The World Health Organization’s 2008 report on drug use found that more Americans use marijuana than people in any of the other 16 countries studied (which included Mexico). The report, along with many other sources, concludes that America is the largest illicit drug market in the world. The cartels in Mexico cater almost exclusively to customers in the U.S., pulling in huge profits every year (70% of which are from marijuana sales). If Mexico were to legalize marijuana, the cartels’ business would continue as usual. They would still smuggle marijuana into the U.S. and continue to profit from doing so.

No, the answer to the cartel problem does not lie in Mexico; it lies here in the U.S.

The U.S. alone has the power to wipe out the cartels, and it can do so with a simple change in policy. Were we to abolish marijuana prohibition and replace it with a system of taxation and regulation based on alcohol laws, a new, legal marijuana industry would put the criminal competition out of business overnight. We did it once before. In the 1930s, following our failed experiment with alcohol prohibition, the fledgling alcohol industry took over, producing a safer product and putting money into the economy rather than taking it out. And it happened without the moral degradation prohibitionists predicted.

This is precisely why the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy released a report in January calling on the U.S. to change its marijuana laws. Drug producing countries in Latin America have first-hand experience with the devastating effects of America’s war on drugs. The violence and organized crime feeding the U.S. market have been rooted there for decades, with disastrous results. The U.S., on the other hand, has never faced these realities on its own soil – not to the same scale and severity as our neighbors in Mexico or those who lived through the reign of Pablo Escobar in Columbia.

But that is beginning to change. Violence in Mexico is spilling over into Texas, Arizona, and southern California. The cartels now operate in 230 American cities – think about what that means. 230 means more than New York, Los Angeles, and other large metropolitan areas, it means Bismark, N.D., Wichita, Kan., and even Kalamazoo, Mich., small towns where Americans are feeling the impact of bad drug policy. More directly, it means that the U.S. government can no longer ignore the failures of its war on marijuana.

The sensible solution is right in front of us. We just need the political will to see it through.

If you’d like to help make a change, write your member of Congress and ask him or her to support marijuana policy reform. More information on how to do so can be found at mpp.org/federal-action.

Former Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) said there is merit to the idea of legalizing marijuana on Monday, a surprising statement from a law-and-order Republican who once tried to ban any dietary supplement that makes you happy.

In 1995, then-Senator D’Amato introduced legislation to classify any “dietary supplement that claims to produce euphoria, heightened awareness or similar mental or psychological effects” as a drug. The legislation’s intent was to combat the popularity of ephedrine-based herbal supplements by banning them, the same logic he applied to marijuana prohibition as an ardent supporter of our current laws.

D’Amato now appears to have changed his position, telling Howard Stern on Monday “there’s some merit to” the idea of legalizing marijuana. If only he had come to that conclusion while he had the power to do something about it.

Steve Fox, MPP’s new director of state campaigns (who was also MPP’s federal lobbyist from 2002-2005), sends in the following dispatch:

While riding the Metro’s Red Line yesterday, I spotted former drug czar John Walters entering the train. When he ended up standing right beside me, I realized I couldn’t pass up the chance for a conversation. I know it sounds like a fruitless endeavor, but I’m an eternal optimist and thought, “Maybe if we have a casual lunch together, he’ll come to see the folly of keeping marijuana illegal.”

I opened with a polite, “Hello, Mr. Walters. I just wanted to introduce myself. I am Steve Fox and I work with the Marijuana Policy Project.” The chipper look on his face quickly changed. It looked like he had just thrown up in his mouth a little and was regretting the fact that he had nowhere to spit.

I said, “I know we have been on opposite sides of the issue, but I was wondering whether you would be interested in having lunch any time just to talk about our differences and to see whether we have any mutual interests.” He seemed to stifle a laugh and said, “I don’t think that would be worth our time. You know where I stand and I know where you stand.” This is not the first time I have been turned down for a date, so I let it slide right off. More importantly, I had more work to do. I had just eight more minutes to get him to support ending marijuana prohibition.

I don’t mean to spoil the ending, but it didn’t work. But it was a fascinating conversation nonetheless. The most interesting part is that he never broke character. I assumed he must, at some level, appreciate that most of what he said during his tenure as drug czar was either a distortion of the facts or completely ignorant of other available information. Boy, was I wrong.

He proceeded to give me all of his standard lines as if they were actually true and meaningful, like alleging (incorrectly) that marijuana is the leading cause of drug treatment admissions for teens, even more than alcohol.

When I asked him if he really thinks that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol, he quickly said, “Sure.” I said, “I mean, in terms of overdose deaths, overall deaths from use, the likelihood of causing domestic abuse and other forms of violence?” He said, “I talk to directors of treatment facilities and they tell me that those who are violent use all kinds of substances – marijuana, alcohol, heroin, cocaine…”

As we reached his stop, I repeated my lunch offer and extended my hand with my business card. For a moment, I thought he was going to just walk away, but he took it with a look of annoyance on his face.

I assume that card is in the trash somewhere now. But perhaps it is sitting on his desk and each look at it is making him ponder the true value of his work as drug czar.

As I said, I am an optimist.

[P.S. – Be sure to check out Steve’s new book, Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? (Chelsea Green, July 2009).]

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.

The commission will look broadly at criminal justice reforms, with an emphasis on reducing America’s rising prison population (now the largest in the world per capita). Centered in that debate is the hard truth about America’s punitive drug laws. One-third of U.S. inmates are drug offenders, and many of them are in jail for possession, not sale or manufacture.

Senator Webb’s legislation calls, specifically, for a close look at our drug laws, and his remarks before the Senate show a refreshingly honest approach to the issue:

The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration over the past three decades. In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200% … and a significant percentage of those incarcerated are for possession or nonviolent offenses.

Webb isn’t playing it safe. Many politicians like to skirt around the edges of criminal justice reform, pursuing incremental changes and avoiding politically risky topics. Webb’s critique, on the other hand, is fundamental.

On Sunday night, CBS’s “60 Minutes” did a grimly fascinating piece on the escalating drug war in Mexico. Reported by Anderson Cooper (whose day job, of course, is at CNN), the piece was as notable for what it didn’t cover as what it did. Like most recent media coverage of the growing carnage along our southern border, the “60 Minutes” story carefully tiptoed around the proverbial elephant in the room.

That elephant, of course, is prohibition. Here is a piece of what I wrote in a letter to Cooper after watching his report:

There is nothing about the trade in marijuana or any other drug that is inherently violent. The violence is entirely an artifact of prohibition, a policy which consciously relegates a highly popular and valued product such as marijuana to the criminal underground. We experienced this dramatically during the U.S.’s experiment with Prohibition of alcohol: From 1919 to 1933, the liquor trade was fraught with violence, the murder rate soared, and prisons were jammed — while gangsters got very, very rich. As soon as Prohibition ended, the bootleggers disappeared and the alcoholic beverage business returned to the hands of licensed, regulated, law-abiding businesspeople.

Of course, Cooper and CBS are far from alone. News media accounts of the catastrophe in Mexico have been disturbingly consistent in their avoidance of the central issue. Like “60 Minutes,” many have avoided including, even briefly, anyone willing to question prohibition.

This is especially shocking after the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy (co-chaired by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo) urged decriminalization of marijuana and a broader rethinking of the drug war for precisely this reason. “We are farther than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs,” the commission wrote in its recent report. “It is imperative to review critically the deficiencies of the prohibitionist strategy adopted by the United States.”

U.S. policies on marijuana — by far the largest cash cow for Mexican drug gangs — are directly adding to the carnage taking place literally walking distance from San Diego and El Paso. It would be nice if our news media at least started asking the relevant questions.

The report, by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, called for the U.S. to re-examine its punitive, enforcement-based drug policies and consider decriminalizing the use of marijuana.

What’s really startling about this report is not its findings – we’ve long known the war on drugs was a failure – but rather our government’s response.  As reported by the Wall Street Journal, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday: “If the drug effort were failing there would be no violence … We’re taking these guys out. The worst thing you could do is stop now.”

Not only does this statement ignore the plethora of evidence showing that U.S. drug policy has failed to curb marijuana use, it clearly admits that drug-trade violence is a symptom of marijuana prohibition and not marijuana use – something MPP has been saying, and drug warriors have been denying, for years.

Please take this opportunity to visit www.house.gov and tell your member of Congress about the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy’s report entitled Drugs and Democracy: Toward A Paradigm Shift.

Last night, CNBC aired its much-touted documentary, “Marijuana Inc.” It was a decidedly mixed bag.

It was a portrait of an industry that is huge and thriving, despite the energetic efforts of assorted law enforcement agencies to “eradicate” it. No sane person could watch the program and come away thinking that present government efforts to curb marijuana production or use are working.  With California’s Mendocino County as the focus, the crashing failure of the war on marijuana was on vivid display.

What was missing was context. Marijuana consumers, for example, were conspicuously absent. It’s hard to imagine any business channel devoting an hour to, say, Apple Computer, without spending at least a few minutes on why so many consumers are fiercely loyal to their iMacs and iPods, and what needs they fill that other products don’t. Instead we got lingering, almost pornographic shots of marijuana edibles at an Oakland dispensary but no sense of who the patients are who purchase these products — much less of the vast volume of research showing marijuana’s medicinal benefits. Bear in mind that much of that research was conducted just 20 minutes from where they were filming.

Another missing piece of context: Mendocino is a world-renowned producer of not one but two psychoactive drugs. Literally right alongside the illicit marijuana industry is a licensed, legal, regulated wine industry. And it’s a large industry: The county tourism site lists 64 wineries in a county with just 88,000 people.

These wineries produce a drug that, compared to marijuana, is more addictive, massively more toxic, and orders of magnitude more likely to make users violent or aggressive. Yet this industry has virtually none of the problems — violence, environmental damage, etc. — that the show ascribed to the illegal marijuana trade. The producers literally had to drive by vineyards to reach some of the locations where they shot, so failure to acknowledge this essential piece of context seems to have required a conscious effort to look the other way.