THE question of what to do about drugs is not a new one. Over the last 100 years, there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. You can find the full text of all of them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under "Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy". They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself. [continues 179 words]
Joe Graves simply doesn't have a clue about marijuana. To the Editor: Joe Graves simply doesn't have a clue about marijuana. He needs to read the following and try again: The short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm. This is funny and fascinating, and not what you expected. The history of the marijuana gateway myth at: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/schaffer1.htm The idea was fabricated from whole cloth in 1951. Anyone who makes the argument would instantly flunk any class in basic logic. [continues 312 words]
Regarding the editorial "Stop 'reefer madness': Legalize marijuana" (July 29 and TribLIVE.com): Prohibition is such a spectacular failure that marijuana is America's largest cash crop. Nationwide sales have been estimated at $100 billion per year -- about the same as beer. There are only three options for who will control the marijuana trade and get all that money. 1. Government, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems. 2. Private business, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems. [continues 130 words]
Your editors almost got it right. The marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense from the very beginning. Every major study of drug laws from around the world over the last 100 years agrees that marijuana prohibition does more harm than good. You got that right. However, keeping sales illegal simply means that organized crime will have a monopoly on a multi-billion dollar market. There are really only two choices for sales of marijuana. Either the Mexican drug lords get tens of billions of dollars per year, or that money could go to law-abiding American citizens. It is the same choice we had with beer -- Al Capone or Anheuser-Busch. [continues 157 words]
I know a number of judges and doctors. The good ones have some respect for the truth. Not so with Bill Schuette and Daniel Michael. Their first misstatement was that California has seen a dramatic increase in drug use because of Prop 215. The truth is that teen use of marijuana has actually dropped since Prop 215 was passed. Their second bogus statement was that California is in "chaos" because a security guard at a marijuana dispensary was killed. If this reasoning made sense, then liquor stores should be banned everywhere. [continues 100 words]
Editor: Raymond J. Bertrand says "violence is common" with the use of cocaine. This is after he provides a few tidbits of history. If "violence is common" with cocaine use then perhaps Mr. Bertrand will explain why cocaine-related violence and crime was essentially unknown before cocaine was outlawed. It is correct, as he says, the cocaine was sold over the counter at one time. There were no restrictions at all on cocaine. Cocaine was included in lots of common medicines, and even soda pop. Kids could buy it as easily as they can buy aspirin today. [continues 100 words]
Your otherwise excellent article on marijuana (Broadcaster, July 17) failed to mention two important points. The first is why marijuana was outlawed in the first place. There were two major reasons for the marijuana laws. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy." It was racial prejudice against Mexicans that used it. The second reason was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana -- exactly the opposite of the modern gateway idea. [continues 112 words]
I have a better idea. If drug-free zones really work ("Debate over drug-free zones," June 15), then just make the whole city a drug-free zone and there won't be any drugs in the city anymore. Better yet, make the whole state a drug-free zone and there won't be any drugs in the state. Even better, declare all of North America a drug-free zone and drugs will disappear from the entire continent. The idea that "drug-free zones" will eliminate drugs is absurd, of course -- even if we ignore the obvious hypocrisy of alcohol and tobacco sellers within those zones. What drug-free zones really do is prove beyond question that public officials have never read the most basic research on the subject and really don't have a clue what to do. Clifford A. Schaffer, Agua Dulce, Calif. The writer is director, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. [end]
To the Editor: (Editors Note: The following letters are in response to a Letter to the Editor in the Thursday, June 12 issue of The News Review entitled: World would be better without cocaine...) The world would be better without cockroaches, too. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to burn down the house to get rid of them. There was a time when most of the current drug problems simply didn't exist. There were addicts - about the same percentage as today - but the addicts didn't commit crimes to support their habits. There were no drug gangs. There was no drugrelated violence, except for that related to alcohol. [continues 88 words]
If 4,000 people killed is a sign of progress in the "war on some drugs," then what would indicate failure? Clifford A. Schaffer Agua Dulce [end]
Since Jim Abbott is so concerned about kids and drugs, he should surely be able to answer a simple question: Historically speaking, what is the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among children? But, surprise, surprise, the man who claims to be solving this terrible problem couldn't answer this simple question, even if it meant saving his own kids. He will likely guess "peer pressure" -- like most people do -- and he will be dead wrong. That is, some kids will be dead because he was wrong. [continues 264 words]
Re: Dr. Michael T. Jamison's April 27 commentary, "Medicinal marijuana at what cost?": Dr. Jamison is confused about the argument related to alcohol. The argument is simply this: Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean that prohibition is the solution. Why is alcohol legal? It isn't because alcohol is safe. Alcohol is clearly dangerous, more dangerous than marijuana by any standard of measure. But alcohol Prohibition didn't solve the alcohol problems, it only made them worse. Homicides skyrocketed. The Mafia got rich. Police corruption was so bad that they shipped convicted cops off to prison literally by the trainload. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar crimes were already above the pre-Prohibition records. Worst of all was the effect on children. Alcohol Prohibition produced the biggest teen drinking epidemic ever seen among U.S. children. [continues 212 words]
Joseph Brown proved he doesn't know anything about the subject. The drug laws were lunacy from the very beginning. Every major study of the subject in history has said that the drug laws were the product of racism, ignorance and nonsense. At no time was there any rational consideration of the alternatives or the effects of prohibition. Brown has a lot of reading to do. He should start his education with the following items: The short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm [continues 63 words]
Let me suggest an additional set of alternatives to those proposed by letter writer Bailey Geeslin. We know that drugs are not going to go away. They have been with us since the beginning of time, and they will be with us until our great-great grandchildren are dead and gone. In the history of the earth, there has perhaps been only one drug-free society. That was the Eskimos, and the only reason was because they couldna=80TMt produce any drugs in that climate. [continues 129 words]
Note to government officials: If you are bragging about success because you seized a DC-9 full of cocaine, and because drug-related violence is up, then you are not losing the war on drugs. You have already lost. If you were winning then the opponents would never get to the point of buying a DC-9. Clifford A. Schaffer Director Schaffer Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
Did anyone tell these D.A.R.E. crusaders that D.A.R.E. has been officially barred from receiving United States government funds because there is no proof that it works? In fact, the research shows that D.A.R.E. students may be more likely to use drugs than non-D.A.R.E. students. D.A.R.E. is like apple pie - it is very popular, but there is no proof that either apple pie or D.A.R.E. stops kids from using drugs. Clifford A. Schaffer Director, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer Agua Dulce, CA [end]
Re: Marijuana vending machines - unbelievable (Jan. 31 editorial, Sentinel-Review) I live in the Los Angeles area and I have taken the time to actually survey the operations of the marijuana clubs, so let me offer a little perspective on the issue. California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 by popular vote. Under the law, marijuana is legal for treatment of any illness for which it provides relief. Furthermore, the decision of whether it is useful is solely up to the doctor, in consultation with the patient. In actual practice, marijuana is legally available to any adult wants it. All they have to do is pay the $100 "tax" to the doctor. Except for the fact the "tax" goes to the medical profession, rather than the government, this is just the way it should be. [continues 506 words]
Re: For their own protection, Dec. 28. If columnist Licia Corbella's idea of jailing people with drug problems is such a good idea, then it should be applied across the board. Alcohol wins all the prizes for causing problems in society. In the United States, it is connected to half of all deaths from homicide, auto accidents, fires, and drownings. It is related to about half of all domestic abuse and about two-thirds of all sexual assaults on children. [continues 117 words]
Steve Clements is correct (No smoking gun, Letters, November 2). Every major study of the drug laws from around the world in the last 100 years has concluded that marijuana is not a significant threat to public health, safety, or personal ambition. You don't have to take Steve's word for it, or mine. You can read the full text of those government commission reports at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies Of Drugs And Drug Policy. They all say that the marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense. [continues 62 words]
I suggest a simpler law that would get back to basics. Educational institutions should require their students to do their homework before they write editorials. The points missed in this case include the following: 1) The U.S. federal government already distributes marijuana as a medicine to a number of people. They do that because some of those patients went to court and proved to a legal certainty that marijuana is the only medicine suitable for their needs. 2) Statements about there not being enough research are signs of abject ignorance. Every major government commission report on drug policy in the last 100 years has concluded that the marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance and nonsense. They all said the laws should have been repealed long ago because they do more harm than good. You can read them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. [continues 223 words]
RE Drug ads could trigger tokers (NOW, September 13-19). Historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among U.S. children is anti-drug campaigns. The first major teen drug epidemic was alcohol, during Prohibition. Prohibition was passed in response to a campaign to save the children from alcohol. Within five years, record numbers of teens were in hospitals and jails because of alcohol problems. Schools had to cancel dances because so many kids showed up drunk. Lots of children became couriers for bootleggers. Other examples of drug epidemics triggered by anti-drug campaigns include meth, LSD and cocaine. [continues 60 words]
To the Editor: As you admit yourself, (editorial, Aug. 15) marijuana is not going to go away, so let's get real. The marijuana market is estimated to be between $10 billion and $50 billion per year. It has been estimated that, if it was sold legally as wine and beer are sold, the potential tax revenues would be somewhere between $6 billion and $30 billion per year. Calaveras County is an agricultural gem so one can only imagine what the tax revenues might be in Calaveras County. [continues 183 words]
[Re: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Marijuana," July 19] While Harry J. Anslinger is rightly characterized as a blight upon American history, one point deserves correction. The following statement is often attributed to Anslinger: "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers," he pronounced. "Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others. Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men." [continues 288 words]
Re. 'Revisit pot law,' June 29 editorial: Your editors got it partly right. Marijuana prohibition should be repealed. There is no real question about that. The part they got wrong was the supposed "dearth" of evidence. Your editors should review the Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer. The collection includes the full text of most of the major government commission reports from around the world over the last 100 years. If your editors will read them, they will find that there is no "dearth" of evidence and never has been. They will also find that every commission reached remarkably similar conclusions. [continues 131 words]
A letter writer certainly has my sympathy for the tragedies he and his family have suffered ("Where is concern for marijuana victims?" The Reporter, Nov. 19). However, we should note a few things: First, marijuana is already illegal and that didn't prevent those problems. Second, the offenders in those cases could be prosecuted for impaired driving - just like drunken drivers - regardless of whether the drug they took is legal. Third, if deaths on the road are the concern, then alcohol wins all the prizes, hands down. No other drug, or combination of drugs, even comes close to the toll that alcohol takes on the roads. [continues 110 words]
I am glad to hear of John Cornette's expertise on marijuana and legalization (Press & Dakotan, Oct. 13). Therefore, I have a question for him: In the past 100 years, there have been numerous government commissions around the world that have studied the marijuana laws and made recommendations for changes. Can you name any such study that supports your point of view? I have already collected all the ones I could find, and I posted the full text of them at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. The collection includes the largest studies ever done by the governments of the U.S., the UK, Canada, and Australia, just to mention a few. [continues 56 words]
In response to "Drug advocates reject common sense" (July 3, Letters): Even the people who wrote the original drug laws agreed that the U.S. government had no constitutional power to govern what people put into their bodies. That's why the drug laws originally were written as "tax acts." It is also why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit alcohol. If drug-induced violence is the writer's concern, then she should know that alcohol accounts for about half of all deaths from homicide, auto accidents, fires and drownings; half of all domestic abuse; and about two-thirds of all sexual assaults on children. Alcohol causes more problems in society than all the illegal drugs combined. It always has and it always will. [continues 62 words]
The evidence linking the use of cannabis to lethargy indicates that cannabis is more often a symptom than a cause of such things (Opinion, June 24). This would be different from alcohol, which genuinely does cause those kinds of problems - and on a far bigger scale. The latest and best research indicates no connection between marijuana and lung cancer or heart disease, even when the drug is smoked. And the idea that the Government will drag someone through the criminal justice system to protect their health is just ludicrous. [continues 177 words]
Police Chief Wayne Frechette says that to claim the recent (crack) bust would make a difference would be "gilding the lily." More correctly, it would be tantamount to encrusting the lily in diamonds. Maybe something could be learned from the example of Los Angeles. In 1989, the police busted 20 tons of cocaine in a single warehouse. After the bust, the price of cocaine on the streets actually went down, indicating there was still a surplus of cocaine on the local market. Yes, drug busts like this send a message. If you are really listening, the message is that this approach is absolutely hopeless. Clifford Schaffer Agua Dulce, CA [end]
I have a suggestion that will demonstrate the real drug problem in a matter of a few minutes. Ask all the members of this panel one simple question: In the past 100 years, there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug problem and made recommendations for changes. Can you name any of them and tell me what they said? I will bet that the only response from the panel will be a blank stare. If they are like so many other "expert panels" made up of law enforcement and similar people, then they couldn't pass the most elementary exam on the subject. That's why there is a drug problem. The public officials in charge have never read the most basic research on the subject. [continues 82 words]
Editor: If John Martin thinks long prison sentences will solve the meth problem, he needs only to look at the United States to see the folly of that. We have the biggest prisons in the world, with more people incarcerated for drug offences than Europe has total prisoners -- even though the European Union has about 50 per cent more people than the U.S.If he will pick up a copy of one of the recent issues of Newsweek, he will see a full cover story decrying the latest "meth epidemic." [continues 144 words]
Dear Editor, The response of Owen McPhillips perfectly illustrates the real drug problem in the U.S. First, he starts with false assumptions. Let me assure Mr. McPhillips that I do not earn my living as an activist on any issue. In fact, I work a regular job like anyone else. Some of us just have an honest interest in a better approach to a major social problem, and we are willing to put some of our own time and money into the effort. [continues 208 words]
In response to Doug Brackett's question June 19 about how marijuana legalization would work, there are only three basic options for who would sell it: 1) Government, with proper regulations and taxes to address the social issues. 2) Private industry, with proper regulations and taxes to address the social issues. 3) Organized crime, with no regulations or taxes to address the social issues. Whatever difficulties we may have in working out the details, it seems clear that either of the first two options is better than leaving it in the hands of organized crime. Of course, this is the same lesson we learned about alcohol during alcohol prohibition. Clifford Schaffer Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
To the Editor, I have a great idea. If declaring the area around schools to be drug free" zones really works, then we have a solution for the entire drug problem. We will just expand the drug free" area by a block or so every few months and pretty soon the whole town will be drug free. Expand it just a little more and all of North America will be drug free." Sounds great, and I am sure we will all enjoy a beer at the celebration. [continues 174 words]
Regarding Arthur Ooms' letter of June 8 in the Saanich News. The U.S. government has had an officially and openly stated policy of lying about drugs since at least 1937. This isn't my opinion, it is documented historical fact. When the Marihuana Tax Act was passed in 1937, Harry Anslinger, then head of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics, openly stated that he realized the law was completely unenforceable with his meager budget. Therefore, he reasoned that the only hope was to conduct a deliberate and quite grandiose campaign of outright fairy tales. [continues 236 words]
Dear Editor: There are some very good reasons for all nations to change the marijuana laws. The first is that marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense. In some parts of the U.S. it was outlawed because it was thought it would make people go crazy. In other areas it was outlawed because of the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana, exactly the opposite of the modern myth. At no time did the lawmakers consider any credible evidence on marijuana's dangers. In fact, they explicitly rejected testimony by the American Medical Association that marijuana was not a dangerous drug and there was no reason to make it illegal. The second reason is that every government commission that has studied the subject has concluded that the marijuana laws cause more harm than good, no matter what you think about marijuana. Clifford Schaffer DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy California [end]
Rev. Harry Lehotsky (The pros and cons of legalizing drugs, March 27) is so misinformed that he is just funny -- or he would be if the lawmakers weren't just as ill-informed. The only people I have ever heard say that legalization will solve all the problems of drugs are prohibitionists trying to set up a straw man argument. Legalization would not eliminate all the problems, just as it didn't eliminate all the problems of alcohol. But it did greatly reduce the problems of Prohibition. [continues 500 words]
In his letter of March 10, Steven Mette missed some important points. The first is that drugged driving is a separate offense from merely using marijuana. In the United States, we require that people actually be guilty of the specific crime for which they are charged -- not some other crime. The fact that they may have used marijuana at some point in the past -- while it may be illegal -- isn't proof that someone is currently driving while intoxicated. The second comes when he asserts that, if someone was pulled over and some blood was drawn, then they were probably doing something else wrong. Well, they may have been doing something else wrong, but if they were, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to prosecute them for what they actually did, rather than some factually unsupportable assertion that they were driving while drugged? [continues 55 words]
Let me be the first to stand and applaud Doug Hickey for showing some increasingly rare common sense about drugs. Drug-free zones are just silly. If they really worked, then why not just declare the entire city a "drug-free" zone? Like magic, the drug problem is instantly solved. Better yet, how about just declaring the entire country a "drug-free" zone -- or even the entire world? All we have to do is speak the words and set up a few signs and no one will ever use drugs again. [continues 146 words]
If Heather Rector (Jan. 9) is concerned about people on drugs harming her or others, then she ought to be worried about alcohol, not methamphetamine. Alcohol wins all the prizes for dangers in society by a margin of about 10 to one over all the illegal drugs combined. Alcohol is associated with half of all deaths from homicide, auto accidents, fires and drowning, about half of all domestic abuse and two-thirds of all sexual assaults on children. None of the illegal drugs even come close. [continues 73 words]
Kootenay-Columbia MP Jim Abbott supports decriminalization for "minor" marijuana offences but says distributors should get mandatory minimum sentences. That is, the lucrative illegal market should be left intact while the people who will inevitably supply it should be punished severely. That's exactly the same plan that failed in the U.S. during alcohol prohibition, but never mind. Then he says that the allowed amount - about 60 joints the way he rolls them - is far too much for any one person's use. Never mind that Jim could go to the store right now and load his car with cases of liquor and cartons of tobacco cigarettes for purely personal use. [continues 141 words]
Reefer madness updated is still Reefer madness. The first clue comes when someone tells you that marijuana in the 1960s was X percent (choose the percent that suits you) THC. Any percentage they give is BS because there simply weren't any programs to measure THC in the 1960s. The truth is that nobody knows. But we can be sure that high potency marijuana was available in the 1960s, because hashish has been available since at least the time that 1001 Arabian Nights was written. [continues 209 words]
Lorene Keitch says (Voice Nov.18, 2004 )that decriminalizing marijuana will damage the relationship with the U.S. If that's true, then does that mean that the U.S. Government has already closed the borders and cut off trade with the eleven U.S. states that already have laws that are more liberal than anything that has reached the floor of Parliament? I would really like to know. You see, I live in one of those states with liberal laws and I would like to know if it is still possible for me to do business with people in other states and travel to those states. Clifford Schaffer, Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy http://www.druglibrary.org [end]
Dear editor, Drugs are not going to magically go away no matter what the police do. Alcohol prohibition proved that. Because they are not going to go away, there are only three choices for who will sell them. 1) Government, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems. 2) Private industry, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems. 3) Organized crime, with no regulations or taxes to address social problems. Whatever the problems might be with the first two choices, it is clear that they would be better than letting organized crime control everything. But, again, that's something everyone should have learned with alcohol prohibition. Clifford Schaffer Aqua Dulce CA [end]
You don't have to look any further than the extreme irony of Dr. Tod Mikuriya's case to see that the Medical Board of California really is on a witch hunt. It took action against him for violating accepted medical standards in recommending marijuana. The irony is that the board has never published such standards. The greater irony is that Mikuriya has been actively campaigning to get the board to adopt standards and has submitted suggested standards himself, even before the case was brought against him. In the end, it is persecuting him because of its own failure to act. This is an open and obvious vendetta against the law already approved by the voters of California. Clifford Schaffer Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy [end]
Dear Editor, Ken Marsh is simply mistaken when he assumes there is no evidence that alcohol prohibition increased crime and violence [Legalization results without proof, Oct. 1 Letters to the Editor, Langley Advance News]. He can find a chart of the homicide rates in the United States from 1900 to 1990 at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm. It is clear that homicides rose dramatically with the start of alcohol prohibition, and then dropped just as dramatically when prohibition ended. [continues 123 words]
Staff Sergeant Norm McPhail says he would like to see the research on marijuana and violence. He can find the report "Psychoactive Substances and Violence" by the US Department of Justice at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/govpubs/psycviol.htm In summary, the report states that the only drug with any real connection to drug-induced violence is alcohol. The violence associated with illegal drugs is primarily "systemic". That is, it is a result of the system of prohibition that creates a lucrative criminal market. [continues 164 words]
Editor, The News: Christopher Foulds hit the nail on the head ('Abbotsford lends hands to criminals,' Aug. 26). Over the last several years I have had extended debates and discussions with literally thousands of prohibitionists. Their primary characteristic is complete ignorance of anything to do with drugs, the drug laws or the history of the subject. As for the studies that Foulds recommended, they have never read them and they won't. Their second major characteristic is that they refuse to read anything that might disagree with them. [continues 256 words]
You say that the medical marijuana initiative on the Detroit ballot is flawed. But is it more flawed than the current policy of jailing sick people who are simply trying to relieve their own suffering? Clifford Schaffer Director DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
In an effort to bolster the "team," the Drug Strike Force went out and signed the Drug Enforcement Administration to a short-term contract. The DEA has never succeeded in stopping any more than 10 percent of the drugs on the market, even by the most optimistic estimates. The Drug Strike Force hopes that this solid .100 or less hitter will greatly improve their winning percentage. Naturally, the Drug Strike Force will not focus on the overall percentage of wins but will instead highly publicize every bloop single and accidental score. No matter what happens, every member of the team will be deemed a hero, even when they wind up with a winning percentage that wouldn't get them into the minor leagues. Yeah, this will really work out great. Keep up the good media work. It is the only success they will ever see. Clifford Schaffer director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
