Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:37 am
Time: 11:37 am
Results for drug policy (u.s.)
7 results foundAuthor: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Title: Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred Summary: President Richard Nixon officially declared a war on drugs on June 17, 1971. Thirty-eight years later, on May 14, 2009, the Obama administration’s drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, matter-of-factly declared during a newspaper interview that he was ending the analogy of the “war on drugs”. But this wording change and the Obama administration’s many subsequent changes in verbiage have had no corresponding significant change in policy from that of the Bush administration.This report details the ongoing carnage resulting from our failed prohibition policy while the administration has simultaneously tried to score political points by adopting the rhetoric of an evidence-based policy. Nowhere is the contrast between President Obama’s spoken words and policy toward drugs clearer than in the comparison between spending for punishment and interdiction (supply reduction) and spending for prevention, treatment and other health approaches (demand reduction). Despite President Obama’s clear -- and politically popular -- statement that “we have to think more about drugs as a public-health problem,” his administration’s budgets request funding for punishment at a much higher level than for treatment and prevention. Similarly, the Obama administration has tried to convince the public that it supports states’ rights to enact medical marijuana laws while actually undermining such efforts at nearly every turn. The Obama administration gave great fanfare to an October 2009 memo suggesting that those in compliance with state law should not be prosecuted, leaking it to the press late on a Sunday night to ensure heavy media coverage. However, the rate of raids on medical marijuana providers during the Obama administration has actually increased since the Bush administration. Tellingly, the administration has done nothing to trumpet these raids to the press. While the rates of drug-war-related deaths in Mexico skyrocket, the Obama administration continues to provide financial assistance to Mexico’s crackdown on drug cartels, like the Bush administration before it. Perversely, high-ranking Obama administration officials like DEA head Michele Leonhart have even described the increase in these grizzly killings as a sign of the success of prohibition. The Obama administration continues to fund Mexico’s war on drugs even as the killings increase faster each year (e.g. a 40% rise in killings from 2008 to 2009 and a nearly 60% rise from 2009 to 2010). Meanwhile, as the Obama administration tries to ignore it, the drug war continues to cause widespread gang violence within our own borders, in addition to spillover cartel violence from Mexico. When a journalist asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder whether he thought ending the war on drugs would prevent the further loss of police officers’ lives in drug enforcement actions, he simply replied, “I don’t think that’s right…no” and then walked away. The Obama administration does deserve credit for at least recognizing that the American people are ready for fundamental changes to drug policy and that anti-drug-war rhetoric is a shrewd political move. Fully 76% of the American people and 67% of chiefs of police have declared the drug war a failure, according to polls. The administration also deserves some credit for enacting a small number of sensible changes in domestic drug policy, including lifting the ban on using federal funding for syringe exchange and reducing the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. But as the Obama administration’s policies largely lag behind its rhetoric, state governments and prominent individuals are leading the way to reform. As of this writing, 16 states plus the District of Columbia have laws on the books making medical marijuana legal for those with doctors’ recommendations, and 14 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. In 2012, several state ballots are expected to feature initiatives to legalize and regulate marijuana. A growing number of prominent organizations and individuals including the former presidents of several countries, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and other world leaders, have all come out publicly to suggest a change in the failed war on drugs. Let’s hope that the Obama administration’s policies catch up to its rhetoric before it’s too late. Details: Medford, MA: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2011 at: http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ending-the-Drug-War-A-Dream-Deferred.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ending-the-Drug-War-A-Dream-Deferred.pdf Shelf Number: 122045 Keywords: Drug EnforcementDrug Policy (U.S.)Drug Reform |
Author: Williams, Jenny Title: Why Do Some People Want to Legalize Cannabis Use? Summary: Preferences and attitudes to illicit drug policy held by individuals are likely to be an important influence in the development of illicit drug policy. Among the key factors impacting on an individual's preferences over substance use policy are their beliefs about the costs and benefits of drug use, their own drug use history, and the extent of drug use amongst their peers. We use data from the Australian National Drug Strategy's Household Surveys to study these preferences. We find that current use and past use of cannabis are major determinants of being in favor of legalization. These results control for reverse causality from favorable attitudes to use. We also find that cannabis users are more in favor of legalization the longer they have used cannabis and, among past users, the more recent their own drug using experience. This may reflect that experience with cannabis provides information about the costs and benefits of using this substance. Finally, we uncover some evidence that peers' use of cannabis impacts on preferences towards legalization. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 16795: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16795 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16795 Shelf Number: 125121 Keywords: CannabisDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (U.S.)Marijuana |
Author: Hakim, Peter Title: Rethinking US Drug Policy Summary: Most Americans believe that their country’s forty-year “war on drugs” has failed. Yet, instead of a serious national discussion of how to reform US drug control strategies, there remains a silent tolerance of ineffective, socially harmful laws, institutions, and policies. What is most needed now is a farreaching debate on alternative approaches that could reduce the risks and damage from the trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs. That was also the conclusion of a highly-regarded report prepared by a distinguished group of Latin American presidents and other leaders. This Inter-American Dialogue report proposes six US government initiatives that would set the stage for a thorough rethinking of US drug policy. Details: Washington, DC: Inter-American Dialogue, The Beckley Foundation, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://www.seguridadcondemocracia.org/administrador_de_carpetas/OCO-IM/pdf/Rethinking_US_Drug_Policy_feb2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.seguridadcondemocracia.org/administrador_de_carpetas/OCO-IM/pdf/Rethinking_US_Drug_Policy_feb2011.pdf Shelf Number: 125206 Keywords: Criminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice PolicyDrug AbuseDrug Policy (U.S.)Drug TraffickingLegislation |
Author: Kilmer, Beau Title: The U.S. Drug Policy Landscape: Insights and Opportunities for Improving the View Summary: Discussions about reducing the harms associated with drug use and antidrug policies are often politicized, infused with questionable data, and unproductive. This paper provides a nonpartisan primer that should be of interest to those who are new to the field of drug policy, as well as those who have been working in the trenches. It begins with an overview of problems and policies related to illegal drugs in the United States, including the nonmedical use of prescription drugs. It then discusses the efficacy of U.S. drug policies and programs, including long-standing issues that deserve additional attention. Next, the paper lists the major funders of research and analysis in the area and describes their priorities. By highlighting the issues that receive most of the funding, this discussion identifies where gaps remain. Comparing these needs, old and new, to the current funding patterns suggests eight opportunities to improve understanding of drug problems and drug policies in the United States: (1) sponsor young scholars and strengthen the infrastructure of the field, (2) accelerate the diffusion of good ideas and reliable information to decisionmakers, (3) replicate and evaluate cutting-edge programs in an expedited fashion, (4) support nonpartisan research on marijuana policy, (5) investigate ways to reduce drug-related violence in Mexico and Central America, (6) improve understanding of the markets for diverted pharmaceuticals, (7) help build and sustain comprehensive community prevention efforts, and (8) develop more sensible sentencing policies that reduce the excessive levels of incarceration for drug offenses and address the extreme racial disparities. The document offers some specific suggestions for researchers and potential research funders in each of the eight areas. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2012. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP393.html Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP393.html Shelf Number: 126300 Keywords: Drug Abuse PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug Policy (U.S.)Illegal Drugs |
Author: Pew Research Center Title: America's New Drug Policy Landscape: Two-Thirds Favor Treatment, Not Jail, for Use of Heroin, Cocaine Summary: The public appears ready for a truce in the long-running war on drugs. A national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that 67% of Americans say that the government should focus more on providing treatment for those who use illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Just 26% think the government's focus should be on prosecuting users of such hard drugs. Support for a treatment-based approach to illegal drug use spans nearly all demographic groups. And while Republicans are less supportive of the treatment option than are Democrats or independents, about half of Republicans (51%) say the government should focus more on treatment than prosecution in dealing with illegal drug users. As a growing number of states ease penalties for drug possession, the public expresses increasingly positive views of the move away from mandatory sentences for non-violent drug crimes. By nearly two-to-one (63% to 32%), more say it is a good thing than a bad thing that some states have moved away from mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. In 2001, Americans were evenly divided over the move by some states to abandon mandatory drug terms. The survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Feb. 14-23 among 1,821 adults, finds that support for the legalization of marijuana use continues to increase. And fully 75% of the public - including majorities of those who favor and oppose the legal use of marijuana - think that the sale and use of marijuana will eventually be legal nationwide. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2014. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/04-02-14%20Drug%20Policy%20Release.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/04-02-14%20Drug%20Policy%20Release.pdf Shelf Number: 132147 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug OffendersDrug Policy (U.S.)Drug TreatmentIllegal DrugsPublic Opinion |
Author: Simms, Nicole Title: Collateral Costs: Racial Disparities and Injustice in Minnesota's Marijuana Laws Summary: Blacks in Minnesota are 6.4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, one of the nation's highest disparities, according to FBI statistics. Our latest report finds these disproportionate arrest rates further exacerbate equity gaps for individuals and neighborhoods in communities of color. The research set out to determine costs beyond fines and attorney fees to individuals arrested and/or convicted for marijuana possession, including lost economic opportunity, property forfeiture, being removed from social safety net programs, and emotional distress. Even a low-level marijuana conviction can cost someone up to $76,000 over a decade using fairly conservative estimates. As a result, Minnesota 2020 is joining a growing body of legal experts and community activists in calling for marijuana law reform. The report's recommendations range from fairer seizure laws and more accountable enforcement strategy to full legalization. The laws and strategy used to fight the war on drugs have had a devastating impact on communities of color. An honest discussion about marijuana law reform must include all options and acknowledge the reality that deterrents to marijuana use have been ineffective. A variety of factors contribute to the disparities in arrest rates. Over-policing in communities of color, cultural differences in where and how marijuana is used and purchased, and grants and seizure policies that incentivize volume over quality in drug arrests are major factors for the disparity. As a result, blacks in Ramsey County are 8.8 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, the state's highest disparity for 2011. Hennepin and Steele counties follow, with blacks in both places 6.4 time more likely to be arrested. When state and federal policies strip wealth out of communities, it's time to reexamine our approach to social, economic, and criminal justice issues. By highlighting collateral costs individuals and communities suffer from marijuana enforcement disparities, we hope to reframe the debate about marijuana reform. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota 2020, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.mn2020.org/assets/uploads/article/collateral_costs_web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.mn2020.org/assets/uploads/article/collateral_costs_web.pdf Shelf Number: 132361 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug Policy (U.S.)Drug Policy ReformMarijuanaRacial Disparities |
Author: Crick, Emily Title: Selling cannabis regulation: Learning From Ballot Initiatives in the United States in 2012 Summary: Key Points - In November 2012, Washington, Colorado, and Oregon voted on ballot initiatives to establish legally regulated markets for the production, sale, use and taxation of cannabis.1 Washington and Colorado's measures won by wide margins, while Oregon's lost soundly. - A majority of voters view cannabis in a negative light, but also feel that prohibition for non-medical and non-scientific purposes is not working. As a result, they are more likely to support well-crafted reform policies that include strong regulations and direct tax revenue to worthy causes such as public health and education. - Ballot measures are not the ideal method for passing complicated pieces of legislation, but sometimes they are necessary for controversial issues. Other states often follow in their footsteps, including via the legislature. - The successful campaigns in Washington and Colorado relied on poll-driven messaging, were well organised, and had significant financing. The Oregon campaign lacked these elements. - The Washington and Colorado campaigns targeted key demographic groups, particularly 30-50 year old women, who were likely to be initially supportive of reform but then switch their allegiance to the 'no' vote. - Two key messages in Washington and Colorado were that legalisation, taxation and regulation will (i) free up scarce law enforcement resources to focus on more serious crimes and (ii) will create new tax revenue for worthy causes. - National attitudes on legalising cannabis are changing, with more and more people supporting reform. Details: Swansea, UK: Swansea University, Global Drug Policy Observatory, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief 6: Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Selling%20Cannabis%20Regulation.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Selling%20Cannabis%20Regulation.pdf Shelf Number: 134610 Keywords: CannabisDecriminalizationDrug Policy (U.S.)Marijuana |