Bill Wolcott uses one auto accident in which the driver may have been under the influence of marijuana as "proof" that marijuana use is not a victimless crime. ("Marijuana use seen as a minor character flaw": 3/16) Does he think we should reinstate Prohibition because a small percentage of alcohol consumers foolishly drink and drive? In fact, Prohibition actually increased the rate of needless death and crime associated with alcohol by pushing the entire liquor market into the criminal underground. [continues 131 words]
While the federal government continues to use asset forfeiture as well as DEA raids to attack medical marijuana providers, it has become increasingly clear that the current draconian federal ban on medical use of marijuana has lost all credibility ("A budding rebellion," March 10). While the government adamantly insists that marijuana has no medical value, on Feb. 14 the 124,000-member American College of Physicians called on the federal government to reclassify marijuana, stating specifically that the scientific evidence "supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions." ACP added pointedly, "A clear discord exists between the scientific community and federal legal and regulatory agencies over the medicinal value of marijuana." [continues 80 words]
Ah, the irony: On the same day the B.A.R. publishes Arthur Evans's outpouring of disgust at Milk Club members who are medical marijuana patients (putting the term "medical marijuana" in sneer quotes to underline his contempt) [Mailstrom, February 14], the American College of Physicians issues a position paper calling for an end to the federal war on medical marijuana, citing "the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions." ACP is the largest medical specialty organization and second largest physician group in the U.S., whose 124,000 members are specialists in oncology, neurology, infectious diseases, and other branches of internal medicine. ACP backs up its recommendation with 10 pages of scientific documentation and references, including studies conducted here in San Francisco and involving our brothers and sisters battling HIV. Perhaps Mr. Evans needs to sneer less and educate himself more. ACP's position paper -- online at www.acponline.org -- is a good place to start. Bruce Mirken, Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
Recent weeks have seen a rash of new studies of marijuana hitting the mass media, generating scary headlines like "Smoking Pot Rots Your Gums," "Cannabis Bigger Cancer Risk Than Cigarettes," and "Pot Withdrawal Similar to Quitting Cigarettes. Most of this coverage can be boiled down to a fairly simple equation: Flawed science + uncritical reporting = misinformation. Mercifully, the U.S. mass media were so distracted by Super Tuesday, Heath Ledger's autopsy and the latest Britney Spears trauma that reports of these studies didn't get as much play as they might have. That's good, because the research had significant gaps, and the reporting ranged from slapdash to flat wretched. [continues 1192 words]
To the Editor: Your Nov. 15 story, "Pot busts way up in '07," omitted important context regarding this record-setting year for California's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP). Despite a roughly 2,000 percent increase in plant seizures over the past decade, there is no evidence that CAMP has made even a dent in the supply of marijuana, which remains the state's number one cash crop. The U.S. Department of Justice's just-released National Drug Threat Assessment found that these "eradication" campaigns are simply driving growers to new locations - often indoor operations in residential neighborhoods. What does the Justice Department predict for the future of "marijuana eradication?" Let me quote their exact words: "Increased cannabis cultivation may result in reduced marijuana prices. ... Criminal groups that traditionally grew cannabis outdoors will likely move operations indoors ... the groups will produce higher-potency marijuana year-round, allowing for an exponential increase in profits." This is crazy. If California regulated marijuana production just as we regulate our wine industry, the problems associated with marijuana cultivation would evaporate. After all, when was the last time you heard of criminal gangs planting vineyards in national parks or suburban homes? Bruce Mirken, director of communications Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C. [end]
The story "Marijuana seizures soar in state, sour locally" (Nov. 20) provides further documentation of the utter failure of California's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting. Record plant seizures have not diminished the marijuana supply, but continue to push growers into more dangerous locations in order to stay one step ahead of police. Moving operations indoors, often in residential homes, is one common reaction to CAMP's activities. In a report issued Nov. 8, the U.S. Department of Justice wrote, "Federal, state, and local law enforcement reporting indicates that vigorous outdoor cannabis eradication efforts have caused many marijuana producers...particularly to relocate indoors, even in leading outdoor grow states such as California and Tennessee." This enables year-round operation and what DOJ predicts will be an "exponential" increase in profits for criminal gangs. [continues 81 words]
A new study from Switzerland raises the question: Might marijuana actually be good for teens? The answer is almost certainly no, but if one follows the logic used by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP, aka the Drug Czar's office), the answer would be, "In some ways, yes." If that seems confusing, allow me to explain. The Swiss study, just published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine was based on a survey of 5,263 students, aged 16-20. Scientists compared teens who smoked both cigarettes and marijuana, those who used only marijuana, and those who abstained from both substances. The results were surprising. [continues 681 words]
Re: "Marijuana initiative short on . uh, um, like, you know," Oct. 20 Bob Ewegen column. Bob Ewegen's column about Denver's marijuana initiative makes a number of erroneous statements, some of which he unfortunately attributes to the Marijuana Policy Project. First, it simply is not true that "heavy marijuana use causes a condition I'll call 'cat litter for brains.' " A University of California analysis of the relevant research, published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, reported that even long-term, regular marijuana use causes no substantial harm to neurocognitive functioning. [continues 145 words]
Our government says we're winning the war on drugs. At a press conference to release results of the government's major annual drug use survey Sept. 6, both White House drug czar John Walters and Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt said so, with Walters touting "fewer teens using drugs today." Not quite. When you cut through the spin and look at the actual numbers, it's clear that Walters is again trying to fool the public - much as President Richard Nixon did back in 1972, when he first claimed we were "winning" the war on drugs. [continues 586 words]
Your article asserts that "use did go up in the Netherlands, particularly among youths, when laws were liberalized there," as if that's evidence that the change in laws caused that increase. How, then, do you explain that in the U.S., where marijuana was legal until 1937, use went up only after we banned marijuana, according to U.S. government estimates? That's right. For several decades now, marijuana use in the U.S. has been running at a level roughly 4,000 percent higher than when marijuana was fully legal. [continues 67 words]
American Cancer Society spokesman David Sampson is not telling the truth when he claims ("Bad medicine?") that his organization is basing its reluctance to support medical marijuana on the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report. The IOM report stated flatly, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." Although the report expressed concerns about possible health hazards of smoking and called for the development of a "nonsmoked, rapid-onset cannabinoid delivery system," it specifically acknowledged that for some patients with chronic or terminal conditions, there is no feasible alternative at present. [continues 86 words]
DISTRICT ATTORNEY James Fox's claim that local governments cannot regulate medical marijuana dispensaries is nonsensical (Medical pot advocates speak up," 9/5). There is absolutely nothing in state law preventing cities and counties from regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, and cities all over the state -- including San Francisco and Oakland -- have been doing so for some time, with no complaints from Sacramento. It's truly scary that San Mateo's top law enforcement official is so clueless. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project [end]
Our government says we're winning the war on drugs. At a press conference to release results of the government's major annual drug use survey Sept. 6, both White House drug czar John Walters and Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt said so, with Walters touting "fewer teens using drugs today." Not quite. When you cut through the spin and look at the actual numbers, it's clear that Walters is again trying to fool the public -- much as Richard Nixon did back in 1972, when he first claimed we were "winning" the war on drugs. [continues 590 words]
Editor: Your Aug. 23 story, "County reaches record high in pot plant busts" states, "The worst news is that the illegal intoxicant's prime harvest months ... have yet to turn over on the calendar." The real worst news is that these marijuana "eradication" campaigns have a decades-long record of failure, and only make the problems associated with marijuana cultivation worse. According to a summary put out last October by then-Attorney General Bill Lockyer, law enforcement seizures of marijuana plants in California rose over 1,200 percent in the last decade, from 132,485 in 1997 to 1,675,681 in 2006. During that same period, marijuana became California's number one cash crop, worth $13.8 billion -- nearly double the combined value of the number two and three crops, vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion). [continues 121 words]
Paul Kengor rails against legalizing drugs ("A conservative take on drugs," Forum, Sunday) as if all drugs were alike and all drugs were illegal. Of course, neither is true. Let us consider marijuana, an illegal drug, in comparison to alcohol, which is legal and regulated. Alcohol is more addictive (15 percent of users become dependent versus 9 percent for marijuana) much more toxic and more likely to induce violent and aggressive behavior. So why exactly is alcohol a huge and legal industry, while we arrest nearly 800,000 Americans each year on marijuana charges, 89 percent of them for simple possession? Why have we taken a popular product -- used by at least 100 million Americans, according to federal surveys that even the government admits probably are gross underestimates -- and given a monopoly on sales and distribution to criminal gangs rather than legitimate, regulated businesses? The late Milton Friedman understood, as do other real conservatives, that the only marijuana policy that makes sense is treating it like alcohol, with common-sense regulations, taxes and controls. Bruce Mirken Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
I hope you can pass this along to Luis Rodriguez, who - in making a sensible argument in favor of treatment instead of jails for addicts - repeats the drug warriors' mistake of conflating drug use with addiction ("Paths out of Addiction," June issue). He writes, "This country is a highly addicted one. An estimated 19.1 million people over the age of twelve in the United States were illegal drug users in 2004, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health." [continues 162 words]
Congratulations on an excellent wrap-up of the latest in our government's unscientific and futile war on marijuana ["Stay Off the Grass!" July 19]. Readers should be aware that it's not just folks like the Marijuana Policy Project and the ever-wise Mick Farren questioning U.S. government dogma on marijuana. For example, a recent analysis in The Lancet, one of the planet's most prestigious medical journals, found marijuana to be markedly less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco. And the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has stated, "The high use of cannabis is not associated with major health problems for the individual or society." [continues 215 words]
It is detective Ken Real, not critics of the drug war, who has his facts wrong (Letters, July 18, "Drug war critic's facts were mistaken," 7/18). Why does he think criminal gangs plant marijuana farms in national forests and other public lands, endangering hikers, campers and the environment? Why don't they plant vineyards, or fields of hops and barley for making beer? Simple: Alcohol -- a drug far more addictive and toxic than marijuana -- is legally regulated. Those who produce and sell it are licensed and regulated, and must follow extensive rules about how the product can be produced, how it must be labeled, and where and to whom it may be sold. Because of prohibition, marijuana -- an easy, cheap plant to grow -- is literally worth its weight in gold, and grown under the most hazardous and risky conditions possible. Simply put, that's insane. Bruce Mirken Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
The Drug Enforcement Administration may succeed in shutting down most of Southern California's medical marijuana dispensaries if it chooses to make this a priority ("Feds digging deep in pot-dispensary blitz," July 19). So it's reasonable to ask, what if it succeeds? Likely, two things will occur: First, some patients will lose access to medical marijuana. This will particularly affect the most infirm and severely disabled, who are unable to grow their own medicine, as well as those who live in public housing or other situations where growing is impossible. The severely disabled are likely to be least able to seek out street sources. [continues 76 words]
Your July 15 editorial, "County strikes overdue blow with Alesia," tells only half the story. You write: "The figures for seizures speak for themselves. In 2006, the statewide Campaign Against Marijuana Planting uprooted nearly 1.7 million plants." What you neglected to mention was that after those massive seizures - -- up 1,200 percent in just a decade -- marijuana remained California's No. 1 cash crop by a whopping margin. These raids don't "eradicate" marijuana. They simply chase the growers further into more remote, environmentally sensitive areas, while artificially inflating marijuana's price -- and thus creating an incentive for new traffickers to replace each one who is busted. There's a reason we never hear of criminal gangs planting clandestine vineyards in our national forests. If we regulated marijuana like wine, the problem that raids like Operation Alesia seek -- and fail - -- to solve would be eliminated overnight. Bruce Mirken Marijuana Policy Project, San Francisco [end]
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling allowing schools to punish a student for unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" -- and, perhaps, any student speech that contradicts official anti-drug dogma -- may have an unfortunate chilling effect. But most coverage of the ruling failed to note the important points made by Justice Stevens in his dissent. Stevens drew a pointed and accurate connection between our current marijuana laws and prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s: "But just as prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting -- however inarticulately -- that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely." We should confront the mistakes of this new Prohibition, rather than trying to silence its critics. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
Leo Greene clearly has more knowledge and wisdom than most of the people making policy for the U.S. government ("Leo's Story, Looking for relief, more time," June 18). Indeed, the ability of marijuana's active components, called cannabinoids, to protect against nerve damage is well known to the U.S. government: The National Institutes of Health actually hold a patent on cannabinoids as nerve-protecting agents. If this plant were anything other than marijuana, our government would be rushing to fund new research and make its benefits available to patients as quickly as possible. [continues 62 words]
Editor -- Millions of Americans use a drug that many fear is unhealthy, but may have medical benefits ("Coffee's perk -- it's healthy," June 10). That drug can produce withdrawals and mild dependence, but serious addiction problems are rare. That description certainly applies to coffee, but also applies to another drug. That drug, unfortunately, comes with such added risks as arrest, fines, jail and subsequent loss of access to public housing, food stamps, student financial aid and a variety of other rights and benefits. That drug is called marijuana. One difference: The therapeutic benefits are far more solidly established, and the evidence for addiction is weaker. Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
Your April 22 package of marijuana stories was thoughtful and well done. Despite a couple of minor glitches (like leaving those silly Drug Enforcement Administration claims about wild increases in potency unrefuted), this was some of the best, most balanced coverage of marijuana issues I've seen. Your stories raise an obvious question: Why is this large and thriving industry still consigned to the shadows? Given that marijuana clearly has medical benefits for some, and as a recreational drug is far less dangerous to one's health than alcohol, why not bring it out of the criminal underground, tax it and put it into a properly regulated system? [continues 81 words]
Judge Barry Cohen has done a service by pointing out the disproportionate effect of the so-called "war on drugs" on African- Americans, and questioning its emphasis on marijuana, "Judge questions police methods, effectiveness of drug war" (May 4). African- Americans use marijuana at the same rate as whites, but blacks are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession and 13 times more likely to be imprisoned on drug charges. As for marijuana, a recent study based on government data found marijuana to be America's top cash crop, exceeding corn and wheat combined, and recent federal surveys indicate that nearly 100 million Americans have tried it. Instead of filling our jails in pursuit of the fantasy of "marijuana eradication," it's time to regulate marijuana just as we do alcohol. San Francisco [end]
Anyone who advocates for medical marijuana sooner or later runs into arguments about smoking: "No real medicine is smoked." "Smoking is bad for the lungs; why would any doctor recommend something so harmful?" It's a line of reasoning that medical marijuana opponents have used to great effect in Congress, state legislatures, and elsewhere. Indeed, the FDA's controversial 2006 statement opposing medical marijuana was couched in repeated references to "smoked marijuana." But new research demonstrates that all those fears of "smoked marijuana" as medicine are 100 percent obsolete. [continues 780 words]
I'm sorry to hear that Phil Drake's neighborhood is troubled by secret marijuana growing operations ("Residential pot busts becoming chronic," April22). There's a reason this is happening, and there's an easy way to stop it. When was the last time you heard of suburban homes being used to secretly grow wine grapes? There's no need because wine production is legally regulated. We should treat marijuana the same way. A recent study found that marijuana is California's number one cash crop, despite decades of "eradication" efforts. These futile law enforcement efforts simply guarantee that marijuana will be produced in the riskiest possible conditions. Let's regulate marijuana like alcohol. Bruce Mirken Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
The graph accompanying yesterday's story on workplace drug testing erroneously states, "The use of marijuana in the workplace increased in the first quarter." In fact, the testing reported in the article demonstrates no such thing. Standard urine screening detects minute, nonpsychoactive traces of THC or its chemical byproducts for days and sometimes weeks after any effects have worn off. This effect is unique to marijuana because of the fat-soluble nature of THC. So these tests are almost certainly not detecting use in the workplace, but rather what employees do in their off hours. [continues 80 words]
Re "Richardson content to start slow in '08 race," April 10 New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson may want voters to believe that it was politically "risky" -- and thus courageous -- for him to support and sign medical marijuana legislation in New Mexico, but the polls show otherwise. The latest national Gallup Poll on the issue found 78% of voters in support of medical marijuana. So Richardson gets to have his cake and eat it too by taking a politically popular stand while getting credit for being brave. The real lesson is that politicians have finally started to catch up with public opinion. Journalists and pundits should take note. Bruce Mirken Washington The writer is communications director of the Marijuana Policy Project [end]
Can a candidate be considered a friend of the LGBT community if he or she thinks it's okay to arrest and jail people with HIV/AIDS for using medical marijuana to relieve their nausea or peripheral neuropathy? The question wasn't raised in your story, "Gay leaders slow to join Dem prez bandwagons" [March 29], but it's worth asking. At this point, we don't know where many of the candidates stand on medical marijuana, but we do know about a few. On April 2, Governor Bill Richardson (D) signed legislation making New Mexico the 12th state to permit medical use of marijuana - legislation he actively lobbied for ["New Mexico gov signs medical pot law," April 5]. Also supportive, based on his prior statements, is Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). [continues 106 words]
Law professor Randy Barnett understandably focuses on the arcane legal and constitutional issues raised by the recent Ninth Circuit ruling that Angel Raich's Fifth Amendment right to life does not prevent the federal government from arresting and jailing her for using medical marijuana to stay alive. But legal minutiae should not obscure the larger issue: Federal law is out of step with science and simple common sense. Marijuana has been used as a medicine, safely and effectively, for 5,000 years. In 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's own administrative law judge called marijuana "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." Since then, a wide variety of experts -- including the Institute of Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and many others -- have weighed in with similar evaluations, and new data arrive almost weekly. Just last month, University of California researchers reported that marijuana effectively relieves a type of nerve pain that afflicts thousands with HIV/AIDS, for which there are no FDA-approved treatments. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
A two-year study from a British commission is recommending a reality-based approach to drug law, rooted in science and focused on reducing harm. Americans should take note. On March 8, a high-powered British commission recommended tossing that country's law on illegal drugs onto the scrap heap and starting over again. Given that the U.S. Controlled Substances Act parallels the British Misuse of Drugs Act in important ways, the suggestion deserves attention in America as well. [continues 980 words]
Editor -- I always read Steven Winn's columns with some interest, and find myself agreeing more often than not, but I was taken aback by something he wrote: "But when the country turned against Prohibition, a distaste for regulating all forms of personal behavior became part of our national constitution." With all due respect, Americans may like to imagine this is so, but it's not. If we really had a national distaste for regulating personal behavior, we would not have more people locked up in state and federal prisons for drug offenses than the entire prison populations (for all offenses of any sort) of England, Scotland, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands combined. [continues 282 words]
Re: Canada must not follow the U.S. on drug policy, Feb. 22. Writer Ethan Nadelmann is too kind about U.S. drug czar John Walters. Mr. Walters's duplicity and his irrational, unscientific obsession with marijuana have made him a national joke in the United States. When the most comprehensive, government-funded research found that the ads produced by his office increased teen marijuana use rather than reducing it, Mr. Walters's response was to suppress the study for 18 months and then -- when it was forced into the public domain by a congressional inquiry -- to dismiss it out of hand. Bruce Mirken, Washington, D.C., Marijuana Policy Project [end]
The editorial, "Marijuana is not the only pain reliever" (CT. Feb. 21) misses the point. In fact, the lawsuit filed Feb. 21 by Americans for Safe Access has it exactly right: The information the federal government has been disseminating about medical marijuana is false, misleading and inaccurate, and thus in violation of the Data Quality Act. The recent study published by University of California researchers showing that marijuana effectively relieved disabling nerve pain in HIV/AIDS patients is just the latest in a long chain of evidence that goes back literally for millennia. [continues 106 words]
A new University of California study, published in the Feb. 13 issue of the journal Neurology, shows that smoked marijuana is a safe, effective treatment for a type of debilitating nerve pain that afflicts many HIV/AIDS patients. This landmark study is the final nail in the coffin of U.S. government claims that there is "no evidence" showing marijuana to be a safe, effective medicine. It's time for our government to wake up and smell the data, and end its pointless crusade against medical marijuana. Sadly, the Bush administration's response was to dismiss this important study with false claims about marijuana's alleged dangers. If the administration is unwilling to let medical marijuana policy be governed by science, Congress must act without delay. Bruce Mirken Mirken is director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project [end]
A new study, just published in the journal Neurology, confirms the value of medical marijuana for people with HIV/AIDS, proving scientifically what many of us have seen first-hand or through the experiences of friends. This new data should rouse our community, and the organizations that represent us, to action. This particular study dealt with peripheral neuropathy, a painful condition caused by damage to the nerves of the feet and other extremities caused by HIV or by some of the medications used to treat it. It can range from mild tingling to pain so extreme that, as writer and AIDS activist Phil Alden puts it, "It can feel like you're being stabbed with a knife, or like your feet and hands are on fire." [continues 682 words]
A University of California study, published in the Feb. 13 issue of the journal "Neurology," shows that smoked marijuana is a safe, effective treatment for a type of debilitating nerve pain that afflicts many HIV/AIDS patients. This is the final nail in the coffin of government claims that there is "no evidence" showing marijuana to be a safe, effective medicine. It's time for our government to wake up and end its pointless crusade against medical marijuana. Sadly, the Bush administration's response was to dismiss this important study with false claims about marijuana's alleged dangers. If the administration is unwilling to let medical marijuana policy be governed by science, Congress must act without delay. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
It was a surprise to read there is "no way scientifically" to settle the question of whether marijuana is a "gateway drug" that causes hard-drug addiction. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine concluded, "There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a steppingstone on the basis of its particular physiological effect." Two just-published studies, one from the University of Pittsburgh and one from Australia, reinforced that conclusion. If there is a "gateway," it is the illicit drug market. And there is a way to close that gateway. In the Netherlands, adults are allowed to possess and buy small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses that are strictly forbidden from handling hard drugs. [continues 66 words]
Re "Medical pot dealers protest" (Jan. 19): Does the Drug Enforcement Agency really have nothing better to do than attack medical marijuana dispensaries that assist struggling patients like Jorge Ceballos? Has the meth problem been solved? Has the flow of heroin from Afghanistan been shut off? If some dispensary operators aren't following California law, that can be dealt with through state and local regulation, but the federal government - wedded to the phony claim that marijuana has no medical value - doesn't care about that. Indeed, the feds raided several establishments in West Hollywood, where the city has worked diligently to set up a regulatory scheme and where city officials were furious about the raids. Finally, Chief William Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department needs to educate himself. While no one wants kids smoking marijuana, the "gateway theory" has been repeatedly and thoroughly discredited by scientific research. Bruce Mirken Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
It's Now Clear That Pot Doesn't Lead to Hard-Core Drug Use Two recent studies should be the final nails in the coffin of the lie that has propelled some of this nation's most misguided policies: the claim that smoking marijuana somehow causes people to use hard drugs, often called the "gateway theory." Such claims have been a staple of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under present drug czar John Walters. Typical is a 2004 New Mexico speech in which, according to the Albuquerque Journal, "Walters emphasized that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' that can lead to other chemical dependencies." [continues 597 words]
Two New Studies Show Marijuana Is Not A 'Gateway' To Harder Drugs Two recent studies should be the final nails in the coffin of the lie that has propelled some of this nation's most misguided policies: the claim that smoking marijuana somehow causes people to use hard drugs, often called the "gateway theory." Such claims have been a staple of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under present drug czar John Walters. Typical is a 2004 New Mexico speech in which, according to the Albuquerque Journal, "Walters emphasized that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' that can lead to other chemical dependencies." [continues 597 words]
Two recent studies should be the final nails in the coffin of the lie that has propelled some of this nation's most misguided policies: the claim that smoking marijuana somehow causes people to use hard drugs, often called the "gateway theory." Such claims have been a staple of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under present drug czar John Walters. Typical is a 2004 New Mexico speech in which, according to the Albuquerque Journal, "Walters emphasized that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' that can lead to other chemical dependencies." [continues 598 words]
In arguing for a modest reform of cocaine sentencing laws, Kevin A. Sabet presents a false choice between "strict prohibition or lax legalization," and suggests that the only alternative to these extremes is to fine-tune the current drug war. But at least in the case of marijuana, a "third way" exists: regulate marijuana as we do tobacco and alcohol, with licensed, taxed and regulated producers and merchants. To keep their licenses, such businesses would have to obey strict rules against selling to kids and would be subject to standards for labeling, purity and potency. Instead of the marijuana market being controlled by unregulated criminals, we'd know who and where sellers are and could monitor their operations. [continues 78 words]
Arthur Evans need not be so fearful of Tom Ammiano's proposal to make enforcement of private marijuana offenses the lowest priority for San Francisco law enforcement ("Regulate Pot," Letters, Nov. 9). Similar measures have been in force for some time in Oakland and Seattle without any of the problems Evans imagines. In Seattle, whose lowest-priority ordinance, Initiative 75, was passed by a 58%-42% vote of the people in 2003, the most vocal opponent was City Attorney Tom Carr. During the campaign, Carr voiced the same objections as Evans, alleging that police would be hamstrung. Two years later, he told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "It hasn't been a problem." [continues 81 words]
Re "Economist changed the world," obituary, Nov. 17 Milton Friedman's opposition to the war on drugs had considerably more influence than your obituary suggests. Friedman was particularly opposed to prohibition of marijuana, a policy he called "disgraceful" in a 2005 Forbes magazine interview. During the period of Friedman's advocacy for reformed marijuana and drug laws, most of Europe has effectively decriminalized marijuana possession. In the U.S., growing numbers of liberals and conservatives have called for reconsideration of our marijuana laws. In California, the cities of Santa Monica, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz just voted to make personal, adult marijuana offenses their lowest law-enforcement priority. Change doesn't always come quickly, but it does come. The world is starting to catch up with Friedman on the issue of marijuana policy. Bruce Mirken Washington The writer is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. [end]
Re "White House That Didn't Shoot Straight" (Editorial, Oct. 9): As your editorial noted, it is appalling that research shows the White House anti-drug ad campaign to have been ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Far worse is the fact that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) deliberately hid the evaluation showing the program's failure from both the public and Congress. On Oct. 7 the National Journal reported: "Westat released the results to the White House office in 2004. But the report went no further for a year and a half, until the Government Accountability Office demanded its release in August 2006. According to John Carnevale, the former director of budget and planning for the ONDCP, the office did not like the report's conclusions and chose to sit on it -- even though Congress had appropriated $1.2 billion between 1998 and 2004 for the ONDCP's media campaign, according to GAO data." Every official responsible for this fiasco should be fired immediately. Failing that, Congress should cut off their funding without delay. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
In his Sept. 22 column, "The war on marijuana is expensive," Dave Peyton is right. Prohibition of marijuana -- just like Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s -- is an expensive failure that serves only to enrich organized crime. Look at the government's own research: According to the U.S. Justice Department's 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment, "marijuana availability is high and stable or increasing slightly." In another recent government survey, 86 percent of high school seniors said marijuana was "easy to get" -- a figure that has remained virtually unchanged since 1975. [continues 68 words]
Editor -- Debra J. Saunders made a number of important points in her latest column about medical marijuana ("Waiting To Inhale," Sept. 19). Two facts are worth adding: First, the evidence of marijuana's medical benefit continues to accumulate. Just last week, a new study from UCSF showed that marijuana use tripled the cure rate of patients being treated for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) -- apparently by relieving nausea and other side effects of anti-HCV drugs, thus allowing patients to complete their arduous treatment regimens. [continues 87 words]
Terry Michael suggests many reasons to question America's so-called war on drugs and its peculiar obsession with marijuana, but one seems particularly obvious: It hasn't worked, most obviously in the case of marijuana. The Justice Department's Drug Threat Assessment 2006 reports, "Marijuana availability is high and stable or increasing slightly" despite an all-time record number of marijuana arrests -- 771,984 in 2004. Eighty-nine percent of those arrests were for possession -- more arrests for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined. [continues 109 words]
