxication by marihuana would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail, a fine of $100, or both. 9. Operating a vehicle or dangerous instrument while under the influence of marihuana would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, and suspension of a permit to operate such a vehicle or instrument for up to 180 days. 10. A plea of marihuana intoxication shall not be a defense to any criminal act committed under its influence nor shall proof of such intoxication constitute a negation of specific intent. 11. A person would be absolutely liable in civil court for any damage to person or property which he caused while under the influence of the drug. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEDrug Enforcement AdministrationIn The Matter OfMARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITIONDocket No. 86-22OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OFFACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OFADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEFRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law JudgeDATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION   Based upon the foregoing facts and reasoning, the administrative law judge concludes that the provisions of the Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. The Judge realizes that strong emotions are aroused on both sides of any discussion concerning the use of marijuana. Nonetheless it is essential for this Agency, and its Administrator, calmly and dispassionately to review the evidence of record, correctly apply the law, and act accordingly. Marijuana can be harmful. Marijuana is abused. But the same is true of dozens of drugs or substances which are listed in Schedule II so that they can be employed in treatment by physicians in proper cases, despite their abuse potential.   Transferring marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II will not, of course, make it immediately available in pharmacies throughout the country for legitimate use in treatment. Other government authorities, Federal and State, will doubtless have to act before that might occur. But this Agency is not charged with responsibility, or given authority, over the myriad other regulatory decisions that may be required before marijuana can actually be legally available. This Agency is charged merely with determining the placement of marijuana pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Under our system of laws the responsibilities of other regulatory bodies are the concerns of those bodies, not of this Agency.   There are those who, in all sincerity, argue that the transfer of marijuana to Schedule II will "send a signal" that marijuana is "OK" generally for recreational use. This argument is specious. It presents no valid reason for refraining from taking an action required by law in light of the evidence. If marijuana should be placed in Schedule II, in obedience to the law, then that is where marijuana should be placed, regardless of misinterpretation of the placement by some. The reasons for the placement can, and should, be clearly explained at the time the action is taken. The fear of sending such a signal cannot be permitted to override the legitimate need, amply demonstrated in this record, of countless suffers for the relief marijuana can provide when prescribed by a physician in a legitimate case. The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II. The judge recommends that the Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II.Dated: SEP 6 1988                  Francis L. YoungAdministrative Law Judge (End Part 2)
Marijuana Policy Lobby
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by J. Bills on May 05, 2000 at 11:05:20 PT:
Prohibitionists Do Not Learn from History(Part 1)
Edmonton interim police Chief Bob Wasylyshen said yesterday he'd also like to see minor dope cases use less time in the justice system. "I strongly oppose decriminalization, however, I believe it's important to streamline the process to ease the burden on the courts."Just like the rest of the prohibitionists, let's ignore EVERY MAJOR STUDY done on marijuana:Physical, Mental, and Moral Effects of Marijuana: The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report(1894)   Conclusions:"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. There may be exceptional cases in which, owing to idiosyncrasies of constitution, the drugs in even moderate use may be injurious. There is probably nothing the use of which may not possibly be injurious in cases of exceptional intolerance. There are also many cases where in tracts with a specially malarious climate, or in circumstances of hard work and exposure, the people attribute beneficial effects to the habitual moderate use of these drugs; and there is evidence to show that the popular impression may have some basis in fact. Speaking generally, the Commission are of opinion that the moderate use of hemp drugs appears to cause no appreciable physical injury of any kind. In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of specially marked neurotic diathesis, even the moderate use may produce mental injury. For the slightest mental stimulation or excitement may have that effect in such cases. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moderate use of these drugs produces no mental injury. It is otherwise with the excessive use. Excessive use indicates and intensifies mental instability. Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable." The La Guardia Committee Report(1944)From the foregoing study the following conclusions are drawn: Marihuana is used extensively in the Borough of Manhattan but the problem is not as acute as it is reported to be in other sections of the United States. The introduction of marihuana into this area is recent as compared to other localities. The cost of marihuana is low and therefore within the purchasing power of most persons. The distribution and use of marihuana is centered in Harlem. The majority of marihuana smokers are Negroes and Latin-Americans. The consensus among marihuana smokers is that the use of the drug creates a definite feeling of adequacy. The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word. The sale and distribution of marihuana is not under the control of any single organized group. The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking. Marihuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes. Marihuana smoking is not widespread among school children. Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marihuana. The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded." Medical: CONCLUSIONS: "Under the influence of marihuana the basic personality structure of the individual does not change but some of the more superficial aspects of his behavior show alteration. With the use of marihuana the individual experiences increased feelings of relaxation, disinhibition and self-confidence. The new feeling of self-confidence induced by the drug expresses itself primarily through oral rather than through physical activity. There is some indication of a diminution in physical activity. The disinhibition which results from the use of marihuana releases what is latent in the individual's thoughts and emotions but does not evoke responses which would be totally alien to him in his undrugged state. Marihuana not only releases pleasant reactions but also feelings of anxiety. Individuals with a limited capacity for effective experience and who have difficulty in making social contacts are more likely to resort to marihuana than those more capable of outgoing responses." The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs(1972)"Narcotics. The one overwhelming objection to opium, morphine, heroin, and the other narcotics is the fact that they are addicting. The other disastrous effects of narcotics addiction on mind, body, and society are primarily the results of laws and policies.""Marijuana. It is now much too late to debate the issue: marijuana versus no marijuana. Marijuana is here to stay. No conceivable law enforcement program can curb its availability. Accordingly, we offer these seven recommendations.(1) Consumers Union recommends the immediate repeal of all federal laws governing the growing, processing, transportation, sale, possession, and use of marijuana.(2) Consumers Union recommends that each of the fifty states similarly repeal its existing marijuana laws and pass new laws legalizing the cultivation, processing, and orderly marketing of marijuana-subject to appropriate regulations. The term "legalization of marijuana" means many things to many people. As used here, it means that marijuana should be classed as a licit rather than an illicit drug.We do not recommend legalization because we believe that marijuana is "safe" or "harmless." No drug is safe or harmless to all people at all dosage levels or under all conditions of use. Our recommendation arises out of the conviction that an orderly system of legal distribution and licit use will have notable advantages for both users and nonusers over the present marijuana black market. In particular it will separate the channels of marijuana distribution from heroin channels and from the channels of distribution of other illicit drugs-and will thereby limit the exposure of marijuana smokers to other illicit drugs. Even more important, it will end the criminalization and alienation of young people and the damage done to them by arrest, conviction, and imprisonment for marijuana offenses." End Part 1 
Drug Library Online
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: