(METRO VANCOUVER) B.C.’s Prince of Pot has been granted bail and could temporarily be released from jail as early as today as he continues to await extradition to the U.S. to plead guilty to selling marijuana seeds.

Marc Emery has been held at the North Surrey Pre-Trial Centre in Port Coquitlam since turning himself over to authorities on Sept. 28.

He has promised to surrender to U.S. custody within 72 hours after an extradition order is signed, which could happen as soon as Dec. 1, which is the final day for submissions.

(World Politics Review) For roughly four decades, a clear foreign policy rule set has existed between the United States and Latin America, centering largely on the question of counternarcotics. Starting with Richard Nixon’s “war on drugs,” an explicit quid pro quo came into existence: U.S. foreign aid (both civilian and military) in exchange for aggressive Latin American efforts to curb both the production and trafficking of illegal narcotics (primarily marijuana and cocaine).

By virtually all accounts, that logistics-focused strategy has proven to be a massive failure. America’s focus on interdiction and prohibition has not stemmed domestic drug abuse. Instead, all indications are that preventative education — on a generational scale — has proven far more effective, meaning that demand reduction has trumped supply curtailment as a means of reducing overall prevalence.

Meanwhile, across Latin America, there’s been widespread movement toward decriminalization. Why? Because the benefits of remaining on America’s “good side” on this hot-button issue have been overwhelmed by the negative externalities of overcrowded prisons, rampant drug-related violence, police corruption, and growing organized criminal networks.

The author points to four main reasons why countries like Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Uruguay are decriminalizing personal drug possession:

1. The rise of a Latin American middle class feeling economic independence from United States aid;
2. The increase in foreign aid to Latin America from Asia and Latinos sending money back home from the US;
3. The increase of Latin American trade to China and the European Union that decreases American economic influence; and
4. The rise of drug cartels, terrorism, and violence that led Latin American countries to directly confront the issue.

AMSTERDAM, Nov 5 (Reuters) – The Dutch are among the lowest users of marijuana or cannabis in Europe despite the Netherlands’ well-known tolerance of the drug, according to a regional study published on Thursday. Among adults in the Netherlands, 5.4 percent used cannabis, compared with the European average of 6.8 percent, according to an annual report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, using latest available figures.

A higher percentage of adults in Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic and France took cannabis last year, the EU agency said, with the highest being Italy at 14.6 percent. Usage in Italy used to be among the lowest at below 10 percent a decade ago.

The policy on soft drugs in the Netherlands, one of the most liberal in Europe, allows for the sale of marijuana at “coffee shops”, which the Dutch have allowed to operate for decades, and possession of less than 5 grams (0.18 oz).

The full report is available here.  Some interesting stats of note:

• While 41% or 102 million Americans have tried cannabis in their lifetime, only 22% or 74 million Europeans have.  Interestingly, there are about the same number of Europeans as Americans who will use cannabis this year (about 22 million) and this month (12 million), but of course that represents a lower percentage of population since America has 304 million and Europe has 491 million.
• While cannabis represents 49.8% of all drug law arrests in America, it represents between 55% and 85% of all drug offenses in the majority of European countries.
• While 25% of American 15-16-year-olds have tried cannabis in the past year, only 15% of European 15-16-year-olds have.  The same percentage of 15-16-year-olds in the Netherlands used cannabis in the past year as in the USA, 25%.
• The greatest decrease among European countries in the prevalence of cannabis use among young adults aged 15-34 has occurred in the United Kingdom since 2003, where past year use has dropped by a third.  Incidentally, 2003 was the year the UK downgraded cannabis to a Class C offense, essentially decriminalizing it.

(New Scientist) IF THERE is one thing that politicians can and should do to limit the damage caused by illegal drugs, it is to take careful note of the evidence and develop a rational drug policy. Some politicians find it easier to ignore the evidence, and pander to public prejudice instead.

I can trace the beginning of the end of my role as chairman of the UK’s official advisory body on drugs to the moment I quoted a New Scientist editorial (14 February, p 5). Entitled, fittingly enough, “Drugs drive politicians out of their minds”, the editorial asked the reader to imagine being seated at a table with two bowls, one containing peanuts, the other the illegal drug MDMA (ecstasy). Which is safer to give to a stranger? Why, the ecstasy of course.

I quoted these words in the Eve Saville lecture at King’s College London in July. This example plus other comments I have made – such as horse riding is more harmful than ecstasy – prompted Alan Johnson, the home secretary, to say that I had crossed the line from science to policy. This, he said, is why I had to go.

But simple, accurate and understandable statements of scientific fact are precisely what the advisory council is supposed to provide. Why would any scientist take up some future offer of a government advisory post when their advice can be treated with such disdain?

The results of a government inventing its own reality and acting on it can be seen in the appalling consequences the George W. Bush presidency had for world peace, the environment and human rights. The message for the British government is a simple one: don’t exclude rational argument in order to exploit a visceral public response. Politicians have to win the hearts and minds of their electorate. If your policy is informed by an underlying moral imperative, be open about what that is, and don’t try to disguise it with a veneer of pseudo-science. We ignore scientific evidence at our peril.

David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, was chairman of the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until he was dismissed last week by the UK home secretary

It’s a message President Obama needs to hear as well.  He promised to return us from the George W. Bush presidency’s disdain for rational thought and scientific evidence.  Obama promised to base our policies on sound science with respect to global climate change and other issues.  But stubbornly, this administration’s drug czar is still out parroting the completely unscientific falsehood that “the raw cannabis plant is certainly not medicine”.  Obama himself is laughing off the notion of marijuana legalization as having any economic benefit to cash-strapped states, despite the rational analysis by many prominent economists.  And despite the evidence of reduced social farms in the Netherlands, Portugal, and other countries that have experimented with drug decriminalization and tolerance, Obama continues to push a federal policy that relies heavily on interdiction and incarceration.

For over a century now, every time hard scientists, social scientists, economists, and policy experts gather to take a rational and scientific look at marijuana policy, they recommend decriminalization and tolerance or they recognize medical usage of cannabis, from the 1894 British East India survey to the 1942 Laguardia Commission to the 1972 Shaffer Commission to the 1999 Institute of Medicine study.  Cannabis can no longer be the exception to the “we believe in science” rule!

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s top drug adviser was fired Friday after saying that marijuana, Ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.

David Nutt’s comments have embarrassed the British government, which toughened the penalties for possessing marijuana earlier this year over the protests of many prominent British scientists.

In later comments to BBC radio’s “PM” program, Nutt accused British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of making “completely irrational statements” about the dangerousness of marijuana.

“I’m not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and Ecstasy,” he said.

Although Nutt’s views have long been public knowledge, the government seems to have been angered by a recent lecture for the Center for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College in London during which Nutt accused former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith of “distorting and devaluing” researchers’ work.

Honesty… is such a lonely word… everyone is so untrue.

It’s getting tougher and tougher for governments to conceal the plain fact that now a majority of people recognize: marijuana is safer than alcohol.  We’re tired of being harassed, locked up, and lives ruined because we prefer not to get hangovers when we party.  We’re tired of every other commercial on the telly being for beer and boner pills, then being told our pot smoking is bad for a “drug-free America”.  We’re tired of being punished for using a natural substance that doesn’t make us cause wrecks, punch people, and puke on your shoes.

This news comes on the heels of our “drugs advisor”, drug czar Kerlikowske, once again saying that marijuana legalization is a “non-starter”.  It’s not a surprising statement, given that Kerlikowske is mandated by law to lie about marijuana.  Three cheers for David Nutt for having the stones to tell the truth based on science!

We’re happy to announce the formation of another international chapter in Spain, known as NORML España! Carlos M. Cardenas is the founder, and he’s already gotten his NORML chapter involved in ExpoCannabis in Spain this weekend.

The Mexican drug cartels feed on the marijuana prohibition, deriving two-thirds of their incomes from selling marijuana in the U.S.  The violence they use to protect this cash flow is among the most vicious, sadistic brutality committed in the world today.

Unable to convey the full horror of the acts being committed with normal words, the Mexican media invented new ones. This is their glossary (Los Angeles Times):

Levanton: the kidnapping of one or more members of a rival gang, or other enemy. Unlike traditional kidnappings, the point is not ransom, but to torture and kill a foe. Victims of a multiple levanton may end up fusilados.

Fusilados: from the Spanish for rifle, to be executed in the style of a firing squad, or with a shot to the head, known as a tiro de gracia. This occurred in an attack at a Ciudad Juarez drug-treatment clinic in early September.

Encajuelado: Based on the word for “trunk,” a body dumped in the trunk of a car. This is a common method of disposing of victims of a drug hit. Often, the bodies are bound and gagged with packing tape or are encobijados, wrapped in blankets. Sometimes they are accompanied by a handwritten narcomensaje.

Narcomensaje: A scrawled drug message, often rambling or peppered with misspellings. Such missives are typically meant to threaten rival drug cartels or government security forces. Messages sometimes take the form of banners, known as narcomantas, and hung from bridges or in other public places to demonstrate a gang’s audacity.

Plaza: Not the quaint public square you see in nearly every Mexican town, but rather any defined drug marketplace, such as a smuggling point. Much of the violence since December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon declared war on drug cartels, is due to fighting among gangs over coveted plazas, or turf, including street-level sales taking place in tienditas.

Tiendita: Any place where drugs are sold in small quantities on the street — a house, apartment building or even a little store. Tienditas, or “little stores,” play a big role in what Mexican officials say is a worrisome increase in domestic drug use and addiction in Mexico, which once served mainly as a pipeline to the United States with little local consumption.

Halcones: To guard strongholds, trafficking groups rely on a network of street-level informants — taxi drivers, fruit vendors, teen boys — known as halcones, or falcons. Halcones provide early warning of the arrival of federal police or soldiers that have been dispatched around Mexico as part of Calderon’s drug war.

Cuerno de chivo: “Goat horn,” nickname for the AK-47 assault rifle, a favorite of cartel gunmen. The name refers to the curved shape of the magazine. Hit men are increasingly making use of even more powerful weapons, including .50-caliber machine guns and 40-millimeter grenade launchers. Authorities also report a rise in the use of potent pistols, able to fire through body armor, that are known here as matapolicias, or cop killers.

Narco-(anything): It’s handy for headline writers and coiners of terms that narco combines with almost any noun. Alone, narco can refer to a trafficker or the entire illegal drug trade, as in, “The government’s war against el narco.”

A little creativity yields narco-fiestas (opulent, drug-laden parties featuring foreign dancers or big-name musical groups), narco-zoologicos (narco-zoos, collections of exotic animals that, for some reason, are collectors’ items for traffickers) and narco-candidatos (politicians reputed to be in cahoots with drug gangs).

Attorneys who defend suspected capos are narco-abogados, or narco-lawyers.

Narco-policias are cops on the take.

And representing the drug war’s next generation: Narcojuniors, the well-heeled children of traffickers accused of helping run the criminal enterprises.

(Denver Post) Demand for medical marijuana in Colorado has grown so fast in the past few months that it has outstripped the production of legal “grow” operations and is now probably being supplied by international drug cartels, say some local sheriffs and agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

“Dispensaries are popping up like mushrooms,” said DEA special agent-in-charge Jeffrey Sweetin. “Now we have thousands of 20- to 25-year-olds carrying cards. And the cartels are getting rich off this law.”

Once again, our medically-trained law enforcement officers are able on casual visual inspection alone to determine that young adults do not suffer from cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, or persistent muscle spasms. You know, we could just end this health care crisis and cut costs drastically by just having our police handle all medical screening from now on.  Why bother with expensive scanners and tests when a DEA agent can just look at a 23-year-old woman and know she doesn’t have endometriosis, epilepsy, or an eating disorder?

Legal grow operations linked to dispensaries are limited to six cannabis plants each.

By contrast, most of the street pot comes from big, outdoor grows, such as the three operations — within a 5-mile radius of Chatfield Reservoir — busted by DEA officials last summer. Sweetin said one grow had 14,000 plants that averaged 5 to 6 feet tall.

He said the average illegal indoor grow is 100 to 200 plants averaging 3 feet tall.

“The numbers don’t seem to add up to me,” [said Sheriff Bill Masters of San Miguel County.] “It seems difficult to supply people with the number of plants allowed. My suspicions are that marijuana might be coming from other growers.”

“Supply (of marijuana) is not directly addressed in (state law), and we think it’s one of the areas that could lead to criminal elements being involved,” said Longmont city attorney Eugene Mei, noting that the city is seeking a 90-day moratorium on new dispensaries.

Let’s see, your demand from legal users is outpacing your supply from legal growers, a situation you deduce is sending profits to illegal growers.  Well, the way I see it, there are two ways to address this problem:

1. Reduce the demand from legal users, or
2. Increase the supply from legal growers.

#1 is a fool’s errand we call the War on Drugs.  Restricting the number of people able to get a medical marijuana card isn’t going to stop a medical user (or a recreational one, for that matter,) from going to the black market to score some cannabis.  The people who have cards now were most likely using marijuana prior to having a card anyway, so the legal growers, even if they aren’t supplying the whole market, are taking a cut from the whole market that didn’t exist before.

#2, however, takes a direct bite out of the drug gangs’ pocketbook.  You don’t want Mexican marijuana in Colorado dispensaries?  Then let more Coloradans grow more Rocky Mountain marijuana!

Finally, if they think we’re buying schwaggy Mexican brick weed – the main product of the Mexican drug gangs – at Colorado dispensaries, they have never experienced the Colorado I know.

(Washington Post) ARCATA, Calif. — Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not, according to law enforcement officials and pot growers in the United States and Mexico.

Illicit pot production in the United States has been increasing steadily for decades. But recent changes in state laws that allow the use and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes are giving U.S. growers a competitive advantage, challenging the traditional dominance of the Mexican traffickers, who once made brands such as Acapulco Gold the standard for quality.

Wait, are you telling us the limited legalization of marijuana has put more of a hurt on Mexican drug gangs than all that law enforcement expenditure on arrests and interdiction?  Are you telling us that the best way to battle a supply and demand problem is to legalize the supply to satisfy the demand?

While the trafficking of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine is the main focus of U.S. law enforcement, it is marijuana that has long provided most of the revenue for Mexican drug cartels. More than 60 percent of the cartels’ revenue — $8.6 billion out of $13.8 billion in 2006 — came from U.S. marijuana sales, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The exact dimensions of the U.S. marijuana market are unknown. The 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimated that 14.4 million Americans age 12 and over had used marijuana in the past month. More than 10 percent of the U.S. population reported smoking pot once in the past year.

There is no better marijuana on the planet than American-grown marijuana.  We’d be more than happy to put Mexican growers out of business.  Just let us grow our own!  In addition to the elimination of 60% of violent drug gangs* revenue, we’d also create many new jobs right here when we are in an unemployment slump.  It would also drive demand for all the stuff growers need, like lights, fertilizer, timers, air conditioning, air filtration, growhouse construction, and so on.  Then there are the payroll taxes and sales taxes we’d raise from legal marijuana.

So many who oppose this common-sense solution fear that we’d be sending the message that it’s OK to smoke pot.  Well, the messages we’ve been sending so far haven’t convinced anyone to not smoke pot, so are we just funding violent Mexican drug gangs out of stubbornness?  Forget about “messages”; people smoke pot, period.  Accept the reality that millions of us like to use cannabis responsibly and that the only harms to society from that use are due to its prohibition, not the cannabis.

*By the way, it’s “drug gangs” not “drug cartels”. Cartels are economic units of cooperation, like OPEC, where all the members work together to fix prices and control production. Cartels don’t fight amongst each other and decapitate their rivals.

SO FAR this year, about 4000 people have died in Mexico’s drugs war – a horrifying toll. If only a good fairy could wave a magic wand and make all illegal drugs disappear, the world would be a better place.

Dream on. Recreational drug use is as old as humanity, and has not been stopped by the most draconian laws. Given that drugs are here to stay, how do we limit the harm they do?

The evidence suggests most of the problems stem not from drugs themselves, but from the fact that they are illegal. The obvious answer, then, is to make them legal.

The argument most often deployed in support of the status quo is that keeping drugs illegal curbs drug use among the law-abiding majority, thereby reducing harm overall. But a closer look reveals that this really doesn’t stand up. In the UK, as in many countries, the real clampdown on drugs started in the late 1960s, yet government statistics show that the number of heroin or cocaine addicts seen by the health service has grown ever since – from around 1000 people per year then, to 100,000 today. It is a pattern that has been repeated the world over.

A second approach to the question is to look at whether fewer people use drugs in countries with stricter drug laws. In 2008, the World Health Organization looked at 17 countries and found no such correlation. The US, despite its punitive drug policies, has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world (PLoS Medicine, vol 5, p e141).

A third strand of evidence comes from what happens when a country softens its drug laws, as Portugal did in 2001. While dealing remains illegal in Portugal, personal use of all drugs has been decriminalised. The result? Drug use has stayed roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking have fallen. “Judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success,” states a recent report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC.

When the evidence is so completely obvious regarding the need to legalize marijuana and regulate hard drugs, it is hard to avoid invoking conspiracy theory as to why we continue to maintain prohibition.  You’d think some sectors of our economy are in such need of more arrests, more prisoners, more prisons, and more crime and mayhem that they would actively oppose changing our drug policies to protect their profits.  You’d think some sectors of our economy would be at such a competitive disadvantage against a grow-your-own medicine / food / fuel / fiber / plastics plant that most couldn’t survive if we ended prohibition.  You’d think that some sectors of our government that are unwilling or unable to help the disaffected poor need the underground economy and jobs market provided by illegal drugs.

But that would be just crazy conspiracy theory talk, right?