| Law enforcement officials speak out against Proposition 19 |
 |
| Written by Drug Czars past and present |
|
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 percent 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 percent 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, 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, appeared in the August 25 edition of the Los Angeles Times. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites          Comments (15)
  written by Tom, September 02, 2010
Why should we listen to these six federal officials who have been in charge of waging the obviously failed "war on drugs"? Anyone who is paying attention knows it is time to have a forward-thinking conversation about how we can actually solve our nation's drug abuse problems. Continuing to say we should keep doing the same thing is not at all helpful.
 written by Josh , September 02, 2010
We've tried prohibition, it clearly doesn't work. It is well past time to have a serious dialog about elimination of this arcane practice. Portugal did this over a decade ago and their drug usage went down in a huge way. Why do our law enforcement officials and policymakers not see this? It is time to stop locking up non violent people for using a natural substance.
 written by Paul Adams, September 02, 2010
I think that over a billion dollars have been spent. Countless policemen and women have lost their lives in drug raids and countless Americans have been killed either mistakenly by police, on purpose by police, as innocent bystanders to drug related crime, or as convicts in jail. We have been trying to stop this for 40 years now, and no amount of tax dollars and no amount of enforcement has stopped or even slowed the flow of drugs, nor has it decreased the demand for drugs. Drugs are cheaper, more potent and more available now than they have ever been, despite the fact that our brave men and women of law enforcement have fought long and hard to eradicate it.
Isn't it obvious that we should admit that the war on drugs is a total failure? Perhaps we could look to the Dutch (decriminalization) model, or the Portuguese (complete legalization of all drugs) model? In both countries there were those 'experts' that declared it would be the 'end of the world' and the 'complete anarchy' would surely break out. However, both of these countries have fared extremely well and some experts agree that they both have a better handle on the drug problem than their enforcement-only neighbors. Anarchy hasn't broken out. The world is still here. Please be sensible and have compassion for your fellow citizens. Thank you  written by Reuben, September 02, 2010
"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."
Maybe they don't support legalization because the arrest and jailing of cannabis users is what gives them their paycheck. It's time for a different approach.  written by Robert Petricci, September 02, 2010
Prohibition like alcohol prohibition before it has failed and made the problem worse. Regulation makes much more sense than making millions of Americans into criminals to fit a law that can not meet its own definition.
Federal law states marijuana is a schedule one drug, definition having no known medical use in the United States. Everyone knows that is simply not true, therefore the law is based on a falsehood. You are dividing the country when we need each other we have real problems and prohibition of cannabis is one of them. You are waging a war against our friends and families that have hurt no one, its destructive and economically unsustainable turning people who in many cases are economic assets into economic liabilities and things are worse now that when you began. Regulation is the clear path to a better policy for cannabis. Thank you for the opportunity to speak a citizen of this country I love, stop attacking me I am not the enemy.  written by BrunSteve, September 02, 2010
These people obviously remember their experience over four administrations differently than I do. My recollection is that over the past 40 years, drugs have become ever stronger, cheaper, and more readily available than ever. Our streets have become more violent. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Northern Mexico is a war zone. And it's only getting worse. Thank you, but I can do without recommendations by officials who view our present catastrophic policy as a desirable effort that we ought to continue to pursue.
They conveniently ignore the social costs of the drug war: overflowing prisons resulting in broken families and ex-cons who can't get a job because of their record. Cities and states that can't afford to fund decent schools, or fully staff fire departments, because so much money is going to build and maintain prisons. Innocent people killed in drug dealer turf wars, or by misguided SWAT raids on the wrong house. They seem to believe that prohibition actually keeps people from using drugs. Personally, I doubt it, given that teens regularly report that marijuana is easier to obtain than alcohol. It does not "stand to reason" that legalizing marijuana would lead to more traffic accidents. The illegality of a substance typically leads to more risk-taking behavior, so legalization might in fact reduce traffic accidents. It's also not clear that marijuana is a significant cause of accidents: of the 4 to 14% cited, how many had also been drinking? The studies I have seen suggest that marijuana, by itself, is far less of a contributor to traffic accidents than is alcohol. (Not that I'm suggesting it's OK to drive while stoned.) Legalization does NOT mean "unregulated use." It would still be illegal to drive while stoned, for instance, and police departments, relieved of the impossible burden of total prohibition, could concentrate resources on behaviors that are actually dangerous. Companies could still fire people who come to work impaired. We just wouldn't be trying to legislate people's private lives. All cops do not support drug prohibition. The organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is made up of current and former law enforcement officials who see the war on drugs for what it is -- an abject failure -- and want to end it. I think they have a far better argument for their position than these former drug czars have for theirs.  written by Rational Voice, September 02, 2010 'Marijuana, though, is easy and cheap to cultivate'... Clearly the authors know nothing of growing cannabis. If they had to deal with a spider-mite infestation even once, 'easy' would NOT be the word they used. It's anything but 'easy' to grow good stuff. It takes time, and patience, and most Americans have neither. How else do you explain the fact that despite your best efforts, the stuff continues to flow in from every national forest, and border? There's a HUGE market for pre-grown, pre-prepared cannabis. No -- everyone will NOT be growing their own. In fact, none of the author's arguments hold any water, whatsoever. Scare mongering at its finest, and I think your readers are well aware of that. I have yet to meet a law enforcement officer who (off the record) thinks allowing cannabis prohibition to continue is a good idea. Like most of the population, they're smarter than that, and can see right through the hypocrisy. Anyone who's worked the job for more than a week knows you're not going to have many problems from cannabis users. Rest assured, law enforcement jobs do not ride on prop 19. It will make law enforcement lives easier, and allow you to concentrate on the really important crimes again, like burglary, rape, and homicide. Support Prop 19. Support Freedom. Support your fellow citizens.  written by raymond prescott, September 02, 2010
"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"
cause they know there's no other reason to abstain. Like my daddy always said maybe, might and should never did anything.  written by Rhonda , September 03, 2010
The same could be said about the claims made against Legalization as far as withstanding scrutiny goes. Also, California is a State,not a Country, there may be no data or statistics for a Country that is fully legalized for Marijuana, but there are Countries like the Netherlands,whose National Drug Policy shows how well it works. There are actually well over 1.000 coffee shops operating in the Netherlands as of Aug.24th 2010.
As for usage increasing when legalized.. the statistics show that usage will actually decrease as will hard drug use.. Portugal has proved that although they legalized all drugs. But more importantly California has shown a decrease especially in teenagers since they passed for medical use. Washington has also. The same goes for 18-20 year old's and adults. And as for the vehicular deaths where marijuana was present, that just shows that marijuana has a longer presence in the blood stream making it detectable for a longer period of time. And it shows it's more popular than most are. The motor skills of a driver who has smoked are not as affected as someone who is at the legal limit of alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana have been shown to drive slower and pay more attention to their surroundings unlike a person intoxicated with alcohol. Marijuana may be easy to grow and cheap to cultivate but seriously how many people are going to want to do that? The answer is not many. We live in a Society that wants their product right now. But yes some people may want to grow a plant or two. It is not like they are going to grow 1.000's at a time for personal use. The taxing and regulation will still bring in large revenues. Just because a person can doesn't mean that they will. The concern about the health care and criminal justice costs due to alcohol and tobacco are going to be considerably higher than with marijuana. Marijuana does not carry the detrimental effects that both of those do. Where exactly is the research showing that Law Enforcement is against legalization.. L.E.A.P. is against prohibition and they speak for many active and retired law enforcement officers, all the statistics seem to show that there are many many that are supporters of legalization and change in the current laws. The question of using marijuana in the presence of a minor is outlined and pretty much follows that of tobacco use in confined places..1.000 yds from a school etc. Really don't understand what it is You are not following being the smoke from marijuana is not detrimental compared to tobacco smoke. But the same precautions should be used. It does seem quite odd that all of the research and demographics show otherwise as to the financial boon to the State marijuana would be. The opposition against Proposition 19 is unfounded and the money spent on marketing this idea is far less than the billions wasted on a war against marijuana. Ill-considered scheme??? This Country was built from hemp,it's time for it to be so again. written by Paul Adams, September 03, 2010
I know of at least three comments that have been posted here in the last 24 hours that disagree with these outdated perspectives. Every time one of us posts a comment, it says "an admin will review your comment" blah blah blah and then it never shows up.
Its censorship. Its wrong. You are lying to the people that read this page and portraying that every body is in agreement with these fools when they aren't. A majority of Americans believe the drug war has failed. These same 'czars' and 'mayors' and whatnot have had 40 YEARS to fix the drug abuse problem in this country and they have FAILED. Instead of "lets do more of the same and hope it works this time", lets try to come up with a better more humane solution.  written by Kirk Muse, September 03, 2010
I'd like to add that many currently employed in law enforcement and the prison industry are
opposed to re-legalizing marijuana. That's because we would need far fewer law enforcement personnel, far fewer prison guards and no prison builders. Thus, many now employed in law enforcement and the prison industry would be looking for a job or working at quickie marts for a living. Of course, those opposed to re-legalizing marijuana because it would affect their livelihood will not say so. Instead they will cite noble reasons such as protecting children. As if our current policies are protecting children.  written by Erie Crackhead, September 03, 2010
While it is extremely easy to say that the "War on Drugs" has been a dismal failure, that kind of remark is threatening to the livelihoods of LEO. Instead the focus should be on where could those funds used on the drug war could have more value on our society. Reduced taxes, programs more suitable for educational purposes, other areas of law enforcement that warrant greater attention, reducing gun violence and the list goes on and on and...
Another thing is the facts that LEO use in their arguments are outdated and in many cases have been proven wrong. Other comments preceding mine have addressed that issue, so that horse won't be beat any further...  written by william vandergraaf, September 03, 2010
As a homicide detective in Canada,I can say the Drug Czars are so wrong and make the world more dangerous. They wage War, tell police to go wage War for them at huge risks while they enjoy their martinis. They have no concern about the collateral damage like murder of kids, increased attacks on police, burgeoning jails that have destroyed families. Legalization will help police officers regain the respect we have lost over 50 years.
 written by Garret Overstreet, September 03, 2010
Gil Kerlikowske - Once considered a potentially "nicer" Drug Czar for being more science based and about harm reduction while in Seattle and son arrested for marijuana... Barry McCaffrey doesn't care if marijuana is legalized "now" after leaving office, Presidents George H.W. Bush's son smoked pot several times, Barack Obama inhaled ("that was the point.." according to him), George W. Bush (smoked even though his father was a major politician), Bill Clinton (smoked, though claimed to not inhale)...
As for John Walters, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett, not much can be said, though if it was up to these folks, they would soon rather have made a criminal out of their bosses and have been out of a job.  written by Diane Goldstein, September 19, 2010
As a retired law enforcement officer, I continue to cringe at the only argument that LE continues to use is fear. I spent 22 years working in an operational capacity working Gangs, Narcotics, Investigations, DUI & Patrol. During this time I have yet to respond to a call where marijuana was the sole contributing factor to an act of domestic violence, a robbery or a fatality. I have never had a physical fight with someone under the influence of pot, but have been hurt or have seen to many folks hurt through excessive alcohol usage.
Statistically if marijuana is being used in this random study, it was more likely used in a poly drug combination. There is no doubt that marijuana can be harmful, as is alcohol, prescription drugs and tobacco. It is time for the public policy discourse to start focusing on consumption. We americans are blaming other countries for the usage of illicit substances by our populace. We have seen that increased incarceration does nothing, in California our rate recidivism is 70%. The highest in the nation, California now spends 11% of the state budget or roughly 8 billion folks on incarceration. We have back loaded the sytemm versus long term front loading the program on education and effective drug treatment. Write comment
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
