Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Jacob Sullum :: Townhall.com Columnist
Lott's Pot Shot
by Jacob Sullum
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


On Monday, after Richland County, S.C., Sheriff Leon Lott announced that he did not have enough evidence to arrest Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps for smoking marijuana at a November party in Columbia, the gold medalist issued a statement of regret. "I used bad judgment, and it's a mistake I won't make again," Phelps said. "For young people especially -- be careful about the decisions you make. One bad decision can really hurt you and the people you care about."

Phelps' mistake was not smoking pot so much as doing it in front of someone with a cell phone camera and no compunction about selling the picture to a British tabloid. And if that mistake hurt him, it's not because marijuana turned the record-breaking champion into a slacker or a drug addict. It's because consuming an arbitrarily proscribed intoxicant can result in serious legal (and therefore social and economic) consequences, which cause far more harm than marijuana itself.

This reality should be recognized by President Obama, whose own youthful pot smoking did not exactly hold him back but whose future might have been very different if he had been arrested on drug charges in high school or college. The same, of course, could be said for the two drug-experienced baby boomers who preceded him in the White House. But there are some indications that Obama may take a less dogmatic approach to drug policy.

A few days after that photo of Phelps sucking on a bong appeared in the News of the World, the Obama administration signaled that the president will keep his campaign promise to stop the Drug Enforcement Administration's raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, five of which have occurred since he took office. "The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws," a White House spokesman told The Washington Times, "and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind."

The week after Lott's deputies, looking for evidence to incriminate Phelps, raided two houses and charged seven people with marijuana possession, newspapers reported that Obama had chosen Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Kerlikowske is known for decidedly milder treatment of pot smokers than the hard-line sheriff, who said investigating Phelps was necessary to avoid "sending a message of tolerance."

Norm Stamper, who preceded Kerlikowske as Seattle's police chief and now promotes drug policy reform as a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said the "one thing I know for sure" about Kerlikowske is that "if Michael Phelps had bent over that bong in Seattle and not in Sheriff Leon Lott's Richland County he'd have nothing to fear but a foolish and fickle cereal maker" (a reference to the widely criticized decision by Kellogg's to drop its endorsement deal with Phelps). Although Kerlikowske's personal views on drug policy are unknown, he has helped implement state and local reforms such as allowing medical use of marijuana and making pot possession Seattle's "lowest law enforcement priority."

Among other things, the latter policy means police can patrol Seattle's annual Hempfest, where the scent of burning cannabis is conspicuous, without arresting every other person. It is hard to imagine Lott exercising similar restraint.

If you're glad that police arrested a record 873,000 Americans on marijuana charges in 2007 (the vast majority of them for simple possession), you can thank zero-tolerance zealots like Lott. The sheriff said he felt compelled to investigate Phelps, which involved busting seven people directly or indirectly linked to the party he attended, to show that "even with his star status, he is still obligated to obey the laws of our state." In the end, though, this case worked out the way drug cases usually do: The big shot got off, and the little guys got shafted.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Lose Endorsements: Yes; Jailtime: No...
Since it is a free market, companies have every right to not be obligated to endorse someone if they are knowingly violating the company's guidelines on personal behavior. That, it seems, is perfectly legitimate. Jailtime, however, simply sends the message that drug enforcement is not adressing the cause of the problem: Drug smugglers and drug dealers.

As the son of two former drug addicts, I can attest that what always caused them the most trouble was their association with said drug dealers. Most of the time it was because of their addictive personalities that kept them going back to drug dealers to get the crack cocaine that had infected their minds. They were the victims because their money was being given to the drug dealer so he could get more of the drug that they couldn't resist. Yet it is the victim that is sent to jail. My mother was sent to state prison for ten months because she was caught possessing seven dollars worth of cocaine. And keep in mind that she was the addict, not the dealer. On top of that, she was also a heart patient. What kind of justice is that?

If you want to make an example of someone, make an example of the drug dealers and smugglers. They have committed the evil deeds that have ruined the lives of so many people. If anyone should do the time, it's those that have dealt this crime.

Correction
cannabis is a genus of the plant kingdom, not a drug. if consuming a naturally-occurring substance that contains among its billions of components a psychoactive chemical is a misdemeanor, then everyone with whipping creme in their fridge should serve hard time in jail gettin raped alongside Phelp's erstwhile friends.

Intentionally misleading
"police arrested a record 873,000 Americans on marijuana charges in 2007 (the vast majority of them for simple possession)"
In most states, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is a
misdemeanor offense, and some states have gone so far as to downgrade simple possession of marijuana to a civil offense just like a traffic
violation. In 1997,according to the U.S.Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS), only 1.6 percent of the state inmate population
had been convicted of a marijuana only
crime,including trafficking, 0.7 percent were charged with marijuana possession as the only charge, and only 0.3 percent of those imprisoned just for marijuana possession were first time offenders. In 2002, approximately 8,400 state prisoners were serving time for possessing marijuana in ANY amount and fewer than half of that group, or about 3,600 inmates, were incarcerated on a first offense. Police in general ARE NOT spending a significant amount of time and resources enforcing personal use marijuana laws. I'm in law enforcement and can't imagine an agency that has the time and/or resources to do so even if it wanted to.

Well, it was only pot...
However, had Phelps smoked TOBACCO, acording to our government, it would seem he, like a quarter of our population, would be worthy of being exterminated - in an American equivelent of the Nazi gas ovens: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-fire-safe-cigarett e-laws

Please help

Lott Is A Lot Like Lott's Wife

Sheriff Lott seems to not understand criminal law.

A photograph proves nothing because criminal law is concerned with possession... not prior usage.

Heck! if Lott want's to go after those who have smoked pot, then he should start at the White House and work his way down. Most Americans have experimented with marijuana.

So, Lott looked backwards. Just like Lott's wife and we know what happened to her.

I am not cheerleading the usage of pot, but Lott needs a big doobie. Now! It will allow him to spend some money at Subway!

the7sticks
it wont work, 7. if we as a nation want to get rid of drug abuse, which we manifestly dont, we have to apply the penalties so harshly to the user that the user stops using. it is all loss to the user. the penalties, the cost, the health issues, the addiction, all are reasons to quit, or not start to begin with. the dealers have very good reason to continue to deal, and they will not stop until the reason is taken away. that reason is that it is lucreative. if we would just take the government money out of the drug trade, a huge portion of the drug trade would be eliminated. it is government that drives the drug trade. it is government that makes it possible. it is governent that subsidizes the user and protects the user from the consequences of drug use. test every recipient of any government aid and strike from the welfare, social security, retirement, disability, government worker, politician roles anyone who is positive for drugs, and the drug trade would be severely injured. administer a flogging to users, instead of a welfare check, and the drug dealers would be begging for a bailout. but, did i mention that we dont want to get rid of drug abuse? since we dont want to get rid of drug abuse, i suggest we quit talking about phelps and make him a senator (sorry, he is way too honest to be a cabinet member). being totally ignorant of anything except swimming, he would have to be an improvement over what we have.

America shouldn't endorse marijuana use
nor should she stone the grassroots movement (no pun intended) to decriminalize it. If we legalized it, and let the government tax it, we could begin chiseling away at that debt we owe. Throughout my college career I have taken political science and criminal justice courses, those courses have exposed me to valid viewpoints illustrating just how foolish the "war" on pot has become.

I wonder how much say big tobacco, and prison for profit have? Each year we jail an alarming number of folks for possession of an indigenous weed. A weed with side effects that pale in comparison to alcohol and tobacco use.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, had this to say:

"Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

Today, as far as my eye can see, are violently vicious turf wars spawned of marijuana cartels who make billions in profit thanks to the black market our marijuana policies have established. Innocent people are being killed daily, lives are being ruined daily, because U.S. authorities will not rethink the flawed policies born of the "reefer madness" scare. Isn't America supposed to be better than that?

What happened to the founding ideal of individual liberty in America? An adult smoking marijuana in the privacy of his home neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I'm sure many of the Founding Fathers would be appalled if they were alive to see the shackles that our contemporary American Government has put on individual freedom and liberty. Our Founding Fathers shed blood, sweat, and tears fighting for our freedoms and liberties. It is truly a disgrace that we are flushing everything they fought and died for down the toilet along with the pot. We might as well just urinate on their graves.

Pot smoking?
"When I was a child, I thought like a child, I acted like a child, but when I became a man, I gave up childish things" Paul the Apostle.

And the defenders of it think themselves profound.

The prolonged adolescence of Americans proceeds apace.


hoodaticus...
Correction: cannabis is a drug. It is a drug because Congress say's it's a drug. Forget that specious plant argument. It's a drug because the annointed nobles in our government have declared it to be so. In other words, little god spoke and it was so. See, I used to wonder how it took a constitutional amendment to control the manufacture and distribution of alcohol but not certain plants. This is how they did it: Powerful - Magic words are uttered and presto changeo!

Naturally all of the god-fearing church goers buy into this gobbledy gook, particularly the ones who read Genesis wherein God made every seed-bearing plant and herb and called them, "GOOD." They read that as their eyes glaze over and they pontificate about how that doesn't really mean every plant. You see, it only means good plants are good. Bad plants are the ones men decide are bad. Of course, these bad plants are only bad in certain ways, in certain places, in certain times, according to certain men. You notice these plants are sold by special people who get to sell them because they have a special license too. Because they are-uh well-special people.

You know like alcohol is bad. Even though every fruit and vegetable to ever exist makes alcohol. As long as the little god can profit from it it's okay. But it's bad if you believe the god-fearing tea totaler who claims Jesus turned water into grape-juice, because grapes, "didn't ferment back then." Of course they didn't...
And they didn't call Jesus, "a wine-bibber and a drunkard..." because he actually drank wine. They just said it because they were mean, bad men.

See, you just have to know how to discern these things...
...Sheesh!


curmudgeon
You must live in a fantasy world. People will not stop seeking mind altering substances no matter what the legal penalty is. How is that "3 strikes" law working out? Seen huge (or any) decrease in drug users? Even in countries that have the death penalty for illegal possession it does not stop. Our law enforcement agencies can not even keep illegal drugs out of the prisons and jails. What chance do you think they have of irradicating it from the streets? Your solution, to try to throw every user in jail and throw away the key, won't affect dealers and smugglers. As (if?) their pool of customers shrinks they will simply charge more or start providing a lower quality product or target younger customers. If you are serious about getting rid of dealers and smugglers (which I agree would be a very positive thing) there is one way that is over 90% effective. Make drugs legal for adults to purchase and regulate and tax them like we do alcohol and tobacco (both are "drugs" by the way). This would also go a long way in preventing under-age people from obtaining them. Drug dealers NEVER ask for your I.D. If your concern is an explosion of new drug users just look at any country where drugs are "legal". In every case the number of drug users declined after a small, short lived rise in numbers immediately after decrimminalization.

As long as I live I will NEVER understand the logic behind marijuana being illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.

POSSESSION, FOLKS!

The laws on marijuana are about POSSESSION, not USAGE.

There is no evidence that Phelp's was caught POSSESSING cannabis.

That being said, I hope that my children never use pot.

The7sticks . . .
Let's look at the "drug problem" from another perspective. If marijuana were separated from the "hard drugs" and available legally, this in itself would put a lot of the "drug dealers" out of business. It is a fact that when marijuana is unavailable, quite often the "drug dealer" will offer something else not as innocuous, cocaine, heroin etc. This is the reason some well-meaning people believe in the "gateway theory" of drug use.
The "gateway theory" is a farce; if it were true, alcohol and tobacco would be "gateway drugs".

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
You wrote: "How is that '3 strikes' law working out? Seen huge (or any) decrease in drug users?"

The "3 Strikes" laws weren't aimed at drug users. It was intended as a way to get career criminals (usually violent ones) off the streets for a longer period of time than would be the normal sentence for the current "serious felony" conviction. From the Wiki entry (maybe you should have Googled the term?): "Violent and serious felonies are specifically listed in state law. Violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or rape."

Note that these statutes are nothing new, NY state has a "Persistent Felony Offender" on the books since the late 1800s. And coke was legal then, as was heroin, et al.

As for Sheriff Lott, I suspect he decided it would be smart to make a concerted effort to determine if prosecution was possible for Phelps. There had been too much publicity surrounding the incident for him to ignore a possible violation of the law. While some, such as Mr. Sullum (a prominent Libertarian of Reason Magazine fame), would damn the Sheriff for doing so, others (like many of the people who vote for him?) would insist he enforce the law (well, that is his job description). So he investigated, and determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence (like none) to bring charges. It is unfortunate that some people on the periphery were caught up in what MAY have been an instance of a "round up the usual suspects" enforcement action (i.e. designed to give the appearance of enforcement).

That being said, I firmly believe you are correct that imprisoning users is absolutely ineffective and we'd be better off taxing the stuff.

Coke

The goobermint first sued Coca-Cola because they thought that Coke had cocaine in it. When no coke was found in the beverage, they sued because cocaine was lacking in the beverage.

The Goobermint is dumber than dirt.

Disconnect

The modern conssrvative movement made it fashionable to base policy on ideology rather than data, though to be fair, liberals do it as well. Just not as often or with as much glee.

The idea of building public policy on actual information and data instead of personal preference is only now becoming popular again. Marijuana is a perect example. There is no greater disconnect between data and policy than in the case of marijuana.

The data overwhelmingly indicate marijuna is not particularly dangerous. The data indicate that marijuana policy has given rise to a web of criminals who generate huge profits by importing and selling pot. And the data indicate that attitude toward all drug laws is colored by what is perceived to be the idiocy of marijuana laws.

Legalize it. Tax it. Leave people alone.

Jacob
America is so "DumB", it eats it's young. Americans go to Amsterdam,just to smoke "Pot". That is the height of hypocrisy. The cost is almost $1,000.00.

A government that can tell

you what you can legally breathe is way beyond oppressive.

Join the OTS (Oust The Incumbents) Party.

The OTS has only one plank in its platform. That plank is, "Vote against the incumbent". In truth, that is the only way we will ever reform the federal government.

VOTE FOR THE OTS PARTY!!!

coke in Coke
Denise
When Coke was originally formulated in 1886, by one John Styth Pemberton, an Atlanta druggist and former Confederate army officer, it and many other concoctions of that era DID contain cocaine. It was a minute amount but it was there.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The government you elect is government you deserve.”
So yes, our government does do a lot of bad things. However, they do exactly what the voters want them to do! If they didn’t they would not continually be re-elected. The problem is that we are a nation whose reality is so terrible that we are desperate to escape from it. We attempt this through drug and alcohol abuse, pornography, television, sports, other forms of entertainment, etc. This controversy proves it. We have a government confiscating hundreds of millions of dollars of our money and giving it to illegal aliens, welfare queens, Aids infected Africans, failed public schools, and countless other worthless, and unconstitutional, causes. But you people are upset because it might cost you a couple of hundred dollars if you get caught using marijuana to escape from your miserable reality.

We have a pot smoking Marxist in the white house and we deserve it.

joey
That was very good information. I'm afraid though, it was mostly ignored by both sides.

Good Golly
It is good to read such a well thought article. Criminalizing such benign behavior as smoking pot should go the way of burning witches. I am tired of paying for the arrest, trial and incarnation of people who pose no threat to me or society. This is a sound conservative principle that has some how been forgotten.

get a clue...
Why in Hell is this even a conversation in the year 2009?
Weed is here to stay.... PERIOD
Make it legal and tax it.

Jeeeeezus...
Lott is an idiot... PERIOD!

Eddie..
You forgot food. The most commonly misused "drug" in the world. That said, should the government ban cheeseburgers and/or jail those deviant abusers who eat fatty foods to "escape from reality?" Also, there are many white collar marijuana users who find therapeutic relief in the occasional puff. Marijuana use is not exclusive to the degenerate, career criminal crowd.
As for myself, I am not currently smoking marijuana. It is too expensive for this full time student, and carries penalties far more severe than just a "couple hundred dollar" fine. Marijuana is the most efficacious medicine I have ever used in treating my diagnosed, inattentive ADHD. Perhaps my response to the drug is atypical, but brain chemistry differs from person to person. Modern medicine has proven as much. Unfortunately, if I get arrested for possession, I will lose my Federal financial aid and ultimately face the job market with a blemish on my record. So I'm left taking my prescription stimulants, and while they're more dangerous, the govt. says they're OK. I pray that one day modern medicine will shake free of big brother's overbearing, antiquated grasp. Society will be better for it.

To John
Re policy being decided on the basis of ideology, here is a true story: In the mid-1970's, responding to growing complaint that little scientific evidence was available on the effects of smoking marijuana, so that policy might be based on science rather than unfounded opinion, a study to explore the effect of marijuana on sexual arousal was planned at a Midwestern university under the aegis of a federal agency involved in such matters. The protocol involved exposing volunteer subject male college undergraduates to pornography while smoking (or not) marijuana. The degree of arousal was then to be measured in various ways appropriate to science-based study design. Word got out in the community of such dirty goings on up at the school, and public outcry stopped the study dead. (How do I know that this actually happened? My husband was the science liason at the federal agency.)

Interesting anecdote lilly
If I were to.. guess.. (I don't want any Lotts harassing me) the study would have indicated a positive correlation existing between marijuana use and increased sexual arousal. Notice any irony in the story about the aborted study?? Had the study been continued, the anti-pot crowd would have been awarded a nice, juicy morsel of empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that marijuana might be inextricably tied to deviant behavior. Remember the "reefer madness" propaganda films, essentially blaming marijuana for turning so many good, decent, hard working Mexican workers into sex-crazed rapists. Marijuana was "known" to cause insanity, raging libidos, demonic behaviors even. "Mexican men" who were "possessed" by this demon would stalk and rape every attractive "white woman" in sight. Unfortunately, I am not embellishing this thing. But the real dopes in this story were the people who called a halt the study. The study would have provided ammunition for future campaigns. The early abolitionist cause was little more than an "apples and oranges" farce, but the public was hoodwinked nonetheless. By 1970 it was bunk. Today it is bunk. It is truly a travesty when we allow any freedom to be stolen on false pretenses, but justice will come eventually. This is still America.

tj
you write, "The "gateway theory" is a farce; if it were true, alcohol and tobacco would be "gateway drugs". dude, alchohol and tobacco are gateway drugs. in fact, alchohol and tobacco are THE gateway drugs. being legal doesnt make them not dangerous. you show me one drug addict that didnt use alchohol or tobacco first, and i will show you 100 that did. noone wakes up one morning, and says, today i think i will become a heroin addict and ruin my life. no, they start with a lesser substance, the dangers of which they are aware, and say, see, i am not harmed. then they try something else. the addiction ocurrs while they still think they are experimenting, just like tobacco and alchohol.

former rep never a dem
you might try reading a post before attacking the author. i clearly stated that we do not want to get rid of the drug trade, and made some suggestions regarding what we would do if we were serious about doing away with the drug trade. none of my suggestions had anything to do with locking anyone up and throwing away the key. that is your suggestion. i dont advocate "3 strikes" i advocated making the first strike so unpleasant that the user would not even consider going back for a second. i also advocated interdicting the flow of government money to drug users. but most clearly, i said that we do not want to get rid of the drug trade, and consequently, should get off phelps' back. maybe make him a senator, or if he were a known crook, a cabinet member. read first, then you might not want to attack the author.

The Marijuana Tax Act
Cannibis was mainly made illegal (via an exorbinate tax) through the efforts of William Randolf Hearst and John DuPont. Both had financial interests in seeing cannibis made illegal. Hearst had extensive timber interests, to supply his newspaper empire. Cannibis could replace wood pulp and regrow in one season, instead of timber's average of twenty years. DuPont was about to come out with a new fabric, nylon. Cannibis can be used for a variety of clothing applications. So these two industrialists funded a massive propaganda campaign, to preserve their financial interests, nothing more. They promoted such farces as "Reefer Madness", touring "experts", extolling the dangers of this "demon weed" and racial prejudices (as was earlier mentioned) against latino minorities. They even convinced Congress to designate it as a narcotic, when it's actually a mild hypnotic-seditive.
It's high time (pun intended) we insist that cannibis be legalized, taxed and restricted like alcohol is. This not only would break the illegal trade's hold on cannibis, but would provide a source of income for states and the federal governments.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.