Why Do Police Really Oppose Marijuana Legalization Parts I and II

[MwKid19]

Part I

The superb efforts of our friends at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition notwithstanding, police generally oppose efforts to reform marijuana laws. Initiatives in Colorado and Nevada were vehemently contested by law-enforcement interests, who claimed that reform would invite crime and undermine community safety. Sheriff Fred Wagner of Park County, CO even tried to link marijuana reform efforts to a recent school shooting.

Intuitively, there's nothing surprising about police lobbying to retain the gratuitous powers granted them by the war on drugs. Yet, as marijuana arrests reach a new record high each year, it becomes increasingly difficult to point towards any societal benefit to these costly attacks on otherwise law-abiding Americans. Because I believe most officers really do want to protect the communities they serve and make a difference, I have often pondered their willful enforcement of, and political support for, a war that endangers communities while failing to a make a difference.

I was pleasantly surprised, therefore, to learn that Joplin, MO Police Chief Lane Roberts has pledged not to oppose a local marijuana decriminalization initiative. Roberts correctly defines his role as defending the constitution rather than opining on what the law ought to be. But he goes on to explain that officers sometimes overreact to policy changes that reduce police authority:
When asked how his officers had reacted to the decriminalization of pot possession in Oregon and in Washington State where he previously headed up departments, Roberts reclined in his office chair and smiled.

"When that law was first passed, most police officers thought that the end of the world as we know it was about to occur," he said. "But, we thought the same thing when the Miranda decision came down." [Joplin Globe]

Miranda is such a wonderful analogy for law-enforcement's knee-jerk assumption that any restriction on police power will invite pure chaos. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona that police must inform criminal suspects of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination before conducting interrogations provoked panic among police. Murderers and rapists would go free, we were told, and crimes of the most despicable nature would become unsolvable.

The result was nothing of the sort. Police simply became more professional. It turned out that the freakiest psycho killers still insisted on confessing their misdeeds, while the rest got taken down through good old-fashioned police work. "You have the right to remain silent…" has become a popular and familiar symbol of due process, and the horror show predicted by law enforcement has been long forgotten.

The point here is that it was the experts, the interrogation specialists themselves, who were so wrong about Miranda. Today, when police speak out against marijuana reform, they are motivated not by experience at all, but rather a fear of the unknown. Indeed, today's officers simply have no real frame of reference for what law-enforcement in a post-drug war America would look like.

I'm optimistic, however, that whatever our friends at LEAP can't explain to their colleagues will ultimately find a way to explain itself. Inevitably, the truth about drug policy reform will become self-evident each and every time it is given the opportunity to do so.

Part II

Yesterday's post failed to address the prevalence of police officers who privately oppose the drug war, but silently uphold it even though they know it's wrong. My argument is quite incomplete without addressing this important phenomenon.

LEAP director Jack Cole has told me that police constantly admit to him in confidence that they agree with LEAP's arguments. Former Seattle Police Chief and LEAP speaker Norm Stamper has also stated that several high-ranking police officials have privately commended his efforts to end the drug war.

How then do we explain the behavior of police who carry out a war they don't believe in? Are they just following orders and collecting their paychecks? Are they fearful that speaking out will compromise their status within a profession they otherwise enjoy? Do they believe the laws are here to stay, so someone has to enforce them? Are some just waiting for their pension to kick in before joining LEAP?

I'm sure all of these factors contribute here, but I suspect that many officers have a more nuanced view of drug enforcement. I once asked a highly-regarded police sergeant what he thought of a controversial teenage curfew law aimed at curbing crime in D.C. "It's a useful tool," he replied, meaning that it gave him the authority to take action against suspicious youths in the absence of other evidence. If he can't prove they're out tagging cars, he can at least stop them and send them home.

Drug laws, particularly marijuana, perform a similar function by granting police the discretion to forgive or destroy individual suspects based solely on their demeanor and the contents of their pockets. Police can ignore the smell of marijuana when dealing with a polite citizen, or fabricate it entirely when they believe someone's hiding something. A law that criminalizes vast portions of the population, justifying detentions, searches and arrests, is a "useful tool" indeed. Officers needn't believe they're winning the war on drugs to find value in the vast authority it bestows upon them.

Wielding inflated drug war powers with the best of intentions may help some officers justify their participation in something they otherwise find distasteful. Of course, none of this justifies the massive collateral damage that occurs in the process, but it might help explain how conscientious people could engage in behavior that shocks the conscience.

Scott Morgan

[Nimitz87]

what about the fact that people will drive while under the influence? not that it doesn't happen now, but it'll become more common.

what about it being a "gateway" to allow other drugs to be legalized that are far worse? you get the whole "well mj was let in why not xxx" ?

I do not oppose mj legalization nor am I for it. I can see arguments to both sides.

for the record I do not smoke.

Chad

[MwKid19]

First off it is not a "fact" that if it were legal then more people would drive under the influence of it. If it is such a "fact" I'd like to see some evidence showing that. Why do you think that because it is legal that more people will drive under the influence of it? That is kind of assuming a lot and really doesn't hold much water. If they do they should get a DUI just like they do now. It is illegal and people still drive under the influence of it all the time.

In all honesty I'm for the legalization of all drugs. The harm caused by the war on drugs far outweighs the harm done by the drugs themselves. For example. Heroin addicts generally resort to stealing to support their habit because of the inflated prices. If heroin was legalized you would see a dramatic decrease in the cost of heroin and a dramatic increase in the purity due to an influx of regulated competitors to the market. This would mean two things. One, if heroin addicts did not have to pay so much for their drugs they would not have to steal for them and could hold steady jobs. Two, you would see a lot less overdoses because there would be no good quality heroin or bad quality heroin and everyone would be able to dose properly. Other countries have done maintenance programs with heroin addicts and the majority of them end up being productive members of society and some even simply outgrow their addiction and get clean. Our laws aren't about helping people, they are about punishing people because for some weird reason our country sees addiction as a character flaw and a lack of willpower and not the disease that it really is. Drug addiction is a social problem not a legal problem.

[Nimitz87]

Originally Posted by MwKid19

Why do you think that because it is legal that more people will drive under the influence of it? That is kind of assuming a lot and really doesn't hold much water. If they do they should get a DUI just like they do now. It is illegal and people drive under the influence of it all the time.

In all honesty I'm for the legalization of all drugs. The harm caused by the war on drugs far outweighs the harm done by the drugs themselves. For example. Heroin addicts generally resort to stealing to support their habit because of the inflated prices. If heroin was legalized you would see a dramatic decrease in the cost of heroin and a dramatic increase in the purity due to an influx of competitors to the market. This would mean two things. One, if heroin addicts did not have to pay so much for their drugs they would not have to steal for them. Two, you would see a lot less overdoses because there would be no good heroin or bad heroin and everyone would be able to dose properly. Other countries have done maintenance programs with heroin addicts and the majority of them end up being productive members of society and some even outgrow their addiction and get clean. Our laws aren't about helping people, they are about punishing people because for some weird reason our country sees addiction as a character flaw and not the disease that it really is. Drug addiction is a social problem not a legal problem.

of course it holds up, more people smoking will automatically mean more abusing it by driving under the influence...

I'm not even going to touch number 2...

Chad

[MwKid19]

Originally Posted by Nimitz87

of course it holds up, more people smoking will automatically mean more abusing it by driving under the influence...

I'm not even going to touch number 2...

Chad

Why do you assume just because it is legal that more people will smoke it? Where is your evidence of this? If your argument is harm done to people then marijuana harms a whole heck of a lot less people yearly than alcohol does. Drunk driving kills a whole lot of people every year so under you logic shouldn't alcohol be illegal? If it were illegal a whole lot less people would be driving intoxicated right? Why don't you want to discuss my second point?

[Nimitz87]

Originally Posted by MwKid19

Why do you assume just because it is legal that more people will smoke it? Where is your evidence of this? If your argument is harm done to people then marijuana harms a whole heck of a lot less people yearly than alcohol does. Drunk driving kills a whole lot of people every year so under you logic shouldn't alcohol be illegal? If it were illegal a whole lot less people would be driving intoxicated right? Why don't you want to discuss my second point?

you don't think more people would smoke because its legal?...thats common sense! many people don't associate with mj because its illegal, that business man who gets piss tested once a month won't go near it for that reason...now all the sudden its legal he might be more inclined...right??

Never said anything about people and harm of mj, all I stated was that more people would be driving blazed. the reason for that is the penalties for DUI aren't anywhere near as strict as they should be. of course drunk driving kills more people, no one argued that.

all I said was legalizing it would have more people driving under the influence, that coupled with the amount of drunk drivers would be bad IMO.

heroin is not a "recreational drug" it is far far more dangerous then mj you dont people will still steal because its legal? what happens when they have no more money?...

Chad

[Ivan_markII]

MJ is very addictive...possibly one of the most addictive drugs known to man.

If it weren't so addictive people wouldn't protest in the streets to legalize that shit, or take it to court, or risk months/years in prison just to get a hit from it.

If the risk is so high for being caught, and smoking it is expensive, why not just find something else that's more fun and cheaper?

[MwKid19]

I would imagine that since the price would be much lower then people wouldn't have to steal to pay for it. Would there still be people that steal to buy it? Yes. Hell people steal just to steal right now but if it were legal you would see a whole lot less people stealing to buy it. I think that we can all agree that less thieves in the world would be a good thing. Let us take a look at the markup on the price of heroin.

The value of illegal drugs increase greatly and they travel along the distribution chain. A recent report published by the UK Drug Policy Commission estimates that the effective farm gate price of a kilogram of 40% heroin is £204. [9] By the time it reaches British streets it is worth £30,000 - £100,000 per kg.

Transform : Fact Research Guide : Drug prices

Now lets do the math on that. Let us assume that the mean price on the street after markup is 60,000 pounds. That would give us a markup of 29,411.76% for a 40% pure produt. Find me a legal drug market or any legal market for that matter that has that kind of mark up from supplier to consumer.

[MwKid19]

Originally Posted by Ivan_markII

MJ is very addictive...possibly one of the most addictive drugs known to man.

If it weren't so addictive people wouldn't protest in the streets to legalize that shit, or take it to court, or risk months/years in prison just to get a hit from it.

If the risk is so high for being caught, and smoking it is expensive, why not just find something else that's more fun and cheaper?

Nobody is risking months and years in prison over weed unless they are dealing it. Most of the time it is a slap on the wrist if you even get caught at all for minor possession. The reality of the matter is that unless you are being stupid you are likely to never get arrested for possession of MJ. A lot of states are moving towards decriminalization anyways. Think about it. If the police were so good at catching people for possession then wouldn't you think that the demand for it would go down? We have seen time and time again that no matter how much the police do to catch the suppliers and or buyers the supply nor the demand have changed very much. Drugs are here to stay whether they are legal or not. It is time we stop destroying our society over it.

[MwKid19]

No comments from the LEOs on the board? I would be interested to hear your take on the article.

[dennisred69]

I am for it. I see no reason to waste money on the war on drugs (the longest war in American history) (also costing more money than any other war in history).

[Weather-Man]

Oh God, if I hear "gateway drug" one more time I will go insane. I was forced fed that crap since fourth grade. I smoke once in a while, and do I seek harder drugs to get high on? NO, I don't an neither do most people I know who smoke it. If you think the danger of mj is so great then ban cigs and alcohol altogether. Those drugs are as dangerous as mj if not greater.

[MwKid19]

Marijuana is not a “gateway” drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study. Moreover, the study’s findings call into question the long-held belief that has shaped prevention efforts and governmental policy for six decades and caused many a parent to panic upon discovering a bag of pot in their child’s bedroom.

The Pitt researchers tracked 214 boys beginning at ages 10-12, all of whom eventually used either legal or illegal drugs. When the boys reached age 22, they were categorized into three groups: those who used only alcohol or tobacco, those who started with alcohol and tobacco and then used marijuana (gateway sequence) and those who used marijuana prior to alcohol or tobacco (reverse sequence).

Nearly a quarter of the study population who used both legal and illegal drugs at some point – 28 boys – exhibited the reverse pattern of using marijuana prior to alcohol or tobacco, and those individuals were no more likely to develop a substance use disorder than those who followed the traditional succession of alcohol and tobacco before illegal drugs, according to the study, which appears in this month’s issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry.

“The gateway progression may be the most common pattern, but it’s certainly not the only order of drug use,” said Ralph E. Tarter, Ph.D., professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy and lead author of the study. “In fact, the reverse pattern is just as accurate for predicting who might be at risk for developing a drug dependence disorder.”

In addition to determining whether the gateway hypothesis was a better predictor of substance abuse than competing theories, the investigators sought to identify characteristics that distinguished users in the gateway sequence from those who took the reverse path. Out of the 35 variables they examined, only three emerged to be differentiating factors: Reverse pattern users were more likely to have lived in poor physical neighborhood environments, had more exposure to drugs in their neighborhoods and had less parental involvement as young children. Most importantly, a general inclination for deviance from sanctioned behaviors, which can become evident early in childhood, was strongly associated with all illicit drug use, whether it came in the gateway sequence, or the reverse.

While the gateway theory posits that each type of drug is associated with certain specific risk factors that cause the use of subsequent drugs, such as cigarettes or alcohol leading to marijuana, this study’s findings indicate that environmental aspects have stronger influence on which type of substance is used. That is, if it’s easier for a teen to get his hands on marijuana than beer, then he’ll be more likely to smoke pot. This evidence supports what’s known as the common liability model, an emerging theory that states the likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined not by the preceding use of a particular drug but instead by the user’s individual tendencies and environmental circumstances.

“The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a person’s behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs,” Dr. Tarter said. “To become more effective in our efforts to fight drug abuse, we should devote more attention to interventions that address these issues, particularly to parenting skills that shape the child’s behavior as well as peer and neighborhood environments.”

Indeed, according to the study, interventions focusing on behavior modification may be more effective prevention tactics than current anti-drug initiatives. For example, providing guidance to parents – particularly those in high-risk neighborhoods – on how to boost their caregiving skills and foster bonding with their children, could have a measurable effect on a child’s likelihood to smoke marijuana. Also, early identification of children who exhibit antisocial tendencies could allow for interventions before drug use even begins.

Although this research has significant implications for drug abuse prevention approaches, Dr. Tarter notes that the study has some limitations. First, as only male behaviors were studied, further investigation should explore if the results apply to women as well. Also, the examination of behaviors in phases beyond alcohol and marijuana consumption in the gateway series will be necessary.

From University of Pittsburgh Medical Center