.
.
.
In a recent 60 Minutes segment, Michael Botticelli, America’s new drug czar, stated, “I think we have to base our policy on scientific understanding.” Yet, while discussing marijuana legalization later in the segment, he failed to disclose research findings that show, despite rhetoric warning of a decline in the perception of harm by teens, marijuana use has remained constant since 2010.
Yes, according to this year’s annual Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey on licit and illicit drug use by American teenagers, sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), our teenagers are using less alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, while marijuana use has either declined or remained relatively flat.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a group of criminal justice professionals opposed to the drug war, of which I am a member, has asserted for years that the control and regulation of illicit drugs would reduce access for our children. Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham interviewed the lead MTF researcher, Lloyd Johnston, who believes the study supports that conclusion, saying “students’ conception of how easy it is to get marijuana has actually been in decline the past few years.” Ingraham contends, and I agree, that even though teenagers perceive less risk, they are “less able to get weed when they want it.”
We often do more damage to kids under the guise of protecting them than we would by applying public health strategies that would help to ameliorate substance abuse in our communities. The failure of our drug war policies is now front and center. Another recent 60 Minutes segment on college undercover operations reflects the aggressive enforcement of marijuana laws that endanger and kill our children. Law enforcement’s continuing emphasis on marijuana does little to reduce either use or availability.
Let’s be clear: I am not advocating that our teenagers use alcohol, marijuana, or others drugs. But I do question the effectiveness of a policy that continues to emphasize interdiction and criminalization rather than public health. Our new drug czar, despite his “new direction on drugs,” is merely indicating a kinder, gentler drug war message that still retains the harms associated with prohibition. I applaud his support of harm reduction, naloxone access, and Good Samaritan laws, yet his budget still reflects a prioritization of enforcement over treatment.
And though I realize Botticelli is not a fan of marijuana legalization, he should at least not be disingenuous and actually share the results of government sponsored research that is based on “scientific understanding.” So today I woke up, looked outside, and saw that when it comes to our children’s drug use, the sky isn’t falling. Rather than continuing to hold prohibition up through political ideology and rhetoric, the drug czar should really emphasize a public health approach that achieves the same reductions as we did with teen pregnancy, alcohol, and tobacco use by using: harm reduction, scientific research, education, and respect for human rights.
I believe that LEO groups who hold this guys ear have not yet figured out how to monetize recovery from addiction like they have for incarceration and monitoring. Thus the emphasis on enforcement rather than demand reduction.
I love this paragraph in Diane’s article: “We often do more damage to kids under the guise of protecting them than we would by applying public health strategies that would help to ameliorate substance abuse in our communities. The failure of our drug war policies is now front and center.”
One of the failures of our pro-cannabis advocacy groups is their failure to address the prohibitionists’ false indictment of cannabis use as the bad choice for our children in comparison with other available, if illegal, choices. When cannabis is no longer part of the drug dealer’s wares, like alcohol, we will finally see that what leads kids into harder drugs is the illegality of cannabis not cannabis itself.
Exactly, that’s the heart of the Gateway Drug fallacy, something I figured out when I was a teenager. That is, if mj is a gateway drug, it’s largely for three reasons, all of which are based on its illegality and all of which would disappear if it were legal:
1. You’re taking something illegal, so you figure, what’s the difference, I might as well try something else illegal.
2. You’re buying it from someone who sells illegal drugs, and is likely to try to sell you other illegal drugs.
3. You’ve heard how dangerous mj is, and that is obviously not true; so you doubt the stories of heroin, speed and coke being dangerous.
Vern, what takes this out of the realm of academia is the consequence of these decisions on children and communities. I hope now that we are once again seeing a rise in heroin addiction that we will not force our children into the hands of those who sell that drug in order to allow our real estate agents to tell their clients that their city bans a substance that has been quasi- legal for 20 years in this state.
Let’s face the fact that the war on drugs is based on political talking points and not on sound public safety findings. The Ca 215 experiment has proceeded for the past 20 years without any increase in harm attributable to cannabis other than those directly attributable to law enforcement decisions. Finally the regulations called for in the original 1995 Proposition have been passed and are about to go into effect. Shouldn’t the rest of us get on board?
It’s a well-known fact that the 2 biggest beneficiaries of the ‘drug war’ are the police agencies (government) and the drug cartels. Go research the asset seizures for the previous year.
You think drug cartels don’t have political lobbyists who don’t work within the shadow lobbyist apparatus? Let’s not be naive. The internal structure of a large drug cartel is not much different than what you would find in a Wall Street corporation minus the tax attorneys.
And don’t kid yourselves. These officials know about the medical and social research that favors marijuana legalization. They deliberately ignore it because it does not promote their agendas to maintain the status quo.
Regardless what the people want or say, the War on Pot will continue. There’s way too much money involved for the Powers that Be to allow that to happen. You may see isolated states legalize it. But I suspect you won’t see nationalized legalizations in your lifetimes, provided that you are older than 40. The pushback from those with power who profit from the illegal pot industry is just too intense.
Is anyone under the illusion that Botticelli would have been appointed Drug Czar had he been a proponent of the legalization of pot? There is a solid meeting of the minds before the names of these people are even entered into the public arena for some Federally appointed position that high in the food chain. I suspect the initiation rituals are probably similar to those in the Skull and Bones club at Yale, finalized by the finger blood bond. See David Petraeus for those who dare cross that line. They’re still pursuing him years after the fact. Once you’re in your’re a lifetime member….or else. The script is prepared in advance and must be read word for word, regardless if it defies common sense.
*Tax me, Tax me NOt! Tax me, Tax me NOT!. As we have said before: When the Big
Pharma Folks get into this market, spending billions a year on Television Advertising all about Medical and Recreational SOMA Based Legal Drugs……then you can start to sweat. How much do you think the Cartels or Big Pharma are willing to pay some no name think-tank to do survey’s and statistics …”all about the NON-Effect of Drugs!”?