crackonomics.com

How Chase Cheated Drug Policy Groups out of $25,000

Posted by Jim Hilsenteger on 12/24

On December 19, 2009, the New York Times wrote an article on the way JP Morgan Chase & Company conducted an online contest to award millions of dollars to 100 charities.

“At least three nonprofit groups – Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), the Marijuana Policy Project and an anti-abortion group, Justice for All – say the believe that Chase disqualified them over concerns about associating its name with their missions. The groups say that until Chase made changes to the contest, they appeared to be among the top 100 vote-getters.”

In a letter to supporters, the SSDP Executive Director, Micah Daigle, wrote:

“Friends,
Recently, I asked you to vote for Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) in a competition on Facebook that would have earned us $25K and a shot at $1 million. Thousands of you took action, catapulting SSDP into fourteenth place. We needed to place within the top 100 to win, so victory was assured.

Or so we thought. As the New York Times recently reported, during the final days of the contest, Chase rigged their own system to obscure the vote count and then revoked the winnings of a few groups, including SSDP and the Marijuana Policy Project!

Clearly, Chase can’t be trusted to handle our money. This morning, I canceled my credit card account with Chase, and I hope you’ll join me. Please make the Chase Boycott Pledge at http://www.ChaseBoycott.com

To be clear, this isn’t sour grapes over not receiving a grant – this is about demanding honesty and accountability of a corporation that handles billions of dollars of American assets. The banking giant had every opportunity to disqualify us from the start if they disagreed with our mission. Instead, they used our social networks to generate free advertising for their brand, and then revoked the winnings after the contest was over without providing an explanation. When asked by SSDP and the New York Times to produce a vote tally, they smugly refused.

Chase executives are not only out of touch with the principles of honesty and transparency, but they are also out of touch with the majority of Americans when it comes to drug policy. Did you know that 75% of Americans think the War on Drugs has failed and that 53% support legalizing marijuana? This is a mainstream issue that’s gaining more support every day.”

As this experience shows, our business leaders are out of touch as to where the public stands on the need for drug reform.

Insanity and Drug Policy

Posted by Jim Hilsenteger on 12/18

Einstein’s definition of insanity was “doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results”. A recent article in the Globe and Mail states that a Canadian sentencing judge decided to use the same logic in sentencing a marijuana grower:

“Judge Allen expressed his views on Oct. 14, 2008, while sentencing Zeyu Song to a conditional sentence for producing 1,400 marijuana plants at a large-scale grow operation near Brampton, Ont. Judge Elliott spoke at length about the fallacy of believing that harsh penalties for marijuana have any effect on its use and production.

“Nobody has been deterred,” he said. “People have been going to jail for drug offences for – for a couple of generations now and the drug – the drug plague is worse than it ever was ... If something doesn’t work, do I try doing it again and again to see if it does work? Isn’t that the definition of insanity?”

However, Ontario Court of Appeal thrashed the sentencing judge for misusing his judicial position to state his personal political views.
The world of drug reform continues to heat up.

The Fear of Change

Posted by Jim Hilsenteger on 11/30

A recent article from Tom Tyron discusses the global movement towards more liberal drug policies. However, a barrier to this movement is the fear of the unknown, being able to describe what the road looks like while traveling from prohibition to regulation.

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation — based in the United Kingdom — issued a compelling report, “After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation.” The report (available at the Transform foundation’s Web site) offers a step-by-step plan for ending prohibition and dealing with its consequences through regulation.

Tom finishes his article with the important question; “Are Americans ready to go this far? I don’t know. But it seems a crime not to have the discussion.”

I only hope more people start asking for a discussion on drug reform.

Drug Policy Reform: Fear verses Education

Posted by Jim Hilsenteger on 11/23

As per a recent article by Ken Millstone, entitled “A New Era for US Drug Policy” (see article), drug reform appears to be gaining momentum. Millstone writes:

“In March, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb introduced a bill calling for a wholesale overhaul of the criminal justice system in the United States. Our system is cripplingly large, he argued, and marred by wrongful incarcerations, poor rehabilitative treatment and mental health care and a price tag of $44 billion a year on prisons alone.

Webb called the situation a “national disgrace,” and said the elephant in the room is sky-high incarceration rates for drug users due to the U.S.‘s 40-year-old War on Drugs.”

Webb’s bill has a number of supporters in the Senate, however, there are 21 amendments that have been filed and it is speculated that a large number of these amendments are about drug policy. According to Webb spokesperson Jessica Smith, “They don’t want to go home and say I’m legalizing drugs.”

The fear associated with legalizing drugs is a belief there will be an increase in the number of addicts and higher levels of crime. And yet, to my knowledge, there is little scientific proof to support this fear. For example, addiction rates did not increase after Portugal decided to Decriminalize Drugs in 2001 (see article)

It is a safe position for a politician to say he/she is “tough on crime” and “I am not in support of legalizing drugs”.  However, it takes time and political capital for elected representatives to educate the public on the unintended consequences of drug prohibition. Hopefully there are enough politicians with the will to take on this elephant and develop more effective drug policies.

Drug Policy: Politics vs. Science

Posted by Jim Hilsenteger on 11/06

Politics rather than science drive drug policy. In 1971, the Shafer Commission in the United States (see article) made the following recommendations:

• POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA FOR PERSONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE, BUT MARIHUANA POSSESSED IN PUBLIC WOULD REMAIN CONTRABAND SUBJECT TO SUMMARY SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE.
• CASUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION, OR INSIGNIFICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING PROFIT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

Instead of accepting the Shafer Commission’s recommendations, the President (Mr. Nixon) chose an all out war on marijuana.  He stated a number of times that he wanted “tough on crime” policies no matter what the facts might be (see article).

Recently a similar experience occurred in the United Kingdom. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs determined, based on scientific research, that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco (see article). As this was not consistent with the view of the Home Office, the leader of the Advisory Council (Professor Nutt) was sacked. The UK Government was fearful of being seen as being soft on crime.

Unfortunately, politics continues to trump science when it comes to setting drug policy.