Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 2009
Source: Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL)
Page: A18
Copyright: 2009 Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Contact: http://www.heraldtribune.com/section/opinion04
Website: http://www.heraldtribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/398
Author: Tom Tyron
Note: Tom Tryon is the Herald-Tribune's opinion editor
Referenced: George Will's column 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n1062/a11.html
Referenced: After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation 
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm

PRAGMATISM SPURS DEBATE OVER MARIJUANA LAWS

Thirteen states in America have made it legal in the past 13 years to 
smoke marijuana for medical reasons.

Another two states have eased the penalties against using marijuana 
for medicinal purposes.

Three states have licensed nonprofit corporations to grow medical 
marijuana and two state legislatures, in California and 
Massachusetts, are conducting hearings on whether to legalize pot.

In Europe, seven countries have decriminalized marijuana. In Latin 
America, the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico -- all 
demoralized by the violence associated with the illegal drug trade -- 
have proposed the repeal of prohibition.

The U.S. Justice Department recently announced the sensible policy 
that it would not use federal laws to prosecute medical-marijuana 
producers or users in states where the practices are legal.

All of these developments are, according to The Economist magazine, 
evidence of "a tentative worldwide shift towards a more liberal 
policy on drugs."

Widespread legalization and licensing of drugs such as marijuana 
won't happen quickly, The Economist reported in its Nov. 14 edition. 
"But a debate about regulation is increasingly drowning out the one 
about enforcement."

In the United States, the shift toward decriminalization and 
conditional legalization has been driven not by left-wing radicals 
but by majorities of voters in states representing a diverse range of 
political views.

Voters in these states approved medical marijuana laws: Alaska, 
California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

In Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont, medical-marijuana 
laws were approved by state legislatures. In Arizona and Maryland, 
legislators passed laws that are favorable toward medical marijuana 
without legalizing it.

Proponents of medical marijuana have cited several reasons for their 
support. Some believe cannabis has beneficial medicinal purposes; 
some see this step as the first toward legalization; some abhor the 
costs to governments and individuals of the "war on drugs."

Whatever the case, there is a shift in views in the United States and 
abroad. I suspect that, if politicians didn't fear political 
backlash, a lot more of them would support decriminalization, if not 
legalization, as a way to reduce the massive costs of arresting, 
detaining and processing users.

(President Obama has described the war on drugs as an "utter failure" 
yet he and his "drug czar" have refused to even discuss the 
possibility of changing drug laws.)

The fear of backlash isn't the only concern of politicians and 
policy-makers. They are entitled to a fear of the unknown. What would 
happen if more drugs were decriminalized or legalized?

Two days before The Economist wrote about the shift in attitudes, the 
Transform Drug Policy Foundation -- based in the United Kingdom -- 
issued [CAPSERIFNO]a compelling report, "After the War on Drugs: 
Blueprint for Regulation[/CAPSERIFNO]."

Transform is the leading drug policy reform charity in the United Kingdom.

The founder, Danny Kushlick, worked with problematic drug users. He 
identified a need for an independent organization to critique 
policies and seek more just and effective alternatives.

"There is a growing recognition around the world that the prohibition 
of drugs is a counterproductive failure," the Transform report states.

"However, a major barrier to drug law reform has been a widespread 
fear of the unknown, just what could a post-prohibition regime look 
like? ... We demonstrate that moving to the legal regulation of drugs 
is not an unthinkable, politically impossible step in the dark, but a 
sensible, pragmatic approach to control drug production, supply and use."

The report (available at the Transform foundation's Web site, 
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/) offers a step-by-step plan for ending 
prohibition and dealing with its consequences through regulation. The 
report calls for a "cautious, phased introduction," probably starting 
with legalization of cannabis and its sale or consumption at 
regulated "membership based coffee-shop style, licensed premises."

That approach may seem unrealistic to some, but look at George Will's 
column on the opposite page. Will, a conservative, notes the 
increasing prevalence of medical-marijuana outlets in California and 
Colorado and their liberal dispensing practices. He concludes that 
"legalization of medical marijuana may be more socially destructive 
than full legalization."

The Transform foundation's recommendations provide some practical and 
provocative ways of assessing and ranking social and health impacts 
of drug use.

The group also offers an outline for enhancing addiction treatment -- 
a call echoed recently by the National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers. The U.S.-based association, whose members amass 
millions of billable hours defending drug suspects, urged "a serious 
discussion of decriminalization" as part of reforms that would make 
"substance abuse a public health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Are Americans ready to go this far? I don't know. But it seems a 
crime not to have the discussion.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake