Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Drunkest driver in SA arrested
The man was allegedly 32 times over the legal alcohol limit. His blood had an alcohol content of 1,6g/100ml. The legal limit is 005g/100ml. He was driving a Mercedes-Benz Vito and was arrested near Queenstown in Eastern Cape at about 11pm on Wednesday.
Five boys as well as a woman who were also in the vehicle with 15 sheep, allegedly stolen from nearby farms, were also arrested.
Department of Transport spokesperson Logan Maistry said: "About 4000 drunk drivers have been arrested and 40percent of these were female."
He said about four million vehicles and drivers were stopped and checked.
"More than 30percent of fines issued relate to drivers not being in possession of driving licences or failing to carry licences. More than 1,5 million fines were issued for various traffic offences.
"More than 20000 unroadworthy vehicles, including several buses and taxis, were discontinued from use. Since the 2010 World Cup, an average of 2000 motorists have been arrested every month for driving while under the influence of liquor," Maistry said.
lTransport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele conveyed his condolences to the families of 16 people killed in a road crash involving a minibus and midi-bus on the N2 near Mtubatuba in KwaZulu-Natal.
Ndebele called on more South Africans to enlist as Voluntary Traffic Observers to win the battle against road deaths.
- Sowetan
Five boys as well as a woman who were also in the vehicle with 15 sheep, allegedly stolen from nearby farms, were also arrested.
Department of Transport spokesperson Logan Maistry said: "About 4000 drunk drivers have been arrested and 40percent of these were female."
He said about four million vehicles and drivers were stopped and checked.
"More than 30percent of fines issued relate to drivers not being in possession of driving licences or failing to carry licences. More than 1,5 million fines were issued for various traffic offences.
"More than 20000 unroadworthy vehicles, including several buses and taxis, were discontinued from use. Since the 2010 World Cup, an average of 2000 motorists have been arrested every month for driving while under the influence of liquor," Maistry said.
lTransport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele conveyed his condolences to the families of 16 people killed in a road crash involving a minibus and midi-bus on the N2 near Mtubatuba in KwaZulu-Natal.
Ndebele called on more South Africans to enlist as Voluntary Traffic Observers to win the battle against road deaths.
- Sowetan
Thursday, December 23, 2010
1,500 drunk drivers arrested
About 1 500 drunk drivers have been arrested country-wide since the beginning of December, the national transport department said on Thursday.
"From 1 to 21 December 1.1 million vehicles and drivers were checked, [and] 1,500 drunk drivers arrested with 40% of these being female," [Pappa wag nie vir julle dronkgat vrouens nie] department spokesperson Logan Maistry said in a statement.
Since October 1 more than 1.5 million fines had been issued for various traffic offences.
About a third of them related to drivers not carrying their driving licences.
More than 20,00 unroadworthy vehicles, including several buses and taxis, were taken off the road over the same period and more than 4,000 drunk drivers arrested.
Over 860 people had died in road accidents since the start of the festive season.
- SAPA
"From 1 to 21 December 1.1 million vehicles and drivers were checked, [and] 1,500 drunk drivers arrested with 40% of these being female," [Pappa wag nie vir julle dronkgat vrouens nie] department spokesperson Logan Maistry said in a statement.
Since October 1 more than 1.5 million fines had been issued for various traffic offences.
About a third of them related to drivers not carrying their driving licences.
More than 20,00 unroadworthy vehicles, including several buses and taxis, were taken off the road over the same period and more than 4,000 drunk drivers arrested.
Over 860 people had died in road accidents since the start of the festive season.
- SAPA
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Pappa wag vir julle mansmense dronkgatte
‘Rape in jail’ ad too shocking for some
The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative has slammed an advertising campaign seeking to deter drunken-driving by warning male drivers they face the prospect of being raped in prison if arrested.
“What is distressing is the near acceptance of sexual violence in prison and the fact that men are raped in prison. It is (now being) used to keep the public in fear of drinking and driving,” said Lukas Muntingh, project co-ordinator of the initiative.
He said if the ad had been targeted at women, it would have led to an “outcry”.
“But male rape for most people is an uncomfortable topic and one way of dealing with it is through humour,” said Muntingh, who added that the subtext of the ad was that “prisons were unsafe”.
“It is about exploiting sexual violence,” he said.
But the controversial ad, the brainchild of Brandhouse Beverages, has been endorsed by the Road Traffic Management Organisation and the National Transport Department, among others.
It is part of the company’s Drive Dry campaign... - IOL
Prison staff ‘biggest killers’
Prison officials are the biggest killers of prisoners, according to a Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services report by Inspecting Judge Deon van Zyl.
Judge Van Zyl said the incidence of inmate murder by prison officials was even more frequent than murders committed by other inmates and raised “serious concerns”.
“Officials appear to have been involved in acts of violence against inmates who are alleged to have assaulted an official or other inmates . These actions often constitute a form of revenge in response to an attack on an official,” he said, citing ineffective disciplinary measures at the disposal of correctional officials.
- IOL
The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative has slammed an advertising campaign seeking to deter drunken-driving by warning male drivers they face the prospect of being raped in prison if arrested.
“What is distressing is the near acceptance of sexual violence in prison and the fact that men are raped in prison. It is (now being) used to keep the public in fear of drinking and driving,” said Lukas Muntingh, project co-ordinator of the initiative.
He said if the ad had been targeted at women, it would have led to an “outcry”.
“But male rape for most people is an uncomfortable topic and one way of dealing with it is through humour,” said Muntingh, who added that the subtext of the ad was that “prisons were unsafe”.
“It is about exploiting sexual violence,” he said.
But the controversial ad, the brainchild of Brandhouse Beverages, has been endorsed by the Road Traffic Management Organisation and the National Transport Department, among others.
It is part of the company’s Drive Dry campaign... - IOL
Prison staff ‘biggest killers’
Prison officials are the biggest killers of prisoners, according to a Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services report by Inspecting Judge Deon van Zyl.
Judge Van Zyl said the incidence of inmate murder by prison officials was even more frequent than murders committed by other inmates and raised “serious concerns”.
“Officials appear to have been involved in acts of violence against inmates who are alleged to have assaulted an official or other inmates . These actions often constitute a form of revenge in response to an attack on an official,” he said, citing ineffective disciplinary measures at the disposal of correctional officials.
- IOL
80% of WC inmates awaiting trial
About three out of four inmates at critically overcrowded prisons in the Western Cape are awaiting trial.
This indicates that far too many people are being arrested on “insufficiently justifiable grounds”, says judicial inspector of correctional services Judge Deon van Zyl in his annual report .
Of 19 critically overcrowded prisons in South Africa, five are in the Western Cape.
Critically overcrowded prisons are classified as those with an occupancy of more than 200 percent...
- IOL
Monday, December 13, 2010
THC Reduces Aggressive Behavior In Schizophrenics: Study
The administration of oral synthetic THC is associated with improved symptoms of psychosis in patients with refractory schizophrenia, according to the findings of four case reports published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Investigators at the Rockland Psychiatric Center in Orangeburg, New York, the Columbia University Medical Center, and the New York University School of Medicine assessed the efficacy of oral THC (Dronabinol) on eight patients with refractory psychosis, reports the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The subjects in the trial had a history of symptomatic improvement when using cannabis and had been unresponsive to conventional medical treatments.
Researchers reported significant improvement in four of the eight patients after oral THC treatment. In particular, cannabinoid administration resulted in a significant reduction in subjects' aggressive tendencies, authors reported.
No patients in the study experienced any significant side effects from THC.
"It appears that a predisposed subset of patients with schizophrenia may actually improve with cannabinoid stimulation," investigators concluded.
The team had previously reported positive results with oral cannabinoid therapy in four of six patients with chronic refractory schizophrenia.
In March, investigators at Edmundston Regional Hospital in New Brunswick, Canada reported that male patients diagnosed with schizophrenia obtained subjective benefits from inhaling cannabis.
Survey data published in the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing in 2008 also reported that schizophrenic patients obtained subjective relief from cannabis, finding that subjects consumed marijuana to reduce anxiety, mitigate traumatic childhood memories, enhance cognition, and "improve their mental state."
- TOT
Investigators at the Rockland Psychiatric Center in Orangeburg, New York, the Columbia University Medical Center, and the New York University School of Medicine assessed the efficacy of oral THC (Dronabinol) on eight patients with refractory psychosis, reports the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The subjects in the trial had a history of symptomatic improvement when using cannabis and had been unresponsive to conventional medical treatments.
Researchers reported significant improvement in four of the eight patients after oral THC treatment. In particular, cannabinoid administration resulted in a significant reduction in subjects' aggressive tendencies, authors reported.
No patients in the study experienced any significant side effects from THC.
"It appears that a predisposed subset of patients with schizophrenia may actually improve with cannabinoid stimulation," investigators concluded.
The team had previously reported positive results with oral cannabinoid therapy in four of six patients with chronic refractory schizophrenia.
In March, investigators at Edmundston Regional Hospital in New Brunswick, Canada reported that male patients diagnosed with schizophrenia obtained subjective benefits from inhaling cannabis.
Survey data published in the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing in 2008 also reported that schizophrenic patients obtained subjective relief from cannabis, finding that subjects consumed marijuana to reduce anxiety, mitigate traumatic childhood memories, enhance cognition, and "improve their mental state."
- TOT
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Portugal's Drug Experience: New Study Confirms Decriminalization Was a Success
From the perspective of drug warriors, the criminal laws against drug possession are all that protect Americans from a deluge of drugs, an orgy of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine use that would kill children, destroy productivity and basically leave America a smoking hulk of wasteland populated by brain-dead zombies.
For example, one opponent of marijuana decriminalization wrote in a 2009 forum in the New York Times that the policy would lead to "hundreds of billions of dollars in new medical-care costs, traffic and other accident costs, reduced worker productivity and lower educational achievements." (More on Time.com: Is Drug Use Really on the Rise?)
But new research on Portugal's drug policy suggests that this isn't necessarily so. Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in 2001. The outcome, after nearly a decade, according to a study published in the November issue of the British Journal of Criminology: less teen drug use, fewer HIV infections, fewer AIDS cases and more drugs seized by law enforcement. Adult drug use rates did slightly increase — but this increase was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug policies. The use of drugs by injection declined.
Of course, there's no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy — without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect. But Portugal started with one of the lowest rates of drug use in Europe — far lower than American rates — and remains below the EU average. For example, 19% of 15-to-16-year-olds in Europe in general have tried marijuana at least once, compared with 13% of Portuguese people that age. The figure for U.S. high school sophomores is 32%. (Related Links: Why Drinking Like a Guy is Worse for Women)
"The most important direct effect was a reduction in the use of criminal justice resources targeted at vulnerable drug users," says Alex Stevens, professor of criminal justice at the U.K.'s University of Kent, who co-authored the study. "Before, a large number of people were being arrested and punished for drug use alone. They saved themselves a lot of money and stopped inflicting so much harm on people through the criminal justice system. There were other trends since drugs were decriminalized in 2001, but they are less easy to attribute directly to decriminalization."
Under Portugal's decriminalization policy, users are not arrested but referred by the police to a "dissuasion" commission. The commission is made up of three people, typically an attorney, a social worker and a medical professional. It determines whether the person is addicted — if so, they can be referred to treatment or given specific penalties like being banned from a particular neighborhood or losing a driver's license. Treatment is not forced, however, and those who are not addicted are often not sanctioned in any way. Only about 5% to 6% of users are brought before such commissions a second time in the same year. (More on Time.com: Addiction Files: Recovering From Drug Addiction, Without Abstinence)
Stevens says the positive changes in HIV/AIDS rates and a decline in opioid-related deaths are probably more linked with an expansion of treatment than with decriminalization alone. The number of users in treatment increased by 41% — going from 23,654 to 38,532 between 1998 and 2008. "Releasing funds from [enforcement] allows you to spend more on treatment," says Stevens.
The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell — the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper.
Mark Kleiman, director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA and author of When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment, is skeptical that Portugal's policy holds any lessons for the U.S. other than that the "U.S. and UN look silly for getting hysterical," about Portugal's move. "The bottom line [is that] no clear disaster resulted from decriminalization." (More on Time.com: Addiction Files: Recovering From Drug Addiction, Without Abstinence)
Stevens concurs. "The main claim we make is that decriminalization did not lead to the kinds of disaster that were anticipated by opponents," he says.
In the debate over California's marijuana legalization initiative, little attention was paid to the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill decriminalizing the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana — a relaxation of state drug law that would have been much more controversial had the state not faced the possibility that voters would support full legalization of sales as well as possession. Eleven other states have also decriminalized — though this does not always prevent the arrest of users for possession. (More on Time.com: Is Marijuana Addictive? It Depends How You Define Addiction)
With 1.5 million Americans being arrested each year for simple drug possession — 40% of them for marijuana — Portugal's experience raises the question of whether arresting users is a cost-effective use of taxpayer money. Billions of dollars are spent each year on enforcement of drug possession laws and that enforcement is notoriously racially biased — if ceasing to arrest users for possession has essentially no effect, is this really a good way to spend scarce money?
Read more: TIME
For example, one opponent of marijuana decriminalization wrote in a 2009 forum in the New York Times that the policy would lead to "hundreds of billions of dollars in new medical-care costs, traffic and other accident costs, reduced worker productivity and lower educational achievements." (More on Time.com: Is Drug Use Really on the Rise?)
But new research on Portugal's drug policy suggests that this isn't necessarily so. Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in 2001. The outcome, after nearly a decade, according to a study published in the November issue of the British Journal of Criminology: less teen drug use, fewer HIV infections, fewer AIDS cases and more drugs seized by law enforcement. Adult drug use rates did slightly increase — but this increase was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug policies. The use of drugs by injection declined.
Of course, there's no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy — without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect. But Portugal started with one of the lowest rates of drug use in Europe — far lower than American rates — and remains below the EU average. For example, 19% of 15-to-16-year-olds in Europe in general have tried marijuana at least once, compared with 13% of Portuguese people that age. The figure for U.S. high school sophomores is 32%. (Related Links: Why Drinking Like a Guy is Worse for Women)
"The most important direct effect was a reduction in the use of criminal justice resources targeted at vulnerable drug users," says Alex Stevens, professor of criminal justice at the U.K.'s University of Kent, who co-authored the study. "Before, a large number of people were being arrested and punished for drug use alone. They saved themselves a lot of money and stopped inflicting so much harm on people through the criminal justice system. There were other trends since drugs were decriminalized in 2001, but they are less easy to attribute directly to decriminalization."
Under Portugal's decriminalization policy, users are not arrested but referred by the police to a "dissuasion" commission. The commission is made up of three people, typically an attorney, a social worker and a medical professional. It determines whether the person is addicted — if so, they can be referred to treatment or given specific penalties like being banned from a particular neighborhood or losing a driver's license. Treatment is not forced, however, and those who are not addicted are often not sanctioned in any way. Only about 5% to 6% of users are brought before such commissions a second time in the same year. (More on Time.com: Addiction Files: Recovering From Drug Addiction, Without Abstinence)
Stevens says the positive changes in HIV/AIDS rates and a decline in opioid-related deaths are probably more linked with an expansion of treatment than with decriminalization alone. The number of users in treatment increased by 41% — going from 23,654 to 38,532 between 1998 and 2008. "Releasing funds from [enforcement] allows you to spend more on treatment," says Stevens.
The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell — the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper.
Mark Kleiman, director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA and author of When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment, is skeptical that Portugal's policy holds any lessons for the U.S. other than that the "U.S. and UN look silly for getting hysterical," about Portugal's move. "The bottom line [is that] no clear disaster resulted from decriminalization." (More on Time.com: Addiction Files: Recovering From Drug Addiction, Without Abstinence)
Stevens concurs. "The main claim we make is that decriminalization did not lead to the kinds of disaster that were anticipated by opponents," he says.
In the debate over California's marijuana legalization initiative, little attention was paid to the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill decriminalizing the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana — a relaxation of state drug law that would have been much more controversial had the state not faced the possibility that voters would support full legalization of sales as well as possession. Eleven other states have also decriminalized — though this does not always prevent the arrest of users for possession. (More on Time.com: Is Marijuana Addictive? It Depends How You Define Addiction)
With 1.5 million Americans being arrested each year for simple drug possession — 40% of them for marijuana — Portugal's experience raises the question of whether arresting users is a cost-effective use of taxpayer money. Billions of dollars are spent each year on enforcement of drug possession laws and that enforcement is notoriously racially biased — if ceasing to arrest users for possession has essentially no effect, is this really a good way to spend scarce money?
Read more: TIME
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Legalise dagga – dr Ben Dlamini
MBABANE – The contentious issue of the legalisation of dagga faces its first real test as a case seeking it to be legalised and be traded has been taken to the High Court.
Former Director of the Swaziland Examinations Council Dr Ben Dlamini wants the High Court to help him get an order that will make government not only legalise cannabis but also allow him to operate a cannabis processing factory in the country.
He wants to set up a national cannabis processing and marketing company, with all growers in the country supplying his factory. He says his factory will then solicit orders from local and international pharmacies. He also states that he would involve international research institutions to conduct research on processed and raw cannabis. Dagga is also referred to as cannabis.
Dlamini has cited as respondents, the Attorney General (AG), Minister of Health, Commissioners of Police and that of Correctional Services, as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has also requested that they add the Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry. The respondents are yet to file their responding papers.
Dlamini wants the AG to amend all laws that criminalise cannabis, but only render illegal the extracts of the plant that contains tetrahydrocarbinol, which is the active ingredient that makes a user high.
Dlamini, who holds a Doctorate in Education, Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Chemistry, argues that cannabis is not a drug and is not addictive. He also claims it is not intoxicating nor is it poisonous. He referred to a number of researches done in the United States of America and in Asia. "This necessitated experiments that were conducted with subjects who smoked cannabis for a given time under controlled conditions, A cannabis smoker will not be bothered, while a cigarette smoker will not allow that to happen," reads his affidavit.
He also claims that cannabis influences a person to sleep, but is never intoxicated and ‘unable to know what he is doing.’ He further argues that cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco. Dlamini alleges that the substance has been used in Africa and Asia since time immemorial. "It is smoked, it is eaten and it is used as an antidote for cases of poisoning. The question of the risk element attached to the use of cannabis will continue to be a matter for the experts, but irrespective of the answer, there exists no just reason to punish cannabis users or those who grow it," he states in his affidavit.
Dlamini is challenging Section 151 (1) of the Opium and Habit Forming Drugs Act of 1922. The section stipulates that, "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, habit forming drug or drugs means and includes the following as herein defined – cannabis, dagga, instangu, Indian hemp, under whatever name it may be described, known, sold, supplied or otherwise referred to or dealt with, whether the whole or any portion of the plant and all extracts, tinctures or preparations or admixtures thereon."
He argues that the statement ‘all extracts, tinctures or preparations or admixtures,’ does not apply to what is happening in the country.
"This is what is done to cannabis in Asia and certainly when the law is amended, these extracts should be proscribed such concentrating THC to form Hashish," read his papers.
He has given the respondents until December 17, 2010 to file responding papers. The matter is still pending before the High Court.
...wants 10-year exclusive licence
MBABANE – Dr Ben Dlamini has called upon the Minister for Commerce, Industry and Trade to grant him a 10-year exclusive licence to grow dagga.
This is one of the orders he is seeking from the High Court, where he wants to be allowed to establish a factory processing and selling dagga. He argues that dagga has not only been wrongly defined as a drug and also wrongly proscribed so under legislation regulations.
‘No one has died of dagga in 5 000yrs’
MBABANE –Dr Ben Dlamini has alleged that in 5 000 years, no one has died of cannabis anywh-ere in the world.
He makes this allegation in a section of his court papers where he argues that cannabis is not a drug and neither is it an intoxicant.
"According to the Oxford pocket dictionary, to intoxicate is to make drunk, excite, elate, beyond self control. Unlike alcohol, cannabis users do not lose self control, massive amounts just send them to sleep. Intoxicants are potentially toxic, that is poisonous, with a certain overodse level often dependent on the individual. There has never been a single death directly linked to cannabis use in 5 000 years of history with hundreds of millions of users in the world. There is no toxi amount of cannabis. No animal has died of an overdose of cannabis," he alleges.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Cannabis To Control Alcohol Abuse
A new research effort has a provocative outcome as University of California-Berkeley researchers suggest substituting cannabis for treatment of heavy alcohol abuse.
Research published in BioMed Central’s open access Harm Reduction Journal features a poll of 350 cannabis users, finding that 40 percent used cannabis to control their alcohol cravings, 66 percent as a replacement for prescription drugs and 26 percent for other, more potent illegal drugs.
Amanda Reiman carried out the study at the UC-Berkeley Patient’s Group, a medical cannabis dispensary.
She said, “Substituting cannabis for alcohol has been described as a radical alcohol treatment protocol. This approach could be used to address heavy alcohol use in the British Isles – people might substitute cannabis, a potentially safer drug than alcohol with less negative side effects, if it were socially acceptable and available.”
Reiman found that 65 percent of people reported using cannabis as a substitute because it has fewer adverse side effects than alcohol, illicit or prescription drugs, 34 percent because it has less withdrawal potential and 57.4 percent because cannabis provides better symptom management.
Reiman believes this discovery brings up two important points.
“First, self-determination, the right of an individual to decide which treatment or substance is most effective and least harmful for them. Secondly, the recognition that substitution might be a viable alternative to abstinence for those who can’t or won’t completely stop using psychoactive substances.”
Speaking about legalization of cannabis, Reiman added, “The economic hardship of the Great Depression helped bring about the end of alcohol prohibition. Now, as we are again faced with economic struggles, the U.S. is looking to marijuana as a potential revenue generator.
“Public support is rising for the legalization of recreational use and remains high for the use of marijuana as a medicine. The hope is that this interest will translate into increased research support and the removal of current barriers to conducting such research, such as the Schedule I/Class B status of marijuana.”
- PsychCentral
Research published in BioMed Central’s open access Harm Reduction Journal features a poll of 350 cannabis users, finding that 40 percent used cannabis to control their alcohol cravings, 66 percent as a replacement for prescription drugs and 26 percent for other, more potent illegal drugs.
Amanda Reiman carried out the study at the UC-Berkeley Patient’s Group, a medical cannabis dispensary.
She said, “Substituting cannabis for alcohol has been described as a radical alcohol treatment protocol. This approach could be used to address heavy alcohol use in the British Isles – people might substitute cannabis, a potentially safer drug than alcohol with less negative side effects, if it were socially acceptable and available.”
Reiman found that 65 percent of people reported using cannabis as a substitute because it has fewer adverse side effects than alcohol, illicit or prescription drugs, 34 percent because it has less withdrawal potential and 57.4 percent because cannabis provides better symptom management.
Reiman believes this discovery brings up two important points.
“First, self-determination, the right of an individual to decide which treatment or substance is most effective and least harmful for them. Secondly, the recognition that substitution might be a viable alternative to abstinence for those who can’t or won’t completely stop using psychoactive substances.”
Speaking about legalization of cannabis, Reiman added, “The economic hardship of the Great Depression helped bring about the end of alcohol prohibition. Now, as we are again faced with economic struggles, the U.S. is looking to marijuana as a potential revenue generator.
“Public support is rising for the legalization of recreational use and remains high for the use of marijuana as a medicine. The hope is that this interest will translate into increased research support and the removal of current barriers to conducting such research, such as the Schedule I/Class B status of marijuana.”
- PsychCentral
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin or crack'
Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK by a considerable margin, beating heroin and crack cocaine into second and third place, according to an authoritative study published today which will reopen calls for the drugs classification system to be scrapped and a concerted campaign launched against drink.
Led by the sacked government drugs adviser David Nutt with colleagues from the breakaway Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, the study says that if drugs were classified on the basis of the harm they do, alcohol would be class A, alongside heroin and crack cocaine.
Today's paper, published by the respected Lancet medical journal, will be seen as a challenge to the government to take on the fraught issue of the relative harms of legal and illegal drugs, which proved politically damaging to Labour.
Nutt was sacked last year by the home secretary at the time, Alan Johnson, for challenging ministers' refusal to take the advice of the official Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which he chaired. The committee wanted cannabis to remain a class C drug and for ecstasy to be downgraded from class A, arguing that these were less harmful than other drugs. Nutt claimed scientific evidence was overruled for political reasons.
The new paper updates a study carried out by Nutt and others in 2007, which was also published by the Lancet and triggered debate for suggesting that legally available alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than cannabis and LSD.
Alcohol, in that paper, ranked fifth most dangerous overall. The 2007 paper also called for an overhaul of the drug classification system, but critics disputed the criteria used to rank the drugs and the absence of differential weighting.
Today's study offers a more complex analysis that seeks to address the 2007 criticisms. It examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships" and seven types of harm to others. The maximum possible harm score was 100 and the minimum zero.
Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order.
Nutt told the Guardian the drug classification system needed radical change. "The Misuse of Drugs Act is past its sell-by date and needs to be redone," he said. "We need to rethink how we deal with drugs in the light of these new findings."
For overall harm, the other drugs examined ranked as follows: crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (18), benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15), methadone (13), butane (10), qat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and magic mushrooms (5).
The authors write: "Our findings lend support to previous work in the UK and the Netherlands, confirming that the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm. They also accord with the conclusions of previous expert reports that aggressively targeting alcohol harm is a valid and necessary public health strategy."
Nutt told the Lancet a new classification system "would depend on what set of harms 'to self or others' you are trying to reduce". He added: "But if you take overall harm, then alcohol, heroin and crack are clearly more harmful than all others, so perhaps drugs with a score of 40 or more could be class A; 39 to 20 class B; 19-10 class C and 10 or under class D." This would result in tobacco being labelled a class B drug alongside cocaine. Cannabis would also just make class B, rather than class C. Ecstasy and LSD would end up in the lowest drug category, D.
He was not suggesting classification was unnecessary: "We do need a classification system – we do need to regulate the ones that are very harmful to individuals like heroin and crack cocaine." But he thought the UK could learn from the Portuguese and Dutch: "They have innovative policies which could reduce criminalisation." Representatives of both countries will be at a summit in London today, called drug science and drug policy: building a consensus, where the study will be presented.
UK reformers will be hoping the coalition government will take a more evidence-based approach to classification and tackling drugs than Labour did. The Liberal Democrats supported Nutt over his sacking, while Conservative leader David Cameron, who got into trouble at Eton, aged 15, for smoking cannabis, acknowledged the Misuse of Drugs Act was not working during his time as an MP on the Home Affairs select committee.
Nutt called for far more effort to be put into reducing harm caused by alcohol, pointing out that its economic costs, as well as the costs to society of addiction and broken families, are very high. Taxation on alcohol is "completely inappropriate", he said – with strong cider, for instance, taxed at a fifth of the rate of wine – and action should particularly target the low cost and promotion of alcohol such as Bacardi breezers to young people.
Don Shenker, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said : "What this study and new classification shows is that successive governments have mistakenly focused attention on illicit drugs, whereas the pervading harms from alcohol should have given a far higher priority. Drug misusers are still ten times more likely to receive support for their addiction than alcohol misusers, costing the taxpayer billions in repeat hospital admissions and alcohol related crime. Alcohol misuse has been exacerbated in recent years as government failed to accept the link between cheap prices, higher consumption and resultant harms to individuals and society."
"[The] government should now urgently ensure alcohol is made less affordable and invest in prevention and treatment services to deal with the rise in alcohol dependency that has occurred."
The Home Office said last night: "We have not read the report. This government has just completed an alcohol consultation and will publish a drugs strategy in the coming months."
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "In England, most people drink once a week or less. If you're a women and stick to two to three units a day or a man and drink up to three or four units, you are unlikely to damage your health. The government is determined to prevent alcohol abuse without disadvantaging those who drink sensibly."Two experts from the Amsterdam National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and the Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research point out in a Lancet commentary the study does not look at multiple drug use, which can make some drugs much more dangerous – such as cocaine or cannabis together with alcohol – but they acknowledge the topic was outside its scope.
They add that because the pattern of recreational drug use changes, the study should be repeated every five or 10 years.
- guardian
Led by the sacked government drugs adviser David Nutt with colleagues from the breakaway Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, the study says that if drugs were classified on the basis of the harm they do, alcohol would be class A, alongside heroin and crack cocaine.
Today's paper, published by the respected Lancet medical journal, will be seen as a challenge to the government to take on the fraught issue of the relative harms of legal and illegal drugs, which proved politically damaging to Labour.
Nutt was sacked last year by the home secretary at the time, Alan Johnson, for challenging ministers' refusal to take the advice of the official Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which he chaired. The committee wanted cannabis to remain a class C drug and for ecstasy to be downgraded from class A, arguing that these were less harmful than other drugs. Nutt claimed scientific evidence was overruled for political reasons.
The new paper updates a study carried out by Nutt and others in 2007, which was also published by the Lancet and triggered debate for suggesting that legally available alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than cannabis and LSD.
Alcohol, in that paper, ranked fifth most dangerous overall. The 2007 paper also called for an overhaul of the drug classification system, but critics disputed the criteria used to rank the drugs and the absence of differential weighting.
Today's study offers a more complex analysis that seeks to address the 2007 criticisms. It examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships" and seven types of harm to others. The maximum possible harm score was 100 and the minimum zero.
Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order.
Nutt told the Guardian the drug classification system needed radical change. "The Misuse of Drugs Act is past its sell-by date and needs to be redone," he said. "We need to rethink how we deal with drugs in the light of these new findings."
For overall harm, the other drugs examined ranked as follows: crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (18), benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15), methadone (13), butane (10), qat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and magic mushrooms (5).
The authors write: "Our findings lend support to previous work in the UK and the Netherlands, confirming that the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm. They also accord with the conclusions of previous expert reports that aggressively targeting alcohol harm is a valid and necessary public health strategy."
Nutt told the Lancet a new classification system "would depend on what set of harms 'to self or others' you are trying to reduce". He added: "But if you take overall harm, then alcohol, heroin and crack are clearly more harmful than all others, so perhaps drugs with a score of 40 or more could be class A; 39 to 20 class B; 19-10 class C and 10 or under class D." This would result in tobacco being labelled a class B drug alongside cocaine. Cannabis would also just make class B, rather than class C. Ecstasy and LSD would end up in the lowest drug category, D.
He was not suggesting classification was unnecessary: "We do need a classification system – we do need to regulate the ones that are very harmful to individuals like heroin and crack cocaine." But he thought the UK could learn from the Portuguese and Dutch: "They have innovative policies which could reduce criminalisation." Representatives of both countries will be at a summit in London today, called drug science and drug policy: building a consensus, where the study will be presented.
UK reformers will be hoping the coalition government will take a more evidence-based approach to classification and tackling drugs than Labour did. The Liberal Democrats supported Nutt over his sacking, while Conservative leader David Cameron, who got into trouble at Eton, aged 15, for smoking cannabis, acknowledged the Misuse of Drugs Act was not working during his time as an MP on the Home Affairs select committee.
Nutt called for far more effort to be put into reducing harm caused by alcohol, pointing out that its economic costs, as well as the costs to society of addiction and broken families, are very high. Taxation on alcohol is "completely inappropriate", he said – with strong cider, for instance, taxed at a fifth of the rate of wine – and action should particularly target the low cost and promotion of alcohol such as Bacardi breezers to young people.
Don Shenker, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said : "What this study and new classification shows is that successive governments have mistakenly focused attention on illicit drugs, whereas the pervading harms from alcohol should have given a far higher priority. Drug misusers are still ten times more likely to receive support for their addiction than alcohol misusers, costing the taxpayer billions in repeat hospital admissions and alcohol related crime. Alcohol misuse has been exacerbated in recent years as government failed to accept the link between cheap prices, higher consumption and resultant harms to individuals and society."
"[The] government should now urgently ensure alcohol is made less affordable and invest in prevention and treatment services to deal with the rise in alcohol dependency that has occurred."
The Home Office said last night: "We have not read the report. This government has just completed an alcohol consultation and will publish a drugs strategy in the coming months."
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "In England, most people drink once a week or less. If you're a women and stick to two to three units a day or a man and drink up to three or four units, you are unlikely to damage your health. The government is determined to prevent alcohol abuse without disadvantaging those who drink sensibly."Two experts from the Amsterdam National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and the Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research point out in a Lancet commentary the study does not look at multiple drug use, which can make some drugs much more dangerous – such as cocaine or cannabis together with alcohol – but they acknowledge the topic was outside its scope.
They add that because the pattern of recreational drug use changes, the study should be repeated every five or 10 years.
- guardian
Innocent drivers test positive for drugs
Nearly four per cent of people who test positive for drug driving in Victoria and have their licences temporarily suspended are innocent, it emerged today.
Victoria Police today admitted that wrong results were part of the testing process but said it would not change its procedures.
Under the current system, drivers' saliva is tested for cannabis, ecstasy or amphetamines at the roadside and banned for up to 12 hours if they return a positive result.
But penalties or permanent bans are not issued until the sample is tested at a drug laboratory, which police say is 100 per cent accurate.
The new statistics emerged after it was revealed today that Geelong man Rory Lalor recently recorded a false positive test and was banned from the behind the wheel for four hours.
Mr Lalor paid $115 for an independent test that showed his system was free from illegal drugs, but Victoria Police said yesterday he would never have been fined or banned from driving permanently because his saliva swab was found negative by its laboratory.
Inspector Martin Boorman said today that false positives could be returned if equipment was faulty, if a test was not conducted correctly or if the sample itself was problematic but did not elaborate on the last point.
He said they were an unfortunate part of the procedure and that 62 of 1618 drug-driving tests sent to the laboratory, or 3.8 per cent, between 2004 and 2009 had been found to be false.
But he said Victoria Police would not be changing its methods.
"I apologise for the inconvenience of these people, but I make no apologies for what we're doing," he said.
Inspector Boorman said police had detected 1556 drug drivers that were potentially a danger to themselves and others on the road.
- The Age
Victoria Police today admitted that wrong results were part of the testing process but said it would not change its procedures.
Under the current system, drivers' saliva is tested for cannabis, ecstasy or amphetamines at the roadside and banned for up to 12 hours if they return a positive result.
But penalties or permanent bans are not issued until the sample is tested at a drug laboratory, which police say is 100 per cent accurate.
The new statistics emerged after it was revealed today that Geelong man Rory Lalor recently recorded a false positive test and was banned from the behind the wheel for four hours.
Mr Lalor paid $115 for an independent test that showed his system was free from illegal drugs, but Victoria Police said yesterday he would never have been fined or banned from driving permanently because his saliva swab was found negative by its laboratory.
Inspector Martin Boorman said today that false positives could be returned if equipment was faulty, if a test was not conducted correctly or if the sample itself was problematic but did not elaborate on the last point.
He said they were an unfortunate part of the procedure and that 62 of 1618 drug-driving tests sent to the laboratory, or 3.8 per cent, between 2004 and 2009 had been found to be false.
But he said Victoria Police would not be changing its methods.
"I apologise for the inconvenience of these people, but I make no apologies for what we're doing," he said.
Inspector Boorman said police had detected 1556 drug drivers that were potentially a danger to themselves and others on the road.
- The Age
Saturday, October 16, 2010
I get money through selling dagga – local grower
MBABANE- A local man, who grows cannabis (dagga) is wondering why other countries, where the plant is legal, are assisting Swaziland to eradicate it.
The man, who will not be named, says the fact that the United States aids the Swazi police force in their eradication of local crops is ludicrous.
"In fact, in the US State of California, the legalisation of possession and the sale of marijuana have qualified for the November ballot. If accepted, this law will make it legal to posses 28.5 grams of marijuana and to grow limited amounts of it for personal use. In Canada, the British Columbia Marijuana party’s platform calls for the law on marijuana prohibition to be repealed, and in Amsterdam, it is legal to purchase marijuana from a coffee shop," he explained.
"People in Swaziland do not realise how much money can be made," said the grower, who acknowledged that high quality dagga could be sold for over E2000 a kilogramme.
"Europe and the US grow it, why not here? I do not really care if they legalise it because my money comes in regardless, but what are they afraid of?" he wondered.
"It is illegal to grow dagga in Swaziland, yet a lot of people are doing it," said Sigwe Member of Parliament, Sivumelwano Nxumalo.
"Some people have talked about legalising it, but it has never been seriously taken up. I think we need to have a real discussion on its benefits and side effects."
According to another government official, who did not want to be identified, the legalisation of dagga should be seriously considered, as its taxation could provide an alternative source of revenue for the government.
"Right now, government revenue is seriously declining," he said. "And we all know that marijuana is being grown here, so why not tax it to create an alternative source of revenue? It was discussed at a meeting last year, though it was initially laughed at. It just won’t happen under the current leadership."
According to Superintendent Albert N. Mkhatshwa, international liaison in charge of drugs, there is no possibility of dagga being legalised in the near future. "It is not possible, especially since we are fighting this crime with other African countries where it is illegal," he said. "I do not think it should be debated, it would really complicate our jobs, as dagga leads people to commit many crimes."
Swaziland’s dagga is world renowned for its quality, yet the possibility of its legalisation has yet to be explored in the Kingdom.
Known locally as ‘dagga’, marijuana is a widely grown cash crop in Swaziland. Its product is consumed locally and exported to countries such as South Africa as well as Europe, which makes the Kingdom one of the largest marijuana-growing areas in the Southern African region. This year, the Royal Swaziland Police eradicated between 80 and 165 hectares of dagga per month.
"But we can benefit from these natural seeds," says an individual who has grown dagga for years, who refuses to be named due to the nature of his business. "Governments around the world allow the growing of marijuana, yet Swaziland continues to destroy the crops of rural people who are only trying to send their children to school."
The man, who will not be named, says the fact that the United States aids the Swazi police force in their eradication of local crops is ludicrous."Why is it that they can come here and destroy peoples’ livelihoods when you can buy marijuana from a vending machine in California?" he asked.
"In fact, in the US State of California, the legalisation of possession and the sale of marijuana have qualified for the November ballot. If accepted, this law will make it legal to posses 28.5 grams of marijuana and to grow limited amounts of it for personal use. In Canada, the British Columbia Marijuana party’s platform calls for the law on marijuana prohibition to be repealed, and in Amsterdam, it is legal to purchase marijuana from a coffee shop," he explained.
"People in Swaziland do not realise how much money can be made," said the grower, who acknowledged that high quality dagga could be sold for over E2000 a kilogramme.
"Europe and the US grow it, why not here? I do not really care if they legalise it because my money comes in regardless, but what are they afraid of?" he wondered.
"It is illegal to grow dagga in Swaziland, yet a lot of people are doing it," said Sigwe Member of Parliament, Sivumelwano Nxumalo.
"Some people have talked about legalising it, but it has never been seriously taken up. I think we need to have a real discussion on its benefits and side effects."
According to another government official, who did not want to be identified, the legalisation of dagga should be seriously considered, as its taxation could provide an alternative source of revenue for the government.
"Right now, government revenue is seriously declining," he said. "And we all know that marijuana is being grown here, so why not tax it to create an alternative source of revenue? It was discussed at a meeting last year, though it was initially laughed at. It just won’t happen under the current leadership."
According to Superintendent Albert N. Mkhatshwa, international liaison in charge of drugs, there is no possibility of dagga being legalised in the near future. "It is not possible, especially since we are fighting this crime with other African countries where it is illegal," he said. "I do not think it should be debated, it would really complicate our jobs, as dagga leads people to commit many crimes."
Swaziland’s dagga is world renowned for its quality, yet the possibility of its legalisation has yet to be explored in the Kingdom.
Known locally as ‘dagga’, marijuana is a widely grown cash crop in Swaziland. Its product is consumed locally and exported to countries such as South Africa as well as Europe, which makes the Kingdom one of the largest marijuana-growing areas in the Southern African region. This year, the Royal Swaziland Police eradicated between 80 and 165 hectares of dagga per month.
"But we can benefit from these natural seeds," says an individual who has grown dagga for years, who refuses to be named due to the nature of his business. "Governments around the world allow the growing of marijuana, yet Swaziland continues to destroy the crops of rural people who are only trying to send their children to school."
Friday, October 15, 2010
The promise of legalisation
Anti-drug policies in the U.S. have failed, and the marijuana trade is largely in the hands of organized crime. It's time for a saner policy of legalisation and regulation.
People on both sides of the marijuana legalisation debate have strong feelings about Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative that promises to regulate, control and tax cannabis. But science and empirical research have been given short shrift in the discussion. That's unfortunate, because the U.S. government has actually funded excellent research on the subject, and it suggests that several widely held assumptions about cannabis legalisation actually may be inaccurate. When the total body of knowledge is considered, it's hard to conclude that we should stick with the current system.
One important question is whether laws criminalizing marijuana have effectively reduced supply and use. It would appear from available data that they have not. Despite billions spent on anti-cannabis law enforcement and a 30% increase in the number of arrests in California since 2005, marijuana remains the most frequently used illegal drug. Nationally, an estimated $10 billion is spent each year enforcing marijuana laws, yet an ongoing study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse has concluded that over the last 30 years, the drug has remained "almost universally available to American 12th-graders," with 80% to 90% saying the drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain.
On the health side of the equation, scientific consensus is that while cannabis may pose some health risks, they are less serious than those posed by alcohol and tobacco. The approach taken to regulating these other harmful substances, however, hasn't been to criminalize them but to regulate their distribution, to impose taxes on their purchase and to educate the public about their risks. These measures have been shown to be effective, as in the case of cigarette consumption, which has dropped dramatically.
On the other hand, cannabis prohibition has not achieved its stated objectives. As detailed in a report published last week by my organization, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, research funded by the U.S. government clearly demonstrates that even as federal funding for anti-drug efforts has increased by more than an inflation-adjusted 600% over the last several decades, marijuana's potency has increased by 145% since 1990, and its price has declined 58%.
In this context, supporting Proposition 19 seems like a reasonable position, and recent polls have suggested that almost half of decided voters support the ballot initiative. However, there has emerged a strong assumption in the debate that, though legalisation will save police time and raise tax revenue, this will come at the cost of increasing rates of cannabis use.
This notion is based on a widely cited Rand Corp. report, which used a theoretical model to conclude that rates of cannabis use will increase if cannabis is legalized. Though the authors of this report cautioned readers that there were "many limitations to our estimate's precision and completeness" and that "uncertainties are so large that altering just a few key assumptions or parameter values can dramatically change the results," few seem to have read past the headline that legalisation is likely to increase cannabis use.
This may be the case, but it's not a certainty. In the Netherlands, where marijuana has been sold in licensed "coffee shops" since the 1970s, about 20% of the adult population has used the drug at some time in their lives. In the United States, where it is largely illegal, 42% of the adult population has used marijuana.
Neither Rand's theoretical model nor other commentaries have considered the potential benefits of the broad range of regulatory tools that could be utilized if the marijuana market were legal. The state could then license vendors, impose purchasing and sales restrictions and require warning labels. Although these methods have been scientifically proven effective in reducing tobacco and alcohol use internationally, it is noteworthy that successful government lobbying by the tobacco and alcohol industries has slowly eroded many of these regulatory mechanisms in the United States.
A bill has been introduced in the California Legislature to create a uniform statewide regulatory system under the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control if Proposition 19 passes. Such a system would allow, finally, for an evidence-based discussion of how to optimize cannabis regulatory regimes so that the benefits of regulation (including such things as tax revenue and reduced drug market violence) can be maximized while rates of cannabis use and related harms can be minimized.
Up to now, the fact that cannabis is illegal has meant that the unregulated market has been largely controlled by organized-crime groups, and the trade has sparked considerable violence, both in the United States and in Mexico. Given the widespread availability and use of cannabis despite aggressive criminal justice measures, there is no doubt that a saner system can be created if marijuana is strictly regulated rather than left in the hands of organized crime.
Evan Wood, a physician and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, is the founder of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy.
People on both sides of the marijuana legalisation debate have strong feelings about Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative that promises to regulate, control and tax cannabis. But science and empirical research have been given short shrift in the discussion. That's unfortunate, because the U.S. government has actually funded excellent research on the subject, and it suggests that several widely held assumptions about cannabis legalisation actually may be inaccurate. When the total body of knowledge is considered, it's hard to conclude that we should stick with the current system.
One important question is whether laws criminalizing marijuana have effectively reduced supply and use. It would appear from available data that they have not. Despite billions spent on anti-cannabis law enforcement and a 30% increase in the number of arrests in California since 2005, marijuana remains the most frequently used illegal drug. Nationally, an estimated $10 billion is spent each year enforcing marijuana laws, yet an ongoing study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse has concluded that over the last 30 years, the drug has remained "almost universally available to American 12th-graders," with 80% to 90% saying the drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain.
On the health side of the equation, scientific consensus is that while cannabis may pose some health risks, they are less serious than those posed by alcohol and tobacco. The approach taken to regulating these other harmful substances, however, hasn't been to criminalize them but to regulate their distribution, to impose taxes on their purchase and to educate the public about their risks. These measures have been shown to be effective, as in the case of cigarette consumption, which has dropped dramatically.
On the other hand, cannabis prohibition has not achieved its stated objectives. As detailed in a report published last week by my organization, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, research funded by the U.S. government clearly demonstrates that even as federal funding for anti-drug efforts has increased by more than an inflation-adjusted 600% over the last several decades, marijuana's potency has increased by 145% since 1990, and its price has declined 58%.
In this context, supporting Proposition 19 seems like a reasonable position, and recent polls have suggested that almost half of decided voters support the ballot initiative. However, there has emerged a strong assumption in the debate that, though legalisation will save police time and raise tax revenue, this will come at the cost of increasing rates of cannabis use.
This notion is based on a widely cited Rand Corp. report, which used a theoretical model to conclude that rates of cannabis use will increase if cannabis is legalized. Though the authors of this report cautioned readers that there were "many limitations to our estimate's precision and completeness" and that "uncertainties are so large that altering just a few key assumptions or parameter values can dramatically change the results," few seem to have read past the headline that legalisation is likely to increase cannabis use.
This may be the case, but it's not a certainty. In the Netherlands, where marijuana has been sold in licensed "coffee shops" since the 1970s, about 20% of the adult population has used the drug at some time in their lives. In the United States, where it is largely illegal, 42% of the adult population has used marijuana.
Neither Rand's theoretical model nor other commentaries have considered the potential benefits of the broad range of regulatory tools that could be utilized if the marijuana market were legal. The state could then license vendors, impose purchasing and sales restrictions and require warning labels. Although these methods have been scientifically proven effective in reducing tobacco and alcohol use internationally, it is noteworthy that successful government lobbying by the tobacco and alcohol industries has slowly eroded many of these regulatory mechanisms in the United States.
A bill has been introduced in the California Legislature to create a uniform statewide regulatory system under the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control if Proposition 19 passes. Such a system would allow, finally, for an evidence-based discussion of how to optimize cannabis regulatory regimes so that the benefits of regulation (including such things as tax revenue and reduced drug market violence) can be maximized while rates of cannabis use and related harms can be minimized.
Up to now, the fact that cannabis is illegal has meant that the unregulated market has been largely controlled by organized-crime groups, and the trade has sparked considerable violence, both in the United States and in Mexico. Given the widespread availability and use of cannabis despite aggressive criminal justice measures, there is no doubt that a saner system can be created if marijuana is strictly regulated rather than left in the hands of organized crime.
Evan Wood, a physician and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, is the founder of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy.
Cannabis should be sold in shops alongside beer and cigarettes, doctors' journal says
An editorial in the British Medical Journal suggested that the sale of cannabis should be licensed like cigarettes because banning it had not worked. Photo: PA
An editorial in the British Medical Journal suggested that the sale of cannabis should be licensed like alcohol because banning it had not worked.
Banning cannabis had increased drug-related violence because enforcement made “the illicit market a richer prize for criminal groups to fight over”.
An 18-fold increase in the anti-drugs budget in the US to $18billion between 1981 and 2002 had failed to stem the market for the drug.
In fact cannabis related drugs arrests in the US increased from 350,000 in 1990 to more than 800,000 a year by 2006, with seizures quintupling to 1.1million kilogrammes.
The editorial, written by Professor Robin Room of Melbourne University, said: “In some places, state controlled 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.”
Prof Room suggested that state-run off licences from Canada and some Nordic countries could provide “workable and well controlled retail outlets for cannabis”.
Prof Room suggested the current ban on cannabis could come to alcohol prohibition, which was adopted by 11 countries between 1914 and 1920.
Eventually it was replaced with “restrictive regulatory regimes, which restrained alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol until these constraints were eroded by the neo-liberal free market ideologies of recent decades”.
The editorial concluded: “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.”
Campaigners criticised the editorial. Mary Brett, a retired biology teacher, said: “The whole truth about the damaging effects of cannabis, especially to our children with their still-developing brains, has never been properly publicised.
“The message received by children were it to be legalised would be, ‘It can't be too bad or the Government wouldn't have done this’.
“I know - I taught biology to teenage boys for 30 years. So usage will inevitably go up - it always does when laws are relaxed.
“Why add to the misery caused by our existing two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?”
Earlier this year, Fiona Godlee, an editor of the Journal, which is run by the British Medical Association, endorsed an article by Steve Rolles, head of research at Transform, the drugs foundation, which called for an end to the war on drugs and its replacement by a legal system of regulation.
Dr Godlee said: “Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs. He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it.”
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Vienna Declaration
The Vienna Declaration
The criminalisation of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and has resulted in
overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed.
overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed.
In response to the health and social harms of illegal drugs, a large international drug prohibition regime has been developed under the umbrella of the United Nations.1 Decades of research provide a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the global “War on Drugs” and, in the wake of the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Austria, the international scientific community calls for an acknowledgement of the limits and harms of drug prohibition, and for drug policy reform to remove barriers to effective HIV prevention, treatment and care.
The evidence that law enforcement has failed to prevent the availability of illegal drugs, in communities where there is demand, is now unambiguous.2, 3Over the last several decades, national and international drug surveillance systems have demonstrated a general pattern of falling drug prices and increasing drug purity—despite massive investments in drug law enforcement.3,4
Furthermore, there is no evidence that increasing the ferocity of law enforcement meaningfully reduces the prevalence of drug use.5 The data also clearly demonstrate that the number of countries in which people inject illegal drugs is growing, with women and children becoming increasingly affected.6 Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, injection drug use accounts for approximately one in three new cases of HIV.7, 8 In some areas where HIV is spreading most rapidly, such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia, HIV prevalence can be as high as 70% among people who inject drugs, and in some areas more than 80% of all HIV cases are among this group.8
In the context of overwhelming evidence that drug law enforcement has failed to achieve its stated objectives, it is important that its harmful consequences be acknowledged and addressed. These consequences include but are not limited to:
Unfortunately, evidence of the failure of drug prohibition to achieve its stated goals, as well as the severe negative consequences of these policies, is often denied by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.25This has created confusion among the public and has cost countless lives. Governments and international organisations have ethical and legal obligations to respond to this crisis and must seek to enact alternative evidence-based strategies that can effectively reduce the harms of drugs without creating harms of their own. We, the undersigned, call on governments and international organisations, including the United Nations, to:
Basing drug policies on scientific evidence will not eliminate drug use or the problems stemming from drug injecting. However, reorienting drug policies towards evidence-based approaches that respect, protect and fulfil human rights has the potential to reduce harms deriving from current policies and would allow for the redirection of the vast financial resources towards where they are needed most: implementing and evaluating evidence-based prevention, regulatory, treatment and harm reduction interventions.
The evidence that law enforcement has failed to prevent the availability of illegal drugs, in communities where there is demand, is now unambiguous.2, 3Over the last several decades, national and international drug surveillance systems have demonstrated a general pattern of falling drug prices and increasing drug purity—despite massive investments in drug law enforcement.3,4
Furthermore, there is no evidence that increasing the ferocity of law enforcement meaningfully reduces the prevalence of drug use.5 The data also clearly demonstrate that the number of countries in which people inject illegal drugs is growing, with women and children becoming increasingly affected.6 Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, injection drug use accounts for approximately one in three new cases of HIV.7, 8 In some areas where HIV is spreading most rapidly, such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia, HIV prevalence can be as high as 70% among people who inject drugs, and in some areas more than 80% of all HIV cases are among this group.8
In the context of overwhelming evidence that drug law enforcement has failed to achieve its stated objectives, it is important that its harmful consequences be acknowledged and addressed. These consequences include but are not limited to:
- HIV epidemics fuelled by the criminalisation of people who use illicit drugs and by prohibitions on the provision of sterile needles and opioid substitution treatment.9, 10
- HIV outbreaks among incarcerated and institutionalised drug users as a result of punitive laws and policies and a lack of HIV prevention services in these settings.11-13
- The undermining of public health systems when law enforcement drives drug users away from prevention and care services and into environments where the risk of infectious disease transmission (e.g., HIV, hepatitis C & B, and tuberculosis) and other harms is increased.14-16
- A crisis in criminal justice systems as a result of record incarceration rates in a number of nations.17, 18 This has negatively affected the social functioning of entire communities. While racial disparities in incarceration rates for drug offences are evident in countries all over the world, the impact has been particularly severe in the US, where approximately one in nine African-American males in the age group 20 to 34 is incarcerated on any given day, primarily as a result of drug law enforcement.19
- Stigma towards people who use illicit drugs, which reinforces the political popularity of criminalising drug users and undermines HIV prevention and other health promotion efforts.20, 21
- Severe human rights violations, including torture, forced labour, inhuman and degrading treatment, and execution of drug offenders in a number of countries.22, 23
- A massive illicit market worth an estimated annual value of US$320 billion.4 These profits remain entirely outside the control of government. They fuel crime, violence and corruption in countless urban communities and have destabilised entire countries, such as Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan.4
- Billions of tax dollars wasted on a “War on Drugs” approach to drug control that does not achieve its stated objectives and, instead, directly or indirectly contributes to the above harms.24
Unfortunately, evidence of the failure of drug prohibition to achieve its stated goals, as well as the severe negative consequences of these policies, is often denied by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.25This has created confusion among the public and has cost countless lives. Governments and international organisations have ethical and legal obligations to respond to this crisis and must seek to enact alternative evidence-based strategies that can effectively reduce the harms of drugs without creating harms of their own. We, the undersigned, call on governments and international organisations, including the United Nations, to:
- Undertake a transparent review of the effectiveness of current drug policies.
- Implement and evaluate a science-based public health approach to address the individual and community harms stemming from illicit drug use.
- Decriminalise drug users, scale up evidence-based drug dependence treatment options and abolish ineffective compulsory drug treatment centres that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.26
- Unequivocally endorse and scale up funding for the implementation of the comprehensive package of HIV interventions spelled out in the WHO, UNODC and UNAIDS Target Setting Guide.27
- Meaningfully involve members of the affected community in developing, monitoring and implementing services and policies that affect their lives.
Basing drug policies on scientific evidence will not eliminate drug use or the problems stemming from drug injecting. However, reorienting drug policies towards evidence-based approaches that respect, protect and fulfil human rights has the potential to reduce harms deriving from current policies and would allow for the redirection of the vast financial resources towards where they are needed most: implementing and evaluating evidence-based prevention, regulatory, treatment and harm reduction interventions.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Experts turn against war on drugs
Advocates of drug law reform had reason to celebrate today after public statements by senior figures in the medical and legal community suggested the argument was turning in their favour.
The chair of the Bar Council argued in his most recent report that decriminalising drug use would have substantial public benefits, while the editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the UK's most well-respected medical publication, came out publicly in support of drug law reform.
The twin developments come at an exciting time for those calling for a more liberal drug policy. Both deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and prime minister David Cameron are on record questioning the effectiveness of Britain's drug laws. Activists hope reform might be in the pipeline.
In his most recent report the chair of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, argued that decriminalising drugs did not lead to greater use and would have the effect of cutting crime.
"A growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences; it can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health," he said.
"All this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage. If this is so, then it would be rational to follow suit. And this will save money and mean that there is less pressure on the justice system.
"A rational approach is not usually the response of large parts of the media when it comes to issues relating to criminal justice," he continued.
"This is something the Bar Council can address. We are apolitical; we act for the prosecution and the defence and most of the judiciary are former members. We can speak out in favour of an approach which urges policies which work and not those which simply play to the gallery."
The comments came at the same time as a special edition of the BMJ in which the editor, Fiona Godlee, endorses an article by Steve Rolles of Transform, a group which lobbies for reform of the UK's drugs laws.
"In a beautifully argued essay Stephen Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs," she writes.
"He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it."
Danny Kushlick, head of external affairs at Transform, said: "The war on drugs is in deep crisis. These comments show that support for drug policy reform is becoming more and more mainstream, and fundamental change is now inevitable.
"With a prime minster and deputy prime minister both longstanding supporters of alternatives to the war on drugs, at the very least the government must initiate an impact assessment comparing prohibition with decriminalisation and strict legal regulation."
In 2007, Mr Clegg - then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman - said the "so-called war on drugs is failing" following a critical RSA report into drug prohibition.
David Cameron voted in favour of recommendation 24 in the home affairs committee's inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, which read: "We recommend that the government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways-including the possibility of legalisation and regulation-to tackle the global drugs dilemma."
Activists may be disappointed if they expect a sea-change in policy on the back of the coalition government's legislative agenda, however.
While Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron have previously expressed a sympathetic view of the arguments calling for drug law reform, neither will be keen to trigger the media attack which would result from a move to liberalise drug laws.
Recent comments from home secretary Theresa May to the home affairs committee suggest the government is moving in precisely the opposite direction, and is ready to pass legislation allowing for temporary bans to be imposed on legal highs while the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) establishes their legal status.
- politics.co.uk
The chair of the Bar Council argued in his most recent report that decriminalising drug use would have substantial public benefits, while the editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the UK's most well-respected medical publication, came out publicly in support of drug law reform.
The twin developments come at an exciting time for those calling for a more liberal drug policy. Both deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and prime minister David Cameron are on record questioning the effectiveness of Britain's drug laws. Activists hope reform might be in the pipeline.
In his most recent report the chair of the Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, argued that decriminalising drugs did not lead to greater use and would have the effect of cutting crime.
"A growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences; it can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health," he said.
"All this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage. If this is so, then it would be rational to follow suit. And this will save money and mean that there is less pressure on the justice system.
"A rational approach is not usually the response of large parts of the media when it comes to issues relating to criminal justice," he continued.
"This is something the Bar Council can address. We are apolitical; we act for the prosecution and the defence and most of the judiciary are former members. We can speak out in favour of an approach which urges policies which work and not those which simply play to the gallery."
The comments came at the same time as a special edition of the BMJ in which the editor, Fiona Godlee, endorses an article by Steve Rolles of Transform, a group which lobbies for reform of the UK's drugs laws.
"In a beautifully argued essay Stephen Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs," she writes.
"He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it."
Danny Kushlick, head of external affairs at Transform, said: "The war on drugs is in deep crisis. These comments show that support for drug policy reform is becoming more and more mainstream, and fundamental change is now inevitable.
"With a prime minster and deputy prime minister both longstanding supporters of alternatives to the war on drugs, at the very least the government must initiate an impact assessment comparing prohibition with decriminalisation and strict legal regulation."
In 2007, Mr Clegg - then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman - said the "so-called war on drugs is failing" following a critical RSA report into drug prohibition.
David Cameron voted in favour of recommendation 24 in the home affairs committee's inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, which read: "We recommend that the government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways-including the possibility of legalisation and regulation-to tackle the global drugs dilemma."
Activists may be disappointed if they expect a sea-change in policy on the back of the coalition government's legislative agenda, however.
While Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron have previously expressed a sympathetic view of the arguments calling for drug law reform, neither will be keen to trigger the media attack which would result from a move to liberalise drug laws.
Recent comments from home secretary Theresa May to the home affairs committee suggest the government is moving in precisely the opposite direction, and is ready to pass legislation allowing for temporary bans to be imposed on legal highs while the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) establishes their legal status.
- politics.co.uk
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Ganja growers: If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em
Local governments in California and other Western states have tried to clamp down on medical marijuana, but Oakland has taken a different approach.
If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em.
After becoming the first US city to impose a special tax on medical marijuana dispensaries, Oakland soon could become the first to sanction and tax commercial pot growing operations. Selling and growing marijuana remain illegal under federal law.
Two City Council members are preparing legislation, expected to be introduced next month, that would allow at least three industrial-scale growing operations.
One of the authors, Councilman Larry Reid, said the proposal is more of an effort to bring in money than an endorsement of legalising marijuana use - although the council has unanimously supported that, too.
The city is facing a $42-million (about R321.6-million) budget shortfall. The tax voters approved last summer on the four medical marijuana clubs allowed under Oakland law is expected to contribute $1-million to its coffers in the first year, Reid said. A tax on growers' sales to the clubs could bring in substantially more, he said.
"Looking at the economic analysis, we will generate a considerable amount of additional revenues, and that will certainly help us weather the hard economic times that all urban areas are having to deal with," Reid said.
How much money is at stake isn't clear because the tax rate and the number of facilities the law would allow haven't been decided. A report prepared for AgraMed Incorporated, one of the companies planning to seek a grower's license, said its proposed 100 000-square-foot (9 290-square-meter) project near the Oakland Coliseum would produce more than $2-million in city taxes each year.
Given their likely locations in empty warehouses in industrial neighbourhoods, the marijuana nurseries under consideration would have more in common with factories than rural pot farms.
Dhar Mann, the founder of an Oakland hydroponics equipment store called iGrow, and Derek Peterson, a former stock broker who now sells luxury trailers outfitted for growing pot as a co-founder of GrowOp Enterprises, have hired an architect to draft plans for two warehouses where marijuana would be grown and processed year-round.
Their vision includes using lights, trays and other equipment manufactured by iGrow and creating an online system that would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to see what pot strains are in stock, place orders and track deliveries.
"We are emulating the wine industry, but instead of 'from grape to bottle,' it's 'from plant to pipe,"' Mann said.
"Or seed to sack," offered Peterson.
The pair say they intend to operate the pot-growing business they have dubbed GROPECH - Grass Roots of Oakland Philanthropic and Economic Coalition for Humanity - as a not-for-profit. They anticipate gross sales reaching $70-million a year. After paying their expenses, they'd funnel the money to local charities and non-profits through a competitive grant process.
The discussion in Oakland comes amid a statewide campaign to make California the first state to legalise the recreational use of marijuana and to authorise cities to sell and tax sales to adults. Another Oakland pot entrepreneur, Richard Lee, is sponsoring a ballot measure voters will consider in November.
Lee, who owns two of Oakland's four dispensaries as well as Oaksterdam University, a trade school for the medical marijuana industry, hopes to secure one of the cultivation permits, but he thinks the city should opt for having more, smaller sites instead of a handful of large ones.
"We need to legalise and tax and regulate the production side as well as the retail side," Lee said. "It's a natural step."
Other supporters say licensed growers would create hundreds of well-paying jobs. The local branch of the United Food and Commercial Workers union already has signed up about 100 medical marijuana workers, and the growers are expected to have union shops as well, said Dan Rush, special operations director of UFCW Local 5.
"I think Oakland's intention is to make Oakland the leader and the trendsetter in how this industry can be effective in all of California," Rush said.
Allowing medical marijuana to be grown openly also could give patients a better idea of where their pot is coming from. Now, many growers hide their identities to avoid federal prosecution.
Oakland has already developed a reputation as one of the nation's most pot-friendly cities. Legislation on the city's books includes a declaration of a public health emergency after federal crackdowns on marijuana clubs and a ballot measure instructing police to make marijuana their lowest enforcement priority.
Self-described "guru of ganja" Ed Rosenthal, a popular writer of pot-growing how-to books, lived in Oakland for 25 years before moving recently to a more affluent borough nearby. He credits the city's positive attitude toward marijuana to a critical mass of activists who have flocked there since the 1970s.
"The whole population of Oakland is just very progressive," Rosenthal said. "It's the radicals who couldn't afford Berkeley or San Francisco who all moved to Oakland."
If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em.
After becoming the first US city to impose a special tax on medical marijuana dispensaries, Oakland soon could become the first to sanction and tax commercial pot growing operations. Selling and growing marijuana remain illegal under federal law.
Two City Council members are preparing legislation, expected to be introduced next month, that would allow at least three industrial-scale growing operations.
One of the authors, Councilman Larry Reid, said the proposal is more of an effort to bring in money than an endorsement of legalising marijuana use - although the council has unanimously supported that, too.
The city is facing a $42-million (about R321.6-million) budget shortfall. The tax voters approved last summer on the four medical marijuana clubs allowed under Oakland law is expected to contribute $1-million to its coffers in the first year, Reid said. A tax on growers' sales to the clubs could bring in substantially more, he said.
"Looking at the economic analysis, we will generate a considerable amount of additional revenues, and that will certainly help us weather the hard economic times that all urban areas are having to deal with," Reid said.
How much money is at stake isn't clear because the tax rate and the number of facilities the law would allow haven't been decided. A report prepared for AgraMed Incorporated, one of the companies planning to seek a grower's license, said its proposed 100 000-square-foot (9 290-square-meter) project near the Oakland Coliseum would produce more than $2-million in city taxes each year.
Given their likely locations in empty warehouses in industrial neighbourhoods, the marijuana nurseries under consideration would have more in common with factories than rural pot farms.
Dhar Mann, the founder of an Oakland hydroponics equipment store called iGrow, and Derek Peterson, a former stock broker who now sells luxury trailers outfitted for growing pot as a co-founder of GrowOp Enterprises, have hired an architect to draft plans for two warehouses where marijuana would be grown and processed year-round.
Their vision includes using lights, trays and other equipment manufactured by iGrow and creating an online system that would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to see what pot strains are in stock, place orders and track deliveries.
"We are emulating the wine industry, but instead of 'from grape to bottle,' it's 'from plant to pipe,"' Mann said.
"Or seed to sack," offered Peterson.
The pair say they intend to operate the pot-growing business they have dubbed GROPECH - Grass Roots of Oakland Philanthropic and Economic Coalition for Humanity - as a not-for-profit. They anticipate gross sales reaching $70-million a year. After paying their expenses, they'd funnel the money to local charities and non-profits through a competitive grant process.
The discussion in Oakland comes amid a statewide campaign to make California the first state to legalise the recreational use of marijuana and to authorise cities to sell and tax sales to adults. Another Oakland pot entrepreneur, Richard Lee, is sponsoring a ballot measure voters will consider in November.
Lee, who owns two of Oakland's four dispensaries as well as Oaksterdam University, a trade school for the medical marijuana industry, hopes to secure one of the cultivation permits, but he thinks the city should opt for having more, smaller sites instead of a handful of large ones.
"We need to legalise and tax and regulate the production side as well as the retail side," Lee said. "It's a natural step."
Other supporters say licensed growers would create hundreds of well-paying jobs. The local branch of the United Food and Commercial Workers union already has signed up about 100 medical marijuana workers, and the growers are expected to have union shops as well, said Dan Rush, special operations director of UFCW Local 5.
"I think Oakland's intention is to make Oakland the leader and the trendsetter in how this industry can be effective in all of California," Rush said.
Allowing medical marijuana to be grown openly also could give patients a better idea of where their pot is coming from. Now, many growers hide their identities to avoid federal prosecution.
Oakland has already developed a reputation as one of the nation's most pot-friendly cities. Legislation on the city's books includes a declaration of a public health emergency after federal crackdowns on marijuana clubs and a ballot measure instructing police to make marijuana their lowest enforcement priority.
Self-described "guru of ganja" Ed Rosenthal, a popular writer of pot-growing how-to books, lived in Oakland for 25 years before moving recently to a more affluent borough nearby. He credits the city's positive attitude toward marijuana to a critical mass of activists who have flocked there since the 1970s.
"The whole population of Oakland is just very progressive," Rosenthal said. "It's the radicals who couldn't afford Berkeley or San Francisco who all moved to Oakland."
- Sapa-AP
Monday, May 10, 2010
Moms enlisted to help legalise dope
Denver - Moms got tougher drunk-driving laws on the books and were directly responsible for passing and then repealing alcohol Prohibition.
Now marijuana activists are trying to enlist the nation's mothers in legalisation efforts with a sales pitch that pot is safer than booze.
The nation's largest marijuana legalisation lobby recently started a women's group. The Moms4Marijuana website draws thousands. And just in time for Mother's Day, a pot legalisation group in Denver has created a pink-carnation web card asking moms to support legalisation.
These marijuana moms argue that pot is no worse than alcohol, that teens shouldn't face jail time for experimenting with it and that marijuana can even help new mothers treat postpartum depression.
"I know so many mothers who support this but aren't willing to come out and say it," said Sabrina Fendrick, head of the Women's Alliance at the Washington-based National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.
Marijuana activists say they need more moms to publicly back pot use if they are to succeed with public officials.
"The mother is the first teacher, who you turn to for direction in life," said Serra Frank, a 27-year-old mother of two, who founded Moms4Marijuana in 2005. It has no formal membership, but Frank says its website has had more than 12 000 visitors.
Pot activists say both genders sometimes find it easier to attend protests or lobby lawmakers about pot than to tell their mothers they smoke weed. So legalisation groups hope that if moms, arguably the nation's most powerful lobby, get on board with making pot legal, laws will change in a hurry.
"All the things moms get behind, people listen," said Diane Irwin, 48, a medical marijuana grower who also is a mother of two.
There's still a marijuana gender gap. According to an Associated Press-CNBC poll released last month, women opposed legalisation in greater numbers than men. Just under half - 48 percent - of male poll respondents opposed legalisation to 63 percent of women.
"We have enough problems with alcohol. I feel if we legalised it, it would make people say it's okay," said 37-year-old mother Amanda Leonard, one of the poll respondents
Trying to soften moms up a bit, Denver-based Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation, or SAFER, is asking members to "come out" about their pot use this Mother's Day and argue that pot is safer than booze. The group says it has about 20 000 members nationwide.
SAFER's online Mother's Day card has a typical start - "Thank you for raising me to be thoughtful and compassionate" - then transitions to: "I want to share some news that might surprise you, but should not upset you: I believe marijuana should be legal."
For $10 (about 70), card senders can add a book for their moms titled "Marijuana is Safer." The book, published last year, argues that marijuana is healthier than booze. SAFER says several thousand copies have been sold, and group members handed out free copies as Mother's Day gifts to Colorado's 37 female lawmakers last week.
There's no good national count of how many mothers use pot, but anecdotal evidence suggests plenty do. Moms from Florida to Washington are facing criminal charges for using marijuana or supplying it to their children.
In February, 51-year-old Alaska mom Jane C. Cain was arrested along with her 29-year-old son for allegedly growing pot in the house. Cain says she initially feared reprisals from neighbours and didn't answer the door.
"But it turned out people were just coming by to bring homemade food, casseroles and cakes and such," Cain said with a laugh. Her case is still pending, but Cain says that even conservative neighbours say she's not wrong to use marijuana for her frequent migraines, though medical marijuana isn't legal in Alaska.
"Now I go wherever I want and hold my head up high," Cain said. "Five or 10 years from now, people who oppose marijuana will be considered old-fashioned. It's a benign substance, so why shouldn't we have it?"
Irwin, the Colorado medical pot grower, said mothers who use marijuana face a stigma men don't. Irwin says she secretly used marijuana while pregnant to fight morning sickness and after giving birth to battle postpartum depression. Since she started growing pot, Irwin said she's run into many moms who admit to using the drug. She argues that even children could benefit from marijuana use, though Irwin never gave either of her kids pot nor smoked it in front of them.
In fact, she remembers flushing her son's pot down the toilet when he was a teen. But last year, after her now-grown son started a Denver marijuana dispensary, Irwin sold her hair salon, bought a greenhouse and started raising pot for him.
"I look at the kids now who are so medicated, on Ritalin and all the rest, and I'm wondering why we don't explore what's natural, and that's marijuana," said Irwin, who is moving to Denver to work full-time at her older son's dispensary.
- Sapa-AP
Now marijuana activists are trying to enlist the nation's mothers in legalisation efforts with a sales pitch that pot is safer than booze.
The nation's largest marijuana legalisation lobby recently started a women's group. The Moms4Marijuana website draws thousands. And just in time for Mother's Day, a pot legalisation group in Denver has created a pink-carnation web card asking moms to support legalisation.
These marijuana moms argue that pot is no worse than alcohol, that teens shouldn't face jail time for experimenting with it and that marijuana can even help new mothers treat postpartum depression.
"I know so many mothers who support this but aren't willing to come out and say it," said Sabrina Fendrick, head of the Women's Alliance at the Washington-based National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.
Marijuana activists say they need more moms to publicly back pot use if they are to succeed with public officials.
"The mother is the first teacher, who you turn to for direction in life," said Serra Frank, a 27-year-old mother of two, who founded Moms4Marijuana in 2005. It has no formal membership, but Frank says its website has had more than 12 000 visitors.
Pot activists say both genders sometimes find it easier to attend protests or lobby lawmakers about pot than to tell their mothers they smoke weed. So legalisation groups hope that if moms, arguably the nation's most powerful lobby, get on board with making pot legal, laws will change in a hurry.
"All the things moms get behind, people listen," said Diane Irwin, 48, a medical marijuana grower who also is a mother of two.
There's still a marijuana gender gap. According to an Associated Press-CNBC poll released last month, women opposed legalisation in greater numbers than men. Just under half - 48 percent - of male poll respondents opposed legalisation to 63 percent of women.
"We have enough problems with alcohol. I feel if we legalised it, it would make people say it's okay," said 37-year-old mother Amanda Leonard, one of the poll respondents
Trying to soften moms up a bit, Denver-based Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation, or SAFER, is asking members to "come out" about their pot use this Mother's Day and argue that pot is safer than booze. The group says it has about 20 000 members nationwide.
SAFER's online Mother's Day card has a typical start - "Thank you for raising me to be thoughtful and compassionate" - then transitions to: "I want to share some news that might surprise you, but should not upset you: I believe marijuana should be legal."
For $10 (about 70), card senders can add a book for their moms titled "Marijuana is Safer." The book, published last year, argues that marijuana is healthier than booze. SAFER says several thousand copies have been sold, and group members handed out free copies as Mother's Day gifts to Colorado's 37 female lawmakers last week.
There's no good national count of how many mothers use pot, but anecdotal evidence suggests plenty do. Moms from Florida to Washington are facing criminal charges for using marijuana or supplying it to their children.
In February, 51-year-old Alaska mom Jane C. Cain was arrested along with her 29-year-old son for allegedly growing pot in the house. Cain says she initially feared reprisals from neighbours and didn't answer the door.
"But it turned out people were just coming by to bring homemade food, casseroles and cakes and such," Cain said with a laugh. Her case is still pending, but Cain says that even conservative neighbours say she's not wrong to use marijuana for her frequent migraines, though medical marijuana isn't legal in Alaska.
"Now I go wherever I want and hold my head up high," Cain said. "Five or 10 years from now, people who oppose marijuana will be considered old-fashioned. It's a benign substance, so why shouldn't we have it?"
Irwin, the Colorado medical pot grower, said mothers who use marijuana face a stigma men don't. Irwin says she secretly used marijuana while pregnant to fight morning sickness and after giving birth to battle postpartum depression. Since she started growing pot, Irwin said she's run into many moms who admit to using the drug. She argues that even children could benefit from marijuana use, though Irwin never gave either of her kids pot nor smoked it in front of them.
In fact, she remembers flushing her son's pot down the toilet when he was a teen. But last year, after her now-grown son started a Denver marijuana dispensary, Irwin sold her hair salon, bought a greenhouse and started raising pot for him.
"I look at the kids now who are so medicated, on Ritalin and all the rest, and I'm wondering why we don't explore what's natural, and that's marijuana," said Irwin, who is moving to Denver to work full-time at her older son's dispensary.
- Sapa-AP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
