cannabisnews.com: Federalist Solution On Drugs Federalist Solution On Drugs Posted by CN Staff on September 27, 2003 at 08:24:52 PT By Neal Peirce, Washington Post Writers Group Source: Charlotte Observer Has the time come for the federal government to cede the "war on drugs" to America's state and local governments?A powerful case for devolving critical drug policy -- choices of which substances to forbid, whether to focus police on drug cases, imprisoning versus treating offenders -- has been made by two Florida State University economists, David Rasmussen and Bruce Benson. Of course it's hard to imagine rational debate about drug policy as long as President Bush and his ideologically driven attorney general, John Ashcroft, are in office. Even the never-inhaling Clinton administration sat quietly as both federal and state incarcerations for drug offenses skyrocketed.But the common-sense case for fresh thinking has become overwhelming. Largely because of drug cases, the United States, with 2,071,686 people behind bars, had the world's highest incarceration rate in 2000. It cost the country $26 billion that year to imprison 1.3 million nonviolent offenders -- including hundreds of thousands of drug offenders.Rigid prohibition remains federal policy even as substantial experiments in decoupling hard and soft drugs, especially decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, are spreading in Europe and Canada. Ashcroft is even cracking down hard on California co-ops that administer marijuana to relieve the acute pain of terminally ill persons -- a policy specifically approved by California voters in a 1996 referendum.But it's not just authoritarian or moralistic ideology that drives harsh drug policy. Our political system continues to condone stiff penalties, long sentences -- even though there's ample evidence that treatment of addiction, dollar for dollar, is far more effective. Indeed, a much-cited RAND study which focused on cocaine use concluded that an added dollar on drug treatment is seven times more cost-effective than a dollar more for drug enforcement.From 1968 to 1998, drug arrests per capita rose from 26 per 100,000 population to 615 per 100,000. Yet illicit drug use is still flourishing. Why aren't we objecting?Most blame is usually thrown at politically opportunistic legislators. But legislators, argue Rasmussen and Benson in a law review article, respond largely to interest groups. And there's a massive lobby out there pushing the drug war -- the police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and their allies in federal enforcement bureaus.Indeed, goes this argument, bureaucrats instinctively fight to expand their funds and turf, using direct lobbying, policy manipulation and selective release of information and misinformation. Back in 1937, enforcement agencies pushed for the Marijuana Tax Act, which proved pivotal in the criminalization of marijuana. The federal Bureau of Narcotics fed the "reefer madness" of the time, claiming -- contrary to scientific fact -- that marijuana causes insanity, rape, delirious rages and violent crimes.More recently, police departments have tended to blame most local crime on drug use, thus expanding their budgets as well as encouraging legislators to pass increasingly strict sentencing for drug offenders. Which of course keeps the prosecutors busy and pleases yet another lobby -- contractors who build prisons.On top of that, police and sheriffs' groups lobbied successfully to let their departments retain proceeds from the sale of assets confiscated in drug raids. Result: they profit directly from drug busts, a practice raising serious ethical and constitutional questions.The net result, argue Rasmussen and Benson, is "a tragedy in the criminal justice commons," as drug enforcement dominates budgets, making funds scarce for such unfolding needs as community policing and homeland security.Plus, drug operations expose police departments to corruption -- the peril of officers going bad, even lining up with one group of drug dealers against another, as they deal in a world awash with literally millions of illegal dollars.So how do we think afresh about the drug issue? Only, the Florida State authors argue, by decentralizing drug policy. They would leave the federal government to deal with such issues as interstate drug shipments but revoke national rules (like blanket prohibition of marijuana) and hold state legislatures, agencies and bureaucrats more directly responsible for the costs and results -- positive or negative -- of their policies.Would such a move lead to wholesale liberalization of drug laws? Probably no time soon, in most states. The same law enforcement bureaucracies would almost surely fight change.With a loosening of the federal hand, at least we could have debate about new research in physiological effects of various drugs, consequences of less regulation and dramatic treatment alternatives. States could compare notes, be "laboratories of democracy." Less Washington dictation plus more local autonomy equals federalism at work. What's not to like about that?Neal Peirce is a syndicated columnist. Write him c/o Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071Note: Economists suggest letting states decide their own drug policy.The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htmSource: Charlotte Observer (NC)Author: Neal Peirce, Washington Post Writers GroupPublished: Saturday, September 27, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Charlotte ObserverContact: opinion charlotteobserver.comWebsite: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/Related Articles:Growing Prison Population is Growing Problem http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16960.shtmlRAND: Marijuana No Gateway To Cocaine and Heroinhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14879.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on September 30, 2003 at 05:15:55 PT: Federalism..for federalists, only? Federalism is like any other political movement; it has value only so long as it's proponents have integrity.Case in point: John Ashcroft is not just a federalist, but a Federalist. He's a member of the Federalist Society, which supposedly supports and is a big promoter of federalism. Which, contrary to what many think, is the exact opposite of the implied name: it's not to insert federal power, but to remove it from State and local operations as much as possible. In other words, 'State's Rights'.Being a (putative) Federalist federalist, John Ashcroft is supposedly for State's Rights...but he raids MMJ clinics sanctioned by the States as being legal under State law. So much for adhereing to principles he claims are so important.Typical government: it's all in who is at the helm, not what is said on paper. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by i420 on September 27, 2003 at 16:54:54 PT Protest the news sources.. I think it is time protest were done right in front of the news offices, they would be in the publics eye as people drove by then they would have to print something. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by sal on September 27, 2003 at 16:20:02 PT: marijuana and studying There are lots of college students, with good grades, that find smoking a joint before a long study session to be very helpful. Im doing an article on this subject. If you are one of these people I would really like to hear from you. If you have a story similar to this, let me know as well. Email me at confuzingguy yahoo.com . You can be completely anonymous if you choose to. Thanks [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by E_Johnson on September 27, 2003 at 16:16:42 PT Another secret Journalists hate staged media events. A staged media event is not the same as news, to them. After some point they're going to stop responding just out of principle. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by E_Johnson on September 27, 2003 at 14:17:53 PT It means they're bored Journalists are like children.Marc Emery smokes pot -- AGAIN.It's like asking them to play with last year's Christmas toys.They will roll their eyes and show you their backs, once the novelty is gone.News and novelty come from the same root after all. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by WolfgangWylde on September 27, 2003 at 14:05:15 PT I think its pretty obvious... ...that the Canadian press has decided to boycott Emery's most recent efforts. They don't want word getting out. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on September 27, 2003 at 13:20:35 PT ron Many times I believe that silence is golden but not when something as big as this event isn't noticed in the mainstream media. I don't like that at all. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by ron on September 27, 2003 at 13:16:13 PT The silence is what's scary. I've been wondering that too FoM.More than four hundred people gathered in front of the Canadian House of Commons and openly smoked pot for three hours on Thursday. Aside from cannabis reporters, no one else seems to have noticed. They're real pros, these presstitutes.I think we should notice which zillionaire newspaper stable owner cracks first and deigns to let Canadians know what happened. CBC radio did inform us yesterday of another big drug bust by cops who should be protecting women instead of bullying the less fortunate. They should be ashamed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by E_Johnson on September 27, 2003 at 12:48:25 PT Yes, Communists have taken over Bush had such faith that a violent overthrow of the Iraqi government would cleanse Iraq and make the Iraqis into new people with new ideals that I wondered if Lenin had become required reading in the White House. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on September 27, 2003 at 11:31:27 PT Good point EJ In my city, the middle class has pretty much vanished, except for the political class. You have well-heeled professionals working 70 hours per week in their offices, and you have the low-end class/service workers that come in at night and clean the offices, serve food in restaurants, etc. These people are usually brown and most work 2-3 jobs to be able to afford to live here and feed their kids. The only real middle class workers left are government workers and politically-connected union contruction jobs. This set-up results in 2 parallel universes - the real world, where people furiously work their ass off to just KEEP their current job and salary level, and the political class universe, where people lazily hang around all day for 7 1/2 hours and then go home, getting fat benefit packages and raises every year.Every once in while, a bizarre situation allows a view from one universe to the other, sort of like a tear in the space/time continuum. For instance, one morning I was waiting for the subway to come at 8 AM. There were about 20-30 professionals waiting on the platform, all looking very dreary and under massive stress, frequently checking watches, voicemail, reading notes to prepare for work, etc.We all stood by and watched as 4 workers from the state transporation authority worked to fill small potholes in the ground. 2 of them leisurely smoked cigarettes and talked. One was milling around by herself, apparently she was fully dedicated to watching for the approach of the slow-moving cars, which come every 10 minutes. The only person working had a small bucket of asphalt and a shovel. In between talking to the 2 cigarette smokers, he occasionally took some of the black stuff from the bucket and half-heartedly pushed some into a pothole.I don't have to tell you that these guys get like 14 paid holidays a year, overtime for any hours over 37 1/2, etc, etc. After a few minutes, the anger coming from the platform was palpable. More and more of the people waiting for the train started glaring at the workers. But sadly, most of them probably don't vote, and the ones that do keep right on voting for the Republicrats, again and again. Personally, I found the display sickening and fired off letters to both my state reps, and the local newspaper.I view it as sort of a sanitized Communist setup. Instead of just killing the intellectuals and upper class outright, the Communist/Republicrats make them work harder and harder, leeching more and more tax money off them each year. Instead of gulags, they use status-quo-ism to get their way. Instead of secret police, apathy is their weapon. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 27, 2003 at 10:38:40 PT Thanks ron I don't know why a newspaper hasn't done an article so far. The press usually does report about Marc Emery's Legalization Tour. I'll keep looking. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by ron on September 27, 2003 at 10:35:25 PT Thanks Neal, and thanks Charlotte Observer "But legislators, argue Rasmussen and Benson in a law review article, respond largely to interest groups."That's the crux of the current problem. How can the "interests" of poor masses compete with the "interests" of the rich for our pollutitions attentions? Check out Marc Emery's protest in front of parliament two days ago. I guess this historic event has to wait a while before it becomes historic enough to get mentioned by the media-ocracy.http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3104.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by WolfgangWylde on September 27, 2003 at 09:20:02 PT The U.S... ...will never abandon the Drug War. Long after other countries have given it up (which has already happened to one degree or another), the U.S. will be caging its citizens for ingesting unapproved substances. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on September 27, 2003 at 09:05:11 PT The job market is very important I think America lost an enormous amount of blue collar employment because manufacturing moved offshore.Where else are these drug cops going to work? They're more blue collar than white collar.It's akin to the problem of what to do with all those soldiers after the war. Soldiering isn't good training for white collar office work.I think a lot of these narcotics officers must be terrified of their economic prospects if this war isn't kept humming along smoothly for them.They're going to fight really hard because what else do they have? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on September 27, 2003 at 08:57:25 PT Why don't they get to the real point "Indeed, a much-cited RAND study which focused on cocaine use concluded that an added dollar on drug treatment is seven times more cost-effective than a dollar more for drug enforcement. "A rarely-cited study based on the job market and the cost of living concludes that a dollar spent on drug enforcement is more effective at paying for the college tuition of the law enforcement officers' children than an added dollar on treatment. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on September 27, 2003 at 08:45:19 PT The liberal revision has begun "Of course it's hard to imagine rational debate about drug policy as long as President Bush and his ideologically driven attorney general, John Ashcroft, are in office. Even the never-inhaling Clinton administration sat quietly as both federal and state incarcerations for drug offenses skyrocketed. "The Clinton administration sat quietly, my Aunt Fanny. But heck, if Democrats are starting to feel like they need to pretend the mass incarceration of the nineties wasn't their fault, I guess that's good news. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment