Apparently, it was nothing personal after all. Apparently, it was strictly business all along.
After generations of defending capital punishment and marijuana possession laws on moral, ethical and religious grounds, after years of declaring that the death penalty acted as a deterrent against violent crime and that pot smokers were more dangerous to society than, say, alcohol consumers, all of a sudden thanks to our economic crisis more and more mainstream powerbrokers are considering dramatic changes to our criminal justice system.
The New York Times today has a late-arriving piece by Ian Urbina which posits that lawmakers in several states are considering abandoning the death penalty because it’s just too expensive and cuts into other law enforcement priorities. State officials are beginning to acknowledge that they can more productively spend their budget funds on cracking unsolved cases or ensuring better police protection than on keeping pot smokers in prison or fighting for decades with capital defendants. This, Urbina writes, is forcing a sea-change around the nation:
“Last year, in an effort to cut costs, probation and parole agencies in Arizona, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey and Vermont reduced or dropped prison time for thousands of offenders who violated conditions of their release. In some states, probation and parole violators account for up to two-thirds of prison admissions each year; typical violations are failing drug tests or missing meetings with parole officers.
As prison crowding has become acute, lawsuits have followed in states like California, and politicians find themselves having to choose among politically unattractive options: spend scarce tax dollars on expanding prisons, loosen laws to stem the flow of incarcerations, or release some nonviolent offenders.”
This trend toward releasing non-violent offenders naturally begs the question: what about legalizing marijuana possession and lowering the drinking age? A California lawmaker Monday introduced legislation that would legalize (and tax) pot there. In Colorado, as seen this past Sunday on 60 Minutes, the police chief in Boulder (which houses a raucous University of Colorado) made a compelling case for saving money by reducing the drinking age from 21. Better to have police officers tracking violent crime, the argument goes, than writing tickets for college kids who are going to drink no matter what.
These declarations, from the political and legal arena, are not just isolated voices shouting into the wilderness. Consider the late, great Milton Friedman, the Nobel Laureate, former Reagan advisor, and esteemed scholar associated with the very conservative Hoover Institution. He was among hundreds of important economists who argue that pot should be legalized and taxed - and that the income from such taxation could generate billions in new revenues and billions more in enforcement savings. If you live in California, what would you rather have? Pot smokers whose cases are tying up the legal system? Or better health care and roads thanks to a marijuana tax. I’m just asking the question-and others are too.
Friedman and his colleagues first made these arguments years ago - before the economy tanked. Is it time to take his view more seriously with states facing huge budget shortfalls that threaten to curtail vital projects and policies? It is such a great leap from releasing prisoners from prison early to save money and not sending them there at all to save more? I would suspect a survey of police officials and prosecutors, and a survey of state budget officials, would indicate that the matter is being taken more seriously today than it ever has been.
It’s not my place to advocate anything - so please don’t write and accuse me of being Cheech or Chong. All I am saying is that the economic case for legalizing marijuana, and for lower the drinking rate, is as compelling as it has ever been and that, in a time of great changes in the interaction between government and the governed, it would not be the worst thing in the world to have a serious national debate on the topic. If we are going to lower state and federal budgets for criminal justice, if we are going to be emptying our prisons anyway to save costs, let’s make sure we do it in a way that maximizes the opportunities available to us.
(CBS) Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.
President Obama recently responded in the negative to a query on whether it’s time to legalize marijuana. Being a smart, rational guy, I guess he knew better than to rock his political boat by giving credence to such an outside-the-box solution as the decriminalization of marijuana.
By anyone’s standards though, our supposed war on drugs is a massive failure, a colossal waste of taxpayer money, and is actually escalating drug violence on our Mexican border with American guns and money flowing south while drugs come flooding north.
For this very reason, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently had the good sense to admit that the U.S. bears some responsibility for the escalating drug violence in Mexico. She also admitted that the war on drugs has not been successful. But instead of taking the high road on the issue of her countrymen getting high, she instead offered nothing more than basically more of the same.
Her so-called solution is the very definition of insanity, whereby you keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.
She should have noted her predecessor’s philosophy of knowing when to hold them or fold them. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice related the story of how she wanted to be a major concert pianist and how she studied piano from the tender age of three, even majoring in music for a while. When she went off to a music festival and met 12-year-olds who could play from sight, that had taken her years to learn, she came to grips with the reality that, although she might play at Nordstroms, she’d never play Carnegie Hall.
Why are Americans so averse to changing course regarding a new approach to our drug problem? Why not entertain the idea of slowly dismantling our archaic drug laws – perhaps as a trial run for a few years – and just see what happens?
We put a man on the moon. Can’t we come up with a safe and sensible way of responsibly selling marijuana? We sell alcohol and cigarettes, two deadly killers, and yet we seem comfortable with their distribution methods, even though it’s easier for kids to buy a six pack or a carton than it is for them to get their hands on Sudafed.
Why are we falling for the fallacy-filled excuse that we don’t want our pilots or bus drivers under the influence of marijuana? Of course we don’t. And we also don’t want them under the influence of legalized drugs either, which have proven deadly when operating a vehicle.
Dangers lurk everywhere in life, but we can be sensible about coping with them. Marijuana is not nearly as scary as violent drug dealers who create mayhem on our streets, who deal with megabucks that further fuel their purchase of more deadly guns. We need to stop and think — really think – about how best to de-escalate the myriad problems that have been created - not solved - by our current war on drugs.
If adults choose to abuse the use of marijuana, we need to allow them the freedom to do so, just as we already do with their freedom to abuse alcohol and tobacco.
We also should be less naive about our children. They are already quite savvy in getting whatever they want whenever they want. But they are getting it in unsavory places from unsavory people, paying outrageous prices. How long would those pushers stay in business if they knew that the dope they sell could be legally undersold at a fraction of their price?
We need to look in another direction if we are to have any hope of addressing drug use in our country. If a non-user grandmother like myself can entertain the possibility of legalizing marijuana, maybe you can too. We just need to be brave in taking the first step toward imagining a world where draconian laws, incarceration, fear and ridicule may not be the only answers out there.
Jill Chapin
Editor’s note: There are millions of regular pot smokers in America and millions more infrequent smokers. Smoking pot clearly has far fewer dangerous and hazardous effects on society than legal drugs such as alcohol. Here is High Times’s top 10 reasons that marijuana should be legal, part of its 420 Campaign legalization strategy.
10. Prohibition has failed to control the use and domestic production of marijuana. The government has tried to use criminal penalties to prevent marijuana use for over 75 years and yet: marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually, cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. Claims that marijuana prohibition is a successful policy are ludicrous and unsupported by the facts, and the idea that marijuana will soon be eliminated from America and the rest of the world is a ridiculous fantasy.
9. Arrests for marijuana possession disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics and reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities. African-Americans account for approximately 13% of the population of the United States and about 13.5% of annual marijuana users, however, blacks also account for 26% of all marijuana arrests. Recent studies have demonstrated that blacks and Hispanics account for the majority of marijuana possession arrests in New York City, primarily for smoking marijuana in public view. Law enforcement has failed to demonstrate that marijuana laws can be enforced fairly without regard to race; far too often minorities are arrested for marijuana use while white/non-Hispanic Americans face a much lower risk of arrest.
8. A regulated, legal market in marijuana would reduce marijuana sales and use among teenagers, as well as reduce their exposure to other drugs in the illegal market. The illegality of marijuana makes it more valuable than if it were legal, providing opportunities for teenagers to make easy money selling it to their friends. If the excessive profits for marijuana sales were ended through legalization there would be less incentive for teens to sell it to one another. Teenage use of alcohol and tobacco remain serious public health problems even though those drugs are legal for adults, however, the availability of alcohol and tobacco is not made even more widespread by providing kids with economic incentives to sell either one to their friends and peers.
7. Legalized marijuana would reduce the flow of money from the American economy to international criminal gangs. Marijuana’s illegality makes foreign cultivation and smuggling to the United States extremely profitable, sending billions of dollars overseas in an underground economy while diverting funds from productive economic development.
6. Marijuana’s legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Canada and European countries have managed to support legal hemp cultivation without legalizing marijuana, but in the United States opposition to legal marijuana remains the biggest obstacle to development of industrial hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source - especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States.
5. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana’s illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana’s danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana’s dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society.
4. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
3. Marijuana is too expensive for our justice system and should instead be taxed to support beneficial government programs. Law enforcement has more important responsibilities than arresting 750,000 individuals a year for marijuana possession, especially given the additional justice costs of disposing of each of these cases. Marijuana arrests make justice more expensive and less efficient in the United States, wasting jail space, clogging up court systems, and diverting time of police, attorneys, judges, and corrections officials away from violent crime, the sexual abuse of children, and terrorism. Furthermore, taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs.
2. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana’s side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest.
1. Marijuana users are determined to stand up to the injustice of marijuana probation and accomplish legalization, no matter how long or what it takes to succeed. Despite the threat of arrests and a variety of other punishments and sanctions marijuana users have persisted in their support for legalization for over a generation. They refuse to give up their long quest for justice because they believe in the fundamental values of American society. Prohibition has failed to silence marijuana users despite its best attempts over the last generation. The issue of marijuana’s legalization is a persistent issue that, like marijuana, will simply not go away. Marijuana will be legalized because marijuana users will continue to fight for it until they succeed.
When the president opened his first Internet town hall Thursday, what he got, amid questions about the economy, health care and education, was a host of queries that could have come from Sean Penn’s pothead-philosopher in the movie ”Fast Times at Ridgemont High.”
Several marijuana legalization questions, including a suggestion from 2007 Quakertown High School grad Ryan McLaughlin, ranked among the most popular submitted to the White House Web site for the live ”Open for Questions” Webcast.
They got so much online support that Obama was forced to acknowledge the budding interest in the topic.
”There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation. And I don’t know what this says about the online audience ” Obama said to smattering of laughs. ”The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow our economy.”
The Web site allowed registered users to submit questions and cast votes in support of others. McLaughlin’s suggestion that legalized marijuana could be heavily taxed and regulated ranked fourth in the ”budget” category behind three other marijuana legalization questions.
A 19-year-old student at Franklin Pierce University in New Hampshire, McLaughlin was careful to note in his suggestion that he doesn’t use marijuana. He said he found out about the town hall through a pro-Obama Facebook group.
”There are many students who use marijuana products,” McLaughlin said in a phone interview. ”I was just thinking if there was a large amount of a young population using marijuana, why not just make it legal and tax as much as you can out of it? It could be a source of income for us instead of our money going to drug cartels.”
He said he was a little bummed Obama dismissed the idea so quickly, but that he’s still a supporter.
The questions didn’t come completely out of left field.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that federal prosecutors will discontinue medical marijuana prosecutions in states that allow the practice.
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws was at least partly responsible for the pot questions’ popularity. It put out a call Wednesday for members to submit and vote for the questions.
The group’s president, Allen St. Pierre, said he doesn’t think the whole thing was a result of his group’s effort, which was posted on its Web site eight hours before the window closed for questions.
”Overall, the Net is very libertarian on this topic, and politicians who open themselves up to the Internet will open themselves up to this topic,” St. Pierre said.
The group expressed its disappointment at Obama’s ”cynical rebuff” of the questions.
Political consultant Mark Dion of Revolution Media Group in Washington, D.C., said Internet town halls are especially vulnerable to organized efforts to ‘’stack the deck.”
”People just need to be at a computer to have an impact,” Dion said. ”A small group can make a lot of noise just by being organized.”
WHAT STUDENT SAID
”I am not a marijuana user, but I do believe that making marijuana legal could provide some relief as to it could be heavily taxed and regulated. Legalization of marijuana will also be a detriment to the drug cartels in Latin America.”
– Ryan McLaughlin, college student in Rindge, N.H., and a 2007 graduate of Quakertown High School











