California Marijuana Arrests Remain Near Record Levels in 2009
via California NORML

According to data from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, California reported nearly the same number of marijuana arrests in 2009 as in the previous, record year.

In 2009, there were 17,008 felony and 61,164 misdemeanor marijuana arrests, for a total of 78,172. In 2008, there were 17,126 felonies and 61,388 misdemeanors, for a total of 78,514. This was the highest number of arrests since marijuana was decriminalized in 1976.

So to summarize, this means that there have been more than 122,500 criminal prosecutions in California for the non-medical possession of marijuana of less than one ounce since 2008 (and that’s not counting 2010). Since marijuana possession is a criminal misdemeanor in California, that means that all of these individuals were forced to appear in court, pay court costs, pay an administrative fine, and were subject to either drug treatment or a temporary (2 years) criminal record. And, oh yeah, they also had their marijuana forcefully taken away from them by the full police power of the state.

Since 2008, there were also over 34,000 felony marijuana prosecutions (not counting 2010). Marijuana felonies in California include charges like: growing even a single marijuana plant for non-medical purposes (punishable by up to 36 months in prison), and the sale of any amount of marijuana for non-medical purposes (punishable by up to four years in prison).

Does that sound like legalization to you?

Passage of Prop. 19 would make the adult possession (up to an ounce) of marijuana and the cultivation of marijuana (whatever amount may be harvested from a 25 square foot garden) legal. In other words, it would halt the criminal prosecutions of tens of thousands of Californians who are presently running afoul of the criminal law. It would offer legal protection to the estimated 3.3 million Californians who are presently using marijuana for non-medical purposes. (By contrast, only an estimated 200,000 or so Californians possess a valid doctor’s recommendation to use cannabis lawfully.) And that is why NORML supports this effort.

In a similar vein, I’m also frequently asked the question: ‘Why legalize marijuana? Why not just decriminalize it?’

First, let’s look at what ‘decriminalization’ really means:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decriminalization

Definition of DECRIMINALIZE

: to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation

The term ‘decriminalize’ first came into vogue in 1972 when the Nixon’s Schafer Commission recommended this public policy for marijuana. Their recommendation to Congress was to replace criminal penalties on adult possession with administrative (non-criminal) sanctions, such as a fine — but to keep the commodity defined as contraband and to maintain criminal penalties on its retail sale and production.

As a stopgap measure NORML has supported, and still supports, decriminalization. In fact, we are presently encouraging Californians to contact the Governor in support of Senate Bill 1449, which reduced adult possess penalties from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction.

But any public policy that mandates that marijuana remain, by definition, an illegal commodity (contraband) is woefully insufficient — as by definition it grants the state (law enforcement) the power to forcefully engage with the public in order to legally seize said commodity. That is why, even in places that have ‘decriminalized’ marijuana possession, we still see horrific acts of violence by police upon marijuana consumers like this and this.

By contrast, simply removing marijuana from the entire criminal code in California, which appears to be what some anti-19 Utopians would prefer, would not fall under the definition of decriminalization — which by its very definition still maintains government sanctions and regulations. In fact, it is hard to define any statutory term for such an idyllic change, as virtually all ‘legal’ commodities are defined as such, and are thus subject to rules and regulations. As I’ve written previously, tomatoes aren’t decriminalized; they are legal and thus subject to regulation and taxation when they are commercially produced and sold on the retail market.

I suppose one could argue that dandelions are non-criminal yet they are not subject to government taxation and regulation. But of course dandelions are not a commodity that is bought and sold on the open market. (Yes, like marijuana, dandelions also grow out of the ground. But, of course, so does wheat — which is highly regulated by the government.) And of course it is totally unrealistic to think that a commodity like marijuana, that is ingested and purchased by tens of millions of Americans, would ever be treated like dandelions.

It is foolish for critics of Prop. 19 to demand that marijuana be treated in a ‘legal’ manner, but then at the same time demand that it not be subject to regulation when the fact of the matter is that all legal commodities are regulated in some manner and subject to taxation.

Gasoline is taxed at the state level, federal level, and there’s also an excise tax. How about water? If your house is connected to a sewer your water consumption is taxed, and there are numerous regulations imposed upon it. The state can control what goes into your water (e.g., flouride). The state can even restrict how much water one uses (e.g., water rationing) in one’s own home. And of course there is alcohol. In this case the government regulates who can use it (e.g., age restrictions); where one can use it (e.g., no use in public parks, in motor vehicles, etc.), what time of day one can buy it, where one can buy it, how much one can brew themselves, how it can be advertised, and so on and so forth. Yet does anyone truly think that these commodities are not ‘fully legal’ because there are taxes and regulations associated with them? Does anyone really think that water should be ‘decriminalized, but not legalized?’

Ultimately, the question is: what is the preferable policy for adult marijuana use — not the Utopian. Right now the state has the power of a gun to seize an adult’s marijuana — even marijuana that is used in the privacy of one’s home home — and to sanction that adult with criminal prosecution and a criminal record if their use is for non-medical purposes. Under Prop. 19, an individual would no longer face these criminal sanctions for their private activities, as long as their private use was limited to possession and cultivation within certain limits. That, in NORML’s opinion, is a net gain — not a net loss.

Inhaled cannabis reduces pain and improves sleep compared to placebo, and is well tolerated by patients with chronic neuropathy, according to clinical trial data published this week in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association (CMAJ).

Investigators at McGill University in Montreal assessed the efficacy of inhaled cannabis on pain intensity in 23 subjects with chronic post-traumatic or post-surgical neuropathic pain in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Participants in the study received a single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4 percent herbal cannabis or placebo three times daily. All of the volunteers in the study suffered from refractory pain for which conventional therapies had proven ineffective.

Researchers reported: “[H]erbal cannabis … significantly reduced average pain scores compared with … cannabis placebo in adult participants. … We found significant improvement in measures of sleep quality and anxiety. … Our results support the claim that smoked cannabis reduces pain, improves mood, and helps sleep.”

Speaking to Web MD online, the study’s lead researcher Mark Ware said: “We’ve shown again that cannabis is an analgesic. Clearly it has medical value.”

In February, investigators from the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research summarized the results of four separate FDA ‘gold standard’ designed clinical trials demonstrating that inhaled marijuana was safe and effective for the treatment of neuropathy.

An estimated one to two percent of the population suffers from some form of neuropathic pain, which typically goes untreated by standard analgesics.

Listen to NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre and NORML Advisory Board member Lester Grinspoon discuss this trial, and other subjects related to the medical use of cannabis, on NPR’s The Diane Rehm show here.

The vote split largely along party lines, with Democrats voting 40 to 8 in favor of more lenient penalties and Republicans voting 2 to 23 against. Senate lawmakers had previously approved the measure in June by a vote of 21 to 13.

The marijuana infraction bill now goes to the Governor’s desk for his approval.

Under present law, minor marijuana possession for non-medical purposes is classified as a criminal misdemeanor. While the offense is not punishable by jail time, defendants charged under the law must appear in court, pay court costs, and attend a court-ordered diversion program. Offenders who refuse to attend the program may retain a criminal record for up to two years.

Senate Bill 1449 amends the California Health and Safety Code so that the adult possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana is classified as a noncriminal infraction, punishable by no more than a $100 fine — no court appearance, no court costs, and no criminal record.

Passage of bill would save the state millions of dollars in court costs by keeping minor pot offenders out of court. The number of misdemeanor pot arrests has surged in recent years, reaching 61,388 in 2008, the highest level since the state partially decriminalized pot possession in 1976.

Adults who consume marijuana responsibly are not part of the crime problem, and the state should stop treating them like criminals

Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has vetoed several different marijuana law reform bills in the past. Therefore, if you live in California, it is vital that you please e-mail or call Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and urge him to sign SB 1449 into law. For your convenience, a pre-written letter will be e-mailed to the Governor when you visit NORML’s ‘Take Action’ Center here.

Now anyone who is familiar with Calvina already knows of her propensity toward lunacy — Here’s just one example, “Truly sick people who deserve legitimate medical treatment have been duped into believing that marijuana will help them, while in reality it is hurting them.” — but this time, in her vitriol against California’s Prop. 19, she really outdoes herself, arguing that regulating the adult use of cannabis is a threat to… marriage!

Should California legalize pot?
via The Christian Science Monitor

No: legalization means more costs

… Legalizing marijuana use would substantially increase its already formidable costs to society. That’s because the initiative would allow individuals to possess up to about 120 joints and cultivate 25 square feet of plants, capable of yielding up to 240,000 joints.

… Legalization would also create an influx in drugged-driving fatalities, more deteriorated neighborhoods, more divorce, more domestic violence, more child abuse, and more addiction!

Whoa — 120 joints per ounce?! As NORML Outeach Director Russ Belville writes, that’s some fuzzy math. (A more realistic conversion might be 30, or at most 60, joints.) However, such hyperbole is par for the course for our opposition. They are well aware that they can not win this debate on merit, and as a result they now have only the most foolish fear-mongering to fall back on. Fortunately, the polls show that this tactic is also doomed to fail.

(FYI, for those wishing to weigh in on the CSM debate, you can post your comments on Yahoo News here.)

And speaking of fear-mongering, I have an op/ed in today’s online version of The Hill rebutting claims of various Prop. 19 detractors, including California Senator Diane Feinstein and Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske. Here is an excerpt:

Proposition 19 is the right direction
via The Hill.com

So then why are Sen. Feinstein and the drug czars so worried about adults consuming it in the privacy of their own home?

California lawmakers criminalized the possession and use of marijuana in 1913 — a full 24 years before the federal government enacted prohibition. Yet right now in California, the state Board of Equalization reports that some 400,000 use marijuana daily. Self-evidently, cannabis is here to stay.

It’s time to reject the drug czar’s tired rhetoric, and abandon the failed federal policy of criminal marijuana prohibition. Let’s stop ceding control of this market to unregulated, untaxed criminal enterprises and put it in the hands of licensed businesses. Let’s stop sanctioning adults for private behavior that is engaged in absent of harm to others. …Proposition 19 is a first step in this direction.

Read NORML’s full commentary here.

The Hill’s ever-popular Congress blog ‘is where lawmakers come to blog.’ It’s also where legislators and other politicos — such as staffers at the Drug Czar’s office (hint, hint) — come to gauge the pulse of the public. Given that this is a paper of record in these folks’ backyard, why not send a message to those in Washington that their opposition is out of touch with voter sentiment. You can make your voice heard by leaving your feedback here.

Now anyone who is familiar with Calvina already knows of her propensity toward lunacy — Here’s just one example, “Truly sick people who deserve legitimate medical treatment have been duped into believing that marijuana will help them, while in reality it is hurting them.” — but this time, in her vitriol against California’s Prop. 19, she really outdoes herself, arguing that regulating the adult use of cannabis is a threat to… marriage!

Should California legalize pot?
via The Christian Science Monitor

No: legalization means more costs

… Legalizing marijuana use would substantially increase its already formidable costs to society. That’s because the initiative would allow individuals to possess up to about 120 joints and cultivate 25 square feet of plants, capable of yielding up to 240,000 joints.

… Legalization would also create an influx in drugged-driving fatalities, more deteriorated neighborhoods, more divorce, more domestic violence, more child abuse, and more addiction!

Whoa — 120 joints per ounce?! As NORML Outeach Director Russ Belville writes, that’s some fuzzy math. (A more realistic conversion might be 30, or at most 60, joints.) However, such hyperbole is par for the course for our opposition. They are well aware that they can not win this debate on merit, and as a result they now have only the most foolish fear-mongering to fall back on. Fortunately, the polls show that this tactic is also doomed to fail.

(FYI, for those wishing to weigh in on the CSM debate, you can post your comments on Yahoo News here.)

And speaking of fear-mongering, I have an op/ed in today’s online version of The Hill rebutting claims of various Prop. 19 detractors, including California Senator Diane Feinstein and Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske. Here is an excerpt:

Proposition 19 is the right direction
via The Hill.com

So then why are Sen. Feinstein and the drug czars so worried about adults consuming it in the privacy of their own home?

California lawmakers criminalized the possession and use of marijuana in 1913 — a full 24 years before the federal government enacted prohibition. Yet right now in California, the state Board of Equalization reports that some 400,000 use marijuana daily. Self-evidently, cannabis is here to stay.

It’s time to reject the drug czar’s tired rhetoric, and abandon the failed federal policy of criminal marijuana prohibition. Let’s stop ceding control of this market to unregulated, untaxed criminal enterprises and put it in the hands of licensed businesses. Let’s stop sanctioning adults for private behavior that is engaged in absent of harm to others. …Proposition 19 is a first step in this direction.

Read NORML’s full commentary here.

The Hill’s ever-popular Congress blog ‘is where lawmakers come to blog.’ It’s also where legislators and other politicos — such as staffers at the Drug Czar’s office (hint, hint) — come to gauge the pulse of the public. Given that this is a paper of record in these folks’ backyard, why not send a message to those in Washington that their opposition is out of touch with voter sentiment. You can make your voice heard by leaving your feedback here.

Today the Los Angeles Times has posted my full rebuttal, which I’ve excerpted below.

Some marijuana tax revenue is better than none
via The Los Angeles Times

… Kerlikowske’s opposition to Proposition 19 … is a fairly common one. Kerlikowske et al argue that, if legalized, marijuana’s perceived social costs would outweigh the economic benefits reaped by regulation. They base this allegation largely on the premise that present taxes on alcohol and cigarettes fail to adequately pay for the societal costs associated with those drugs’ use and abuse. True enough, but here’s why this sound bite is irrelevant to the present marijuana debate.

Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

Alcohol is toxic to healthy cells and organs, a side effect that results directly in about 35,000 deaths a year. … By contrast, the active compounds in marijuana … are remarkably non-toxic. Unlike alcohol, marijuana is incapable of causing a fatal overdose, and its use is inversely associated with aggression and injury. In fact, the recently released Rand Corp. report found that in 2008, there were fewer than 200 “admissions to hospitals in which marijuana abuse or dependence was listed as the primary reason for the hospitalization.” By comparison, there are more than 70,000 hospitalizations in California annually related to the use of alcohol.

Marijuana is far safer than tobacco.

According to a 2009 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers. It states: “In terms of (health-related) costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user.”

Some tax revenue is better than no tax revenue.

According to a 2007 George Mason University study, U.S. citizens each year spend about $113 billion on marijuana. Under prohibition, all of this spending is directed toward an underground economy and goes untaxed. That means state and local governments are presently collecting zero dollars to offset societal and health costs related to recreational marijuana use. Therefore, the imposition of any retail tax or excise fee would be an improvement over the current situation.

In short, the drug czars’ assessment that present taxes on alcohol and tobacco — two deadly products — do not raise sufficient funding to offset their related social costs is not an argument in favor of maintaining the status quo, particularly when one recognizes that the social and health costs related to cannabis use are far less than those associated with the use of other intoxicants.

You can read my full commentary here. (You can also comment on it here.)

There are three important components in this 2010 NORML conference alert:

-Key Speakers

-Early-bird Pricing For Registration Is About To Expire

-Conference Agenda and Speakers Announced

-Key Speakers-

NORML is honored and proud to have the former two-term Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson (R) address the 39^th annual national NORML conference on Friday, September 10 at the Governor Hotel in Portland, Oregon.

Gary Johnson became the first sitting governor in 2002 to speak at a NORML national conference in Washington. To date, few elected policymakers—and no governor in American history—have been more politically supportive of ending cannabis prohibition than Governor Johnson. As New Mexico’s term-limited governor from 1994-2002, Governor Johnson championed numerous drug policy reforms, including legalizing medical cannabis.

Governor Johnson, a man of both big political ideas and financial means, is an early and declared candidate to be the next U.S. president in 2012 (running a decidedly libertarian-leaning campaign as a Republican) who favors substantial changes to America’s longest and most expensive war—the war on some drugs.

Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D) is a long-serving member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Oregon, who is a co-signer of current federal legislation that would reschedule cannabis to allow its medical use by qualified patients.

Rick Steves, a best-selling travel author and NORML Advisory board member is a longtime supporter of cannabis law reform based on his travel experiences and personal observations, who, in 2008 hosted an ACLU television program called ‘Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation’.

-Early-bird Pricing for Registration Is About To Expire; Register Now, Save Money-

After a one month-long period promoting early-bird discount pricing to pre-register for the conference, prices are about to take a turn upwards. Register now to save, especially if you’ve already reserved a room at the sold-out Governor Hotel, overflow hotel Red Lion or live in the greater Portland area. Discount pre-registration pricing ends at midnight (Pacific) Sunday, August 29.

-Conference Agenda and Speakers Announced-

The 39^th annual NORML conference, ‘Just Say Now!’, continues the tradition of inclusiveness, expertise, passion, devotion, experience and celebration of all things cannabis-related—where over fifty speakers from across America will speak on matters ranging from legalization, medicalization, hemp, history, politics, science, law, business and culture.

Don’t delay if you want to be assured a seat at America’s oldest and largest pro-marijuana conference, as it will likely sell out soon (the host hotel and overflow hotels already have…).

Sponsorships and vending tables are still available. Deadline for sponsorships is Aug. 30 and vendors Sept. 7. Check out more conference details or pre-register at www.norml.org/conference

I hope to see you this September in Portland!

Question: When will a major American (or Canadian) media outlet cover the fascinating and ever-emerging science of cannabis as well as the BBC has?