The Drug Update

Oh, Daniel. You need to at least look at the report. And you need to be capable of questioning your teacher.

What Pete said.

I applaud your efforts to build a drug policy site which professes that "Its goal is to collect noteworthy stories and cover them without bias", although there are several sites which are already doing this both from a reform and "neutral/balanced" perspective (e.g., MAPINC.ORG).

I would also ask that, as Pete said, you be a little more discerning about the possible biases of your adviser/mentor, who most of the time presents himself as a (tepid) reformer while largely accepting the prejudices and sloppy thinking that underly underlies current government policy, a/k/a/ "the War on Drugs", including the idea that crack, meth, etc. are "instantly addicting".

Note also the difference between prohibition supporting websites, which typically don't allow reader comments and feedback (e.g., the ONDCP "blog") and pro-reform sites, which do. Then check out your mentor's site, and ask him why he generally eschews debate from the peanut gallery about his various "expert" pronouncements. 'Nuff said.

I clearly title the ONDCP "blog" as such. I think that readers can make the distinction that the blog has a fairly ridciulous slant, and is more of a propaganda tool than anything. The lack of a forum for reader feedback on the ONDCP "blog" is ludicrous.

I include the ONDCP blog in our list of links because I think it is important that readers see both sides of the story. If they understand that the government's side of the story is fairly unreasonable, then it is helping the cause of the reformers, not the ONDCP.

As for MAPINC, I feel that the site's organization and coverage of stories is different that what we have been doing here. Also, our fully planned implementation of the site has not nearly been realized. We are still taking shape here, and continue to look for writers that do not leave the page blank during UCLA finals week (e.g., the past couple weeks).

Here is what I think. I do not present Mark's take on the report to be fact, and I feel that I did not write that this was so. However, Mark is an expert in drug policy; he received his degree from the Kennedy School at Harvard and taught drug policy and public policy both at the Kennedy School and the School of Public Policy at UCLA (where he currently resides). I feel that Mark is well-versed enough in this subject matter to write up an interesting point of view on a topic and merit posting it to help the reader see how one drug policy obsessed individual might view this report. I would gladly accept (and in fact, I encourage) a submission of a similar write-up regarding any topic from others like Pete or yourself. If someone has something to say, say it well, and back it up, then I feel that his opinion matters and I am happy to put it up.

To wrap this up, your input clearly matters. I hope I do not lose readers over this, and I am glad that you complained about something that you think is wrong. I will always be trying to improve this site, and I thank you for your continued interest.

Daniel, I don't think the problem is that you linked to Kleiman's take. The problem is that your prose in the entry implicitly endorsed Kleiman's analysis. The opening text still says, "In a recent press release, the Sentencing Project claimed that Methamphetamine is not a problem."

a)the press release is not linked; the report is.

b)as Pete points out in his post at Drug WarRant, the Sentencing Project does NOT make the claim that meth is NOT a problem. I'll take the liberty to quote the relevant snippet:

------
Not a problem? That's not the way I read the opening. So I looked further in the Sentencing Project report and found headings like:

Misleading media reports of a methamphetamine "epidemic" have hindered the development of a rational policy response to the problem [...]

Methamphetamine in America: The Extent of the Problem [...]

In what possible way is the report saying that meth is not a problem?
------

So clearly it *looks* like you're being your teacher's pupil.

Agreed. And please be aware that by our comments here, we're still being encouraging of your efforts on this site and wish the best for you.

BTW, in case you missed it -- and it appears you have been busy, here is my post that reacted to yours
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2006/06/15.html#a1619

And pointing out Mark's post is perfectly legitimate. Kleiman is clearly a smart and well-educated expert, with a ton of useful knowledge about drug policy. He is brilliant in analyzing the failures of government policy. But he also has some areas in which his biases (some of which stem from his moral views) cause him to completely lose his academic rigor and start attacking straw men. This particularly happens whenever he talks about Jack Shafer in particular, and all drug legalization proponents in general.

The straw man in this case is the "claim" by King or Shafer that methamphetamine is not a problem. By diverting the discussion to debunking a claim that was never made, Mark avoids discussion of the actual subject of the study and Shafer's piece -- the dangers of drug policy that is crafted through hysteria (as well as the need for better data on drug abuse).

Your post turns the straw man into a bold title.

As someone who teaches at the University level, maybe I can add a structural critique to your post:

Perhaps if you had said:

"The Sentencing Project claims that media reports of a methamphetamine epidemic are overblown. Eric King's study calls for less emphasis on incarceration and more on treatment. Mark Kleiman has an interesting take on the Sentencing Project report and on Jack Shafer's support of it."

It would be far from complete, but it would appear much less like you had not even bothered to open the Sentencing Project's pdf file.

Pefectly legitimate criticism. I will be more careful in the future; I did not realize my mistake with the links, either. I really do appreciate the input from you both.

Daniel,

I don't think you did anything wrong linking to Mark's well thought-out analysis. It's amazing that people thin Mark has biases that lean against drug legalization opponents. The Sentencing Project is not a seriously academic institution -- it is a biased source (like some on the other side of the spectrum on this issue). Why are you so worried about "losing readers over this" and caving into pressure of the internet-dominated "reform" camp? That is utterly ridiculous.

Don True: "I don't think you did anything wrong linking to Mark's well thought-out analysis."

A straw man.

My comment: "Daniel, I don't think the problem is that you linked to Kleiman's take. "

Pete's comment: "And pointing out Mark's post is perfectly legitimate."

I'm speaking of the ridiculous comments above, for example that mapinc.org is a neutral source. And actually Daniel's comments about the ONDCP blog being "ridiculous" and a "propoganda tool" (what is that supposed to mean, really? and "If they understand that the government's side of the story is fairly unreasonable, then it is helping the cause of the reformers" ..huh!?) sum up the true slants of this page.

And then accusing Daniel of being his teacher's pupil in a patronizing way!?!

Well, actually, that is a complement, since Kleiman is one of only a handful of people who think about this issue rationally (others include Jon Caulkins, Peter Reuter, Bob DuPont, and Eric Wish).

"Daniel's comments about the ONDCP blog being "ridiculous" and a "propoganda tool" (what is that supposed to mean, really? and "If they understand that the government's side of the story is fairly unreasonable, then it is helping the cause of the reformers" ..huh!?) sum up the true slants of this page"

I try my best not to let my views affect what I write on this page. However, I am still allowed to have them and express them in the commentary.

When I took Mark's public policy class in the fall, I was almost sure he was a staunch conservative. Then I stumbled upon his blog and discovered quite the opposite. The point is that Mark can believe and express his point of view in one forum and remove it from another; such a quality I can only hope to emulate on this webpage. I do not think there is anything wrong with expressing my point of view in the commentary while writing about news as, well, news.

And then accusing Daniel of being his teacher's pupil in a patronizing way!?!

He explicitly said the report claimed something but which it didn't, based on what Kleiman said. A sound accusation, I think.

We can agree to disagree, Daksya.

Daniel, as for your views on Mark: they mistakenly assume one major thing...that there are "conservative" and "liberal" views on drug policy. There is no such thing! For every conservative who adores John Walters, I'll find you one who prefers Milton Friedman (a legalizer). For every liberal that embraces Ethan Nadelmann, I'll find you one that sides with Joe Biden or Charlie Rangel on drug issues.

It is sad that just because Mark has sound ideas about drug policy, you immediately labeled him as a "conservative." There is nothing conservative about discussing truisms and facts when it comes to drug policy. (1) It is a fact that prohibition keeps use levels down; it also causes problems, ones that Mark and others freely acknowledge and try to remedy. (2) Decriminalization is the worst of both worlds: it still keeps the black market for drugs in tact, while sending the message that drugs are OK. (3) Legalization (of cocaine and heroin) has never really worked well, anywhere, if we are to assume that total harm = micro harm x prevalence.

Legalization (of cocaine and heroin) has never really worked well, anywhere

Like where? As far as I'm aware, cocaine and heroin haven't been legal for over 90 years now. And where they have been more recently, they haven't had much market exposure or regulation, e.g. cocaine in India.

Like in the United States pre-1914 (read Musto's brilliant 'American Disease' -- this example is much more relevant to the US than India's half hearted attempt at legalization).

We can also look at the example of alcohol prohibition here or marijuana legalization in the Netherlands. A simple pattern emerges: legalization leads to commercialization and availability -- which then leads to higher levels of use. There is no doubt that prohibition lowers use.

India's half hearted attempt at legalization

???

India hasn't made any attempt at legalization, let alone a half-hearted one. Cocaine was made illegal later than in the US, hence "more recently". But this was because India wasn't exposed to cocaine. Narcotics in general were made illegal because of UN commitments. But this is a tangential point.

----

A simple pattern emerges: legalization leads to commercialization and availability -- which then leads to higher levels of use.

No doubt. But that's relative to levels pre-legalization. Netherlands still has similar rates of pot use as the US :- last month 2001 - overall US 8.6%; Amsterdam only: 7.8% (I don't see more recent figures for Netherlands at that site).

Also consider mushrooms, available via head shops in Netherlands :- last month 2001 - overall US : 0.1%, Amsterdam only: 0.3%. Note that I am comparing figures for whole US vs. Netherland's largest city. And yet the open availability of these two drugs hasn't led to an explosion of their use. So liberal laws don't have to lead to high use (as opposed to higher use).

if we are to assume that total harm = micro harm x prevalence.

This assumption is wrong. Drug users fall into multiple groups: experimental, occasional, regular, compulsive. Total harm is more closely approximated to prevalence(compulsive) x harms(compulsive) + prevalence(regular) x harms(regular).Prohibition has an adverse effect on the use of more potent preparations.

From Alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. Lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy:

------
From 1890 to 1915, beer accounted for more of the total alcohol consumed than did hard liquor. In 1915, for example, beer drinking accounted for nearly twice the total alcohol consumed as spirits did. Warburton compared alcohol consumption in the period of 1911 to 1914 with that during the prohibition years 1927-1930 and concluded that "the per capita consumption of beer has been reduced about 70 per cent....the per capita consumption of wine has increased about 65 per cent...[and] the per capita consumption of spirits has increased about 10 per cent" (Warburton, 1932, p. 260). This change was not permanent -- after repeal, spirits consumption fell while beer consumption rose. By 1935 the alcohol consumed from beer equaled that from spirits, and by 1945 Americans were getting 50 percent more of their total alcohol from beer than from hard liquor (Levine and Reinarman, 1993, 1998; Rorabaugh,1979; Miron and Zwiebel, 1991).
------

Also consider the history of amphetamines use in Sweden. In short, introduced OTC in 1938, switched to prescription in 1939 but liberal laws, tightened prescription laws in 1944, and made equivalent to narcotics in 1959. This image has the prevalence by type of use. Notice that casual use responds strongly to laws, but not the harmful types of use.

Use practices also have a big impact. If drugs are conveniently available in potent forms which don't encourage injecting/smoking, then that cuts down on harm as well.

From A comparison of 'visible' and 'invisible' users of amphetamine, cocaine and heroin: two distinct populations?:

Image of the severity of dependence in contact(exposed to the law and/or treatment) & zero-contact groups.

Image of proportion of users who inject, among contact group and zero-contact group.

Prohibition leaves drugs unregulated, hence greater use of higher potency forms and methods like injecting/smoking.

I do not recall ever defining Mark as a conservative or bringing his views into question. What was wrong was my misrepresentation of the link that I had posted.

Don't have time to counter all of those points, but I can say that no serious analyst compares the Netherlands with the US (you need to look INSIDE the countries to look at trends, thus the tripling of marijuana use among young adults from 1980s to the 1990s is a telling, frightening example of commercialization). Though even comparing cities to each other is not enough; Craig Reinarman does such a sloppy piece of work with his comparison of SF and Amsterdam (he uses SF as an example of prohibition!). So I question these kinds of comparisons. And I question citing people like Reinarman and Miron in any study (As you do for alcohol prohibition).

Again, we can agree to disagree on the total harm formulation as well.

Daniel, I was referring to your quote here: "When I took Mark's public policy class in the fall, I was almost sure he was a staunch conservative."

but I can say that no serious analyst compares the Netherlands with the US

Why?

you need to look INSIDE the countries to look at trends, thus the tripling of marijuana use among young adults from 1980s to the 1990s is a telling, frightening example of commercialization).

Referencing the same survey as above,

Last month prevalence of cannabis

Age 16-19

1987: 11.6%
1990: 11.1%
1994: 14.1%
1997: 15.6%
2001: 14.3%

Age 20-24

1987: 13.5%
1990: 10.9%
1994: 15.1%
1997: 18.4%
2001: 21.0%

Where's this tripling? The change among 20-24 is from 13.5% to 21.0% i.e. +55%.

This still is much below alcohol prevalence

Last month 2001

16-19: 57.0% (alc/pot: 3.99)
20-24: 79.5% (alc/pot: 3.79)

Craig Reinarman does such a sloppy piece of work with his comparison of SF and Amsterdam (he uses SF as an example of prohibition!).

Show the sloppiness, don't just assert it. And I don't recall any retail outlets in SF for recreational pot.

And I question citing people like Reinarman and Miron in any study (As you do for alcohol prohibition).

Reinarman quotes a 1932 researcher as source of the change between 1911-14 and 1927-30.

You haven't shown where the research is sloppy except just asserting so.

Again, we can agree to disagree on the total harm formulation as well.

We can agree to disagree on everything, but then there's no scope for a debate.

As for liberal/conservative divide on drug policy: none of the two groups is a monolithic block, but there are clear differing tendencies. In the Nov 2004 ballot initiative in Alaska to legalize pot, 74% of Liberals voted in favor, and 75% of Conservatives voted against.

Don, my mistake; I was unclear. I meant a conservative in regards to general politics, not drug policy. When I took Mark's drug policy class, I was already well aware of his political stance (which, I feel, is seperate from someone's stance on drug policy).

MacCoun and Reuter document a tripling in marijuana use from 15% in 1984 to 44% in 1996 (MacCoun and Reuter 2001).

MacCoun says himself, "cross-country comparisons are problematic." Craig Reinarman’s analysis comparing drug policy in Amsterdam and San Francisco, and concluding that San Francisco’s policies are worse since more people go on to harder drugs there than in Amsterdam, completely ignores the obvious limitations of global city comparisons (which do not take into account culture, social and political climates, and, perhaps most importantly in this case, nuances in the law – San Francisco’s marijuana laws are notoriously lax, even Dutch-like).

Though San Franciscans are by definition Americans – theoretically subject to punitive national anti-cannabis laws – its cannabis users usually fall under the jurisdiction of remarkably lenient local implementation practices and statutes. California today has a thirty year-old cannabis decriminalization law still in effect (MacCoun and Reuter 2001). San Francisco is perhaps the most liberal California city regarding cannabis possession. According to the Office of the State Attorney General, misdemeanor cannabis arrests in San Francisco County accounted for just 2 percent of all misdemeanor arrests – a rate markedly lower than other large California counties (9 percent in Orange; 6 percent in San Diego; 5 percent in Los Angeles) (California Criminal Justice Statistics Center 2003).

Local actors and city culture contribute to this policy of leniency. San Francisco is a bastion of cannabis acceptance – it is the birthplace of several “cannabis buyers clubs” operating with the city’s blessing. Indeed, the nation’s most prominent cannabis-reform organization calls San Francisco “America’s Amsterdam” (Kane 2002). While the city has not set up Dutch-style “coffee shops” – yet – their clubs “provide the model for socializing cannabis use, which will lead to legalization,” one local cannabis enthusiast remarks (Kane 2002). The chair of the city’s Board of Supervisors and the District Attorney are vigorous supporters of full cannabis legalization, the latter prosecuting cannabis cases as his “lowest priority” with no intention to intervene on organized cannabis selling “as long as there isn't a cocaine ring involved” (Martin, Chang, and Bowman 1996).

And again, in the overall scheme of drug policy, there is little conservative-liberal divide, in my opinion. Members in Congress from both sides of the aisle support things like the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Plan Colombia, etc. And most people -- Dem or Rep -- overwhelmingly reject drug legalization (please don't go quoting Zogby polls which show a substantial portion of the population in favor of marijuana legalization -- Zogby and Rob Kampia are in bed together on that one, and that poll is an utter joke.)

Cites:

Criminal Justice Statistics Center. (2003). California Criminal Justice Profiles (annual). Sacramento: California Department of Justice.

Kane, M. (2002, August 23). Pro-pot politics in America’s Amsterdam. Cannabis Culture. Vol. 32: Aug/Sept 2002.

MacCoun, R. and Reuter, P. (2001). Drug War Heresies: Learning from other vices, times, & places. Cambridge University Press.

Martin, G., Chang, H., Bowman, C. (1996, Aug 6). State, SF At Odds Over Club Raid. San Francisco Chronicle. pp. A1.

MacCoun and Reuter document a tripling in marijuana use from 15% in 1984 to 44% in 1996

That is lifetime prevalence among 18-20 yr olds, not regular use (past month use). Regular use increase is much more modest, as shown above, and most of the increase occured after 1990. As MacCoun says in his 1997 Science paper, Oslo and US both showed similar increases from 1992 to 1996. The change from 87 to 94 in the series above are small, around 2%.

Craig Reinarman’s analysis comparing drug policy in Amsterdam and San Francisco

I didn't cite the SF/Amsterdam study, so you're bringing up a straw man. I showed that in 2001 average regular use across the whole US was greater than use in Amsterdam, the largest Dutch city, alone. Typically, you would expect the opposite result.

And most people -- Dem or Rep -- overwhelmingly reject drug legalization (please don't go quoting Zogby polls which show a substantial portion of the population in favor of marijuana legalization

Straw man again. I showed the results of an actual vote on pot legalization across a whole state, not a telephone poll, showing a stark difference in overall attitudes when put to the test on a concrete legalization initiative. Liberals 74% for, Conservatives 75% against.

Throughout this thread, you have dismissed many reseachers out of hand. Zogby's latest effort showed 46% in favor of legalization (although the actual wording is not direct and about some states rights issue) whereas the Alaskan poll was 44% in favor. Doesn't seem to be an anomaly in Zogby's methods.

Look, I am not disputing the Alaska results -- but I don't think they are representative of the country's. Many people could cite other polls, races (i.e. Nevada), voting behavior, etc. to prove that Americans are not in favor of legalization.

And no, I wouldn't expect the opposite result when looking at Amsterdam and the US because I do not think those cross-country/city comparisons are valid. I think it is important to look inside the country. I am sure I don't need to cite here the dramatic reductions in drug use that occurred from the 1960s-70s to the 90s-00s in the US (the opposite happened in Europe).

And again, the Zogby results are a joke. He sent a missive to Kampia a few years back and they agreed to recruit MPP members/legalizers to the poll in return for a question about legalization. Sad, but true.

but I don't think they are representative of the country's

Unless you have a cite to the contrary, they are the only concrete data we have.

races (i.e. Nevada)

IIRC,Nevada 2002 ballot got 39% in favor. I'm in a hurry now, but I'll dig up details later. Also the 2005 Denver city pot legalization, which was successful (52% Yes).

And no, I wouldn't expect the opposite result when looking at Amsterdam and the US because I do not think those cross-country/city comparisons are valid.

So you expect a tolerant city with 100+ coffeeshops to have lower use than a country with prohibition?

I am sure I don't need to cite here the dramatic reductions in drug use that occurred from the 1960s-70s to the 90s-00s in the US

Drug use goes up & down in cycles. We'll have to wait for the river study to find out if drug use is down or just greatly underreported, like the results from Italy, UK and Germany within the past year. And like the results from the last ADAM program.

He sent a missive to Kampia a few years back and they agreed to recruit MPP members/legalizers to the poll in return for a question about legalization. Sad, but true.

I know.

Daksya: why do you have to have an answer for everything? Your arguments are weak and you should just let it go please. (same goes for the Kleiman blog where you actually cite ERWOID as some sort of reputable source)

Please, please don't respond to this.

"jonathon", is that you, Don True?

I'm taking your bait but you had to troll with this:

same goes for the Kleiman blog where you actually cite ERWOID as some sort of reputable source

The source isn't Erowid. They just host the full papers for free. One of the Erowid links goes to the entry for the last study I mentioned in my post here at [June 19, 2006 10:46 AM]. The other Erowid link is the interview of Michael Gazzaniga, an eminent neuroscience professor.

Let's see if you can resist the temptation.