I'm personally ambivalent about medical marijuana. I am reasonably certain that most people who would like to have medical marijuana really don't have a medical need for it, but we'll leave that aside. What's more clear is that the people who are really hooked on drugs are those
who are enforcing the drug laws for fun and profit:
In her push to legalize medical marijuana in Minnesota, Rep. Carly Melin expected there would be tough negotiations and, inevitably, some compromise on the fine points of the proposal. That seemed a reasonable assumption, given the hard line opposition from many of the state’s law enforcement leaders and Gov. Mark Dayton’s insistence that lawmakers need to get those top cops on board before he signs on.
The negotiations haven’t been tough, she said, they have been virtually non-existent: “It’s like negotiating with a brick wall. All along I have said that I am willing to amend the bill. But they won’t move at all.”
Why is that? As always, follow the money:
“They wouldn’t discuss any specific provisions and said they had a blanket opposition to medical marijuana,” Melin recalled. She took note of one objection voiced at the meeting but not mentioned in the coalition’s 10-page, bullet-point laden white paper: concern about the impact the measure might have on police budgets.
According to Melin, Dennis Flaherty, the executive director of the MPPOA, explicitly told her that he was worried that legalization — in any form — could lead to harmful reductions in the federal grants that are an important funding source for many police agencies.
After all, you need some serious jack for stuff like this:
 |
| St. Cloud Shock and Awe |
And there's a lot of money riding on asset forfeiture as well:
For those police who see medicinal marijuana as gateway legislation, the financial implications of change are real. In Washington, where recreational marijuana is legal, police are already complaining they’ve been forced to slash budgets because they can no longer rely on any revenue from marijuana-related asset seizures. A drug task force in one county cut its budget by 15 percent to compensate for the lost revenue.
In 2012, police in Minnesota seized approximately $8.3 million of cash and property under the state’s forfeiture law, according to a report from the Office of the State Auditor. About 47 percent of those forfeitures were related to controlled substance violations, with most of the rest associated with drunk driving.
Well, surely they are taking the money away from the drug kingpins, right? It's the Mexican cartels that are really feeling the pinch on this, of course. Guess again:
According to Lee McGrath, an attorney with the libertarian Institute for Justice, Minnesota law enforcement agencies netted nearly $30 million between 2003 and 2010 through the use of forfeiture.
“What is most offensive in Minnesota is that you can be acquitted in criminal court and still lose your car or your cash in civil court,” McGrath said. “The only people defending the current law are in law enforcement. Everybody else is offended by the idea.”
While forfeiture was sold to the public as a good way to hit drug kingpins and gang leaders in the wallet, McGrath said, Minnesota law enforcement mostly use forfeiture to target small game. “No Colombian drug lords are being busted under this law. The average seizure in Minnesota is worth $1,253,” he said.
McGrath, as well as some liberal and libertarian-minded lawmakers, want to prohibit the use of forfeiture in the absence of a criminal conviction or admission of guilt. Rep. Susan Allen and Sen. Dave Thompson have proposed such legislation.
People, and organizations, respond to incentives. If you make asset acquisition a key metric in law enforcement, you
get stories like this one, from the local paper:
A driver slurred his order at the fast-food drive-thru in the 1100 block of Silver Lake Road the night of Jan. 31, so the passenger gave it a try. “He was incoherent,” the employee said after she called police. The driver, a 33-year-old Fridley man, failed FSTs and blew a .21 percent BAC on the Data Master. His vehicle was impounded for forfeiture, his license plates were destroyed and he was booked at the Ramsey County Jail on a gross-misdemeanor third-degree DWI charge.
Happens all the time. Should it? I have no problem with booking the guy on a DWI charge. Taking his car away? Yeah, that's a problem. And if you're some dude with a roach in your vehicle and you get pulled over for a tail light, the cops could impound your car, too. We need to ask if this is a proper role for law enforcement.
21 comments:
I actually favor automobile forfeiture for DWI conviction, along with license forfeiture for life. The purpose of the DWI laws, after all, shouldn't be to make money for law enforcement, but to make DWI unthinkable. Now, if you want to hold that penalty for the second conviction, that's a bit lenient but some stiff penalty should be associated with the first offense, as a "warning." Perhaps the Albanian solution? On the first offense, the penalty is summary execution.
But I'm willing to entertain medical or even recreational weed, so long as 4 conditions are met. First, that we medically certify that it is no more harmful than alcohol. Second, all laws related to alcohol use and abuse (like DUI) are applied to MJ as well. Third, the product should be taxed, just like alcohol and tobacco, and finally, that growers may not move the product over any state lines, in either direction. I wonder if any of that is in the proposed bill? I somehow doubt it.
I actually favor automobile forfeiture for DWI conviction, along with license forfeiture for life.
License forfeiture doesn't stop people from driving. It also means that the driver who has forfeited his license won't be carrying insurance, either. Not sure how that would be advantageous. As you likely realize, *nothing* is unthinkable any more. I'm not particularly a fan of Albanian jurisprudence, either, but your mileage may vary.
In re the weed, I'm curious about the last condition you offer. What is the logic behind barring interstate traffic of a product that would be otherwise legal?
One thing you'll want for legalizing weed is money to train new drug sniffing dogs for just coke, meth, and heroin, because in Colorado, they've evidently run into issues because any real drug runner simply brings out a reefer if the dog sniffs something. Oh, no probable cause, because the dog can't say "I smell meth, not weed!"
Other than that, yes, make conviction a prerequisite for confiscation, and legalize weed with clear levels for intoxication, and make it clear that companies can still test for it and refuse to hire you if it's in your blood.
(no, you don't have the right to smoke and drive a Home Depot forklift with my kids around!)
Correct, license forfeiture does not stop driving, but combined with car forfeiture has some deterrent effect. Also, it sets up a serious felony just for driving, even sober, and civil liability (no insurance) if you damage somebody or something. Then there are the problems cashing checks and getting on planes, etc. It's imperfect, but it's a logical penalty, severe enough. And if you don't like Albanian rules, what I have described here is the Swedish system.
The reason for prohibiting Minnesota growers from crossing state lines is because weed is still illegal in those other states. The reason for the reverse prohibition is that we don't want to deal with the law-breakers from other states selling into our markets, and we want to advantage our local agriculture.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one -- my concern remains giving the state the power and the incentive to use asset forfeiture in capricious ways. We need a Highway Patrol, but the current system incents the Highway Patrol to be highwaymen. I can protect myself from drunk drivers for the most part, but an unfettered State is harder to stop.
I wouldnt worry mr d. Cops are the good guys.
I am not proposing asset forfeiture being a capricious fundraiser. It ought to be upon conviction only, and it ought to be for the purpose of discouraging the criminal activity. So, I would encourage auto forfeiture for DWI or rum-running, but not for drug possession. Punishment fitting the crime and all that.
Acute alcohol poisoning kills a few dozen people in the US every year. Many, many more die from the health effects of chronic alcohol abuse. The number of people who die from acute marijuana toxicity is approximately zero.
Driving while impaired (by anything) is already illegal in every jurisdiction in the US.
Every credible proposal for legalizing marijuana includes a tax and regulate provision.
I'm happy to grant you the state line provision, because it is completely unenforcable.
Welcome to the legalization movement, Jerry! See you at the next meeting!
Sorry, but you haven't fully answered the question of whether MJ is "as medically harmless" as alcohol or cigarettes. Granted that almost anything can be dangerous if abused, we still need to know whether this "new" substance should be permitted to add to the litany of human self-destructive vices.
OK, Jerry, why don't you define what you mean by "as medically harmless"? Because for those of us that actually study these things for a living, death is a pretty compelling endpoint.
How much research has actually been conducted on the long-term effects of MJ? I can't imagine there's been a lot of funding to look into a largely illegal substance.
Without leaving my desk, here's an excerpt from "The Science of Marijuana" by Leslie Iverson (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000, pg 183) a pretty comprehensive book that reviews several decades of primary research.
"1. Cannabis does not cause structural damage to the brains of animals as some reports have claimed, nor is there evidence of long-term damage to the human brain or other than slight residual impairments in cognitive function after drug use has stopped.
2. Although high doses of cannabis or THC can suppress immune system function in animal, there is no evidence of any significant cannabis-induced impairment of immune function in people.
3. High doses of cannabis or THC inhibit the secretion of sex hormones in animals, but there is no evidence that the drug causes any impairment in fertility or sexual function in either men or women.
4. Although there is evidence that cannabis use may be associated with chromosomal abnormalities, the changes are no different from those seen with other widely used drugs (e.g., tobacco and alcohol) and are not present in germ cells associated with reproduction. The changes seem to be of no clinical significance."
Earlier in the same book:
"laboratory animals ...can tolerate doses of up to 1000 mg/kg [THC]...equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug--about 5000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis...by comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive. In Britain there are more than 100,000 alcohol-related deaths and at least as many tobacco-related deaths each year."
I could do this all day, but I won't belabor the point. If your hangup about the legal status of marijuana is safety, you should be campaigning for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, because they are a LOT more dangerous than marijuana.
Government is more dangerous to us than weed is. Legalize it with no regulation nor taxation.
-W.B.
Not hung up, Brian, just curious. I'd figure there hasn't been as much long-term study on cannabis because those opposed to it already had the law on their side and didn't need to "prove" anything, while those in favor of legalization would have limited financial support for study.
True, you never hear of THC overdoses (one is probably more likely to choke on a Dorito) and there's no nicotine to contaminate one's lungs (though, IIRC, there is some tar). I'm just a little leery when asking proponents, "Do we know it's safe?" and getting, "Dude, TOTALLY!" in response.
There was an article about a month ago (Slate or HuffPo, can't remember which) where a woman described the life-long effects of growing up with a stoner father (on the father and the family), but it sounded like it wasn't substantially different from having an alcoholic parent (though with less potential violence). Still, the "No worse than" falls a little short for me.
It may well be that the genie is out of the bong and there's no real chance to bogart history, but the experiences I've had in getting to know men I've met through Teen Challenge and the prison system suggests that it's not all that benign an indulgence and worthy of being added to our list of socially acceptable foibles.
I am, however, even more concerned about the steroidal addicdtion of our law enforcement communities mainlining ever more power and money.
I am, however, even more concerned about the steroidal addiction of our law enforcement communities mainlining ever more power and money.
Me, too. I am watching Colorado and Washington state with great interest, because I suspect we'll learn a lot. And I am convinced that the effects of civil forfeiture are a lot more deleterious to the commonweal than the average dude getting stoned in his domicile.
I don't consider the number of deaths to be the most relevant statistic. After all, there are bound to be 100s of times the number of people consuming alcohol and cigarettes, so at the same percentage of the most severe consequence, MJ would naturally look far better in actual numbers.
No, I'm worried about what happens when 100s of times as many people discover this "harmless recreation," and what effect it will have on their general personal health and the health of our society. We're barely getting by with folks NOT stoned out of their minds half the time. And I'm not sure that all the evidence on "harmful" is in, despite the (thank you) study. Is it as psychologically,or even physically, as addictive as nicotine or alcohol? Does it impair to the same degree and over a similar time period to alcohol? How about the effects on younger users, rather than adults?
I think we will learn something from the two states that are experimenting with this, and ought to watch carefully before joining the club. I agree that the forfeiture laws are "not good for us," but why not fix THOSE instead of creating new problems?
After all, there are bound to be 100s of times the number of people consuming alcohol and cigarettes, so at the same percentage of the most severe consequence, MJ would naturally look far better in actual numbers.
Jerry, now you are just making shit up. The facts about the *rate* of marijuana toxicity exist. They do not require your fevered imagination to fill them in.
Do me and the world a favor...don't pretend that you are interested in empirical information if you are going to simply ignore it when it is presented to you. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Sorry, but your citation did not refer to the rate, only to absolute numbers. Without knowing the actual rate of death per 100,000 users, or some such, the criticism stands. Besides, I'm not concerned about 5 deaths, because that is easily swamped by the number of users that do not die-- they are the rare exceptions. I am vastly more concerned by the number who are "adversely affected" in some way who would not be if the substance remained illegal. I simply don't believe we know that. It may be no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but how safe are those? Alcohol Prohibition didn't work because people reserved unto themselves the right to drink responsibly, though a few abused it badly. But nobody is suggesting that PCP can be used responsibly/safely, so it stays prohibited. Somewhere between those two is the right answer for rope-smoking. I prefer to err on the side of caution while the "test" is done. I see Colorado is already crowing about how much new money they can spend-- hardly the route to greater freedom-- with the vast bulk of it going to fight the ill effects of the MJ trade. What sense does that make? If the best reason for doing something is more money for the State, when do the state brothels open?
I simply don't believe
No kidding.
If only there existed some way to pose questions about how the world works, and test those questions systematically. If only there was some way to compile information gathered by these endeavors and disseminate them to the general edification of mankind, so we can make better and more informed decisions. If only we had some sort of technology that literally gave us access to the universe of acquired human knowledge without us having to even leave the house.
Oh well. Since we don't have any of those things, I guess we're just going to have to go with what seems right to Jerry.
Well, I suppose you could try assembling facts and logic, look at real-world "case studies," compare them with personal knowledge and experience as a sort of "smell test," and then draw a conclusion based on your personal values regarding what is best for the society as a whole. Or you could take a political position and promote evidence in favor of it, without any of that other "stuff."
Perhaps, in that light, the experience in Colorado and WA will be highly instructive, since they are in the US, but of course this "experiment" needs to run for several years before we will have some answers. Already I see that banks are refusing to loan money to MJ-linked businesses, for fear of federal drug forfeiture laws. Just the kind of thing we started out with; interesting.
Otherwise, though, we would have to fall back on international examples, such as the Netherlands, which recently tightened up its marijuana laws after a long period of laxity. For some reason, no doubt.
Post a Comment