And Some More Evidence That Prohibition Has Failed

Report: Cannabis prohibition causing more problems than it fixes.

The most obvious flaw in drug prohibition is the banning of cannabis. Not only is cannabis less harmful than alcohol, not addictive, has many many medical uses and is used regularly by over 80 million people but it also can provide paper, rope, clothing, soap, building materials and other renewable products. Henry Ford’s first car was built and fuelled with cannabis. 

Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on Hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941

--The Cannabis Chronicle

Smoking pot recreationally may not be the healthiest choice for some but the science is fairly clear. For most adults, moderate use will not cause any major harm. Like alcohol though, their are some people who should not participate in cannabis use. Those with a family history of mental health issues and the young are best to keep away. What the authorities refuse to grasp is that prohibition doesn’t stop these people from using cannabis. Prohibition simply places unqualified people, often criminals, in charge of the cannabis market. Strict laws have failed to deter drug use. You would think it would sink in when we discovered that teens find it easier to buy pot than alcohol or that drug use continued to grow over the decades.

Black markets don’t just create violence and crime but a more dangerous product. The quest to increase potency has produced “Skunk” - extra strong weed with a high content of THC and low doses of cannabinoids. Skunk is now the standard for most pot smokers. The latest research has confirmed what many scientists have expected for a long time - THC needs to be balanced with cannabinoids to reduce the negative effects of cannabis. High grade skunk, grown in hydroponic setups, increases THC while reducing cannabinoids. It seems the argument that we now have stronger dope was missing the point altogether. 

Scientifically and logically, the banning of cannabis is one of the strangest policies on this planet. Anti-drug nutters and governments around the world hold on to this idea that we need to be protected from the evil weed. But as the media starts to wind down it’s fanatical campaign against cannabis, the public are slowly learning the truth about cannabis. 

An informed public coupled with pro-cannabis supporters are arming themselves with scientific research and taking their cause to the law makers. Politicians are increasingly being challenged about their support for cannabis prohibition as the latest round of Reefer Madness fades into the history books. Those remaining staunch opponents will not be remembered fondly by the next generation as they seek answers to why our bizarre cannabis laws lasted so long. 

Prohibition of Cannabis

British Medical Journal (BMJ)

Volume 341

By Professor Robin Room

October 2010

Prohibition of cannabis is not achieving its aims in the US, and may even worsen outcomes

A new report, Tools for Debate: US Federal Government Data on Cannabis Prohibition, focuses on the effects of the enforcement of drug prohibition in recent decades in the United States. It shows that efforts to suppress the selling and use of cannabis increased substantially. Adjusting for inflation, the US fed­eral antidrug budget increased from about $1.5bn (£0.95bn; €1.1bn) in 1981 to more than $18bn in 2002. Between 1990 and 2006, annual cannabis related arrests increased from fewer than 350 000 to more than 800 000 and annual sei­zures of cannabis from less than 500 000 lb (226 798 kg) to more than 2 500 000 lb. In the same period the availability of illicit cannabis and the number of users rose: the retail price of cannabis decreased by more than half, the potency increased, and the proportion of users who were young adults went up from about 25% to more than 30%. Intensified enforcement of cannabis prohibition thus did not have the intended effects.

The report then turns to “unintended consequences” of prohibition, arguing that both in the US and in countries sup­plying the markets of affluent countries, drug prohibition con­tributed to increased rates of violence because enforcement made the illicit market a richer prize for criminal groups to fight over. The report concludes with a brief discussion of the alternatives to prohibition—decriminalisation and legalisa­tion—arguing that experience with regulation of alcohol and tobacco offers many lessons on how a regulated market in can­nabis might best be organised.

The report’s conclusions on the ineffectiveness in the US of “supply control” (the conventional term for enforcement of drug prohibition) are in line with reviews of the evidence from a global perspective.

Tools for Debate joins a bookshelf of reports from the past half century describing perverse effects of drug prohibition and charting ways out of the maze. So far, no government has dared to follow the thread all the way. Now, with the proposition of setting up a legal regulatory system on the California ballot in November, the international drug prohibition system may find itself facing a non-violent popular revolution. Half a century after the present international system was consolidated by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the drug prohibi­tion wave may finally be ebbing.

There is a precedent. A wave of alcohol prohibition swept over the international scene a century ago, with 11 countries adopting prohibition between 1914 and 1920. Eventually the wave receded, with US repeal in 1933 marking the end of alcohol prohibition at the national level. Prohibition was replaced by restrictive regulatory regimes, which restrained alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol until these constraints were eroded by the neoliberal free market ideologies of recent decades.

Because the international drug prohibition movement was originally an offshoot of the movement to prohibit alcohol, a detailed examination of the experience with alcohol is particu­larly relevant. The RAND modelling of the effects of legalising marijuana in California projects an increase in consumption, probably a substantial one, but experience with the repeal of alcohol prohibition shows that with substantial state regula­tion, consumption can be constrained. However, the alcohol control regimes of that time were far more restrictive than they are now in the United Kingdom and in many English speaking jurisdictions.

Analysis shows that these strong alcohol regulatory systems limited the harms from drinking in the period before about 1960, but the lessons have not been applied to regulating cannabis or other drugs. In some places, state control instru­ments—such as licensing regimes, inspectors, and sales outlets run by the government—are still in place for alcohol and these could be extended to cover cannabis. For instance, state retail monopolies for off sale of alcohol in Canada (except Alberta), the Nordic countries (except Denmark), and several US states would provide workable and well controlled retail outlets for cannabis, as has been proposed in Oregon.

The US has a particular hurdle with respect to regulating cannabis: US court decisions on “commercial free speech” question restrictions on advertising and promotion of a legal product. Barriers also exist at an international level. Psycho­active substances such as cannabis (and alcohol and tobacco) should be exempted from World Trade Organization free trade provisions. The requirements in the drug control treaties for criminalisation of non-medical production and use need to be neutralised, at least with respect to domestic markets. For countries following this thread, adopting a new framework convention on cannabis control could allow a regulated legal domestic market,3 while keeping in place international market controls as a matter of comity (whereby jurisdictions recognise and support each other’s internal laws).

The evidence from Tools for Debate is not only that the pro­hibition system is not achieving its aims, but that more efforts in the same direction only worsen the results. The challenge for researchers and policy analysts now is to flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes, as was done at the brink of repeal of US alcohol prohibition.

Robin Room professor, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne; Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs, Stockholm University; and AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Fitzroy, VIC 3065, Australia

Related Articles

More Evidence of Failed Prohibition

It's Official - "Tough on Drugs" Causes More Crime & Violence

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

Drug Prohibition Doesn't Work - So What Do We Do Next?

Jeepers - HeraldSun Says Prohibition has Failed

More Evidence of Failed Prohibition

We all grew up with the knowledge that alcohol prohibition in the US was a complete disaster. We have all seen a least a few movies depicting Al Capone and co. terrorising the public in a bid to control the market for illegal booze. We all understand that people will drink alcohol regardless of the laws and regulation removes the criminal element, sets safety standards and keeps the industry under control. So why do we ignore the same scenario with drug prohibition? Why do we keep banning drugs under the umbrella of prohibition when prohibition clearly doesn’t work?

The findings suggest that the ban did not have a significant impact on those who already used mephedrone…

-Dr Karen McElrath: Queen’s School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work. 

Prohibition remains permanent in many countries because of speculation not facts. The politicians in power keep telling us that society will fall part if we legalise drugs and banning them will keep us safe from ourselves. Dishing out harsh penalties for drug possession deters drug use we are told. But what happens when research tells us differently?

Mephedrone Use In Northern Ireland Post-Ban

Medical News Today

October 2010

Researchers at Queen's University Belfast have completed one of the first studies of mephedrone use in Northern Ireland since the drug was outlawed earlier this year. They found that the ban did not deter those mephedrone users surveyed from taking the substance. 

Interviews with 23 mephedrone users were completed during a two-month period (May and June 2010) following the legislation that made the drug illegal in the UK. Study participants were aged 19 to 51 years, around half of whom (12) were female. 19 of the 23 people who took part in the study were employed, and most occupations were affiliated with business, trades, the service industry or the public sector. 

The research was led by Dr Karen McElrath at Queen's School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work. 

The key findings from the study were:

• 21 of the 23 study participants had used mephedrone after the ban.
• Only one person was very much opposed to using the substance again.
• Approximately half the sample preferred mephedrone to cocaine or ecstasy. Some had experienced negative effects, for example, sleeplessness, difficult comedowns and next-day depression, but these factors generally did not deter them from using the substance again.
• None of those who took part in the research felt that 'legal highs' were safe simply because they were legal.
• None of the study participants recalled an initial interest in using mephedrone because it had been legal. Rather, its legality before April 2010 meant that it was easier to access and cheaper than many illegal substances.
• Prior to the ban, only three interviewees had purchased mephedrone from 'head shops' and four interviewees had purchased mephedrone from online suppliers. The majority tended to access mephedrone through friends or dealers.
• The majority of interviewees had prior experience of taking ecstasy, amphetamine or cocaine.
• During their most recent use of mephedrone, all the study participants had also consumed alcohol, although the timing and amount of alcohol varied.
• During their most recent use of mephedrone, six of the 23 participants had used another psychoactive substance, other than alcohol.
• During their most recent use of mephedrone, most participants had consumed between one-two grams of the drug, although half recalled bingeing on mephedrone, sharing upward of seven-eight grams with two to three other people.

Dr McElrath said: "This is one of the first studies into mephedrone use in Northern Ireland since it was made illegal earlier this year. The findings suggest that the ban did not have a significant impact on those who already used mephedrone, at least during the two-month period that followed the ban. We are keen to develop this research further and to compare our results with a similar study conducted in Waterford prior to the ban on mephedrone in the Republic of Ireland in May 2010." 

The study was part of a cross-border research partnership with Marie Clare Van Hout at the Waterford Institute of Technology. 

Mephedrone was made illegal in the UK in April 2010, and in the Republic of Ireland in May 2010. 

Source: 

Anne-Marie Clarke 

Queen's University Belfast 

Indonesian Cruelty

Indonesian prosecutors in the Scott Rush case have finally gone too far. Their fanatical insistence on sending Scott Rush to his death, is so inhumane, so completely unreasonable and so cruel that I am almost lost for words. 

Barbarism (noun)

-absence of culture and civilisation : the collapse of civilisation and the return to barbarism.

-extreme cruelty or brutality

I have to keep reminding myself that this is Indonesia - the most corrupt, hypocritical, inhumane and sometimes despicable country on this planet. Why would I expect anything else from a country that overlooks home grown terrorists but are willing to murder foreigners for being drug mules. I should accept that Scott Rush and the Bali Nine will receive no justice in Indonesia but like most people with a heartbeat, I find it so damn difficult to stay quiet. The sheer arrogance of the prosecutors and their relentless desire to snuff out Scott’s short life is bordering on barbarism. 

If we held a vote of the Indonesian people, especially Balinese society, and asked is it fair for organised transnational narcotic criminals to be (sentenced to death) we are certain the community will have the opinion that the death penalty is very suitable to be imposed and is just.

--Ida Bagus Argita Chandra: Indonesian Prosecutor

I’m sorry Mr. Chandra but sentencing an Australian to death that would normally invoke a 1-5 year jail term locally, will not attract a lot of tourists. Especially when your country is notorious for luring tourists to buy drugs by the police and then bang them up for a bribe … or face decades in prison or even a possible death sentence. Tourists are nervous enough about possible terrorists attacks let alone being wrongfully arrested for drug offences. I see that some terrorists who commit mass murder are treated better by authorities than naive kids who are coerced into smuggling drugs. How can any rational person compare terrorism/mass murder with being a drug mule?

And then there’s this from another prosecutor:

...drug smuggling was a serious threat to the island’s image as a tourist destination and harsh punishments in drug cases would deter future offences

--Purwanti Murtiasih: Indonesian Prosecutor

Oh, the deterrence myth. If the prosecutors would spend an hour or so doing their research, they would discover that harsh penalties do not deter desperate addicts or petty criminals from the easy money involved in the drug trade. Sentencing people to death for drug offences puts countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia etc. out of line with civilised nations. The treat of being shot by a firing squad simply increases the stakes and the violence associated with the drug trade. It also forces the drug king pins to distance themselves from any punishment by using desperate couriers.

Like most drug policies, it’s the poor, desperate, marginalised and minority groups who end up in prison or facing a death sentence. Rarely do the rich drug lords face the courts or some sort of judicial punishment. The massive profits from the drug trade allow those at the top to distance themselves from most policing with bribes being a key ingredient. When you add in the rampant corruption in Indonesia, the chances of catching these criminals becomes even more remote. Where are the suppliers of the Bali Nine’s heroin haul? Why haven’t we seen the upper management of this drug ring in court? Why are we left with just the pawns who played such a minor role?

The bad smell leftover from the Schapelle Corby fiasco and the exposure by Rob McJannett on the inbuilt judicial corruption raises some concern at the prosecutor’s enthusiasm. What drives them to be so gung-ho in their bid to end Scott’s life? With a delicate Australia-Indonesian relationship and the recent criticism over Australian forces training the controversial Kopassus special unit, you would think Indonesia had more pressing issues to deal with. Putting up flimsy arguments like tourism and minor technicalities about whether a letter had been previously used is bizarre considering it’s someone’s life at stake. 

I feel for Scott’s parents who must be so utterly fed-up with the whole situation. I can only imagine their hate for a bunch of over zealous prosecutors who are pushing for the murder of their son. It certainly gives a new meaning to feeling helpless. What drives some people like the prosecutors to want the death of someone they don’t even know? Where’s the compassion? Where’s the humanity? Not in Indonesia … that’s for sure!

Prosecutors Say Death a Fair Sentence for Bali Nine Member

Jakarta Globe

By Made Arya Kencana

September 2010

Denpasar. Prosecutors said on Monday that Australian Scott Anthony Rush did not deserve leniency after being found guilty of attempting to smuggle 8.2 kilograms of heroin out of Bali in 2005. 

In an appeal hearing, prosecutors dismissed arguments by the Australian Federal Police that Rush played a minor role in the smuggling attempt and did not deserve to be sentenced to death. 

“No matter how small the role of the convict, it supported the success of the syndicate, so the capacity is the same,” said prosecutor Purwanti Murtiasih. 

He added that drug smuggling was a serious threat to the island’s image as a tourist destination and harsh punishments in drug cases would deter future offenses. 

Rush was a member of the so-called Bali Nine caught attempting to smuggle heroin from Bali to Australia in 2005. His was originally sentenced to life in prison, but received the death penalty after appealing to a higher court. 

Mick Keelty, a former Australian Federal Police commissioner, and Mike Phelan, the AFP’s current deputy commissioner, appeared on Rush’s behalf at the Bali court earlier this month. 

Keelty said Rush was not a leader of the plot and did not deserve the death sentence. 

Phelan noted that it was Rush’s first drug offense and he would have faced “less than 10 years” if convicted in Australia, which does not have the death penalty. 

Prosecutors also rejected the argument of Rush’s lawyer that the death penalty had been abolished in many countries. 

Purwanti said that as long as Indonesia still had capital punishment, prosecutors would seek it for major cases. 

“As to the idea that the death sentence should be applied selectively to certain cases, we believe the convict’s violation meets the requirements for the death sentence because he was proven to have smuggled drugs in an organized way that is considered an intercountry crime,” he said. 

The court is scheduled to decide on Oct. 4 whether Rush’s death sentence will be reviewed. 

Related Articles

It’s A Bit Too Late For A Guilty Conscience

Indonesian Disgrace

Bali Nine: Prosecutors Dismiss Scott Rush's Call For Clemency

The Propaganda Files - The Faces of Meth

The Facts: The Montana Meth Project (Faces of Meth) Does Not Work

Methamphetamine use was trending downward already, and the research shows that the project has had no discernable impact on meth use

--D. Mark Anderson: UW doctoral student in economics.

It is probably one of the most famous anti-drug campaigns in the US. The The Montana Meth Project or as it commonly known, The Faces of Meth was so popular in Montana that several states including Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii and Georgia, took it up. It’s success was impressive and it fitted in with the usual scare campaigns that make politicians and parents so happy. The problem was that no one outside the organisation had actually studied it’s so called success. And when someone did, the MMP’s results fell well short of their grandeur claims of success.

---

Organisation: Montana Meth Project

Campaign: Faces of Meth

When: 2004 -

Propaganda: 6/10

Laugh Out Loud Rating: 7/10

---

You have to give some credit to an organisation that plasters billboards all over the US showing scabby, deteriorating faces in an attempt to sell something. Granted, it wasn’t perfume or a yummy hamburger but still, a risky marketing strategy. But this was an anti-drug campaign, where organisations compete to bring us the nastiest, most confronting images possible. The search for an effective message to reduce risky drug use isn’t the goal here. This is the world of the anti-drug nuttier where lies, moral imperatives and exaggerated scenarios win out over facts and reality. 

The bottom line: The Montana Meth Project (Faces of Meth) does not work. The powerful images of what too much meth can do to you have taken away the need to analyse the actually results. Like most scare campaigns, confronting images are automatically credited as being effective. The truth is, scare campaigns about drugs have never worked but after 70 years of Reefer Madness and showing the extreme circumstances of chronic drug abuse, they still don’t. They might help parents and the public feel like something is being done. They might portray a proactive police force or vigilant politician. They might even deter a drug user for a short while. But in the end, it’s the facts that count and the reality that the US public has been played by the powerful anti-drug lobby.

Montana Meth Project Didn't Reduce Use, Study Finds

Stop The Drug War (Issue #650)

by Phillip Smith

September 2010 

In 2005, Montana had one of the highest rates of methamphetamine use in the country, and businessman Thomas Siebel responded with the Montana Meth Project, an anti-meth campaign relying on graphic advertisements feature users' bodies decaying, teen girls prostituting themselves for meth, teens committing violent crimes to support their habits, and groups of young meth users allowing their friends to die.

The project has been widely touted as reducing meth use rates in Montana, and the Montana Meth Project makes similar claims on its results page. Based on claimed results in Montana, similar programs have gotten underway in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii and, this past March, Georgia.

But a new study from the University of Washington published in this month's issue of the Journal of Health Economics casts doubt on the project's claim to have influenced meth use rates. The rate of meth use in Montana was already declining by the time the Montana Meth Project got underway, the study found.

"Methamphetamine use was trending downward already, and the research shows that the project has had no discernable impact on meth use," said study author D. Mark Anderson, a UW doctoral student in economics.

Anderson said the project had not been empirically and rigorously scrutinized until his study. Using data from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Anderson compared meth use rates to rates nationwide and in nearby states. Using demographically similar Wyoming and North Dakota, which undertook no anti-meth project programs, as control cases, Anderson showed that in all three states, meth use declined gradually between 1999 and 2009.

Anderson also scrutinized drug treatment admission reports from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and found that the Montana Meth Project had no measurable effect on meth use among young Montanans. His findings suggested that other factors, such as law enforcement crackdowns prior to 2005 or increasing knowledge of the ill-effects of meth use, were more likely to have led to declining levels of meth use.

"Perhaps word got around on the street, long before the campaign was adopted, that meth is devastating," Anderson said. "Future research, perhaps of meth projects in the other states, should determine whether factors that preceded the campaigns contributed to decreases in usage."

The 2010 AFL Grand Final and Drugs

First of all - Congratulations Carlton on an excellent win over Collingwood. A huge crowd of 112,964 packed the MCG to witness another victory for Carlton. Ashman booted 3 goals, Maclure, McKay and Sheldon each kicked 2 each with Johnston, Buckley and Harmes kicking 1 apiece. Carlton’s best were Doull, Fitzpatrick, Hunter and Marcou with great performances by Maylin, English, Howell, Harmes, Perovic and Glascott. 

The first tap out of the game was won by Mike Fitzpatrick, and scooped up by Ken Sheldon. In a tight opening quarter, the Blues would score first after a nice 1-handed mark from Maclure, but it would…

Ooops, that was 1981.

The 2010 Grand Final just finished a few hours ago and I’m still high as a kite. Not from drugs but from the incredible spectacle called Australian Rules Football. This game was so exciting, so invigorating, so fucking fantastic that I am wondering if we actually need drugs. Okay, so the game was a draw but what a draw it was. Speed might be intense, ecstasy can be exhilarating and pot can be trippy but what I saw today reconfirmed that footy is mind blowing.

Today’s game between Collingwood and St-Kilda was Aussie rules at it’s best and it was on display for the whole world to see. I doubt you will find many people who saw the game who would complain that they weren’t fully entertained. Like most people, I usually draw the line at watching footy that doesn’t involve my team - except the Grand Final of course. But Grand Finals can end up quite boring especially when your team isn’t playing. 

Now this is where drugs come in handy. Many Aussies watching the Grand Final also indulge in some heavy drug taking. Yes, I’m talking about ethanol, booze or alcohol. And like most drugs, alcohol can make the experience more intense, more fun or more exciting. Fantastic for when your team is winning, adding excitement when your team is not playing and filling the void when the game is boring. I must admit that alcohol is the ideal drug to take when watching footy. I have previously watched footy on speed, pot and heroin but booze wins out by a long shot.

Ethanol, also called ethyl alcohol, pure alcohol, grain alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid. It is a powerful psychoactive drug and one of the oldest recreational drugs. It is best known as the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages and thermometers.

[…]

The fermentation of sugar into ethanol is one of the earliest organic reactions employed by humanity. The intoxicating effects of ethanol consumption have been known since ancient times. In modern times, ethanol intended for industrial use is also produced from by-products of petroleum refining. Ethanol has widespread use as a solvent of substances intended for human contact or consumption, including scents, flavorings, colorings, and medicines. In chemistry, it is both an essential solvent and a feedstock for the synthesis of other products. It has a long history as a fuel for heat and light, and more recently as a fuel for internal combustion engines.

-Wikipedia

Unfortunately, Collingwood didn’t lose and the game was a draw which means there will be a rematch next week. With 100,000 fans, 2 football teams and a spattering of officials looking so bewildered and ultimately, let down, there will be plenty of debate about the current system. And I’m sure it will change after today’s result. Although it was an amazing game, there needed to be a clear winner. If not for the sake of the teams who focussed so heavily all week on today’s match but the poor old public who will have to, once again over indulge in their favourite drug, alcohol.