Pubdate: Thu, 17 Jul 2014
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2014 Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspaper
Contact:  http://www.chron.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/198
Author: Gary J. Hale
Note: Hale, a 31-year veteran of the U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Administration and chief of intelligence in the DEA'S Houston Field 
Division from 2000 to 2010, is a nonresident fellow in drug policy at 
Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.
Page: B9

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION NOW POLICY, NOT JUST TREND

Good governance is about good stewardship. Government executives 
always should consider how best to use the government's vast assets, 
including personnel, money and materials.

In this light, continued opposition by the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to the legalization of cannabis - marijuana - is not 
only a losing battle but a waste of taxpayer money, particularly when 
the president, Congress and an increasing number of state 
legislatures are responding to the will of the people by 
decriminalizing nonviolent marijuana use and possession. Our federal 
tax dollars would be better spent by responding to the current 
widespread increase of heroin use in ways that will prevent continued 
abuse, reduce harm to users and provide for greater public safety.

As a former DEA intelligence chief, I know that one of the tools 
policymakers in public safety and intelligence circles depend upon is 
predictive analysis, an over-the-horizon view of the landscape that 
enables them to allocate resources based on realistic threats.

These analyses often involve the combination of hard numbers, such as 
dollars in the budget, and softer criteria that provide patterns and 
indicators needed to reach a strategic or policy decision.

By using these same methods, an objective analyst can see a clearly 
emerging picture: Marijuana decriminalization and legalization have 
gone past being a trend and are settling in as federal policy, 
especially with costs out weighing the benefits of incarcerating so 
many otherwise nonviolent offenders.

Perhaps the most important indicator of public disinclination to 
pursue marijuana use as a crime was the decision by Colorado and 
Washington state to legalize "recreational" marijuana.

Another was U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to stop 
prosecuting offenses related to medical marijuana in states that have 
legalized its medicinal use. In August 2013, Holder took a further 
step toward realigning federal drug enforcement policy when he 
acknowledged that the national incarceration rate was out of control, 
especially with regard to nonviolent offenders.

The change is expected to cut many federal drug sentences by an 
average of nearly two years, thereby reducing the prisoner population 
and the costs associated with those incarcerations.

Under the terms of the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA, in 
consultation with the Congress and other agencies, assigns drugs to 
various "schedules" according to several criteria.

Since the passage of the act in 1970, marijuana has been consigned to 
Schedule I, the most restrictive category, because it allegedly has 
"a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use 
in treatment in the United States." Drugs in the less restrictive 
Schedule II include cocaine, methamphetamine, oxycodone, morphine and 
fentanyl, the latter drug being approximately 100 times stronger than 
morphine and exponentially more dangerous.

The DEA is fighting an uphill battle by enforcing marijuana laws in 
the face of a new era of understanding, education and public 
sentiment, all of which represent a complete U-turn from long-held 
beliefs regarding the substance.

The agency in which I worked for 31 years, many of them at a high 
level, must accept that the American people simply do not wish to 
have our federal government continue to spend time, money and 
resources fighting marijuana possession and use, especially in light 
of convincing evidence that cannabis provides alternative medicinal 
choices for epileptics, veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, 
those suffering the pains of cancer and others.

Notwithstanding the enormous contributions the DEA has made to public 
safety since its inception in 1973, it is time for it to realign its 
strategic thinking and adjust its policies to adopt this new paradigm.

In April, Holder said that the Justice Department is disposed to work 
with Congress should it wish to reschedule marijuana into a less 
dangerous but still regulated category within the Controlled 
Substances Act. I believe rescheduling marijuana is the right road to 
take, given the lack of convincing evidence that it is the evil 
portrayed by a more conservative public of the 1960s and '70s, a 
label some refuse to let go even today.

Rescheduling would not mean the government would give free rein to 
the growing marijuana industry, but it would mean the DEA is 
listening to the public and the Congress and making well-reasoned decisions.

It is also in the best interests of the DEA's organizational and 
political survival.

My predictive and objective analysis is that Congress eventually will 
remove the designation of marijuana as one of the most threatening of 
drugs, thereby redirecting federal counter-drug resources to focus on 
more clear and present dangers.

Federal tax revenues generated by marijuana legalization could 
provide the DEA with a much-needed boost in funding to confront 
drug-related terrorism and other more pressing threats.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom