Oaksterdam's Richard Lee: Marijuana Legalization Is "Dead" in California -- For Now

Categories: Marijuana
800px-Richard_lee_at_intche10.JPG
Richard Lee says it's all over -- for now
Last year's Proposition 19 was quite a wild ride, but marijuana legalization in California is over. 

That's according to Richard Lee, the Oaksterdam University founder and chief sponsor of Prop. 19, which won its place on Californians' November 2010 ballot only after Lee spent his $1.5 million life savings on the requisite signature drive.

Following Prop 19's historic defeat -- the legalization ballot measure lost 54 percent to 46 percent, but won more votes than gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman did -- backers, including Lee, promised they'd be back in 2012 with a successor measure. But the fundraising just hasn't been there, Lee said Saturday at the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo in downtown Oakland, held a few blocks away from the Oaksterdam campus.

That means the effort to legalize marijuana in California has stalled out.

"It's pretty much dead," Lee told SF Weekly, speaking of the efforts by the "new Prop. 19 committee," the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, to put a successor initiative on the November 2012 ballot. "The funders didn't come through."

Lee has publicly stated before that he'd be unable to fund Prop. 19's successor: The $1.5 million "was all my money," he repeated Saturday (though since it was spent before the IRS could grab it, it's all good). And others have speculated that a legalization measure in Colorado, gathering signatures and momentum for November 2012 in that state, where running a statewide campaign is much easier and cheaper than in California, would soak up limited resources.

But according to Lee, the major backers of Prop. 19 -- which included George Soros, several "Facebook billionaires," Lee said, and other well-heeled philanthropists -- have not committed to shelling out the necessary cash this time around. And indeed, no major contributions for any cannabis measure are on file at the Secretary of State.

"There was a draft," Lee told SF Weekly. "But the funders didn't come through."

Representatives from the "new Prop. 19" committee, tasked with creating a successor ballot measure, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Lee's pronouncement. But when responding to earlier rumors in August, both Dale Sky Jones, chairwoman of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform (CCPR), and board member Dan Rush, a union organizer with UFCW Local 5, which has begun organizing medical cannabis workers, said it was still going full speed ahead for a new legalization measure.

In particular, the backers of "Repeal Cannabis Prohibition," which was submitted to the ballot last month, said that there had been a disagreement between the Drug Policy Alliance, through which much of Prop. 19's funding flowed last year, and the CCPR over how best to proceed in California. That prompted the "Repeal Cannabis Prohibition" backers to submit their own measure, which is currently competing with another measure, "Tax Marijuana Like Wine," for financial backing and for signatures.

When reached in August, Rush dismissed the rumors. "I don't know who's been blowing smoke up your ass," he declared, when told that rumors of his committee's demise were swirling. "But there's going to be a [new Prop. 19]."

And perhaps there will. But it may have to wait until 2016.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly

My Voice Nation Help
39 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
miami beach apartments
miami beach apartments

 Its really great to make a visit to this kind of post, it seems to be very much interesting as well as very much informative too.

malcolmkyle
malcolmkyle

Due to corporate greed and individual bigotry, we have accelerated towards a situation where all the usual peaceful and democratic methods needed to reverse the acute damage done by prohibition have become a near impossibility. Such a political impasse coupled with great economic tribulation is precisely that which, throughout history, has invariably ignited violent revolution.

In order to avert what will surely be a far more violent situation than we are all presently experiencing, there appears to be just one last avenue left to us - Jury Nullification. 

Jury Nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment.  All non-violent drug offenders, be they users, dealers or importers, fall into this category. If you believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy, then you don’t have to help to apply it. Under the Constitution, when it comes to acquittals, you, the juror, have the last word!

The idea that jurors should judge the law, as well as the facts, is a proud and vital component of American history. 

The most shining example of Jury Nullification occurred during the shameful period in US history when slavery was legal. People who helped slaves escape were committing a federal crime - violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Jurors would often acquit, even when the defendants admitted their guilt. Legal historians credit these cases with advancing the abolition of slavery.

No amount of money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safer; only an end to prohibition can do that. How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution? - When called for Jury Service concerning any non-violent prohibition-related offense, it is your moral and civic duty to VOTE TO ACQUIT!

Enlightenment Values
Enlightenment Values

Malcolm, you're 100% right, a true leveller, a genius among simpletons.  Jury nullification is the answer!

ZZardozz
ZZardozz

 To say that cannabis legalization is dead in California is very disingenuous.  Richard Lee knows full well that there are two bills registered with the state, and they are both better than the one his organization wrote.  I voted for 19, but I had to hold my nose to do it.  These two initiatives are much better than Prop. 19 was. 

Don Ritschard
Don Ritschard

It i svery sad indeed that it has come to this. It is very obvious to me that when they decided to end the prohibition on alcohol it was because the gov't had lost more than they had gained in that war. Why because the people didn't care anymore they were willing to fight the damn controlling gov't. they picked up thier guns and they took back thier freedom and won. Next time you read of a raid where they and I am refering to the (DEA and the ATF and the FBI and the CIA and whatever other overfunded gov't agency that decides they have the right to tell us as AMERICANS how to live) have ripped from the earth a life saving plant I hope you start getting MAD. I hope you start feeling the pain that our life giving ball of dirt feels while these corperate fat ass bastards keep raping our earth for fuels and chemicals to pad thier already bulging bank accts. We are not going to win a war on drugs by paying another bunch of fatass lawyers a ton of money for BS legislation and hopefully it will make it to the ballot. Wake up peopple and understand your votes don't count for nothing . Do you really think that these good for nothing politicians are going to leave the grooming of the most powerful nation in the world to a bunch of well to be nice civilians, I have a feeling they really refer to us as peasants or the dummies.Anybody that thinks that anything gained in this country is going to be easy and nonviolent is well just plain ignorant. In this country you want a freedom you have to fight like hell for it so lets stop pussyfooting around and take it up a notch next time you see one of these corperate enforcement arms picking on someone for doing what should be thier right step up and put a stop to it. Make it known that we willl no longer be punished like little kids because some oil company is making 9 billion dollars a quarter in profit killing our planet. Hit them in the wallets stop driving your car to go 2 blocks to the store for a pack of cigarettes. Stop putting your money in banks, stop giving your money to big mouthed preachers that tell you are full of sin and need to repent. Most of all stop voting to prove a point you will see that the Gov't. will just lie and tell you that you voted in someone that noone voted for because thats the next piece in thier puzzle for world domination. Its time to grow a pair people. If you want it you'll have to fight for it because in this nation they don't let you do anything you want without a good fight.

primordialstu
primordialstu

They need to raise money... have they considered crowd-sourcing?

Sherri
Sherri

The MJ issue is purely fear based. The fear is that "possibly" regulation will upset their lives more due to drug dealers etc. Americans are the least responsible citizens I have ever seen.

They commonly put themselves in the hands of corrupt politicians and leaders by giving away their salaries and their vote power. They refuse to participate in the common growth of their communities due to elitism and racism. Then they complain when nothing is working.

When an issue like MJ comes up it seems that the common train of thought is to read two recent MJ articles and dismiss them. This is because people link their limited MJ knowledge and experience to criminal or unacceptable economic,political, or social behaviors to MJ. This way they feel never have to visit the issue again.

All the while people (and their kids) are being forced into more and more unhealthy lifestyles dictated by politicians and pharma companies. People will gleefully and en-masse destroy their bodies with "accepted"  chemical meds because they are too lazy to commit to doing the research and work to properly maintain themselves. On the other side those that "cleanly" live without MJ can be so narrow minded in their "clean living" lifestyle that they don't realize that they are spiritually limited.

People will abuse mayonnaise or wheat germ if given the chance. Perhaps MJ needs more than a cursory: "It worries me for what problems it may possibly cause rather than noticing its clear economic and social benefits."

People are so filled with fear (or self-righteousness) right now they can't initiate, commit to, or change a single positive societal advancement-much less beneficial breakthroughs.

People are supposed to be adults with care and concern for their communities and lives. The only things I hear in this argument are:

It'll take money from ME (economically)!I don't WANT to learn about new things-I might have to think and then act.It MIGHT cause social unrest. (As if American lack of attention hasn't already contributed to a full social collapse.)

Wake up people. MJ can help you in every possible way.

Zach Fluxcapacitor
Zach Fluxcapacitor

For forty years our government has LIED to us about marijuana (remember “stoners in the mist” and the stupid talking dogs?). They’ve made us pay billions every year for their repugnant prohibition and arrested 800,000 people every year for doing nothing more sinister than possessing dried cannabis flowers. ENOUGH!!Do we want drug dealers selling marijuana to kids or do we want supermarkets selling marijuana to adults? There are NO other options. If you love your child call your legislator.

Michael Novak
Michael Novak

its like eventually the prisons will be safer than the public would be because all the harmful prisoners will be squeezed out do to over stuffing them with jolly pot tokers. or maybe the prisons will just pop like water ballons and all the prisoner will spray out like water.

urallinsane
urallinsane

Time to wake up and see our indocrinated insanity.  IT'S A PLANT!  I know that is an obvious statment, but not obvious enough for us to stop making criminals of people in posession of a PLANT!   "Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed.Soverignty over one's own thoughts is so rare a condition anymore.  I am amazed at this planet and the hilarious indoctrinations and fears of it's inhabitants. Truly, what grown person (especially claming to be Christian) would dare to think that it is thier right to take such simple choices from other grown people.  Shame on all you PAROTS AND SHEEP! 

concernedparentandtaxpayer
concernedparentandtaxpayer

Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them to do unto us. None of us would want our child thrown in jail with the sexual predators over marijuana. None of us would want to see an older family member’s home confiscated and sold by the police for growing a couple of marijuana plants for their aches and pains. It’s time to stop putting our own family members in jail over marijuana.   If ordinary Americans could grow a little marijuana in their own back yards, it would be about as valuable as home-grown tomatoes. Let's put the criminals out of business and get them out of our neighborhoods. Let's let ordinary Americans grow a little marijuana in their own back yards.

BlackKnight
BlackKnight

Sexual predators don't do jail time.

Mystif
Mystif

The coach of camden county, NJ is still serving his 45 year sentence in prison... he will likely die there. While accused of molesting a great deal of young girls - on the team he coached - in the media, the actual accusation and eventual conviction was for transmission of child porn across state lines and the illicit "relationship" with one girl on his team.

Mystif
Mystif

Jesus would not put anyone in prison... not even sex offenders. Even more "egregious" - Jesus would forgive them.

Still want to use Jesus as the basis of your argument?

Better still - since you and I are not Jesus - why not treat convicted drug dealers like convicted sex offenders?

You titled yourself as an concerned parent... Are you? I'll bet you and countless others you know agree that sex offender info should be on the Internet for all to see, regardless of the reality regarding "stranger crimes" or the individual's crimes. (Blanket statements abound these days.)

But none of you are standing up and demanding this treatment with regards to drug dealers... Why not? Is there some reason that selling drugs to your child is the lesser evil? How many children do you think a sex offender harms in a day / how many children do you think drug dealers sell to in a day? You could argue that the harm from drugs is not as great, but it is also much more widespread.

I for one, think it would be great if I knew where the drug dealers who sold to children live.

I have heard again and again about how important it is to protect our children from those people who would want to harm them. I AGREE! So why did we start and STOP with sex offenders? There are other dangers out there, drug dealers quality as one of them.

Enlightenment Values
Enlightenment Values

Only a goddamned idiot compares a "malum in se" crime with causation (injury and intent) to a "malum prohibitum" or "victimless crime" that lacks causation.  Of course, all prohibitionists are goddamned idiots, so it makes perfect sense.  Only an idiot could favor a drug war that denies property rights, the wellspring of the industrial revolution, and America's high standard of living experienced between 1870-1920. Prohibitionism is the hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships, and has no place in a free country.

malcolmkyle
malcolmkyle

1919-1933 was a bloody era of violence and killings that started to decline only when the Volstead Act was finally repealed.

Why was it ever enacted? Because the first feminist movement in the United States, the Women's Temperance Union, bolstered by church and other social engineering movements argued correctly that alcohol was extremely addictive and led to family distress, unemployment and violence against women and children.

In 1923 the executive council of the American Federation of Labor issued anaddress to the American people after an exhaustive investigation of the effects of the Volstead Act. It was shown by this investigation that there had been–––

A general disregard of the law among all classes of people, including those who made the law.

Creation of thousands of moonshiners among both country and city dwellers.

The creation of an army of bootleggers.

An amazing increase in the traffic in poisons and deadly concoctions and drugs.

An increased rate of insanity, blindness, and crime among the users of these concoctions and drugs.

Increase in taxes to city, State, and National Government amounting to approximately $1,000,000,000 per year.

Source: THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS April 5 to 24, 1926  

Since prohibition was repealed, there have still been problems with alcohol addiction along with associated health issues, but the vast majority of people's drinking has not led to the downfall of society. If we can handle the regulation of alcohol, one of the most powerful, addictive and dangerous of drugs, we can handle just about anything, and that includes cocaine and amphetamines.

And everything is readily available right now to all of us anyway. Drugs of all varieties are cheap and plentiful, and the basic economics of drug dealing remain: Take one dealer off the street, and another takes his place. Something that simply doesn't happen for other more real crimes, such as murder, embezzlement or burglary.

Historically, the prohibition of any mind altering substance has never succeeded in providing what is needed, which is a safer environment for the users, the addicts, their families and society at large. It always has, and always will, spawn far worse conditions than those it claims to be able to alleviate.

malcolmkyle
malcolmkyle

1919-1933 was a bloody era of violence and killings that started to decline only when the Volstead Act was finally repealed.

Why was it ever enacted? Because the first feminist movement in the United States, the Women's Temperance Union, bolstered by church and other social engineering movements argued correctly that alcohol was extremely addictive and led to family distress, unemployment and violence against women and children.

In 1923 the executive council of the American Federation of Labor issued an address to the American people after an exhaustive investigation of the effects of the Volstead Act. It was shown by this investigation that there had been–––

A general disregard of the law among all classes of people, including those who made the law.

Creation of thousands of moonshiners among both country and city dwellers.

The creation of an army of bootleggers.

An amazing increase in the traffic in poisons and deadly concoctions and drugs.

An increased rate of insanity, blindness, and crime among the users of these concoctions and drugs.

Increase in taxes to city, State, and National Government amounting to approximately $1,000,000,000 per year.

Source: THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS April 5 to 24, 1926  

http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...

Since prohibition was repealed, there have still been problems with alcohol addiction along with associated health issues, but the vast majority of people's drinking has not led to the downfall of society. If we can handle the regulation of alcohol, one of the most powerful, addictive and dangerous of drugs, we can handle just about anything, and that includes cocaine and amphetamines.

And everything is readily available right now to all of us anyway. Drugs of all varieties are cheap and plentiful, and the basic economics of drug dealing remain: Take one dealer off the street, and another takes his place. Something that simply doesn't happen for other more real crimes, such as murder, embezzlement or burglary.

Historically, the prohibition of any mind altering substance has never succeeded in providing what is needed, which is a safer environment for the users, the addicts, their families and society at large. It always has, and always will, spawn far worse conditions than those it claims to be able to alleviate.

Bill Griggs
Bill Griggs

Are you talking about drug dealers or drug dealers who sell to children?  In your mind do all drug dealers sell to children? 

I've been working in the criminal justice system for a lot of years and have seen countless drug cases come through the courts.  I have prosecuted and defended.  I've been on a drug court committee.  I've handled literally thousands of pounds worth of drug cases, from little piddly possession cases to major drug trafficking cases. What I've seen in my experience is that the vast majority of all drug dealing cases that come through the courts involve small timers, transactions for very small amounts of drugs.  The vast majority involve the use of "confidential informants" who are in most cases people who got arrested who are out setting people up to get themselves out of trouble. These people don't go after big time scary dealers, they tend to go after people they believe are least likely to come after them. Usually these aren't professional drug dealers who make their living selling drugs, and often they are just fellow party people who will help out someone they consider a friend, especially if they can get high for free in the process.

I sat in on part of a trial a while back in a small town in the South.  I watched a decorated Vietnam veteran with a clean record get 30 years for selling half a gram of meth to a thirty something year old confidential informant, who like almost all the others was just trying to get herself out of trouble.  The defense showed that this woman had called this man 9 times trying to get him to sell her a little dope.  He claimed that he was not a drug dealer but was just selling her some of his stash because she just kept calling him and he finally gave in.  There was no evidence of other drug transactions that came in, just the one.

I've dealt with a lot of confidential informants.  When I worked as a public defender I'd usually have several clients at any given time who were out setting people up so they could get out of trouble or at least avoid prison. I didn't like it and wasn't actively involved with what they were doing, but if they wanted to do it they had a right to do it and I would have to help them resolve their cases.  Where I was the policy was basically, "bust three, go free." They'd be called on to go out and make three buys.  I'd have clients telling me they don't even know three drug dealers. Also it was a small town and people would know they'd been busted so if they knew a drug dealer or two odds are this person knew these people had been busted and were liable to be working for the cops.  I know for a fact that often these people were not going after real drug dealers.  They were just looking for fellow drug users who they could talk into helping them get drugs. Often the police reports would talk about things like how the "dealer" would have to leave his home after the CI went in with money and would later come back with the tiny amount of drugs, so odds are he was having to go out and buy that gram or half a gram of dope or whatever it was because he wasn't really a drug dealer and didn't keep drugs around to sell. There are no stores where you can buy these drugs. Unless you live where there are open air drug markets you pretty much have to know a dealer to get drugs or know people who know dealers.  Most every drug user who has used drugs for any length of time has been asked to help a fellow drug user find drugs and most will end up doing that because that's how they get their drugs a lot of the time.  That's how it works in the black market.

Who sells drugs to kids?  Usually it's other kids who get the drugs from older siblings or older friends. Most 30 year old drug users aren't selling drugs to 15 year old kids.  The older drug user who will help fellow drug users is usually dealing with his peers around his own age, as is the older small time dealer who buys small wholesale amounts and sells small retail amounts to end users who are generally going to be friends around his age. In most cases, except where you have street corner drug dealers selling to strangers, people who sell drugs only sell to people they know and trust.  The 15 year old buys his dope from his 18 year old brother who buys it from a 21 year old drug dealer, or he buys it from his 15 year old friend who gets it from his older brother or whatever.  The drugs filter their way down to kids typically.  The majority of the 30 year old small time drug dealers selling end user amounts rather than larger wholesale amounts have nothing to do with young teens getting drugs. They're just dopers who sell dope to other dopers around their age.

You talked about sex offenders and drug dealers being treated the same.  Child molesters ought to be locked up a long long time.  When we lock up a child molester for a long time odds are we keep him from molesting several children.  If we lock a career thief up for ten years, we probably prevent hundreds of thefts from ever happening. How many drug transactions do we prevent if we lock a small time drug dealer up for 10 year?  Most likely none, not one. Anyone who would have bought from him will just buy from someone else.  Drug dealers are a dime a dozen, especially when you consider that most regular drug users will commit drug delivery offenses just helping out friends they'd expect to do the same for them if they were looking and having difficulty finding drugs.  You might have one dealer and sometimes he's out, so you call your drug using friends.  That's just the way it works.

It is very true that drug addicts commit a lot of thefts and other crimes to get drugs.  It almost makes sense to really go after the drug dealers then because if there were no drugs we wouldn't have all these drug addicts out there stealing so much. We wouldn't have anyone selling drugs to kids either.  We wouldn't have all the violence associated with the drug trade. The problem is that it just doesn't work out that way. There is just too much demand for drugs, too much money to be made and too many people willing to take the risks and sell the drugs.  We're packing our prisons with these low level drug offenders, locking a lot of them up on ridiculously long sentences, and it isn't making drugs less available or too expensive to buy. We get much more bang for our buck locking up career thieves for a long time than piddly little small time drug dealers.  Our prisons are full and we're having to let people out early, but still dopers who sell retail amounts of dope to other dopers around their age are generally getting way longer sentences than career thieves and burglars and all these others who are really a much bigger threat to society when you consider the fact that no one will commit their thefts for them while they are locked up.

We need to start using more sense in the way we handle drug delivery cases. If we know someone is selling drugs to kids, we need to go after that guy hard. We should go after the big suppliers hard too, but the reality is that the vast majority who end up in court on drug delivery charges aren't big time drug dealers.  The vast majority aren't people who sell dope to kids.  The vast majority aren't "pushers" pushing drugs on people who have never tried drugs and aren't looking for drugs.  The vast majority aren't gun toting gang banging murderous thugs.  

We should not assume that every person charged with delivery of a small amount of drugs has been selling drugs to kids though, because only a small minority do that.  We should not assume that everyone charged with selling a small amount of drugs has been out there pushing these drugs on people, trying to get them hooked so they'll come back and do more business with them, because that really rarely happens.  Usually when people first try drugs they don't get those drugs from dealers. Their friends share the drugs with them. Dealers are usually only selling to people they know who come to them asking for drugs.  We should not assume that every person caught selling a small amount of drugs is some kind of major drug dealer making a killing off of other people's misery, because the real fact of the matter is that an awful lot of the people arrested for this aren't even real drug dealers. They're just drug users, dopers who will help other dopers get dope. If they were all kingpins then we wouldn't see 90% of them wouldn't be represented by public defenders and most of the rest being represented by lawyers their parents or other family hired for them.   

These false stereotypes and misconceptions we have about what really goes on in the drug trade lead to bad policy, a lot of money wasted and prisons so full of low level drug offenders that we can't lock up thieves and other criminals who really are causing a lot of harm.

Enlightenment Values
Enlightenment Values

BlackKnight, you're a part of the problem of fascism.  I don't know why, but the government brainwashing clearly worked on you.  Maybe it's because you're a conformist idiot. 

Only a goddamned idiot compares a "malum in se" crime with causation (injury and intent) to a "malum prohibitum" victimless crime.  Of course, all prohibitionists are goddamned idiots, so it makes perfect sense.  Only an idiot could favor a drug war that denies property rights, the wellspring of the industrial revolution, and America's high standard of living experienced between 1870-1920. Prohibitionism is the hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships, and has no place in a free country.

Mystif
Mystif

What an insightful response. I have never been presented with this level of insight into the drug trade before. Thanks for the info. Really.

Up until now I really have had little beyond the stereotypical drivel the public is exposed to every time we turn on the TV.

Beyond that I have only known of two drug dealers personally. They were big, by your definition. They were the ones who would keep things like several large bricks of whatever on the kitchen table. I was quite shocked by the whole thing. I just added these experiences to the media hype and thought that this was how it was for "normal" dealer. It was my first and last time at these addresses. (You can learn a lot hanging out with construction workers after hours.)

These guys would have looked like small time from the outside. The apartments were not nice, the cars were not new. But to me, seeing large stacks of MJ bricks in the place - along with who knows what else - they fit the media hype stereotype.

So when I think about drug dealers it is people like the ones I met that I think of first. And, while they did not sell to minors while I was there, at one of the houses a guy who looked too young to be 18 did stop by to pick some up - a small quantity, to be sure - no money was exchanged between them in front of me. The rest of the deals at both places were with obvious adults.

Even so, could there not be a cap on who can pay fines and bail out? Seem like there could be laws by now that would set limits. For example, if the people at either of these places were caught they would have had enough "product" in their possession that they could qualify as a big-time dealer, as opposed to a small-time dealer. Crossing a line like this could mean that Bail and Fines are off the table. Done with the proper rational in both directions fewer petty dealers/users would be in jail/prison, making room for the more serious offenders.

You said, "We should not assume that every person charged with delivery of a small amount of drugs has been selling drugs to kids though, because only a small minority do that." I agree with this statement, and I am sorry if I mislead you into thinking that I imagine that a majority of dealers are selling to kids. But, like you, I feel that the ones that are - petty or big-time - need to be dealt with.

You also said, "When we lock up a child molester for a long time odds are we keep him from molesting several children." On this I agree, but only to a point. The myths about sex offending behavior abound rampantly these days, and there are offenders who exhibit little to no self control. However, the government knows full well that the money being spent, right now, does little to nothing to reduce the number of sexual offenses. Consider the simple fact that over 80% of convicted are first time offenders, and the vast majority of these crimes were committed against someone they knew - typically family members. Since the laws focus primarily on stranger offenses and repeat offenders and the study suggests that the majority of sex offenses are committed by someone known to the victim and that intro-familial offenders have a re-offense rate of less than 17% they tend to miss the mark - much like drug crime laws.

Take a peak at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/conte... - on page 1 (7 of 49) we find the following:

"Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, releasedsex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. Therate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of262,420)."

It comes as no surprise that a sex offender (SO) is more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime than non-sex offending offenders (NSO) - an SO only requires one additional offense to be sexually recidivist, while an NSO would need two sexually motivated arrests to qualify.

5.3% of the SOs in the study were rearrested for a sex crime as opposed to 1.3% of the NSOs. This is the basis for many of the sex crime laws - to reduce that 5.3%. In my opinion this same philosophy is applied to reducing the number of drug dealers on the streets.

Now, because I am much more versed in the field of sexual offenses, I would like to peal back the layers on the numbers.

Simply put, during the study NSOs commited 9,691 sex offenses... but SOs only committed 517 - which number should be of greater concern? This means that SOs were responsible for 20% new offenses tracked during the study. ( (9691 + 517) / 517) This also reveals something striking that the Gov and Media seem to ignore - known SOs are NOT responsible for a large number of sex offenses. As a matter of fact, you would potentially reduce sex crimes more by treating NSOs like SOs, and the reverse - I am not advocating this, of course.

Add to the above that the 20% above is only from among the known felons in the study. Add first time offenders during this time period and SOs are responsible for about 2~5% of sex crime arrests.

Millions are spent on these laws every year and if it was 100% effective the sex crime rate would drop less than 10%.  Hardly a success.

So what do these laws accomplish? What they demonstrate is that simply by stating SOs are more likely to re-offend all kinds of ineffective laws were put in place. It is simply a play on the natural fears of those who want to protect their families. This becomes the tool to establish all kinds of laws which are only there to make someone look good enough in the eyes of the public to get re-elected. And to whittle away at the few remaining freedoms.

Why am talking about all of this? Because the current drug laws are just as effective. A whole lot of money is spent to prevent/reduce drug crimes. But there has been no significant reduction in drug crimes, only an increase in the number of people locked up or with records.

Recently Salvia Davinorum has become the newest enemy of the US, because one child died. If we outlawed everything from which one individual died then oxygen and sunlight would have to go on that very long list of dangerous things.

Still, I stand by my original assertion. If/when a drug dealer does sell to kids - no matter how rare - why do we not take extra steps to protect our children from them, like we would for crimes like sex crimes?

The bigger question is, we don't do it, no-one even suggests doing it... Why not?  I believe the answer is that we already know that it is very expensive and that it does not work. That was the reason for asking the question earlier. I was looking to see if people think such things are worth the cost. I quite firmly believe that we should be protecting our children, as best we can. I also believe that our current methods are irrational and ineffective, and a huge waste of money.

We need to move away from creating new laws based on what we feel and start to evaluate the problems rationally again.

BlackKnight
BlackKnight

Sure sounds like your part of the problem, but then again meth all speed has 0 medical benefits. I feel bad for the Vet you spoke of but that drug is so dangerous maybe you did him a favor. There's way to much faith in the DEA which is the main problem. Their hiring practices are beyond criminal. Recruiting usually strait out of Fed prisons. Often they hire men serving life for killing their superior officer. MJ is safer then any poison big pharma has to offer. You have one thing right kingpins don't do time, I've seen over 20 big league dealers go free from the DEA because they pay the fine ( usually 10 K to 30 K CASH ). I hope to God you don't get whats coming to you for jailing anyone for weed. You seem like a very upstanding guy and maybe just lost your way or liked having a Job over Justice.

malcolmkyle
malcolmkyle

When was the last time dangerous gangs made a fortune and gained considerable power by selling alcohol?

Mystif
Mystif

Prohibition: Lots of arrests, lots of deaths, lots of crimes committed on both sides of the law - as each side sought to gain control. The solution to the problem was the repeal of the prohibition laws.

The Feds still provide MJ cigarettes to a select few, as a result of a study many years ago. Not one person in the study died from using MJ, many of them lived longer than expected BECAUSE of the MJ use.

Can anyone make this claim about tobacco?

Does that mean it should be legalized? Maybe. Personally, I have never used MJ. But I have trouble seeing the harm. Maybe the solution could be something like having a legal avenue for purchasing, where the governments get their precious tax money and Dealers are dealt with harshly?

I really do not see the point of imprisoning user after user while the dealers have the means (power/influence/money) to skate and do no time.

BlackKnight
BlackKnight

Two people in history have died from cannabis toxicity, 1 in britain about 4 or 5 years ago and the other almost 2,000 years ago. Not a leg to stand on! Anyone against it being legal is a monster and loves giving illegal gangs Billions of dollars per year. Oh thats right cia atf WH they are bed buddies with those gangs(Fast& Furious) Well my friends I'm Furious. Its time to stop this farce, take names and roll some heads!

ZZardozz
ZZardozz

 Who was the person who died of cannabis toxicity in Britain?  I never heard of it.  Could he smoke a ton of hash in 30 seconds?

Rick M
Rick M

The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative should be considered, since it was written largely by Steve Kubby, writer of Prop. 215 (regulatemarijuanalikewine.com).

David Raynes (UK)
David Raynes (UK)

JillianYou say:"either we want drug dealers selling marijuana to kids or supermarkets selling marijuana to adults. There are no other options"

Youre message is silly, wrong, nonsensical even, if supermarkets were free to sell MJ to adults that would in NO WAY prevent  drug dealers selling to kids, it would in fact make it easier and safer for dealers to buy or hold MJ. As the alcohol/tobacco model shows, use increases directly with legal availability. Harm increases with use.

HashCentral
HashCentral

DAVID RAYNES: YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE WITH THIS LIE "use increases directly with legal availability", Research has proven that use has not increased as a result of legal use of cannibus in MMJ states. Educate and Regulate is key. PERIOD!

Jrenchen145
Jrenchen145

Wow you dont even know what you are talking about. If that is true that with legal availility, why i stha tnot the case in Amsterdam ? or the other contries that have lowered the laws or have made it 100% legal? Look at the numbers and then make a comment. Just to spew out the BS that we werre told when we were kids .  

ZZardozz
ZZardozz

 Yeah,, ever notice all the alcohol dealers hanging around for when the kids get out of school, so they can sell them booze?   Neither have I.   And that's where your argument goes down in flames.

malcolmkyle
malcolmkyle

#1. Why do you rejoice at the fact that we have all been stripped of our 4th amendment rights and are now totally subordinate to a corporatized, despotic government with a heavily armed and corrupt, militarized police force whose often deadly intrusions into our homes and lives are condoned by an equally corrupt and spineless judiciary?

#2. Why do you wish to continue to spend $50 billion a year to prosecute and cage your fellow citizens for choosing drugs which are not more dangerous than those of which you yourself use and approve of such as alcohol and tobacco?

#3. Do you honestly expect the rest of us to look on passively while you waste another trillion dollars on this ruinously expensive garbage policy?

#4. Why are your waging war on your own family, friends and neighbors?

#5. Why are you so complacent with the fact that our once 'free & proud' nation now has the largest percentage of it's citizenry incarcerated than any other on the entire planet?

#6. Why are you helping to fuel a budget crisis to the point of closing hospitals, schools and libraries?

#7. Why do you rejoice at wasting precious resources on prohibition related undercover work while rapists and murderers walk free, while additionally, many cases involving murder and rape do not even get taken to trial because law enforcement priorities are subverted by your beloved failed and dangerous policy?

#8. Why are you such a supporter of the 'prison industrial complex' to the extent of endangering our own children?

#9. Will you graciously applaud, when due to your own incipient and authoritarian approach, even your own child is caged and raped?

Fairuse
Fairuse

"SAMHSA administrator Pamela S. Hyde, when questioned as to why alcohol use rates had dropped so much more than other drugs, said that a more comprehensive program of education and early intervention had been used to combat alcohol abuse and that such programs had not been embraced for other drug use."

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2...

Prohibition does not equal control of drugs or kids access to them. Prohibition grants blackmarketeers the power and profit motive to market drugs of all sorts to anyone who has money. In the US its hard drugs are more readily availible than both tobacco and alcohol to youth. Drugs dealers do not check for proper I.D.

Clark Culver
Clark Culver

"use increases directly with legal availability"    

This is one of the most often-repeated pieces of propaganda by people in favor of prohibition.

Actually, tobacco use has been declining steadily for many years, while legal.  This is a success story for regulation and education.  In the Netherlands, where cannabis is legal, usage rates are half what they are in the U.S.  In California, where cannabis is basically legal, usage has not increased since the rise of dispensaries.  Question your assumptions, David.  Don't just believe what the government tells you.

Jillian
Jillian

Four more years? That's 800,000 people arrested each year for possessing dried cannabis flowers - over three million in total for that four year delay, and what benefit do we get back in return? ..marijuana use still continues, drug dealers still get rich, the cartels get ever more powerful.

Marijuana use cannot be stopped, no matter how much we'd like it.

Parents across America have to make a decision - either we want drug dealers selling marijuana to kids or supermarkets selling marijuana to adults. There are no other options. If you love your child call your legislator.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...