Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  Matt 4:00 pm on February 10, 2012 Permalink  

  Changing the Frame: A New Approach to Drug Policy in Canada 

  Today, members of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC) released their foundational paper on drug policy reform outlining the Coalition’s vision and plans for creating a new drug policy for Canada.

  The paper, Changing the Frame: A New Approach to Drug Policy in Canada, also calls on the Federal Government and the Senate to take a giant step back from Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and rethink their approach to Canada’s drug policies for the sake of all Canadians.

  “The research is in. It is clear that the ‘war on drugs’ approach of prohibition, criminalization and incarceration does not work to reduce harms associated with substance use in Canada. Bill C-10 will only exacerbate them, taking us further down a failing path. It is time for a principled, evidence-driven, pragmatic and humane reform of our drug laws and policies,” said Donald MacPherson, Director of the Coalition.

  The CDPC is a new national organization of public health officials, researchers, front-line harm reduction and treatment providers, HIV/AIDS service organizations and people who use drugs who are seeking to engage communities to help chart a new direction.

  “We need to acknowledge the limits of the current approach and that the criminal law deflects attention from getting to the heart of why some people use drugs in a way that causes harm to themselves and to their families and communities. The CDPC strives for a more inclusive society,” said Coalition Chair, Lynne Belle-Isle. “We want to engage Canadians in finding new and innovative solutions to a problem that affects us all.”

  The Coalition held its first two of their planned series of cross-country community dialogues in Vancouver and Edmonton in the fall of 2011. The group is urging broad base citizen participation to explore ideas for reform of Canada’s laws and policies on currently illegal drugs.

  Quebec Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin also indicated his support for the work of the Coalition. “The CDPC’s policy paper and leadership on drug policy reform is an important step forward in engaging Canadians in the process of modernizing our drug policies and legislation,” said Nolin. Senator Nolin strongly opposes the passing of the Safe Streets and Communities Act particularly because it supports continued prohibition of cannabis and further criminalization of young cannabis users.

  To read a copy of Changing the Frame: A new approach to drug policy in Canada, please visit our website, http://www.drugpolicy.ca, follow our coverage of the Crime Bill C-10 Hearings here: http://www.drugpolicy.ca/blog or join the conversation on our Facebook page and follow the latest related news on Twitter @CanDrugPolicy.

  • Website: http://drugsense.org/url/IUKUPgN4
   
• 

  Matt 12:33 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink  

  Medical Marijuana Laws Send ‘the Wrong Message’: Don’t Smoke Pot, Kids! 

  By Jacob Sullum

  A new study reported in Annals of Epidemiology finds that, contrary to drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s warnings, passage of medical marijuana laws is not associated with increases in adolescent pot smoking. Analyzing data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, researchers at McGill University found that teenagers in states that enact such laws are more apt to smoke pot, but that is because of pre-existing differences. It seems “states with higher use are more likely to enact laws.” The researchers found little evidence that allowing patients to use marijuana as a medicine makes teenagers more likely to use it recreationally. “If anything,” they write, “our estimates suggest that reported adolescent marijuana use may actually decrease after passing MMLs [medical marijuana laws].” They say such an effect “could be plausibly explained by social desirability bias or greater concern about enforcement of recreational marijuana use among adolescents after the passage of laws.” Evidently Kerlikowske is wrong to worry that linking a drug to cancer and AIDS patients makes it seem cooler to the kids.

  These results are consistent with the conclusions of reports from the Marijuana Policy Project and the Institute for the Study of Labor, both of which found no increase in adolescent use attributable to medical marijuana laws. The latter study did, however, find an increase in adult consumption, which was associated with a decline in traffic fatalities.

  • URL: http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/09/medical-marijuana-laws-send-the-wrong-me
   
• 

  Matt 2:45 pm on February 1, 2012 Permalink  

  Low-Level Marijuana Arrests Rise for Seventh Straight Year 

  Low-level arrests for marijuana possession in New York City increased for the seventh straight year in 2011, according to a study released Wednesday, despite a September memorandum from the police commissioner that officers should not arrest those with marijuana unless they have the drugs in plain view.

  Though arrests dropped significantly after Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly’s memorandum, an increase of 6 percent during the first eight months of the year more than offset the decline, according to the analysis, conducted by a Queens College sociology professor and released by the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group critical of police marijuana-arrest policies.

  The year-end arrest total was 50,684, up 0.6 percent from 2010, the study found, constituting more arrests than in the entire 19-year period 1978 to 1996. Marijuana possession was once again the largest arrest category in the city last year, and the arrests cost the city about $75 million, said Harry Levine, the sociologist who did the analysis.

  • URL: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/low-level-marijuana-arrests-rise-for-seventh-straight-year/
   
• 

  Matt 11:24 am on January 25, 2012 Permalink  

  Why is MMA OK and smoking dope isn’t? 

  There seems to be little sense in which risks people find praiseworthy, and which we condemn, writes Dan Gardner

  Last week, a physicians’ group called on governments to make helmets mandatory for both children and adults on ski slopes. Lots of people support that. They feel that skiers should not be permitted to decide for themselves whether to wear a helmet because skiing without one is too dangerous. Two days later, Sarah Burke, a champion “superpipe” skier, died as a result of injuries sustained in competition. Burke was almost universally praised as a courageous and talented athlete who died doing what she loved.

  Does that make sense?

  Maybe it does. I don’t know. The question isn’t rhetorical.

  Risk is everywhere, always, which means we are constantly drawing lines, whether we are aware of it or not. We draw lines between risks that we are willing to personally engage and those we will leave to others. We draw lines between risk-taking that is praiseworthy and that which is foolish, between risks that should be promoted and encouraged and those that should not. We draw lines between what people should be free to decide for themselves and what should be regulated, restricted, or even banned.

  But we seldom compare the lines we draw and ask if, in juxtaposition, they make sense.

  • URL: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/smoking+dope/6046875/story.html
   
• 

  Matt 8:34 am on January 16, 2012 Permalink  

  Marc Emery’s Advice for Aspiring Activists 

  My wife Jodie Emery and I both receive thousands of letters and inquiries with impassioned pleas that read: “I want to do something to make a difference. I want to legalize marijuana. What can I do? Can you advise or help me start? Where do I begin?” This is a question, without rival, that we hear most often.

  It comes mostly from Americans and Canadians, but I have received the same question from India, Australia, Europe, the Philippines, Japan, and all over the world. It is a universal desire shared by many people in the cannabis culture the planet over.

  If all these millions of people, largely high school and college students, could be harnessed into productive purpose, it would be a huge political force indeed! But most people who consume cannabis and believe in its worth still do nothing to advance our cause in any meaningful way.

  • URL: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/01/15/Marc-Emerys-Advice-Aspiring-Activists
   
• 

  MaryJane 9:53 pm on January 15, 2012 Permalink  

  US Criminal Justice System 

  Drug Policy Question of the Week – 1-11-12

  As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 1-11-12. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3706

  Question of the Week: How many people are under the control of the U.S. criminal justice system?

  An April 2011 report by the Justice Policy Institute begins by stating,

  “The United States is home to the world’s largest prison population. … the U.S. has only 5 percent of the world’s population but holds 25 percent of the world’s prisoners …”

  There are several components to the U.S. criminal justice system. Quoting the Institute,

  “The entry point into the criminal justice system is typically through law enforcement. … In the U.S., when a person is charged with an offense they may be detained in jail until their trial or they may be released to await their trial in the community through a variety of mechanisms … people are said to be “remanded,” which is a summons to appear before a judge at a later date. If they are not released pretrial they can be “remanded to custody” until their court proceeding; if they are convicted, they can be remanded to custody prior to sentencing or during an appeal process … Pretrial detention is associated with a higher likelihood of both being found guilty and receiving a sentence of incarceration over probation, thus forcing a person further into the criminal justice system. In the United States, this is particularly important because of the sheer numbers”

  What are those numbers?

  In 2010 there were approximately:

  4,000,000 people on probation

  840,000 on parole

  207,000 in federal prison

  1,300,000 in state prison

  and 749,000 in local jails

  For a total of 7,100,000 people under the control of the U.S. Criminal Justice system.

  These facts and others like them can be found in the “U.S. Corrections Population” Table in  Prisons & Jails Chapter of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

   
• 

  MaryJane 9:28 pm on January 15, 2012 Permalink  

  Marijuana Prisoners 

  Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-19-11

  As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-19-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3677

  Question of the Week: How many people are in prison for marijuana?

  Aficionados will recall that there are important statistics in drug policy that must be computed. These include the number of marijuana arrests and the number of people behind bars for marijuana offenses.

  To calculate the number of “marijuana prisoners,” two reports are necessary.

  Report #1 is “Prisoners in 2004,” from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Table 1, page 2. Find these numbers:

  Total Federal Prisoners in 2004 =  170,535

  Total State Prisoners in 2004 =  1,244,311

  Report #2 is, “Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004,” again from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, page. 4. Find these numbers:

  Percent of federal prisoners held for drug law violations in 2004 = 55%

  Percent of state prisoners held for drug law violations in 2004 = 21%

  Marijuana/hashish, Percent of federal drug offenders, 2004 = 12.4%

  Marijuana/hashish, Percent of state drug offenders, 2004 = 12.7%

  Now, do the math,

  Multiply total prisoners times the percent of prisoners held for drug law violations. Then multiply this product times the percentage of marijuana offenders. The result is:

  Federal marijuana prisoners, 2004 = 11,630

  State marijuana prisoners, 2004 = 33,186

  Total federal and state marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 44,816

  Thus, those in prison for marijuana offenses represent about 12.6% of those incarcerated for drug law violations and 3.2% of total state and federal prisoners. It should be noted that these numbers exclude those among the 700,000+ inmates who may be in local jail because of a marijuana arrest.

  These facts and others like them can be found in the Prisons and Drugs Chapter of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

   
• 

  MaryJane 4:52 pm on January 15, 2012 Permalink  

  Cannabis rescheduling 

  Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-15-11

  As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-15-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3671

  Question of the Week: How can cannabis be rescheduled?

  According to the Congressional Research Service, the current scheduling scheme for various drugs called the Controlled Substances Act

  “was signed into law as the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.”

  Found under Title 21 of the U.S. Commercial Code. Subchapter I, Section 812 the CSA

  “established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V.”

  In “Initial Schedules of Controlled Substances,” the CSA placed marijuana and its derivatives under Schedule 1, the most restrictive of the five categories.

  Note usage of the term initial. In theory, the schedule of cannabis or any other drug (there are hundreds) can be upgraded (to a more restrictive schedule) or downgraded (to a less restrictive one).

  The Congressional Research Service unfortunately notes that

  “Lawmakers have repeatedly rebuffed campaigns to reschedule marijuana under the CSA, a step that would permit marijuana to be used for some medical purposes. Likewise, courts have refused to carve out exceptions to the CSA, even for individuals who claim a dire need for the drug.”

  Thus, Congress has the authority to reschedule, as do the courts given the right case, but so far neither has done so.

  Robert Miklos in the Stanford Law Review counters that,

  “the CSA authorizes the Attorney General to [reschedule], in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the DEA. … the President would not need the consent of Congress to make this more fundamental change to federal law.”

  Thus, the President and his Executive Branch have the authority to reschedule cannabis, but so far refuse to do so.

  These facts and others like them can be found in the Crime and Medical Marijuana Chapters of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

   
• 

  MaryJane 1:35 pm on January 13, 2012 Permalink  

  Synthetic Cannabinoids 

  Drug Policy Question of the Week – 11-30-11

  As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 11-30-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3650

  Question of the Week: What are synthetic cannabinoids?

  As described in an October 2011 report by Congressional Research Service,

  “Synthetic cannabinoids are substances chemically produced to mimic tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana. When these substances are sprayed onto dried herbs and then consumed through smoking or oral ingestion, they can produce psychoactive effects similar to those of marijuana.”

  A September 2011 issue of Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, explains that these agents are

  “… sold on the Internet as herbal mixtures under the brand names of “Spice,” “Spice Gold,” “Spice Diamond,” “Arctic Spice,” “Silver,” “Aroma,” “K2,” “Genie,” “Scene” or “Dream,” and advertised as incense products, meditation potpourris, bath additives, or air fresheners. These products are often referred to as “herbal highs” or “legal highs””

  They were developed according to the CRS by

  “Clemson University Professor John Huffman [who] is credited with first synthesizing some of the cannabinoids, such as JWH-018, now used in “fake pot” substances such as K2. The effects of JWH-018 can be 10 times stronger than those of THC.”

  Current Psychiatry reported that

  “many have been banned in several European countries, 18 U.S. states, and the U.S. military. In March 2011, the FDA placed 5 synthetic cannabinoids on Schedule I, making them illegal to possess or sell in the United States.”

  However, the CRS notes concerns about the DEA’s action, stating that,

  “Professor Huffman did not intend for K2 to be consumed by humans. He is, however, against adding synthetic cannabinoids to Schedule I, asserting that there is still much to learn about [them] …  Professor Huffman has created several synthetic cannabinoids that are seen as showing promise in treating skin cancers, pain, and inflammation.”

  These facts and others like them can be found in the Marijuana Chapter of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

   
• 

  MaryJane 1:14 pm on January 13, 2012 Permalink  

  Mandatory Minimum Sentencing 

  Drug Policy Question of the Week – 11-21-11

  As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 11-21-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3639

  Question of the Week: What are mandatory minimum sentences?

  As described by the Sentencing Project,

  “Along with the stepped-up pace of arrests in the 1980s, legislatures throughout the country adopted harsher sentencing laws in regard to drug offenses. The federal system, in particular, led the way with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and … of 1988. Among a number of provisions, these laws created a host of severe mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses and affected the calibration of the federal Sentencing Guidelines, which were being formulated simultaneous to these statutory changes. The result of these developments was to remove discretion from the sentencing judge to consider the range of factors pertaining to the individual and the offense that would normally be an integral aspect of the sentencing process, thereby increasing the number of individuals in federal court exposed to a term of incarceration for a drug offense.”

  In its recent report to Congress, the United States Sentencing Commission contended that,

  “Sentencing data and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys indicate that mandatory minimum penalties that are considered excessively severe tend to be applied inconsistently.”

  The other unintended consequences of mandatory minimum penalties were enumerated by The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to include,

  “significant increases in the costs of corrections due to longer prison terms and an increasing prison population; removal from consideration of other sentencing options that may prove to be less costly and/or more effective than mandatory incarceration; and Impact on … pleas or verdicts and offender eligibility for rehabilitation programs and early release.”

  The Commission concluded,

  “Addressing the growth in the state prison population, particularly involving drug-related offenders, requires systemic change.”

  These facts and others like them can be found in the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing chapter of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.