I have read a couple of commentaries opposed to Proposition 19 which would legalize marijuana in California. As I read these things, I wonder if people really understand the extent to which drug laws clog up our court system and make it difficult to deal with more serious crimes. For the cost of incarcerating one individual in California for one year, we can put perhaps two people into residential treatment for two years each. To me that seems not only more cost-effective, but it seems more effective.
I have seen a lot of studies cited, but I thought it might be valuable to glean some insight from someone who spent thirty years actually working on the ground with people with drug-dependency problems.
“It’s an absolute nightmare, people get sent to prison for simply having pot in their system. People tend to go to prison for drug charges instead of getting treatment,” Carlos Matos told the Vanguard in June.
“Once they go to prison and once they get charged with felonies, it changes their lives radically. Very difficult when they come out of prison to adjust to their community. It’s very difficult for them to get a job, to get an apartment, to get any kind of financial situation going with a felony on their record,” he continued.
Instead of getting people the help they need, it ends up driving them further into a life of addiction and crime. “It tends to drive people into things that they weren’t into before like selling drugs to survive and make money. Which is really a tragedy, besides when people go to prison they end up getting dope in prison anyway. Prohibition is not really working, it didn’t work with alcohol in the twenties, it’s not working now.”
“It’s a horrible system to lock up users into the prisons, which is basically bankrupting the state,” said Mr. Matos. “It makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody gets better by going to prison if you’re a drug addict. So why load up the prisons when somebody has a chemical dependency problem?”
The bottom line, from my perspective and the perspective of a lot of people in the system, is the current system does not work. Last week I shared with people my experience on ride-alongs in different jurisdictions, and the officers in general thought that marijuana laws were problematic.
So now I read the column from Marcos Breton, whom I generally agree with, and I appreciate that he generally does not split hairs.
He discusses both legalized pot and the ban on gay marriage. He opposed both the legalization of pot and the ban on gay marriage (make sure you check the negatives there, it gets confusing).
He argues, “Denying gay marriage and promoting legal marijuana are losing arguments when stripped of emotion and measured against the law.”
The strongest argument against legalizing marijuana is that it would put California in direct conflict with federal law. That same problem we had with Medical Marijuana. Under the Clinton and Bush Administrations that was a problem because the feds decided, even during the war on terror, that they had enough resources to raid clinics and arrest terminally-ill people. However, the Obama Administration has basically stopped enforcement on medical marijuana and the system is working reasonably well.
From my perspective, if the feds want to prioritize going into California and arresting people on federal charges for possession of marijuana, let them. Let them spend their money and justify it. My guess is the Obama administration is not going to do it.
“In the marijuana debate, the pro-pot forces play games when linking their cause to the plainly-misguided era of alcohol Prohibition,” writes Mr. Breton. “There is no basis in history to compare marijuana with alcohol. Humans have fermented alcohol from the beginning of time. At marriages and in Sunday Masses, we toast the bride or drink consecrated wine. We don’t spark a joint.”
Understood. But the analogy really is not about that, in itself. It is about the impossibility of banning things that have a ready-made demand, it is about creating powerful black market forces, it is about giving power to criminal syndicates. And yes, I am not just talking about marijuana, but the war on drugs in general.
We have created a huge underworld organization to cultivate, transport and sell illicit drugs. And we have done so out of the mistaken belief that interdiction efforts and law enforcement can curb the human demand for mind-altering chemicals.
Again, I submit if we use a fraction of the resources that we use to catch, convict, and incarcerate these individuals, we could treat this as a health problem. We could put people in residential treatment for a long enough period so that they actually stand a chance, give them job skills and put them to work. We might find, amazingly, that the problem of addiction has gone down while the crime elements connected to their illegality have been, at the very least, reduced.
I view this not as a pro-pot endeavor. I view the war on drugs as an integral part of all sorts of bad policy decisions we have made that effect things as disparate as health care, social services, drug policy, and yes, my favorite, gangs. Guess what fuels gangs? Selling illegal drugs. Guess what fuels the crime around the transportation of illegal immigrants? Smuggling illegal drugs with the immigrants.
Further, I agree with Mr. Breton’s concern that we are not ready to police drugged drivers, but we probably have a lot of them already. I do believe that policing drugged drivers will be far easier than policing the sale of illegal drugs.
The question there is how much will the use of marijuana go up as the result of its legalization? I am not sanguine on this point. I agree the use will go up, but it is really not something that scares me.
The price could be controlled, however, by regulating the industry and placing taxes on the drug. The opponents’ suggestion is that the taxes collected will be insufficient compared to the social costs, but observe a few counterpoints on that.
First, what we are really trading off here is the cost of current enforcement for the amount of tax revenue, assuming it can be regulated and taxed, versus the costs of legalization in terms of social costs. I think opponents over-estimate social costs and vastly underestimate the costs to the current system of enforcement, courts, and incarceration.
Second, taxation of cigarettes was a means by which not only to fund programs to reduce smoking, but also to raise the cost of smoking for the individual. Taxing marijuana could produce a similar result, toward a similar effect.
So I think, given that, it is unlikely that the use of marijuana will increase by 75 to 150 percent on a sustained level. There will be an immediate spike as people are curious, but I think overall, we will see a more modest increase.
And really what is the fear? The long-term health impacts of marijuana are certainly no more severe than alcohol or cigarettes. People will not likely chain-smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes, for example.
Furthermore, people who smoke marijuana do not have the violent tendencies that over-consumption of alcohol can bring. Unless we legalize marijuana bars, most people will partake of the drug in private residences, and the idea that a lot of stoned people will be either driving or walking around is reduced, and the threat they possess to others is less than the threat of drunk people.
Finally, Mr. Musser presents the Rand study’s scare tactic that “the federal government would withhold highway or other federal funds to penalize the state for not abiding by federal laws.” That seems very highly unlikely. The Obama Administration would likely not do that for several reasons.
First, they lifted federal enforcement efforts on medical marijuana. Second, given the economy, federal funds for highways is vital to the state’s economy and California is vital to the nation’s economy. Hurting California’s economy would damage the President’s chances for an improved national economy.
It is therefore unlikely that the President would withhold funding to California, and it is less likely that, in two to six years, a new President would do so after the fact. So I find that logic not fitting with current political realities.
The bottom line for me is that if the Federal Government wants to enforce marijuana laws that is its choice, and the state has no obligation to expend state monies to do so. And from a policy standpoint, our current drug laws are problematic, they have not worked, and we have dumped a tremendous amount of money that could be more wisely spent dealing with health issues rather than law enforcement.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The price could be controlled however, by regulating the industry and placing taxes on the drug.”
wrong. many transaction are likely to evade taxation, especially when you consider that people can grow the drugs without fear of the cops in their own back yards and distribute it to anyone like party favors.
the government cannot regulate or tax that. second, people who sell dope to other people do not have to tax it, but the government does. thus dealers have free reign to pretty much do whatever they want.
“I think opponents over estimate social costs and vastly underestimate the costs to the current system of enforcement, courts, and incarceration.”
oh, really? if we take a look at alcohol, well over P of traffic deaths are the result of it. now imagine alcohol mixed with cheap, legal, readily accessible dope. and that is just one example.
“The Obama Administration would likely not do that for several reasons.”
unless he crowns himself king and dissolves democracy, obama will not be in office forever. new administrations with different ideologies will take power. you need to look to the future, not just the present.
First, they lifted federal enforcement efforts on medical marijuana. Second, given the economy, federal funds for highways is vital to the state’s economy and California is vital to the nation’s economy. Hurting California’s economy would damage the President’s chances for an improved national economy.
you need to look at the broader picture. obama has to worry about votes from other states as well as CA. if we legalized it, he would likely become unpopular in other states for failing to do something about it BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY A FEDERAL BAN ON MARIJUANA. He would be seen as impotent. thus he has to weigh that against any backlash from california. furthermore, I fail to see how a society stoned on cheap dope results in a healthier economy.
I notice you didn’t even touch my point about the federal ban. but it is worth repeating. how are other states ever expected to respect Federal Laws over state laws if California itself does not have to do so?
dmg: “I have read a couple of commentaries opposed to Proposition 19 which would legalize marijuana in California. As I read these things I wonder if people really understand the extent to which drug laws clog up our court system and make it difficult to deal with more serious crimes.”
It appears you are advocating for the legalization of drugs. Prop 19 is a cynical attempt at moving that process along. The medical marijuana law was the foot in the door to legalization of drugs. However using your logic, criminal laws making white collar crime are clogging up our courts too, so shall we legalize white collar crime as well? Or how about doing away with criminalizing petty crimes, since that is also clogging our courts?
dmg: “I have seen a lot of studies cited, but I thought it might be valuable to read some insight from someone who spent thirty years actually working on the ground with people with drug dependency problems.”
In other words, ignore the studies and embrace one person’s opinion which jives with your desire to legalize drugs?
dmg: “It’s an absolute nightmare, people get sent to prison for simply having pot in their system. People tend to go to prison for drug charges instead of getting treatment,”
Aren’t users given the opportunity to get treatment first, then are incarcerated when caught repeatedly offending? If there is an objection to jailtime for possession of small amounts of marijuana, then why not make possession of marijuana subject to a fine only – instead of going the full nine yards towards legalizing drugs altogether.
dmg: “From my perspective, if the feds want to prioritize going into California and arresting people on federal charges for possession of marijuana, let them. Let them spend their money and justify it. My guess is the Obama administration is not going to do it.”
You don’t know what the feds will do. They very well could withhold federal funding – it is an easy solution to the problem.
dmg: “It is about the impossibility of banning things that have a ready-made demand, it is about creating powerful black market forces, it is about giving power to criminal syndicates.”
There is a ready made demand for all sorts of illegal things, so shall we go ahead and legalize any illegal things just because they have created “black market forces” and has given “power to criminal syndicates”?
dmg: “Again, I submit if we put a fraction of the resources that we use to catch, convict, and incarcerate these individuals, we could treat this as a health problem, put people in residential treatment for a long enough period where they actually stand a chance…”
If we know anything about drug addiction/treatment, we know drug treatment is super expensive, is notoriously unsuccessful, and at best must be done numerous times if it has any chance of working.
dmg: “Guess what fuels gangs? Selling illegal drugs.”
Gangs are also fueled by robbery of all sorts and murder. If they can’t make money selling illegal drugs they will turn to other violent methods to “earn a living”. What is the argument here, that gangs will cease to exist if drugs are legalized? Not a chance… Gangs do not need a raison d’etre to exist…
dmg: “So yes, I agree with Mr. Breton that we are not ready to police drugged drivers, but we probably have a lot of them already.”
So let’s legalize drugs and increase the numbers of drugged drivers? Oh that ought to be real helpful to society…
dmg: “David Musser in a Davis Enterprise op-ed last week, cited a Rand Drug Policy research Study that suggests that pot consumption likely would increase from 75 to 150 percent. They cite not only greater access but dropping marijuana prices since there would no longer be costs associated with evading law enforcement.
The price could be controlled however, by regulating the industry and placing taxes on the drug.”
And don’t you think there is a cost in creating a whole new regulatory bureaucracy?
I’m going to stop now – this article is just so full of fallacious arguments there really isn’t any point in going any further…
[quote]In other words, ignore the studies and embrace one person’s opinion which jives with your desire to legalize drugs? [/quote]
NO ELAINE. I cited several studies last week AS YOU WELL KNOW because you both read and commented on the article. This week, I decided to cite something else. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t attempt to engage in this kind of exchange.
“wrong. many transaction are likely to evade taxation, especially when you consider that people can grow the drugs without fear of the cops in their own back yards and distribute it to anyone like party favors. “
That’s like suggesting that produce prices can’t be regulated because you can grow produce in your own home.
“the government cannot regulate or tax that. second, people who sell dope to other people do not have to tax it, but the government does. thus dealers have free reign to pretty much do whatever they want. “
Legalization would take away that sort of distribution system. Yes people could grow their own if they chose, but most people would opt for legalized products because of ease of access and quality control guarantees.
“oh, really? if we take a look at alcohol, well over P of traffic deaths are the result of it. now imagine alcohol mixed with cheap, legal, readily accessible dope. and that is just one example. “
That is a downside, on the other hand it is something we can mitigate.
“unless he crowns himself king and dissolves democracy, obama will not be in office forever. new administrations with different ideologies will take power. you need to look to the future, not just the present.”
That’s why I wrote the following: “It is therefore unlikely that the President would withhold funding to California and it is less likely that in two to six years a new President would do so after the fact.”
“you need to look at the broader picture. obama has to worry about votes from other states as well as CA. if we legalized it, he would likely become unpopular in other states for failing to do something about it BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY A FEDERAL BAN ON MARIJUANA. He would be seen as impotent. thus he has to weigh that against any backlash from california. furthermore, I fail to see how a society stoned on cheap dope results in a healthier economy. “
That’s sheer speculation. The bottom line is that he’s not going to kill California’s economy simply because of its drug policies. If he wishes to enforce federal laws, he may well do so. But he’s not going to attempt to punish California.
“I notice you didn’t even touch my point about the federal ban. but it is worth repeating. how are other states ever expected to respect Federal Laws over state laws if California itself does not have to do so?”
As a conservative, I would think that’s a weird argument for you to make. I thought conservatives favored the rights of states over the federal government? Personally I think the union will survive if California wishes to force the federal government to choose whether to enforce its own laws.
If pot is legalized I am sure smoking would increase significantly but the real question is by who. Many folks who smoked in college might occasionally indulge. Would teenagers smoke more? Maybe. That is a serious issue since most of us agree teenage smoking/drinking/using drugs is generally a bad idea.
But the Federal War on Drugs is an abject failure and criminalizing something that, as DG points out is no worse than many legal behaviors seems silly. I don’t have a problem with California preempting the Feds here since the Feds have encroached way too much on individual liberties in my opinion (no I am not a Tea Party member or a libertarian but do you think the Federal govt has all the solutions–maybe they should try and get a few thinks right first).
I never had trouble finding pot in High school or college (many many years ago) and I hear its even easier now–so who are we kidding here? Decriminalization is simply an admission that we have failed. Legalization allows for some sort of legal standards and tax revenue creation. Maybe we should take baby steps and see what happens but the status quo ain’t working.
I will be voting for legalization, but with several reservations. Not the least of these is that the losing side will claim outside influences derailed the democratic process, much as is happening now with prop 8. I can’t see any reason that someones personal choices of mate or intoxicant should be subject to regulation or review by any authority. The best practical argument I have heard is that legalization will end the black market in marijuana sales. I hope that is correct. Opponents claim that legalization will result in a slide down a slope to all manner of depravity. I do not believe that will be the case. The ease with which marijuana and other illegal drugs can be purchased now would seem to have little deterrent effect. The expense of prosecution and incarceration is disproportionate to any benefit to society. This is one of those little issues that distracts us from the big ones. I can’t help but believe we would be a better society if we had the maturity to ignore such trifles.
Drugs and alcohol are health problems, and should be dealt with that way until criminal behavior occurs, at which point the justice system should provide remediation.
You all might find this interview interesting and rational description of where we are at as far as policy goes:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/13/cannabinomics–the-m.html
Sorry, I shouldn’t try to compose a coherent sentence before my second cup of Methodist gin. What I meant to say was,”The ease with which marijuana and other illegal drugs can be purchased now would seem to indicate that current laws have little deterrent effect.” If the health police outlaw caffeine, then I’m in trouble.
good one on this one…if alcohol is so easily available then why not weed?
it’s good for glaucoma…legalize it.
don’t criticize it baby..
I am probably going to vote for legalization for the reasons cited in this article, but I do have some questions. What are the chances that the savings from lower court costs, incarceration etc. result in more money for education? Also, I am assuming there would be an age limit as there is for drinking alcohol-does anyone know what it would be? As a mom of two kids, I am interested in the effect on kids/teens (positive and negative)and I wonder if anyone has any insight into this?
I was against Saddam Hussein for gassing Kurdish rebels. But I’m not against him enough to be spending so many lives and so much money for so long fighting a war in Iraq. (Don’t complicate the point by telling me that Reagan okayed giving Iraq the chemicals to use on Iran and that Iran participated in some of the gassing with Saddam getting the blame. These details are always murky.)
I was against Osama bin Ladan for directing the 9/11 attack and the Taliban for treating women like dogs. But I’m not against them enough to be spending so many lives and so much money for so long fighting a war in Afghanistan.
I was against people ruining their lives and others’ with drugs. But I’m not against that enough to be spending so many lives and so much money for so long fighting a “war on drugs” that has been a failure by every measure advanced.
I knew people who’ve been lost in each of these long wars, and agonize that their sacrifices have accomplished very little. Let me know when you come up with better solutions, ones that don’t have as many unintended, negative consequences as these three wars and don’t waste the billions we could be spending to improve the lives of Americans. In the meantime, don’t try to justify the same old approaches by again reciting how bad these bad things are.
This was an interesting topic of conversation last night.
A few additional thoughts:
1. marijuana is already readily available and it’s also pretty cheap especially compared with some of the other drugs.
2. hard core users are already using it. So any policy of prohibition is really hitting the people that are more likely the casual users. I know there is a big fear by some that legalization will lead to more hard core users, but I suspect those numbers will be small.
3. 75 to 150 percent is an absurd figure.
4. I’d rather have someone stoned than drunk in public. Much less dangerous across a variety of issues.
5. By limiting consumption away from public places, usage will occur more in people’s homes than in public and will reduce those perceived associated problems.
dmg: “4. I’d rather have someone stoned than drunk in public. Much less dangerous across a variety of issues.”
How about stoned and drunk?
dmg: “5. By limiting consumption away from public places, usage will occur more in people’s homes than in public and will reduce those perceived associated problems.”
In people’s homes, in front of their children, which will encourage children to copy their parents.
dmg: “As a conservative, I would think that’s a weird argument for you to make. I thought conservatives favored the rights of states over the federal government? Personally I think the union will survive if California wishes to force the federal government to choose whether to enforce its own laws.”
Conservatives do not favor states picking and choosing which federal laws they will or won’t obey. This reminds me of the case where the city of Berkeley (I think that is the right city) chose to ban ROTC programs from the schools/colleges (can’t remember which). The feds put a stop to it quite quickly, by threatening to withdraw federal funds. The city changed its tune very quickly…
Gateway Drug , Gateway Drug , Gateway Drug , to Crack , Meth , Cocaine , LSD , Heroin , More Alcohol .
Give people a new choice of legal pot , soon they will be bored and move on to the next high !
“Marijuana is like Coors beer. If you could buy the damn stuff at a Georgia filling station, you’d decide you wouldn’t want it.”-Billy Carter
“Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”-William F. Buckley, Jr.
‘Marijuana is less toxic than tobacco and is milder than booze yet there is the adult with a cocktail in one hand and a cigarette in the other telling the child “you cannot”.’-Margaret Mead
The same people who are arguing Prop 8 (prohibiting gay marriage) is unconstitutional, insisting the state of CA must follow federal law, are INCONSISTENTLY arguing CA need not follow federal law that prohibits marijuana use. You cannot have it both ways…
DPD: 1. marijuana is already readily available and it’s also pretty cheap especially compared with some of the other drugs.
and the rand study projects that it will be much cheaper because there are not costs associated with evading law enforcement if it is legalized. thus it will be cheaper and more readily available. as a result, consumption will increase. but frankly, you don’t really need a study to see that one. it is obvious.
DPD: 2. hard core users are already using it. So any policy of prohibition is really hitting the people that are more likely the casual users. I know there is a big fear by some that legalization will lead to more hard core users, but I suspect those numbers will be small.
the fact that people use marijuana is not an argument for legalizing it.
people already commit murder, petty theft, rape, and a whole host of other things. so bleeping what!!
you can suspect all you want. there is a well established track record of marijuana’s association with other drugs.
DPD: 3. 75 to 150 percent is an absurd figure.
why? because you say so? supply and demand. the cheaper and more accessible something is, the more it will be bought.
DPD: 4. I’d rather have someone stoned than drunk in public. Much less dangerous across a variety of issues.
let me get this straight: someone being stoned in public is better than being drunk. do you know how rediculous that sounds?
DPD: 5. By limiting consumption away from public places, usage will occur more in people’s homes than in public and will reduce those perceived associated problems.
what the hell!!? now you are really not helping your case here. legalizing pot is going to lead to less pot use in public. makes sense. ?!? furthermore, people get stoned in the house, but then walk outside. there is nothing stoping them from doing that. hence, public intoxication will likely increase. nice try though.
I will add a few additional thoughts: the same people who want this legalizing drugs garbage and argue for the govt to stay out of it, want things as absurd as: coercive carbon cutting laws, plastic bag ordinances, wood burning bans, as if something as benign as filling groceries in a plastic bag from safeway or heating a fireplace is a greater offense than repeated drug use. we need some intellectual honesty here.
Sorry David, but from what I’ve seen, you haven’t debunked anything, only make legalizing drugs appear silly.
“I will add a few additional thoughts: the same people who want this legalizing drugs garbage and argue for the govt to stay out of it, want things as absurd as: coercive carbon cutting laws, plastic bag ordinances, wood burning bans, as if something as benign as filling groceries in a plastic bag from safeway or heating a fireplace is a greater offense than repeated drug use. we need some intellectual honesty here.” Apparently one of us needs some reading comprehension remediation here.
biddlin: “Apparently one of us needs some reading comprehension remediation here.”
???
I haven’t expressed support for any of the other issues Musser mentioned and I believe that would be true of others expressing support for legalization. I don’t know why one would make such a totally unfounded statement.
biddlin: “I haven’t expressed support for any of the other issues Musser mentioned and I believe that would be true of others expressing support for legalization. I don’t know why one would make such a totally unfounded statement.”
Because many who espouse support for Prop 19 and want the gov’t to stay out of regulating personal choice such as drug use often completely contradict themselves when advocating for gov’t micromanaging on other issues such as plastic bag use, woodburning, etc.?
ERM-“Because many who espouse support for Prop 19 and want the gov’t to stay out of regulating personal choice such as drug use often completely contradict themselves when advocating for gov’t micromanaging on other issues such as plastic bag use, woodburning, etc.?” Examples, evidence, foundation? The supporters of legalization are as philosophically and politically diverse as the three people I quoted earlier.
biddlin: “Examples, evidence, foundation? The supporters of legalization are as philosophically and politically diverse as the three people I quoted earlier.”
Isn’t author of this article for gay marriage, but also for ban on woodburning smoke, as one example?