NORML’s Official Reply To ‘Patients Against I-502’

NORML’s Official Reply To ‘Patients Against I-502’

by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
February 24, 2012

NORML supports (and publicly endorses when requested by the principal organizers) marijuana legalization, regulation, and medical use initiatives that qualify for the state ballot, so long as they move us closer to full legalization, even if they contain provisions we do not believe should be included in a perfect proposal.

Every cannabis law reform initiative dating back to the 1972 proposal in CA has included some flaws, but nonetheless when the initiatives have been approved, marijuana consumers, (including those who use cannabis for medical reasons) benefit by legal protections that did not exist under prior law.

When any marijuana law reform initiative qualifies for the ballot, it instantly creates a much needed public policy discussion and debate about the need to end cannabis prohibition. The mainstream media, editorial boards, columnists and radio talk shows FINALLY start to focus on the problems created by 74 years of prohibition and the benefits of alternative public policies.

The value of this public discussion, even if the initiative loses, clearly moves us closer to eventual victory. For example, Prop. 19 in CA, which ended up getting nearly 47% of the vote, sparked a national debate over the merits of legalization that helped move the support for full legalization to the highest point ever, measured by a recent Gallup poll as 50% support nationwide.

At NORML, we support these efforts, even when imperfect, because the greater good achieved by legalization proposals outweighs the imperfect language; and what flaws exist in individual initiatives can be amended in future legislation (or if necessary, via another voter initiative). But in the meantime, tens of thousands of marijuana arrests are avoided by the new law.

We fully recognize the per se DUI marijuana provisions in I-502 are arbitrary, unnecessary, and unscientific, and we argued strongly with the sponsors for provisions that would require proof of actual impairment to be shown before one could be charged with a traffic safety offense. NORML, arguably more so than any other drug law reform organization, has a long track record of opposing the imposition of arbitrary and discriminatory per se traffic safety laws for responsible cannabis consumers. But we failed to persuade the sponsors of I-502, and now we must decide whether to support the initiative despite those provisions. We believe the overall impact of this proposal, if approved by voters this fall and enacted, will be overwhelmingly helpful to the vast majority of cannabis consumers in the state, and will eliminate tens of thousands of cannabis arrests each year. Thus, NORML’s Board of Directors voted unanimously (including the two members from WA) to endorse the initiative, while maintaining our opposition to per se DUID provisions in principal.

Additionally, at NORML we also support the right of consumers to grow their own marijuana, and there is no such legal protection in the WA initiative. However, qualified patients already protected under existing law will be able to continue to grow cannabis, as I-502 does not alter existing medicinal cannabis laws. The sponsors found through their polling that the inclusion of the right to cultivate marijuana for personal adult use would reduce their level of public support below that needed for approval. Again, while we continue to support personal cultivation, we believe the initiative still deserves our support, despite this calculated omission by I-502’s sponsors.

We would urge those who support marijuana legalization, but oppose specific provision of I-502, to nonetheless support this initiative because of the importance of 1.) having one state actually approve legalization and confront the federal government on this issue, and 2.) stopping thousands of expensive and damaging arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations annually in WA for cannabis-related offenses, notably for simple possession.

For those who feel they cannot support the current initiative, because it is not perfect, we would hope they would step aside and take no public position, in order not to undermine what is an historic opportunity to end marijuana prohibition, by popular vote, under state law.

Testing Fever Hits the Potomac Again

Two stories caught my eye this week.

The first has to do with Congress jumping back onto the drug war bandwagon by adopting a law to force states to require that many people seeking unemployment compensation first pass a urine drug test. The Fiscal Times reported on Feb. 19, 2012:

Drug testing for some unemployed: The legislation encourages states to enact legislation to require applicants for unemployment insurance to pass a drug test under the following conditions: 1) the individual was fired from his or her most recent job because of the unlawful use of controlled substances, or 2) the individual’s only suitable work involves employment in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing.

from 8 Things You Didn't Know About Payroll Tax Cut Deal, by ERIC PIANIN, The Fiscal Times, Feb. 19, 2012.

Such programs have been shown to be a waste of time and taxpayer money. In spite of this, three states have enacted or are trying to enact such a testing program, as noted by AP on Feb. 15:

Those who failed drug tests would face a series of progressively strict penalties. A welfare applicant would be ineligible for financial assistance for one month after failing a first drug test. A second failed test would cut off funding for three months, while a third failed test would eliminate an applicant's welfare funding for three years.

Similar legislation was filed in 36 states last year, but passed only in Arizona, Florida and Missouri. A federal judge blocked Florida's program pending a lawsuit there. Tarren Bragdon, chief executive officer of the Foundation for Government Accountability, backed Spencer's bill, saying that Florida saw a nearly 50 percent drop in approvals during the brief period when the tests were allowed.

From AP: Bill on Testing Welfare Recipients Slowed, Feb. 15, 2012.

If the FGA's mouthpiece quoted above was correct, that's a very scary number because the testing program itself, as the Tampa Tribune reported on Aug. 24, 2011:

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

And oops, looks like the mouthpiece from the FGA was wrong after all - surprise surprise:

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

From Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results By CATHERINE WHITTENBURG, The Tampa Tribune, Aug. 24, 2011.

Another testing story probably passed below the radar for most folks, which is too bad because this one will affect a lot more people and could have some very serious repercussions. AP's Garance Burke reported on Feb. 19, 2012:

The budget plan the president sent to Congress Monday would ax the Agriculture Department’s tiny Microbiological Data Program, which extensively screens high-risk fresh produce throughout the year for bacteria including salmonella, E. coli and listeria.

If samples are positive, they can trigger nationwide recalls, and keep tainted produce from reaching consumers or grocery store shelves.

Food safety advocates and a top-ranking U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official said the information also can help pinpoint foods tied to illness outbreaks, and would not easily be replaced by companies’ internal tests or more modest federal sampling programs.

Yet how serious a problem is contaminated food in this, our 21st century America?

Last year, for instance, California firms recalled pre-packaged fresh cilantro and bagged spinach from the marketplace after MDP tests of random samples detected salmonella.

According to the CDC, nearly one-third of the major, multistate foodborne illness outbreaks in 2011 were caused by contaminated fruits and vegetables.

The 120,000 food samples the program has collected in the last decade have offered public health officials important clues when they are probing the source of food poisoning outbreaks, Dr. Robert Tauxe, the CDC’s top food-germ investigator, said in an interview in October when the agency began offering the program’s employees early retirement packages.

Last year, the program found lettuce and spinach contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the strain most commonly responsible for food poisoning, and also started aggressively testing for listeria in cantaloupes in response to the nation’s most deadly foodborne illness outbreak, in which 30 people died after eating listeria-tainted melons. In one instance in the last several years, a contaminated produce sample the program identified was later tied to an illness cluster, Tauxe said.

FDA Produce Safety Staff Director Samir Assar said in an October interview that while his agency also conducts targeted tests of certain high-risk fresh fruits and vegetables each year, cutting MDP would leave the regular testing of sprouts, tomatoes, cantaloupe and cilantro to industry and more modest state and federal efforts.

But surely there are other agencies at the federal level, or in the states? WRONG.

FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey, however, said she could not speculate on whether FDA would set up a parallel program, or had the money to do so.

“We don’t test produce,” said Lola Russell, a CDC spokeswoman. “That’s just not part of our mission.”

State health departments are already facing tough choices as they try to come up with enough dollars to keep food safe after tens thousands of employees have been laid off in recent years. And the FDA has always been crunched for food safety dollars, receiving so little money for food inspections that some facilities are only inspected every five to 10 years. A new food safety law President Obama signed last year aims to increase the number of inspections in the United States and abroad, but emphasizes prevention rather than increased testing of foods.

From Obama's Budget Cuts Bacteria Testing in Produce, by GARANCE BURKE, AP, Feb. 19, 2012.

Major investigative report from The Bangkok Post: Myanmar's Rising Drug Trade

From the story:

"Critics say that the ceasefire agreements signed with ethnic armies are driven by a desire to capitalise on the country's booming narcotics business not a desire for change and that the army and politicians are padding their coffers with the proceeds."

More here: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/279434/myanmar-reforms-mask-meteoric-rise-in-drug-trade