Drug War Progress?

September 12, 2006 2:27 PM

Seattle is proud of the public policy success of I-75, the marijuana enforcement deprioritization inititative. I-75 has been followed by similar local intiatives across the Western US, such as Oakland's Measure Z and Denver's I-100 (sponsored by SAFER). These grassroots initiatives presumably already rankle the federal government. But the council of San Francisco may be poised to outdo them all with a new proposal that "would commit the city to refusing federal funds intended for the investigation or prosecution of marijuana offenses. It also would prevent a federal agency from commissioning or deputizing a city police officer for assistance in such cases."
posted by owhydididoit (40 comments total)

sweet
posted by sourbrew at 2:31 PM on September 12, 2006

I guess these rather strange steps are the consequence of an even stranger prohibition on marijuana in the first place.
posted by cell divide at 2:34 PM on September 12, 2006

This would only pass in a free country.
posted by Malor at 2:34 PM on September 12, 2006

Hmm, I snarked too hastily. It would be more accurate to say that it wouldn't even be necessary in a free country.

But I still don't expect it to pass.
posted by Malor at 2:37 PM on September 12, 2006

cool
posted by Mr_Zero at 2:42 PM on September 12, 2006

I tend to think that decriminlization is preferable to outright legalization (which is improbable anyways).

This is good.
posted by ninjew at 2:46 PM on September 12, 2006

In order to figure out whether I-75 (or any similar initiative) was a "public policy success," wouldn't you have to know a little something about the total social cost of marijuana use before and after passage? Has it gone down? Has it gone up? How do you figure it?
posted by MarshallPoe at 2:49 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

Forgot to add: No matter what the outcome of these or any other bills like it, fighting marijuana-related crime (trafficking/posession/manufacturing) puts a strain on the whole chain of law enforcement. The end of result of which is a whole lot of people in jail. The taxpayer dollars to keep them in jail, as well as enforcing the laws that put them there will never stop the marijuana trade.
posted by ninjew at 2:54 PM on September 12, 2006

You missed the biggest one going on right now:

Question 7 in Nevada this November.

If passed by a majority of Nevada voters, the initiative would:

1. eliminate the threat of arrest and jail for adults aged 21 and older who responsibly use and possess up to one ounce of marijuana (which is the equivalent of one-and-a-half packs of cigarettes);
2. regulate the manufacture, taxation, and sale of marijuana, whereby establishments that are licensed to sell tobacco will also be permitted to sell marijuana, provided that they neither sell alcohol nor are within 500 feet of a school or place of worship. Gas stations, convenience stores, grocery stores, casinos, and dance halls would also be prohibited from selling marijuana.
3. earmark half of marijuana-related licensing fees and tax revenues to alcohol and drug treatment and education, with the other half going to the state's general fund;
4. maintain penalties for underage marijuana use, smoking marijuana in public, using or possessing marijuana on school grounds or in prisons, and transporting marijuana across state lines;
5. increase penalties for providing marijuana to minors, as well as for motorists who kill someone while under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, or any other substance; and
6. take effect on November 28, 2006, if a majority of Nevada voters pass the initiative in November 2006.

posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 2:57 PM on September 12, 2006

marijuana is a gateway drug.
posted by docpops at 3:01 PM on September 12, 2006

by that I mean a gateway to Cooool
posted by docpops at 3:01 PM on September 12, 2006

There's a similar initiative on the ballot this November (to legalize pot) in Colorado, as well.
posted by daksya at 3:04 PM on September 12, 2006

they've been trying this for the past couple of years in nevada and colorado haven't they?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:06 PM on September 12, 2006

It won't matter if it does pass. Though state and local enforcement of marijuana busts in California remain a problem in some areas of the state, the overwhelming problem in California is that the feds have no interest whatsoever in complying with state or local law, and have come in and busted marijuana dispensaries on their own, in direct violation of the state and local laws which allow for their existence.

You've had situations where the SF district attorney has spoken at protests of these actions. You've had situations where Santa Cruz city officials personally dispensed marijuana at city hall in protest of DEA raids. None of this has stopped the feds from continuing their assault on the Tenth Amendment (though I suppose the application of the Tenth Amendment is subject to debate, and IANAL).

All that aside, I still welcome the miscellaneous referendums that get passed at a local and state level, as I feel it's still progress, albeit slight. I continue to hope that the tide will eventually turn in the battle between California residents and the Department of Justice and ONDCP.
posted by Brak at 3:06 PM on September 12, 2006

In order to figure out whether I-75 (or any similar initiative) was a "public policy success," wouldn't you have to know a little something about the total social cost of marijuana use before and after passage? Has it gone down? Has it gone up? How do you figure it?

Here you go.
posted by linux at 3:39 PM on September 12, 2006

The Nevada proposal is over reaching. It would require the state government to break federal law, and the feds have arrested state and city employees growing medical marijuana for in California. In fact, in one case a grower wasn't even allowed to tell the jury that he was growing it for medical purposes and working with the city of oakland.

Oh well, hope they pass. Marijuana prohibition is quite stupid, and I expect that it won't last another ten years.
posted by delmoi at 3:45 PM on September 12, 2006

There's too much money involved ( tax revenues being squandered on the unwinnable War on Some Drugs, federal law "enforcement" welfare funding, private prison quarterly profits, profit on sales) as well as political hay being made (candidates being seen as "tough" on crime by voters to braindead to think for themselves) for this to change any time soon.

But things are headed the right direction.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 3:45 PM on September 12, 2006

@delmoi

That was Ed Rosenthal. His conviction was overturned because of jury misconduct.

I agree that it is overreaching, but I believe that if it passes, there's going to be a hell of a state v. federal case over the matter. Interstate commerce my ass.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:51 PM on September 12, 2006

Marijuana prohibition is quite stupid, and I expect that it won't last another ten years.

I thought the same thing ... back in 1988. I still think its prohibition is stupid, but I'm not at all sure about the prediction that it won't last. It certainly shouldn't, but then again, that depends on an electorate which is 1) educated about the issue, and 2) is willing to do something about it.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:01 PM on September 12, 2006

Aaaaand cue the elimination of Federal highway funds to states that pass sensible marijuana legislation in 3 ... 2 ...
posted by kcds at 4:01 PM on September 12, 2006

Here's the proper direct link to the Chronicle's story. The hippies in the main post don't seem to understand how to link to things instead of lifting the whole story (though they understand advertising...).

Here's Ammiano's page on the Board's site. You can drop him a note if want to share what you think.

Keep in mind that this is going back to the City Supes and has yet to be approved by the Board or the Mayor.
posted by vporter at 4:15 PM on September 12, 2006

linx, the link you cite (or rather the article) uses one measure for social cost, namely the cost of arresting and processing people for mj offences. That's down, no doubt about it. But what about the costs of drug court? The costs of treatment? Costs of lost wages (and lower tax revenues)? Cost in accidents that happen "under the influence?" etc, etc. I'm not saying these amount to much (I just don't know), but they would have to be figured in. If you say that you aren't going to arrest people for x, you would expect arrests to go down. But what else happens?
posted by MarshallPoe at 4:21 PM on September 12, 2006

There's too much money involved

Agreed. But there is just as much money, if not far more, to be made from legalizing and taxing it. We just need to figure out a way to convince the people who stand to make the most money from it to start backing the legalization process really hard.

/I'm looking at you Philip Morris. Time to use your powers for good instead of evil...
posted by quin at 4:30 PM on September 12, 2006

Interstate commerce my ass.

That has always seemed like the most ridiculous and tenuous justification for federal jurisdiction.
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:32 PM on September 12, 2006

Marijauna is a horrible gateway drug.

If I had never smoked marijuana, I would never have started smoking tobacco, a terrible, unhealthy, unpleasant, and unpleasureable addiction that ensnared me for fifteen years.
posted by hexatron at 4:49 PM on September 12, 2006

MarshallPoe

Ti: Drug enforcement and crime: Recent evidence from New York State
Au:Shepard, E. M.; Blackley, P. R.
Jo: Social Science Quarterly, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 323-342, 2005
ISSN 0038-4941
Abstract This study provides evidence about the effectiveness of drug law enforcement as a tool for reducing other types of crime. Data were obtained for 62 counties in New York State for 1996-2000 in order to estimate a set of models that evaluate the effects of recent drug arrests on reported rates of assault, robbery, burglary, and larceny. Overall, the consistency of the results is striking: There is no model in which drug arrests are found to have a significant negative relationship with crime. All crimes are positively related to arrests for the manufacture and sale of hard drugs. Increases in total per capita drug arrests and arrests for hard drug possession are also accompanied by higher rates for all crimes except assault. Increased arrests for the manufacture or sale of marijuana are associated with increases in larcenies. Taken together, these findings raise serious questions about the effectiveness of drug enforcement as a crime-control measure and suggest that significant social costs may arise from existing approaches to drug control.

Early in my career I did research on the sociology of drug use, and it was and is still kind of like the literature on global warming: uniform. Here is just one abstract that I quickly pulled from my search of Sociology Abstracts, a literature database. But there are literally hundreds of studies like this. The bottom line is that prohibition maximizes social costs. There are no serious researchers who disagree with this and no literature supporting those few who disagree.
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:51 PM on September 12, 2006

i_am_a_jedi: I agree that it is overreaching, but I believe that if it passes, there's going to be a hell of a state v. federal case over the matter. Interstate commerce my ass.

This has already happened in California (see Gonzales v. Raich, also the more accessible Wikipedia entry), and SCOTUS upheld the use of the interstate commerce clause, granting the feds their victory.

Their justification was essentially based on an earlier precedent that said that you can't use the argument that you're not using your own self-produced/supplied (whatever) for commerce--only for personal consumption--because your use, even for personal consumption, implies a decrease in commerce for someone else, based on the fact that you're not obtaining your (whatever) from another supplier. Essentially, you affect commerce by nature of the fact that what you produce has commercial value, regardless of how you use it. SCOTUS also ruled that it didn't matter that the product in this case was an illegal commodity; apparently, illegal commerce is still governed under the Insterstate Commerce Clause.

SCOTUS has essentially indicated that further clarification/resolution of the conflict between the federal and state laws in this realm will have to be decided through the Legislative Branch of the government. I'm guessing it's going to take a constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana, though it didn't take one to criminalize it (unlike alcohol).
posted by Brak at 5:55 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

Marijauna is a horrible gateway drug

So are alcohol, chocolate, television and the internet.
posted by dhammond at 6:20 PM on September 12, 2006

Mefites in DC may have the chance to witness one of those rare events - a debate between reformers and establishment prohibitionists:

Following the Washington, D.C. premiere of the award-winning medical marijuana documentary "Waiting to Inhale," Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Clarence Page will moderate a landmark debate in which present and former officials of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) will square off against the leaders of two organizations leading the fight for legal access to medical marijuana. The event will begin at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 13. Address and ticket information is below.
. . .
WHEN: Wednesday, Sept. 13, 7:30-9:30 p.m.

WHERE: E Street Theater, 555 11th St. NW, Washington, D.C., 202-452-7672

For complimentary press tickets, contact Nydia Swaby at [e-mail] or 202-462-5747 x104; requests must be received before 6 p.m. Tuesday. To arrange advance interviews with participants, call MPP communications director Bruce Mirken at 202-215-4205 or Riffe at 510-593-6945.

posted by daksya at 6:34 PM on September 12, 2006

how about ending the war on legal drugs like tobacco.

Famously tolerant San Francisco

san francisco is not particularly tolerant of cigarette smokers.

proclaims most marijuana violations "the lowest law enforcement priority" for city police

so does this mean pot smokers will get the lowest law enforcement prioroty by city police, say...lower than smoking a cigarette in golden gate park?
posted by brandz at 6:40 PM on September 12, 2006

Have any other axes to grind, brandz? I'd imagine that marijuana smoking would be covered by all the other public smoking initiatives, or at least those laws could be easily modified to include marijuana.
posted by Eekacat at 6:54 PM on September 12, 2006

You can't escape reality!
posted by longsleeves at 7:18 PM on September 12, 2006

Profile of psychedelic author Daniel Pinchbeck
posted by homunculus at 7:26 PM on September 12, 2006

Pinchbeck's worth reading.
posted by muckster at 7:52 PM on September 12, 2006

public smoking initiatives

you make them sound sane and rational, Eekacat. let me remind you that simply smoking a cigarette in a park is now ILLLEGAL in san francisco. harassing and fining smoking is not progress but intolerance. and, yes, i support the legalization of pot, if that matters.
posted by brandz at 8:22 PM on September 12, 2006

simply smoking a cigarette in a park is now ILLLEGAL in san francisco.

WTF, seriously? Famously tolerant, my ass.
posted by dhammond at 8:34 PM on September 12, 2006

how about ending the war on legal drugs like tobacco.

That shit stinks man!
posted by delmoi at 9:39 PM on September 12, 2006

how about ending the war on legal drugs like tobacco.

What? You can chew all the tobacco you want anywhere in San Francisco.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:48 PM on September 12, 2006

WTF, seriously? Famously tolerant, my ass.

BUT SECOND HAND SMOKE KILLLZZZZ!!!1
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:50 AM on September 14, 2006

Those of you who want to see more initiatives like this ought to be donating to The Marijuana Policy Project. This year's Nevada initiative is financed and organized through MPP, and they've also provided funding and support for many other important campaigns. If you or someone you love smokes marijuana, you owe it to yourself to send these guys a check... it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying bail.
posted by vorfeed at 12:01 PM on September 14, 2006