White House lashes Canada's pot laws [our failed drug wars a better solution]

Canadian Press ^ | 9/17/04 | Canadian Press

[freedom44]

WASHINGTON — An annual White House report on countries with drug problems says Canada's relatively lax penalties for marijuana producers and moves toward decriminalizing pot could be an ``invitation" to organized crime that hinders police and prosecutors.

Canada isn't on the president's list of 22 major illicit drug-producing and transit countries, which includes Mexico and some South American countries that supply the vast majority of drugs to the United States.

But the report cited Canada's "lack of significant judicial sanctions against marijuana producers" and marijuana reform legislation as troublesome.

"We are now working intensively with Canadian authorities to address the increase in the smuggling of Canadian-produced marijuana into the United States," said a White House release.

The report noted the Canada, in turn, has expressed concern about the flow of cocaine and other illegal substances from the U.S..

"The two governments will continue to work closely in the year ahead to confront these shared threats," said the release.

Officials in President George W. Bush's administration have long complained that Canadian regulations, which allow marijuana use for medical purposes, are increasing the pot problem.

Under the federal marijuana medical access regulation, Canadians can be authorized to grow, possess and use marijuana.

A recent federal initiative to decriminalize marijuana died on the order paper prior to the June 28 federal election. Police say more pot plants are seized in Quebec and British Columbia than any other province. They cite increased production because demand has risen.

[coconutt2000]

I want to keep pot illegal for a little while longer at least. Maybe another decade or two. We have things to do to fix our education system, improve business conditions in Latin America, and expand on Bush's ownership society philosophy.

Once we solve a few fundamental societal problems, like the breakdown of families, etc... Then we can address the issue of legalization, which in 10 years I'd still be against, but by then we might be beyond the the problem.

[Know your rights]

by then we might be beyond the the problem.

People have been using recreational mind-altering substances for millenia; why would another ten years change that? Pot criminalization is failing as Prohibition failed; it's time to finally learn from our mistakes.

[Know your rights]

Canada's relatively lax penalties for marijuana producers and moves toward decriminalizing pot could be an ``invitation" to organized crime

No, mairjuana criminalization is the invitation to organized crime, just as Prohibition was.

[coconutt2000]

We have a few social problems that could spin mind altering drugs out of control... Mostly the liberal de-emphasis of the importance of family, community, and faith.

We need to strengthen our society so it can withstand the issues that drugs bring with them.

[TKDietz]

"We have a few social problems that could spin mind altering drugs out of control... Mostly the liberal de-emphasis of the importance of family, community, and faith.

We need to strengthen our society so it can withstand the issues that drugs bring with them."

What is it exactly that the government can do to make family, community, and faith, more important to people? I say if we really on government to correct this problem it will only get worse, whether the government is conservative or liberal. Government can't make people believe in God or get involved with church. Government can't keep families together or bring people in the community together. The best thing government can do for us in this regard is stay out of places it doesn't belong, especially the federal government. Local governments might be able make divorces harder to get and a couple of other things that might help, but for the most part these are the sorts of problems only communities and people can fix.

One thing we need to do is stop playing the blame game. This isn't all just the liberals' fault. Probably most of the problem comes from the fact that we have changed from a largely agrarian society to an industrialized nation. That and our ever expanding government has in so many ways taken on responsibilities of churches and communities thereby devaluing these institutions. Our country used to be comprised mostly of farmers living in small rural communities. They relied on each other. Everyone old enough to do any work in a family was important. Men needed wives to take care of the home and help with farm work and women needed husbands to do the heavy work. Children pitched in. Churches were important for spiritual guidance but also because there wasn't much for people to do besides work and churches provided people a place to meet and a network for social activities. Churches also did most of the charity work, taking care of the needy. Communities for the most part did their own policing and took care of their own without any help from the feds and little or no help from the state government.

Fast forward to today and everything is different. People have moved to the cities and left the old way behind. Government has grown huge and instead of relying on each other, people rely on the government to fix everything. The incentive for having tightly knit communities is largely gone. The incentive for staying married is in many ways gone too. And parents don't stay home and raise their children anymore either, more and more they expect the government to do it in public schools, or bored teenagers working at day care centers. Today in most instances mom and dad both have to work, that is if there is a dad in the picture. And instead of working their own land or at least on the property where they live mom and dad go off to separate jobs and the kids don't work with them and have the benefit of that learning experience.

We will never go back to being an agrarian society. And we may never have families and communities that are as close knit as they once were. But we do need to try to strengthen these institutions as much as possible, and the wrong way to go about it is to rely on the government to do it for us. In fact, what we need to do more than anything is send far away governments packing from our communities and and handle things locally. We don't need them taxing the hell out of us and then rationing the money out to us making us dependent on them for the money they took from us in the first place. We need to get rid of these H.U.D programs that provide cheap or free housing to our poor. We need to get rid of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that enables so many to be slackers. We need to get rid of all of that crap, all of these one size fits all federal social engineering and welfare programs.

Instead, communities need to start taking care of their own. Let churches, charities, and community members take care of those who cannot provide for themselves and the rest need to go to work. Shrink the federal government and to a lesser extent state governments and force communities to be once again responsible for there own. There will be more reliance on each other in communities and more accountability to each other. And when people see that they are going to have to take care of themselves and their own communities, they will come together and implement solutions to community problems or people will move elsewhere and communities will die. If we want families, churches and communities to become strong again then we need to force them to become strong out of necessity. That's the only way it's going to happen.

[robertpaulsen]

"Pot criminalization is failing as Prohibition failed;"

In your libertarian dreams -- there is no comparison.

Alcohol consumption increased the very first year of Prohibition and kept going up throughout the 13 short years it existed.

Marijuana consumption decreased by 66%, has been illegal now for almost 70 years, and legalization isn't even on the radar.

So, care to support your lie?

[TKDietz]

"I want to keep pot illegal for a little while longer at least. Maybe another decade or two. We have things to do to fix our education system, improve business conditions in Latin America, and expand on Bush's ownership society philosophy.

Once we solve a few fundamental societal problems, like the breakdown of families, etc... Then we can address the issue of legalization, which in 10 years I'd still be against, but by then we might be beyond the the problem."

Do you really see us solving all these fundamental societal problems in the next 10 or 20 years with federal programs? I hate to say it, but the way things are going Bush isn't going to do much better than the Democrats in that regard. He's just instituting more and more federal programs we can't afford and cutting taxes at the same time while we go further in debt. And his administration is spending as much or more as any previous Democratic administration, and the federal government is growing larger and more powerful than ever. There's no shortage of rhetoric, but a there's a real shortage in lasting honest to gosh solutions to our problems. We need old style Republicans in office who believe in fiscal responsibility and shrinking the the government.

And on the marijuana thing, I think it's inevitable that it will be legalized within twenty or thirty years tops. There is a growing frustration with the drug war in this country and the number of people who think that marijuana should be legal and regulated like alcohol is slowly but surely on the rise. The last surveys have been putting that number at roughly a third of all Americans. And that's only going to increase as older voters die off and are replaced by voters much more likely to have smoked marijuana and seen that it isn't that big of a deal.

According to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, only about 6.7% seniors over the age of 65 have smoked marijuana. Around 19% of those between 60 and 64 in 2003 had smoked it. Around a third of those between 55 and 59 had smoked it, and over 47% of those 50 to 54 had. Below that, it looks like a good 55% or more of younger adults have at least tried marijuana. The senior population will grow dramatically as the baby boomers age and eventually over 50% of all seniors will have at least tried marijuana. And we know that older Americans are much more likely to vote than younger Americans. Already more and more of those in leadership are people who have smoked marijuana.

Support for continued criminalization of marijuana is going down and it will continue to go down as the years pass. In another twenty years or so it will no longer be political suicide to introduce legislation that lowers penalties for marijuana possession or even that seeks to legalize and regulate it. Instead, standing in the way of such legislation will cost politicians votes. Things are just starting to go that way already and this trend is probably unstoppable, even though we are seeing a lot of desperate government "information campaigns" trying to do just that.

As for us being "beyond the the problem" with marijuana within ten years, all I can say is that's not at all likely. Use may go down some, but I'm afraid the cat's out of the bag with marijuana. There will still be millions and millions of people creating a huge demand for it ten years from now. I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

[TKDietz]

"Alcohol consumption increased the very first year of Prohibition and kept going up throughout the 13 short years it existed."

That's not true. First consumption went down and then it climbed back up steadily.

"Marijuana consumption decreased by 66%, has been illegal now for almost 70 years, and legalization isn't even on the radar."

I bet that marijuana consumption has gone up by several hundred percent since it was first made illegal. Use took off in the sixties despite draconian laws in most states for simple possession back in those days. Use peaked around '79 or '80 when the party that started in the sixties was coming to an end and it went down from there till around '92, then climbed back up to where it is today. Today according to government statistics about a third of all American males between the ages of 18 and 25 smoke marijuana every year and over 20% smoke in a given month. Females are less likely to use any illicit drug but use in that age demographic for females is still high. And my bet is that the real numbers are higher because not everyone would admit criminal conduct on a government survey, especially the way things are going these days with growing fears of the government keeping databases on citizens.

I have a challenge for you. Prove that the decrease in marijuana consumption in this country from 1980 to 1992 was caused by tougher laws and increased law enforcement efforts. Then explain why use went up dramatically from 1992 until today despite record spending by law enforcement, tougher sanctions in many cases than in the 80's, and record numbers of arrests.

[robertpaulsen]

"That's not true. First consumption went down and then it climbed back up steadily."

Yes it's true. Do you have anything to back up your statement?

The 18th amendment was ratified January 16,1919. It was to take effect January 16, 1920 (one year after ratification).

Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.

My point is that Prohibition didn't work from day one. That is not true with the banning of marijuana.

"I bet that marijuana consumption has gone up by several hundred percent since it was first made illegal. Use took off in the sixties despite draconian laws in most states for simple possession back in those days."

My charts start in 1979. Where do you get your pre-1979 information?

"Prove that the decrease in marijuana consumption in this country from 1980 to 1992 was caused by tougher laws and increased law enforcement efforts."

Why should I? My point was that, unlike alcohol, marijuana use decreased. Know your rights stated that "pot criminalization is failing as Prohibition failed" -- not true.

It could have been tougher laws and increased law enforcement efforts. It could have been the "Just Say No" campaign. It could have been ads and commercials. It could have been drug education in the schools. Overall marijuana use went down -- and cool it with using specific demographics to try to make some kind of point -- you look foolish.

"Then explain why use went up dramatically from 1992 until today"

Dramatic my a$$.

Monthly marijuana use (all ages, numbnuts) was at 13.2% in 1979. It fell to its lowest point in 1992 to 4.7% (a 64% drop). It remained relatively flat for 10 years, ending in 2001 at 5.4%.

Recently it has gone up -- and just as quickly may go down again.

[TKDietz]

"Yes it's true. Do you have anything to back up your statement?

The 18th amendment was ratified January 16,1919. It was to take effect January 16, 1920 (one year after ratification)."

I'll just use your chart to back up my statement. It looks to me like alcohol consumption went down at first during Prohibition and then climbed back up. It had already started the downward trend as many states had already banned alcohol in the years leading up to the national prohibition. The crackdown worked somewhat for a while and then people just started doing what they wanted and a massive black market grew to meet the demand.

"My point is that Prohibition didn't work from day one. That is not true with the banning of marijuana."

It did work at first, sort of. And the situation with marijuana was different. Hardly anyone was smoking pot in when it was banned. There wasn't much demand for it. How do I know that? As you pointed out the government statistics don't do back that far. All you need to do though is look at the numbers of old people in this country who have tried marijuana. Look at table 1.20b in the link I'm about to give you at the number of people 65 and over who had even tried marijuana in 2001. These people would have been born in 1936 or before. Note that only 3.8% of these people had even ever tried marijuana. I couldn't find that table from any NHSDA surveys from before 2001, but I bet the percentage of people 65 and over who had tried marijuana would be lower. The same table shows that 4.1% of those 65 and over had tried it in 2001 and the 2003 survey shows that 5.7% of seniors 65 had tried it in 2002 and 6.5% in 2003. Very few were smoking back in 1037. In fact, I believe I've read testimony from the hearing before the legislature when they banned pot that about 100,000 were smoking it back then in this country.

You can find Table 1.20b for 2001 here:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k1nhsda/vol3/Sect1v1_PDF_W_19-25.pdf

See the same table for 2003 here:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3tabs/PDF/Sect1peTabs19to27.pdf

"My charts start in 1979. Where do you get your pre-1979 information?"

Again, look at the government surveys. We know from the numbers from the 2000 survey that only 3.8% of those 65 or older had ever tried pot by the year 2000. These people were born from the early 1900's on up to 1935. Compare them to people in their 40's in 2000, more than half of which admit to having tried pot. It's quite obvious that marijuana usage increased by several hundred percent since it has been illegal. Just look at the numbers and you can see where that increase happened. The biggest part of it occurred in the sixties when the first wave of baby boomers was coming of age. Boomers born from the mid fifties on through 1964 comprised the biggest part of that population explosion, and they were the ones who smoked the most pot when they were coming of age in the seventies and early eighties. Look at the numbers and it is dead obvious that marijuana use increased several fold since prohibition began.

"Overall marijuana use went down --."

Overall marijuana use went down from when? It went down from the absolute peak year of marijuana use in this country. It did not go down from when marijuana was first prohibited. It's gone way up since then.

"Dramatic my a$$.

Monthly marijuana use (all ages, numbnuts) was at 13.2% in 1979. It fell to its lowest point in 1992 to 4.7% (a 64% drop). It remained relatively flat for 10 years, ending in 2001 at 5.4%."

Looking at the the numbers of people who smoke pot, there has only been a drop of about 38% since 1979 when according to the NHSDA about 23,790,000 smoked pot in the month preceding the survey. The estimate for 2003 was 14,638,000 for the month preceding the survey. That would be over a 49% increase from the number of people who smoked pot in this country in 1992, 9,676,000, a dramatic increase if you ask me. That's around 5,000,000 more pot smokers smoking at least once a month. Over 25,000,000 smoke every year now. Past year use in 1992 was 16,322,000. That's over a 50% increase in the numbers of people who smoke in a given year since 1992.

Now, you could argue that the surveys have changed and it's unfair to compare 2002 or 2003 data with previous data. Maybe you'd have a point. But then you'd have stop making your argument because the survey changed in 1999 to and technically you aren't supposed to compare that data from any from before. I think all of these surveys are a little suspect anyway because not everyone wants to admit criminal conduct on a government survey. And even that could change over the years. I bet people were more willing to admit drug use back in the late seventies through 1980 when Jimmy Carter was president because drug use was "cool" back then and the president was even hinting that marijuana should be legal or at least decriminalized. The climate is significantly different now.

We can play with these numbers all we want. The fact is that marijuana use has gone up dramatically since it was first prohibited, and even though it's gone down since it's peak in 1979 it has increased dramatically since then, even though the war on marijuana was ratcheted up like never before starting in the eighties. Those are the facts. Call me names, change the subject, weasel all you want, but the facts remain the same.

"Recently it has gone up -- and just as quickly may go down again."

It might very well. In fact I think it probably will. Less of the younger kids are smoking it. It will probably go down for a while, and then go back up for a while. I doubt we see 1979 levels again any time in the next several years. That was an anomaly. The baby boom generation was coming of age then. The first boomers started the party in the sixties. There were a lot more baby boomers born from the early to mid fifties on and they partied even more than the first batch of boomers. This was the largest population balloon ever, and this group wanted to party. Look at Figure 2 on this link, http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pdf . Notice that big grouping of people from their mid thirties through their forties in 2002. That demographic is huge. The sheer size of this group that was partying hard in the seventies and to a slightly lesser extent the early eighties is part of the reason why you see such high per capita percentage of pot smokers in 1979. Not only was there still a party going on from the sixties, but there were a whole lot of people of partying age who were all invited. By 1992 when marijuana use hit it's low for the last twenty years or so, the youngest of the baby boomers had already hit 28 years of age. Most were well out of their wild years. They had moved on to more important things.

And no doubt most were tired of drugs by then. You can't have as much of a party with drugs as this country had in the late sixties, the seventies, and early eighties without seeing a lot of people get hurt. Before this really started getting going in the late sixties, most people were naive about drugs. They had no idea what kind of trouble they could cause but those troubles became much more apparent as the party raged on. Most of those of us who went through those years though did learn something from it. People were tired of all of that and that's when Reagan came into the picture. People voted for him because they wanted someone to turn things around and help us get back to a cleaner more simple and productive life.

Things changed somewhat. Attitudes were changing and the younger kids got caught up in that. The kids who were of the age where they were most likely to experiment with drugs in the later eighties and the early part of the nineties had grown up hearing the horror stories about people in their home towns and across America who had had problems with drugs. Many had seen it first hand and they didn't want any part of it. But as drug use declined and kids were less likely to see the problems with it up close, they became less afraid of drugs and drug use started increasing again as the nineties rolled on.

It seems to have plateaued now though and I can't help but think that a big part of the reason for that is that collectively we are not so naive as we once were about drugs. Hardly anyone is still saying that LSD expands your mind. Hardly anyone is still claiming that cocaine is non-addictive. People just aren't buying that stuff like they used to. There are still quite a few out there claiming that marijuana is harmless, but there is a limit to the numbers of people who will believe that. I bet even less would believe it if the government would stop demonizing it so much and exaggerating its negatives. All that does is damage the credibility of the government's message and cause people interested in smoking marijuana to listen more to the crackpots out there pointing out that the government is full of liars and telling them that pot is actually good for them.

[Know your rights]

I don't have much to add to what TKDietz has posted in response to this, but ...

Pot criminalization is failing as Prohibition failed

Marijuana [...] has been illegal now for almost 70 years, and legalization isn't even on the radar.

Since when is longevity of and support for a policy indicative of success? We've had federal welfare in place for almost 40 years, and I'm not aware that ending it is on the radar; do you disagree with my assessment that it's a failure?

(And support for legalization is at 42% in a fairly recent poll; to me, that's "on the radar.")

[robertpaulsen]

"That would be over a 49% increase from the number of people who smoked pot ... We can play with these numbers all we want."

No, you can play with the numbers.

Why are you using "number of people" instead of "% of population"? (It's a rhetorical question -- I know why. You're more like MrLeRoy every day, and that's not a compliment.)

You are aware that the U.S. population increased almost 30% from 1979 to 2003? You don't expect the number of pot smokers to increase?

Let's play fair and stick with percentages, OK?

Yes, the percentage of pot smokers increased from 1992 to 2003 -- BUT most of that increase was since 2001 (as I showed).

It's a recent blip in the usage, probably due to people like you trying to tell everyone that pot smoking is just fine and dandy, that people shouldn't be punished, that the government is lying, and we'll be so much better off once pot is legal and available at the 7-11 next to the cigarettes.

"Compare them to people in their 40's in 2000, more than half of which admit to having tried pot."

Tried at least once, you mean. Maybe only once. And it doesn't say when they tried it -- maybe they tried it in 1979 then quit.

Look, my post was in response to Know your rights who claimed that "pot criminalization is failing as Prohibition failed". I made my point -- it is not, and it looks nothing like Prohibition.

Yes, marijuana use increased from 1937 to 1979. But we didn't pass the Controlled Substances Act (the infamous basis of the WOD) until 1970.

[Know your rights]

Pot criminalization is failing as Prohibition failed; it's time to finally learn from our mistakes.

We have a few social problems that could spin mind altering drugs out of control... Mostly the liberal de-emphasis of the importance of family, community, and faith.

We need to strengthen our society so it can withstand the issues that drugs bring with them.

I see no reason to believe that people who find no reason in family, community, or faith to not use drugs are finding that reason in the slim chance of getting caught by the law. That is, I see no reason to believe that drug use will increase dramatically under legalization ... certainly not anywhere near the level of use of the drug alcohol, which is not spinning out of control.

[Know your rights]

It's a recent blip in the usage,

Rhetorically sweeping under the carpet evidence that counters his claim.

probably due to people like you trying to tell everyone that pot smoking is just fine and dandy [...] and we'll be so much better off once pot is legal and available at the 7-11 next to the cigarettes.

Lying about his opponent's position.

All in all, vintage robertpaulsen.

[robertpaulsen]

Welfare never worked as a short-term assistance program. It was a failure as Prohibition was a failure.

"... and I'm not aware that ending it is on the radar"

Then you need to educate yourself. The program is reverting back to short term assistance. I'm not aware that ending it was ever a goal, but nice attempt at a strawman. Consolation prizes are available backstage.

"And support for legalization is at 42% in a fairly recent poll"

Wasn't that the poll sponsored by DRCNet or NORML? Who sponsored (not conducted) that "fairly recent poll", MrLeRoy? Can you tell me?

[Know your rights]

I'm not aware that ending it [welfare] was ever a goal

Not your goal, evidently ... which is interesting to learn.

Who sponsored (not conducted) that "fairly recent poll"

Since I have no reason to think Zogby's professional integrity is for sale, I don't particularly care.

[dubyain04jebin08and12]

Decriminalize possession, and save a ton of money and space in jail. However, they should penalize anyone who does get caught with possession by taking away voting rights. This will still result in substantial consequences for using the stuff without tying up the justice system. It will also get rid of a lot of lib voters.

[Know your rights]

they should penalize anyone who does get caught with possession by taking away voting rights. This will still result in substantial consequences for using the stuff

Why should there be consequences for using the stuff?

[robertpaulsen]

"That is, I see no reason to believe that drug use will increase dramatically under legalization ... "

Drug use was almost three times higher in 1979, and it was illegal. We can certainly revert back to that level, especially if we legalize drugs.

And, as the experiment in Alaska has shown us, drug legalization for adults results in an increase among teens, double that of the lower 48.

And, I believe you yourself posted the mathematics of an 80% increase in drug usage if they were legal. Doubling the drug use is not a dramatic increase?