American Drug War: The Documentary

An interesting and compelling trailer hyping the highly anticipated documentary American Drug War.

(Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

What's the Going Price for a Joint these Days?

Another great article showcasing the ridiculousness of the Drug War.

by Paul Armentano

What's the going price for a bag of weed? According to the latest figures from the FBI, the human cost is roughly 739,000 a year.

That's the number of American citizens arrested in 2006 for possessing small amounts of pot. (Another 91,000 were charged with marijuana-related felonies.) The figure is the highest total ever recorded, and is nearly double the number of citizens busted for pot fifteen years ago.

Those arrested face a multitude of consequences, primarily determined by where they live. For example, most Californians charged with violating the state's pot possession laws face little more than a small fine. By contrast, getting busted with a pinch of weed in Ohio will cost you your driver's license for at least six months. Move to Texas -- well, now you're looking at a criminal record and up to 180 days in jail. Or if you happen to be a first-time offender, possibly a stint in a court-mandated "drug rehab" (one recent study reported that nearly 70 percent of all adults referred to Texas drug treatment programs for weed were referred by the courts), probation, and a hefty legal bill. And don't even think about getting busted in Oklahoma, where a first-time conviction for minor pot possession can net you up to one year in jail, or up to ten years if you're found guilty of a second offense. Thinking of growing your own? That'll cost you a $20,000 fine, and -- oh yeah -- anywhere from two years to life in prison.

Yes, you read that right -- life in prison.

Of course, not everyone busted for weed receives jail time. But that doesn't mean that they don't suffer significant hardships stemming from their arrest -- including (but not limited to): probation and mandatory drug testing, loss of employment, loss of child custody, removal from subsidized housing, asset forfeiture, loss of student aid, loss of voting privileges, and loss of certain federal welfare benefits such as food stamps.

And yes, some offenders do serve prison time. In fact, according to a 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug violations are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. In human terms, this means that there are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates behind bars for violating marijuana laws. (The report failed to include estimates on the percentage of inmates incarcerated in county jails for pot-related offenses.)

In fiscal terms, this means taxpayers are spending more than $1 billion annually to imprison pot offenders.

Yet this billion-dollar price tag only estimates the financial costs on the "back end" of a marijuana arrest. The criminal justice costs to taxpayers -- such as the man-hours it takes a police officer to arrest and process the average pot offender -- on the "front end" is far greater, with some economists estimating the financial burden to be in upwards of $7 billion a year. Naturally, as the annual number of pot arrests continues to increase (according to the latest FBI data, marijuana arrests no constitute 44 percent of all illicit drug arrests), these costs are only going to grow larger.

There are alternatives, of course -- options that won't leave this sort of human fiscal carnage in its wake, and that won't leave entire generations believing that the police are an instrument of their oppression rather than their protection.

"Decriminalization," as first recommended to Congress in 1972 by President Nixon's Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, called for the removal of all criminal civil penalties for the possession, use, and non-profit distribution of cannabis. Such a policy, if adequately implemented, would eliminate the bulk of the human and fiscal costs currently associated with enforcing pot prohibition.

A second option, "regulation," would also significantly slash many of society's prohibition-associated fiscal and human costs. Legalizing the commercial sale and use of cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, with state-mandated age controls and pot sales restricted to state-licensed stores, could also potentially raise billions of added dollars in tax revenue while simultaneously bringing an end to the more egregious and adverse black-market effects of the plant's criminalization -- such as the production of pot by criminal enterprises and its clandestine cultivation of public lands.

Would either be perfect? No, probably not. ("Decriminalization," for instance, might indirectly encourage pot use; "regulation"might not entirely eliminate the black marker sales of pot.) But how can we continue with the status quo? Since, 1990, law enforcement have arrested over 10 million Americans -- more than the entire population of Los Angeles county -- on pot charges. Yet, according to federal figures, both marijuana production and use are rising. Isn't it time we began looking at ways to address the marijuana issue that move beyond simply arresting and prosecuting an inordinate amount of otherwise law-abiding Americans? Or must we wait until another 10 million citizens are arrested before our state and federal politicians find the courage to begin this discussion? (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

February 5th, 2008

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for NORML and the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. He is the author of "Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature" (2007, NORML Foundation).

Copyright © 2008 Paul Armentano

D.E.A. and U.S. Finally Get Their Man

A very well written article which exposes the long arm of the American judicial system and the obvious fallacies of the Drug War. The DEA finally got their man and I am sure it assists someone's political agenda. Enjoy and please share your thoughts.


By Rodney Venis of PrinceGeorgeCitizen.com

Whatever you may think of the United States' persecution of marijuana loudmouth Marc Emery, try to bear in mind it's about more than just pot.

Admittedly, it's pretty hard to separate that stem from those leaves when it comes to Emery, B.C.'s self-anointed Prince of Pot. He revels in the U.S. government's claims he's responsible for an estimated 1.1 million pounds of marijuana grown illegally in the states and brags to the CBC that he's responsible for more of the pot being smoked on earth than anyone else but God. He's gotten high on the steps of police stations, he's staged rallies, he founded the Marijuana Party, started the magazine Cannabis Culture and, of course, set up a marijuana seed-selling service that ended up doing $15 million worth of business in Canada and the U.S.

Nevertheless, the key p-word here isn't pot, but persecution. Emery persecuted two governments -- in the second sense of the word, annoying persistence -- through his life-long quest to produce so much marijuana and so much public pressure the police would be overwhelmed and forced to make it legal across North America. In turn, the U.S. persecuted Emery -- in the first sense of word, by making him suffer for beliefs.

Now, that's not to say this country should blindly give shelter and support to Emery, regardless of what he's done. But what's galling in this is the disproportion of the U.S. response and Canada's wholesale acquiescence.

Take away all the words -- the War on Drugs, decriminalization, the children, oh, the children -- and concentrate on the acts. Emery sold the seeds of a plant that, the rights and wrongs of it aside, is neither as dangerous nor as addictive as, say, over-the-counter codeine-laced cough syrup or a bottle of wine. He's just noisy about it -- burdened with an ego one reporter says "must make up 40 per cent of his body weight," Emery thinks he's Gandhi in a nice suit carrying a full bong on a mission to "overgrow" the United States through peaceful political means.

He succeeded and the DEA, embarassed by Emery's blaring appearances on CNN, Rolling Stone and the Wall Street Journal, slurred him by saying he's worse than the murderers and thugs of the Hells Angels and Triads. It forced the Vancouver police to interfere in his place of business, livelihood and political activism. It then attempted to bleed him financially by setting in motion the complex legal mechanism of extradition.

At the root of the DEA charges was a blatant act of extortion: voluntarily accept exile from your country and a lifetime of imprisonment in the U.S. or two of your closest friends will share the same fate. The reason was political -- even then DEA boss Karen Tandy bragged about it, calling his arrest in a now notorious press release: "a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also the marijuana legalization movement . . . Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on."

Basically, the DEA wanted to shut up a Canadian because it didn't like what he was saying and the causes he supported -- and Ottawa helped stick a fist in his mouth by supporting the whole
thing.

That's the problem and the outrage. This country chose the interests of a foreign power over protecting its citizens not because it was right, but because it was more convenient. It's a frightening, loathsome truth that's played out too many times to be denied, from Maher Arar to Afghanistan to the Avro Arrow.

Basically, if it's a choice between you and mildly offending the U.S., don't count on Canada. That's unacceptable.

In the end, with him and his two friends facing extradition, a deal was reached last month: his friends should avoid jail, Emery will serve five years in Canada and the DEA gets a conviction against a lone stoner they've deluded and lied themselves into thinking is one of the 46 most wanted criminals on earth

But at least he's still here -- and at least there's one person who isn't afraid to be Canadian, no matter what the U.S. says. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

Cannabis is No Scapegoat for Idiocy

This is exactly the kind of publicity cannabis users need with public focus finally being directed towards legalization and decriminalization of my favorite little friend. When you commit a crime and are caught red-handed, don't try and use drugs or alcohol as a scapegoat. The post below, taken from StoptheDrugWar.org, is a riot. To keep you reading, the crime involves cannabis, two crocodiles, a monkey, and an Australian teenager with a pathetic excuse.

Written by Scott Morgan of StoptheDrugWar.org

I'm so sick of people blaming marijuana for the stupid things they do. Lest we should all be further stigmatized by his mischief, someone needs to stop hooking this guy up:

DARWIN, Australia (AP) — An Australian teenager[*] blamed the influence of marijuana for his decision to steal two crocodiles and a monkey, local media reported Wednesday. …

Watts said he planned to sell the stolen baby crocodiles and the marmoset but had been unable to find buyers, ABC reported. …

Watts' lawyer told the court his client admitted it was a "dumb stoner" thing to do and had written to Crocodylus Park to apologize. [AP]

Marijuana isn't for everyone, to be sure, but most people are more than a few tokes away from busting into the zoo and stealing crocodiles. I think he's just embarrassed to admit that these are the sorts of things he generally feels inclined to do.

But there's also a revealing subplot here that's worth exploring. Consider that this young man snuck into the zoo high on marijuana, successfully captured two crocodiles and a monkey, and escaped undetected. It's a rather impressive outcome compared to the carnage that ensues when drunken zoo-goers attempt to interact with the animals.

A victim of the recent San Francisco tiger attack was at twice the legal limit when he taunted the tiger until it leapt over the wall and attacked him. A drunken Lithuanian was hospitalized in May after climbing into a Giraffe exhibit and getting trampled. Then there's the intoxicated Chinese man who entered the Panda cage at the Beijing Zoo to "hug" the Panda and ended up biting the bear when it attacked him. Not to mention the drunken Ukrainian who tried to show off for friends by taking on a caged grizzly and was nearly killed, or the corpse found in the grizzly den at the Belgrade Zoo during an annual beer festival.

Clearly, from a harm reduction standpoint, marijuana is the safer choice for zoo-going trouble-makers. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

Teens Who Smoke Marijuana But Not Tobacco Are Different From Other Teen Groups

ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2007) — A Swiss study suggests that teens who use only cannabis appear to function better than those who also use tobacco, and are more socially driven and have no more psychosocial problems than those who abstain from both substances, according to a new report.


Cannabis or marijuana is the illegal drug most commonly used by youth, according to background information in the article. Cannabis use is associated with the use of other substances, including tobacco and illegal drugs. "The gateway theory hypothesizes that the use of legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) is the previous step to cannabis consumption," the authors write. "However, recent research also indicates that cannabis use may precede or be simultaneous to tobacco use and that, in fact, its use may reinforce cigarette smoking or lead to nicotine addiction independently of smoking status."

J. C. Suris, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, analyzed data from a 2002 national survey of Swiss students aged 16 to 20 years. A total of 5,263 students were included in the analysis, including 455 who smoked marijuana only, 1,703 who smoked marijuana and tobacco and 3,105 who abstained from both substances.

"Our findings in this nationally representative sample of adolescents show that 6 percent of them use cannabis without having used tobacco and that one-fifth of current cannabis users (21.1 percent) declare never having used tobacco," the authors write.

The survey also found that, compared with students who used both substances, students who smoked marijuana only were more likely to be male (71.6 percent vs. 59.7 percent), play sports (85.5 percent vs. 66.7 percent), live with both parents (78.2 vs. 68.3) and have good grades (77.5 vs. 66.6). However, they were less likely to have been drunk in the past 30 days (40.5 percent vs. 55 percent), have started using cannabis before the age of 15 years (25.9 percent vs. 37.5 percent), to have smoked marijuana more than once or twice during the previous 30 days (44 percent vs. 66 percent) or to use other illegal drugs (8.4 percent vs. 17.9 percent).

Compared with students who abstained from both substances, marijuana users were more likely to be male (71.6 percent vs. 47.7 percent), to have a good relationship with their friends (87.0 percent vs. 83.2 percent), to be sensation-seeking (37.8 percent vs. 21.8 percent) and to play sports (85.5 percent vs. 76.6 percent), and less likely to have a good relationship with their parents (74.1 percent vs. 82.4 percent).

Although teens who smoke both marijuana and tobacco seem to have more psychosocial problems and thus may be worthy targets for preventive intervention, those who smoke marijuana only also should be monitored closely and counseled. "In any case, and even though they do not seem to have great personal, family, or academic problems, the situation of those adolescents who use cannabis but who declare not using tobacco should not be trivialized," the authors conclude. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

Journal reference: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(11):1042-1047.

This study was supported by a contract from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and the participating cantons.

Who is this Guy?

Check out the blog post below and someone please tell me why this guy is even talking. His post was titled: "Why we Need the Drug War," and can be found here.

"For the longest time, there has been a battle between various political denominations on whether or not to legalize Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. Advocates for legalizing CDS say that we will free up prison space, save money, and cut down on crime if the state sells CDS. I myself believe this reasoning to be faulty and immoral. Apparently John Hawkins of Right Wing News and I are kindred spirits. Mr. Hawkins wrote this magnificent piece on why the “drug war” should continue. This op-ed confirmed many of my own beliefs and responses I have used to debate pro-drug legalization advocates. These advocates often say that drug use is a victimless crime. I strongly disagree with that thought. Drug use destroys brain cells, which of course impairs the ability of the user to do simple everyday things like drive a car, operate heavy machinery, and prepare food. Intravenous needle users, who commonly share needles with other addicts, often contract HIV and AIDS, which of course are deadly diseases. They then spread these sicknesses through exchange of bodily fluids, whether through sexual contact, or through saliva or mucus. To feed their drug habits addicts rob, steal, lie, manipulate, and kill others. I would say that these activities are very harmful to others."

Here is my response which will almost surely not make it past moderation:

I rarely leave messages on other people's blogs. Especially people who like to speak on a subject they seem to have no authority to speak on.

The ideals of your post could be thwarted by a high school stoner. Lets start with your statement about people robbing and stealing to support a drug habit. If drugs were legalized, and I don't entirely support that, there would be no black market. Drugs would be CHEAP. Do people rob and steal for alcohol? Not generally. Point 1 goes to the drug addict with the missing brain cells.

While we are talking about brain cells, did you know that Alcohol kills more brain cells than pot? Also, did you know that the brain cells destroyed by marijuana rejuvenate? Yep, short-term-memory cells indeed rejuvenate. Those killed by alcohol are gone forever. Point 2 goes too the stoner with no brain cells who victimizes himself on a daily basis.

Lastly, the intravenous users you mentioned who spread AIDS and HIV through saliva and mucus. That's fucking hilarious. You couldn't get AIDS from saliva if you drank a bucket of it. Who does your research for you? As for AIDS being a deadly disease, just ask any homosexual you know if he has any friends with AIDS. I guarantee you that none of them are dying. They have the cocktail down now. No one in this country dies from AIDS anymore. Magic Johnson? Tommy Morrison? Oh, and those needles you mentioned that everyone is sharing. If the government used more of its resources to provide needle exchanges for the users and less on incarcerating them, the rate of transfer for infectious disease amongst addicts would drop significantly. I think maybe you ought to just STFU and find a subject you are qualified to blog on. Good day. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

Check out this video: Even cops hate the 'War' on Drugs.

Press Coverage of the Drug War is So Flawed it Actually Encourages People to Sell Marijuana

Written by Scott Morgan of StoptheDrugWar.org

I wrote yesterday about an absurd report in The Philadelphia Inquirer which valued marijuana at over $100 per joint. As I pointed out, boastful law-enforcement sources frequently collaborate with slothful reporters to produce wildly inaccurate news coverage of the drug war.

Obviously, it is just unacceptable to have major news sources reporting frivolous and false information. The laugh-out-loud craziness of implying that a joint costs $100 just shouldn’t have made it to print, and we can all gaze at this spectacle and shake our heads as we recognize that the incompetence which made this report possible is perfectly typical. It explains volumes about the media's neglectful role in permitting drug war indoctrination to permeate our collective consciousness each day. It is 2007, and we shouldn't even be reading celebratory drug bust stories anymore, because each new one is a mere exhibit of the failure of those that came before it.

But, beyond all of that, it stands to reason that such coverage has a remarkable potential to entice individuals to enter the drug trade in the first place. The theoretical deterrent value of reporting on major drug busts and the fate of the perpetrators is surely undermined when profit margins are overstated so dramatically.

If one believes The Philadelphia Inquirer that 16 pounds of high-grade marijuana can be sold for $812,000, and one subsequently stumbles across an opportunity to acquire that amount for the (more likely) price of $50,000-80,000, they might be intrigued. By routinely exaggerating the street value of illegal drugs, the press renders itself an inadvertent advertising campaign for the lucrative business of black market drug distribution.

I've heard, but cannot confirm, that the Canadian press has sought to scale back this exact behavior after a revelation that constantly reporting on multi-million dollar marijuana seizures was having the effect of convincing people that it's easy to make a million dollars growing pot. I have no idea whether this is accurate, but it's certainly amusing to consider the possibility that all of this reckless drug war reporting is simply emboldening prospective marijuana entrepreneurs.

One wonders, therefore, how many more of these drug bust press conferences our intrepid journalists are willing to snooze their way through before becoming overcome with déjà vu and finding themselves compelled by the distant call of journalistic integrity to do anything other than cut and paste the predictable pontifications of the proud pot police into the morning paper. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

The Only Place in America You can Legally Try to Give a Cop in Your Doorway a Contact High

Link to article's origin.

Police can't enter a home without a warrant just because they see someone inside smoking marijuana, a state appeals court ruled Friday.

In overturning a Pacifica man's conviction, the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco said officers may enter someone's home to preserve evidence of a crime - but only if the crime is punishable by jail or prison.

Under a 1975 California law, the court noted, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor carrying a fine of as much as $100, with no jail time even for a repeat offense. That means police who see someone smoking can enter only if they have the resident's permission or a warrant from a judge, the court said.

The case dated from March 2005, when Pacifica officers came to an apartment where loud noises had been reported, smelled marijuana as they approached, and looked through an opening in the window blinds to see someone smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette among a group of people.

Over the objections of John Hua, who lived at the apartment, police entered and found two marijuana cigarettes in the living room, 46 marijuana plants in a bedroom and an illegal cane sword on a bookshelf, the court said. After a San Mateo County judge upheld the search, Hua pleaded no contest to cultivating marijuana and possession of the cane sword and served a 60-day jail sentence, his lawyer said.

In defense of the search, prosecutors argued that police had reason to believe there was more than an ounce of marijuana elsewhere in the apartment - enough to subject Hua to a possible one-year jail sentence - and that Hua or others might be committing felonies by handing marijuana cigarettes to each other.

The court said the first argument was based on "mere conjecture" and the second was a misinterpretation of the law, which prescribes the same maximum $100 fine for giving away a marijuana cigarette as for smoking it. Justice Mark Simons wrote the 3-0 ruling.

The court recognized that "California's law treats possession of marijuana as the least serious crime," said Hua's lawyer, Gordon Brownell.

As West Coast coordinator for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Brownell recalled, he drafted the 1975 marijuana law for then-state Sen. George Moscone, the San Francisco Democrat who later became the city's mayor and was assassinated in 1978. The law was signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, now the state attorney general and head of the office arguing to uphold Hua's conviction.

Deputy Attorney General Ronald Niver said he would recommend appealing the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

"It's difficult to accept the proposition that if you see marijuana in one room, you cannot draw the inference that there's marijuana in another room," he said. "It's like saying that if you see the streets are wet, you can't infer that it's raining." (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

The Truth About Driving When You're High

Written by Scott Morgan of StoptheDrugWar.org

Concerns about stoned drivers careening across our nation's highways are frequently cited as a justification for the continued criminalization of marijuana. Given the massive casualties associated with drunk driving, it's easy to understand how the specter of increased roadside fatalities can be effective in reinforcing negative attitudes about marijuana. However, a new report reveals that, while stoned driving isn't smart, it's hardly the death sentence some would have us believe.

NORML's Paul Armentano has prepared a scientific review of over a dozen studies evaluating marijuana's effect on psychomotor skills and the risks posed by marijuana intoxication behind the wheel. Armentano finds that marijuana impairment is generally "subtle and short-lived," falling far short of the threats posed by drunk driving.

Although acute cannabis intoxication following smoking has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment is seldom severe or long lasting. In closed course and driving simulator studies, marijuana’s acute effects on psychomotor performance include minor impairments in tracking (eye movement control) and reaction time, as well as variation in lateral positioning, headway (drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them), and speed (drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation). In general, these variations in driving behavior are noticeably less consistent or pronounced than the impairments exhibited by subjects under the influence of alcohol. Also, unlike subjects impaired by alcohol, individuals under the influence of cannabis tend to be aware of their impairment and try to compensate for it accordingly, either by driving more cautiously or by expressing an unwillingness to drive altogether. [see original for citations]

Of course, the point here isn’t that one should get stoned and cruise the strip blasting Led Zeppelin. But this is information one would want if they were trying to create a smart marijuana policy as opposed to the disgraceful mess of legislative lunacy currently passing for marijuana law in America.

Whenever someone claims that marijuana makes you sick or crazy; that it will cause you to crash your car, kill your comrades, or catastrophically co-opt your common sense, just look for the corpses. Where are they? I've looked high and low, but I can't find the disastrous consequences of marijuana use apparent anywhere other than the Drug Czar's predictably propagandized press releases.

But to be fair, there are two horrible things about marijuana that everyone should be mindful of and they are as follows: 1) the smell attracts cops, nosy neighbors, and mooches and 2) the stuff remains detectable in your system for up to a month, thereby enabling various authorities to become needlessly aware of your activities.

If not for these two unfortunate conditions, the marijuana war wouldn't even begin to work, and the blockheads who've been bothering to fight it would've wandered off decades ago. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

Clarifying the Recent Study Comparing Tobacco and Cannabis Smoke

A few comments responding to this news item that are apparent reading the study:

1) Investigators reported that mainstream marijuana smoke contained lower levels of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cancer causing agents) compared to tobacco.

2) Nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, arsenic, and lead were not present in marijuana smoke.

3) HCN forms from protein at temperatures above 700 degrees C, and would likely be reduced or eliminated by vaporization.

4) Clinical trials have shown that vaporization -- whereby marijuana is heated to a temperature where active cannabis vapors form, but below the point of combustion -- can greatly reduce or eliminate the presence of many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Most recently, investigators at San Francisco General Hospital reported in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics that the "vaporization of marijuana does not result in exposure to combustion gases, ... and is preferred by most subjects compared to marijuana cigarette." A previous clinical trial published in 2006 in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences reported that vaporization is "safe and effective" cannabinoid delivery system that "avoid[s] the respiratory disadvantages of smoking.²

5) The higher presence of ammonia, HCN, and aromatic amines (nitrogen-related chemicals) in marijuana were likely all due to the fact that Prairie Plant Systems cultivated the pot used in the trial with a high nitrate fertilizer. (By contrast, the tobacco used in the study was not treated with a similar fertilizer.) I know that in the past Philippe Lucas/The VICS has been outspoken in his criticism of Prairie Plant Systems grow techniques, and I'd imagine that these latest findings will only add fuel to his fire. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

From: Clarifying recent reports comparing marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke : Indybay

Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Malaysia Blows and So Do You

A Malaysian man by the name of Razali Ahmad, a courier company clerk and first time offender, was sentenced to death for possession of less than two pounds of marijuana. This is considered trafficking in Malaysia and death by gallows is the mandatory sentence.

While I'll be sure to stay the fuck away from such a country, this event raises a few questions about the ongoing drug war, many of them specific to America.

The most obvious issue is that if being hung for getting high doesn't deter someone from either the trade or use of drugs, then what will? The Drug War is an obvious hoax, fascist-like in its focus on non-white offenders, and a pathetic left-over of two shit-head presidents. Nothing is going to stop people from victimizing themselves; if you can even refer to drug use as that.

If you are an advocate of the War on Drugs and are finding solace in the idea that America hasn't yet incorporated capital punishment for drug offenders and instead warehouses their ever-multiplying numbers, read the next paragraph.

In Texas alone, 120 murderers have been sentenced to probation since 2000. We like to refer to that as "misdemeanor murder". On the other hand, George Mortarano, a first time offender, was sentenced to life without parole for 2,600 pounds of marijuana. He has been incarcerated since 1982, giving him the honorary title of "Longest Serving Non-Violent Federal Offender In United States History". An American president given to grant clemency in such cases would be very refreshing, but I wont be holding my breath. If his niece is, I hope her lung capacity is better than mine. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)

History Channel Special on Drug War Hits Home. A Must See for Squares!

In America, more than half a million people a year are arrested for some form of marijuana possession. Half of the people currently in the federal prison system are there for some form of drug possession. This striking trend, a trend whose origins we can attribute to President Nixon's overzealous war on drugs campaign, has slowly began to gain recognition as an economically draining and futile effort.

With eleven states having passed some form of legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, it is now up to the federal government to recognize this plentiful natural resource's multitude of societal applications. The idea of marijuana being more dangerous than alcohol is a complete farce. Alcohol being legal while marijuana is illegal is pure hypocrisy. Much of marijuana's mystique can be attributed to the movie Reefer Madness and a murderer named Victor Licata. Victor, while supposedly stoned, dismembered his entire family with an ax as they slept. Exactly the first activity that comes to mind when I have my morning bake.

This event occurred in 1933 and the first Commissioner of the Narcotics Bureau, Harry Jacob Anslinger, used the story as a springboard for his personal assault on recreational drugs. Victor Licata had reported having a terrible dream in which people were trying to "hack off" his arms. It would later be discovered that Victor was schizophrenic and that marijuana had no contribution to his acts. Anslinger failed to report this to Congress however. Imagine that.

This information is available all over the internet and more people, non-smokers especially, need to be informed. Our tax-dollars are being wasted against more than one fictitious threat. Billions of dollars a year could be saved simply by decriminalizing marijuana. Legalize it, tax it if you have to, but just quit demonizing its use. Fundamental America is drowning in its own ignorance and it wont be long before they too can make this realization: Pot-heads don't belong in prison while child-molesters and rapists run rampant. The fact that people who commit sex-crimes are required by law to register is a testament to their inhumanity, yet we turn them away from prisons due to overcrowding, sentencing them to probation instead.

By exonerating stoners and decriminalizing marijuana, America would be simultaneously opening the possibility to make money off of an already well established consumer base, while removing a huge tax burden from both federal and state governments, and freeing space our prison system desperately needs to lock away those who truly are a threat to society's innocents. I don't know about you, but I'm more worried about my son being snatched from his bus stop than being offered a joint. (Click here to subscribe to my feed!)