The Lies Are Starting in Massachusetts
It was probably inevitable: Lacking actual facts to make their case, opponents of Question 2 in Massachusetts have begun spinning fictional scare stories in order to frighten voters out of reforming that state’s marijuana laws.
Question 2 would replace the current criminal penalties for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults with a civil fine. Marijuana would still be illegal, but simple possession of a small amount wouldn’t require arrest, booking, and all the time and expense that entails, and would not generate a criminal record. Eleven other states already have such “decriminalization” laws on the books, and they’re working just fine. Notably, they have not produced an increase in rates of marijuana use, as the National Research Council has noted.
So opponents trying to frighten voters about Question 2 have no choice but to make stuff up. For example, a story in Monday’s Cape Cod Today describes claims being made by local District Attorney Michael O’Keefe: “‘This is not your father’s marijuana of 20 or 30 years ago,’ the district attorney said. He said marijuana now is far more potent, and contains substances designed to addict the user.”
Research indicates that O’Keefe’s claims are false.
Can marijuana be contaminated? Sure, as can any product. But no one has produced evidence that contamination is increasing, much less that sinister forces are intentionally introducing “substances designed to addict the user.”
The issues of marijuana potency and contamination were addressed in a study by a group of Australian researchers, published earlier this year by the journal Addiction. They note that reported changes in potency are based on samples seized by law enforcement, which may or may not be representative of what’s actually being used by marijuana consumers. But even if one accepts evidence of a rough doubling of average marijuana potency in the U.S. over the last 20 years or so, that doesn’t mean users are getting more stoned: “More recent studies have reported that certain types of users may adjust the amount of cannabis smoked depending on potency,” the researchers write.
One is tempted to say, “Well, duh.” Drinkers consume smaller amounts of bourbon than they do of beer. Why would anyone expect marijuana users to be any different?
Let’s be serious. Even a doubling of potency is far less than the difference in alcohol content between beer and wine. Could anyone claim with a straight face that wine is an entirely different drug than beer because of its higher alcohol content?
The bottom line, according to the Australian scientists, is that there is no solid evidence that any of this represents an actual danger: “Claims made in the public domain about a 20- or 30-fold increase in cannabis potency and about the adverse mental health effects of cannabis contamination are not supported currently by the evidence. … [M]ore research is needed to determine whether increased potency and contamination translates to harm for users…”
But you can bet that the scare stories will be flying thick and fast in Massachusetts from now till November. We’ll see if the voters are persuaded by science fiction.
Tagged with: decriminalization and drug warriors and law enforcement and marijuana and potency and science by the author
8 comments
If the government would regulate it nobody would have to worry about those “substances designed to addict the user”. Just think of what a terrible situation it would be if you could legally purchase products with “substances designed to addict the user”…thank goodness cigarettes and alcohol don’t have these addictive ingredients…oh wait.
Ahh, What I wouldn’t do for a nice mello bag of Panama Red !
Weed is not a drug
I recently read about the dollar benefits of legalization.
A related question is who stands to lose from legal changes to pot laws? Those are the people I wish WE could watch.
What impact do changes have on DA’s and caseloads etc.?
Isn’t the #1 violation that’s going to courts – pot possession ? So if the legal systems #1 cash cow is threatened…….
Hmmm.
Your exactly right Jim. They’re afraid that some of them will lose their jobs because there will no longer be the need for the huge number of employees in the massachusetts DA’s office. When, not if, the question of marijuana decrim passes they’ll all be in fear of possible cuts to funding. This is the first step in legalization.
They could go to the big pot growers and beg for jobs as security guards walking outside the fences around commercial crops. You are correct about them fearing losing their money, Shasta County, California just got a record year bringing in more than 400,000 plants credited, for the most part, to Mexican cartels. They are now eligible for a considerably larger amount of money next year to combat the deadly cartel influx into the National Forests.
As a medical cannabis patient I regard sloppy forest grows as a nuisance and generally bad for the entire movement. The hippies in the hills developed mini-patching technologies years ago, not as easy to spot from the air as the larger multi-thousand plant grows…just a hole with layers of organic fertilizers and a plant on top. Not much damage to the environment there and whatever is left over after harvest will feed any neighboring trees.
One of the many lies the DRUG LEGALIZATION LOBBY funded by George Soros is telling is that they are not funding studies like the one by “Harvard economist Dr. Jeff Miron,” which claims that Massachusetts’ taxpayers spend $29.5 million a year just to arrest and book offenders who possess about 28 grams or less of marijuana. Never mind the lie that people are in jail for possession here. Soros gave $400K to get this on the Mass. ballot. Also, did you know that pot possession cases in Mass. are already automatically continued with a year on probation, followed by dismissal if it doesn’t happen again? And it can be sealed from your record upon request? This proposed change in the law would make it so you could get caught as many times as you like. And you could get a college scholarship even if you’re caught ten times, which everyone knows means you are a dealer. A 17 year old dealer on your child’s or grandchild’s college campus can have multiple charges for possession with less of a penalty than there is for alcohol. Think about it. Vote NO on Question 2.
At MPP’s blog, we welcome dialogue, even with those who disagree. But we do find it disheartening that opponents of reform can’t seem to resist basing their case on straw man arguments, red herrings, and distortions.
The “lie that people are in jail for possession” in Massachusetts is a figment of the poster’s imagination. It’s not an argument that the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which backs Question 2, has made, and it’s not one MPP has made regarding Massachusetts either.
What does happen is that a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) report is generated at the time of arrest — not conviction — and these records do in fact haunt people for life.
The poster then raises another straw man argument, imagining a hypothetical 17-year-old dealer with 10 marijuana arrests (but miraculously never caught selling) getting a college scholarship. This odd flight of fantasy is used to avoid dealing with the fact that Question 2 is actually tougher on juvenile marijuana offenders than current law — requiring parental involvement, drug education, and community service.
And anyone who thinks MPP has hidden the fact that we’ve supported some of Dr. Miron’s research might want to look here: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html. But I guess attacking the funder is easier than dealing with the substance of Dr. Miron’s work, given that his national study of the budgetary effects of marijuana prohibition was endorsed by over 500 economists, including three Nobel laureates.
Leave a Comment