Starting next year, citizens of the Czech Republic will be able to grow up to five marijuana plants and possess “several marijuana cigarettes” for personal use, without fear of criminal prosecution.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

“The plant still remains illegal, however, though from the new year possession of five or less plants is merely a misdemeanor, and fines for possession will be on par with penalties for parking violations.”

How many more countries will implement significant marijuana policy reforms before our federal government decides it’s time to act?

The new law defines 5 grams of marijuana as a “personal use” amount. People caught in possession of less than that amount will face no penalty until their third offense, at which point the law requires them to enter addiction treatment. The change is part of the Mexican government’s efforts to fight a very hot war against drug cartels along its border with the U.S. By decriminalizing marijuana, Mexico seeks to free up law enforcement resources that have been wasted arresting non-violent marijuana users.

A similar law, proposed during former president Vicente Fox’s administration, was defeated following significant opposition from President George W. Bush. We have not seen the same pressure from the Obama administration this time around. In fact, current Mexican president Felipe Calderón has used this new law to send a message north about the need for a similar debate to take place on our side of the border. Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan, for example, called for such a debate to be taken seriously by the U.S. in April, and the Mexican Senate scheduled discussion of the new law to coincide with President Obama’s first trip to Mexico.

Taking these events in context — especially considering the chorus of high-profile former Latin American leaders calling for the U.S. to change its heavy-handed drug policies — a clear message emerges: our neighbors are paying a heavy price for our marijuana laws, which account for 70% of the cartels’ profits.

In a sense, we’ve been exporting the worst consequences of prohibition to our southern neighbor by forcing marijuana to remain a business for thugs and criminals. Just like alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition causes more harm than the drug itself. The violence in Mexico has forced its government to face that reality; our politicians should pay close attention.

H.R. 2943, legislation in Congress that seeks to remove federal penalties for marijuana possession, is currently in committee. Please visit mpp.org/federal-action to ask your member of Congress for his or her support.

Last November, the British government ignored the advice of its Scientific Advisory Board and moved marijuana into a more dangerous class of drugs, a move described by top scientists at the time as “a sad departure from the welcome trend … of public policy following expert scientific advice.”

Of course, here in the United States, government has been ignoring its scientific advisors on marijuana policy for decades, at least since Nixon first lined his bird cage with the two-year study he commissioned recommending marijuana’s decriminalization.

And that unwelcome trend continues to this very day here, as evidenced by drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s recent lie that marijuana “has no medicinal benefit.” Not sure who Kerlikowske’s scientific advisors are, but the one we taxpayers use, the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, says: “Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety … all can be mitigated by marijuana.”

Then again, it doesn’t take a scientist to know that it’s wrong to deny sick people medicine that eases their pain, or to arrest responsible adults because they prefer a drug that’s safer than alcohol or tobacco.

Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), one of the most powerful Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, yesterday joined the list of cosponsors for Rep. Barney Frank’s bill to remove penalties for marijuana possession.

Rep. Miller is the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, a position that awards him a lot of sway on Capitol Hill. Miller joins Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) in sponsoring this important legislation.

If you live in Chairman Miller’s district, please thank him. If you don’t, you can help out by visiting mpp.org/federal-action and asking your members of Congress to support this legislation.

Please take action today to support this important legislation.

Congressman Frank’s legislation seeks to bring federal law in line with reality. 99% of all marijuana arrests occur at the state and local level. In practice, federal laws prohibiting marijuana possession act as a deterrent to states that may want a more sensible policy. Congressman Frank’s bill would remove that deterrent and push U.S. marijuana policy in the right direction.

The bill’s introduction comes amidst unprecedented momentum for reform, but it will still face significant opposition in Congress — so please visit mpp.org/federal-action and take action today!

—-

Connect on Facebook to help spread the word.

Marijuana Use Rates, Age 12 and Up

The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration recently released its annual state-by-state breakdown of drug use rates from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. And once again, the data (based on the 2006 and 2007 surveys) don’t match the official mythology — namely, that tough anti-marijuana laws reduce marijuana use.

As of the survey dates, 11 states had decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, while 39 retained the threat of arrest and jail for even small-time marijuana possession. And, like previous surveys, use rates in the decriminalized states were statistically indistinguishable from the non-decriminalized states. Some decriminalized states, such as Nebraska and Mississippi, had use rates well below the national average. And some that maintain criminal penalties, such as New Hampshire and the District of Columbia, were well above the national average.

Sometimes decriminalized states had lower marijuana use rates than neighboring states that still jail marijuana users. Mississippi, for example, was lower than Louisiana; Nebraska was lower than Kansas.

This trend has been consistent in the nearly a decade that SAMHSA has been doing these state breakdowns, yet it didn’t stop decriminalization opponents in Massachusetts from claiming last year that decriminalization would somehow turn their state into a sea of potheads.

The other persistent myth is that medical marijuana laws increase teen marijuana use by “sending the wrong message to kids.” Again, the real-world trend doesn’t quite match the myth. Year-to-year changes in past-month marijuana use for 12-to-17-year-olds were almost all statistically insignificant. A few medical marijuana states showed increases while others showed drops, but none of the changes were large enough to be proof of a real trend. And state-based surveys, which have much larger samples within each state and thus are far more reliable, have consistently shown teen marijuana use decreasing in medical marijuana states since the laws took effect.

Wouldn’t it be nice if legislators everywhere could be persuaded to base laws on facts instead of myths?

Former drug czar John Walters wants Americans to believe that his draconian policies caused drug use to drop, especially among young people. He and his spokespeople credited their ad campaigns for cutting teen drug use, despite expert evaluations that showed otherwise. And in a pair of Wall Street Journal op-eds published this March and April Walters again warned against any change of course that might deviate from his alleged “success.”

This is not news, but it’s important to address because this line of argument will be raised against any effort by the Obama administration or Congress to shift even modestly toward more rational marijuana policies.

Fortunately, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime has neatly, if unintentionally, debunked Walters’ claims in its 2008 World Drug Report.

Yes, U.S. drug use did decline a bit during his tenure, according to government surveys. But if Walters’ policies — particularly his saturation anti-marijuana advertising and PR blitz — were responsible, then marijuana use in the U.S. should have declined more than in other countries. It didn’t.

In a telling series of graphs starting on page 113, the U.N. report shows that the decline in teen marijuana use in the U.S. actually began in 1998, well before Walters took office. More importantly, many other countries that didn’t go on an anti-marijuana jihad saw comparable or even greater declines, including Spain, France, Britain, and Australia. The decline in marijuana use among British teens and adults not only continued after Britain ended most marijuana possession arrests in 2004, it accelerated.

What’s striking about the graphs is how similar many of them are, despite widely differing government policies toward marijuana. It’s hard to avoid concluding that social trends are playing a much larger role than any government policies, and that Walters’ alleged successes are simply the product of his own imagination.

Mexico’s Senate passed a bill on Tuesday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana and other drugs. The bill would make it legal to carry up to 5 grams of marijuana in Mexico and defers low-level drug dealing cases to the Mexican states.

Proposed by President Felipe Calderon, the bill seeks to free up law enforcement resources in order to better fight violent drug cartels that have drawn international attention. The legislation must pass in the lower house before being sent to the president and signed into law.

This is notable not only because a similar proposal was vetoed by former Mexican President Vicente Fox under pressure from then-President Bush, but also because it closely follows Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan’s April 12 statement on Face the Nation that ending marijuana prohibition is a debate that should be happening on both sides of the border.

U.S. and Mexican officials estimate that between 60% and 70% of the drug cartels’ profits come from marijuana sales in the U.S.  So while efforts to decriminalize marijuana possession in Mexico are laudable, ambitious legislation in the U.S. is needed to fully combat the rising tide of violence along the border.

See this piece from Reuters for more information on Mexico’s decriminalization bill.

Few, even in the drug policy world, have paid much attention to Portugal’s remarkable but sensible 2001 decision to remove drug use and possession from the criminal realm and address it solely as a public health issue.

The details of Portugal’s system are worth checking out, but basically Portugal, after careful, empirical study, concluded that criminalizing drug use was creating two barriers to introducing treatment to those who might need it. First, it diverted funds that ought to go to drug treatment to ineffective law enforcement efforts. Second, the threat of arrest naturally caused those who might seek treatment to avoid, rather than seek out help from government institutions.

Under the current system, those caught possessing a personal amount of drugs, including marijuana, are cited by police and required to appear before a three-person panel made up of legal and healthcare professionals within 72 hours. The panel then conducts an informal interview with the person to determine what, if any, treatment might be necessary.

Greenwald was careful to note that the policy change was not an ideological decision, nor was it seen by Portuguese officials as some sort of social experiment. Rather, it was viewed as a necessary fix to alarming increases in drug abuse in the late ’90s.

The result, according to Greenwald’s analysis of the data and countless interviews with Portuguese officials, law enforcement and clients, has been a hands-down success. Despite some initial fears, drug use and drug-related crime have not increased. In many important categories and demographics, 15- to 19-year-olds for example, drug use rates have actually decreased.

And, nearly eight years later, there’s little enthusiasm at all, even among conservatives and law enforcement leadership, to go back to criminalizing personal drug use and possession.

Greenwald argues that there’s no reason to think that there’s anything about the conservative, largely Catholic country that would make its success with decriminalization unique. He also suggested that, in general, empirical evidence supporting reform might be far more persuasive for advocates than ideological arguments about personal freedom or limiting government intrusion in adults’ private lives.

I agree with Greenwald, and the data supporting his conclusions about Portugal’s success with decriminalization are compelling and undeniable. But some comments made by Dr. Peter Reuter, the University of Maryland criminology professor who played devil’s advocate at Greenwald’s presentation, served as a reminder that there’s still an important ideological component to the argument for sensible marijuana policy reform.

Reuter agreed that the data show decriminalization clearly hasn’t exacerbated the country’s drug problem. But he said he was less convinced that it proves decriminalization has actually caused decreases in drug use and abuse, pointing out that drug use rates in certain categories, notably marijuana, have decreased in many countries in the past several years.

Reuter said he believes popular culture has a far greater influence over drug use rates than drug policies themselves, a belief supported by a 2008 World Health Organization comparative study of 17 countries’ drug use rates and drug policies.

It also reminds me a little of the Bush drug czar office’s flimsy claims that arresting millions and lying to children about the dangers of marijuana were to thank for small decreases in youth marijuana use in recent years. We’ve always been very careful to avoid jumping to conclusions about causality and have been vigilant in calling our opponents out when they get carried away, as they often do.

So, if the best we can say is that, despite the unsubstantiated fears of prohibitionists, decriminalizing marijuana doesn’t increase marijuana use rates or marijuana related-crime, then we’re still left with an ideological debate: Either you believe that marijuana is inherently evil and that stigmatizing its use by making users criminals is worthwhile despite being ineffective, or you believe our marijuana policies should be measured by their effectiveness and not by arbitrary standards of morality.

Either way, I think we win.

Today is the first day Massachusetts adults will no longer have to fear arrest for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. Under the new system, approved by 65% of commonwealth voters on Election Day, violators will now be subject to a $100 civil citation and nothing more.

The question now is whether those law enforcement officials who campaigned against the decriminalization initiative will respect the will of the voters and make a good-faith effort to implement this modest reform. So far, there hasn’t been much evidence this will be the case. In fact, in the months following the election, many of these officials have behaved as though the matter were still up for debate.

Also potentially troubling is a recommendation made by the commonwealth’s office of public safety for cities and towns to consider passing local ordinances enhancing penalties for public marijuana use. Although it’s too early to tell exactly what the implications might be, the effect could be an end-run around the will of the voters. We’ll keep an eye on that.

Meanwhile, officials have relied on two main arguments as they seek to prolong a debate that should have ended on Election Day: 1) that they lack the competence to sort out the details of the law, and 2) that the voters were naïve dupes who allowed themselves to get suckered by “legalizers” intent on creating chaos with an unenforceable law.

So far, demeaning the voters and calling attention to their own incompetence hasn’t won very many people over, despite the wide coverage their tantrums have received in the press. The more paternalistic and condescending they sound, the more it looks like these opponents are actually hoping for the lawless chaos they’ve been clamoring about for months.

If so, they’re sure to be disappointed. Voters understood exactly what they were doing and simply want the penalties for small marijuana violations to match the severity of the violation. And they have confidence in the ability of Massachusetts cops to write a $100 ticket and move on, even if their superiors don’t.