Former San Jose Chief of Police Calls For Legalization of Cannabis

[RainDog]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148149/former_police_chief%3A_legalize_pot%2C_now/

Joseph D. McNamara writes:

California voters have a chance on this November's ballot to bring common sense to law enforcement by legalizing marijuana for adults. As San Jose's retired chief of police and a cop with 35 years experience on the front lines in the war on marijuana, I'm voting yes.

He cites the arguments of opponents of Prop. 19 and shoots them down.

Regarding the claim that Mexican cartel violence would increase, McNamara says:

No one today shoots up the local neighborhood to compete in the beer market. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that Mexican cartels derive more than 60 percent of their profits from marijuana. How much did the cartels make last year dealing in Budweiser, Corona or Dos Equis? Legalization would seriously cripple their operations. With more than 20,000 people in Mexico killed in the past three years in drug turf battles, which are spreading north of the border, undercutting the cartels is an urgent priority for both Mexicans' and Americans' safety.

Regarding the lack of political courage and the vested interests of certain groups:

The same professional politicians who recklessly caused huge budget deficits predictably are taking an irresponsible position of opposing the "evil" of cannabis legalization, just as they opposed California voters' decision a decade ago to legalize medical marijuana. The California Police Chiefs Association, of which I have been a member for 34 years, is also in opposition. Personally, I have never even smoked a cigarette, let alone taken a hit from a bong, and while I have great respect for the police chiefs, I wouldn't want to live in a country where it is a crime to behave contrary to the way cops think we should.

That perhaps brings up the most significant and least considered cost of criminalizing marijuana - turning people into criminals for behavior of which we disapprove, even though it doesn't take others' property or endanger their safety. It is worth remembering that our last three presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, would have been stigmatized for life and never would have become presidents if they had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and been busted for pot during their reckless youthful days. Countless other Americans weren't so lucky. California voters have an opportunity in November to return reason to our state by decriminalizing adult use of marijuana.

Politicians become irrelevant when they do not have the courage to look at facts and recognize the value of changes in laws that - in this case, most certainly - were bad laws to begin with - born of corruption and collusion with favored corporate entities. Sort of like how we can't get to the point of health care reform in the U.S. - because political institutions have been so corrupted by the corporate cartels called health insurance and the pharmaceutical industry.

[SteveM]

1. Legalize pot -- and hope tobacco is not the new "replacement prohibition."

Some may remember that just 2 years after prohibition was repealed, Anslinger set off the precursor to the War on Drugs with his Reefer Madness propaganda. There is a smelly underside to prohibition that is rather hydraulic: the need to prohibit and punish just gots to be fulfilled by something.

[RainDog]

2. I really think that legalization is something that can spur enormous economic growth

and not simply from recreational marijuana. as I've said here many times - hemp is cannabis bred for very low THC content. a revitalized hemp industry in the U.S. could be a source of "green" manufacturing.

there is a huge garbage dump in the pacific ocean.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

most of the garbage in that patch is made of plastics. imagine a plant that can produce biodegradable "plastics." If something has to be made illegal - it should be petrol products like plastic. Send Exxon's vps to jail instead of some guy on the street... lol.

[SteveM]

10. I think you are right about opening up a "new" industrial sector...

It won't be a panacea, but it would help.

The chief reason for continued marijuana prohibition (which is the core of the W.O.D.) is cultural. By re-invigorating the W.O.D. in the early 70s (Nixon) and ramping it up at the end of the 80s (GHWB I), the G.O.P. far-right successfully tagged the hated counter-culture with its enduring symbol, the marijuana leaf. Make no mistake about it, Gingrich and other GOPers who partook of the weed, saw demonization of Demo Party activists (many hold-overs from the 60s and early 70s) as essential in their taking of Congress.

Along the way they were able to elect vast quantities of loud-mouthed far rightists who used the "soft on drugs" routine successfully on Democrats. And, of course, they opened up a vast prison-industrial complex to jail hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders, which benefited an increasing GOP presence at all government levels. This latter economic benefit is the only truly believable "economic determinism" argument proffered in the debate over legalization. It is the political benefit reaped by the drug culture war which was the motivation behind the W.O.D. I realize that this won't go over with the "follow the money trail" crowd which quotes econ. determ. stuff for every occurrence under the sun, but I think it is a better rationale.

As long as the W.O.D. remains "nationalized," it will be difficult to legalize and regulate in the near future; the political benefits and withering rage against the counter culture remain strong.

[RainDog]

14. true. there are no panaceas.

but there are things are make sense to do - that are smart to do b/c of the numerous benefits to the general population - and hemp can compete with cotton, too.

honestly, it's amazing to me that prohibition has continued for more than 70 years.

I read some comment, iirc, on a site that suggested someone write down various legal and illegal drugs.

Then list their side effects.

Then list their potential to cause death.

Then cover up the names and ask people to choose which, among all of those drugs, was the safest - b/c, no doubt, it would be cannabis.

That's how crazy this whole situation is.

And, honestly, if anyone wanted to find a way to make people lose respect for authority - this situation would be the way to do it.

[RainDog]

3. two big endorsements for legalization in one day

first from law enforcement in California - then from the scientific establishment in the UK (I created a post about this but wanted to note it here as well)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/358db9d6-bf57-11df-965a-00144feab49a.html

[CreekDog]

4. McNamara has always been one of the good guys...a class act always

A very forward thinking police leader.

:)

[RainDog]

6. A lot of people in the law enforcement community speaking up lately

that's good for all of us.

latest poll numbers on Prop 19:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=7647417

According to the survey, 47 percent of Californians say they're certain to vote "yes" on Prop. 19. That's down 3 percentage points from August. Forty-three percent say they're certain to vote "no." Ten percent remain "uncertain."

Two previous Survey USA polls had the initiative to legalize and tax marijuana in California ahead by 10 percentage points. Now the lead is down to 4 percentage points.

Pollsters identified several core voting groups giving momentum to the decline:

* Women
* Older Californians
* Minorities
* Central Valley residents

Those voters were concerned about cannabis being available to teenagers. The irony, of course, is that it is much easier for teenagers to get cannabis than it is for them to get alcohol - because alcohol is legal and regulated.

No doubt, in a time of transition, people have concerns.

However, as a matter of public safety, it's better to regulate the cannabis market than it is to leave it to organizations that are outside of the law - and who use rough justice to settle claims - and who don't bother to check i.d.'s.

[CreekDog]

7. Here's his bio...I'm flacking him because he's an ususual figure in law enforcement

and he helped make San Jose arguably the safest big city in America, using the fewest cops.

Joseph D. McNamara

Op-ed archive

Joseph D. McNamara is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was chief of police for the city of San Jose, California, for fifteen years.

McNamara's career in law enforcement spans a thirty-five-year period. He began in Harlem as a beat patrolman for the New York City Police Department. He rose through the ranks and in midcareer was appointed a criminal justice fellow at Harvard Law School, focusing on criminal justice research methodology. Following this appointment he received two Littauer Fellowships from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. During this leave from police work, he obtained a doctorate in public administration. Returning to duty with the NYPD, he was appointed deputy inspector in charge of crime analysis for New York City.

In 1973 McNamara became police chief of Kansas City, Missouri, leading that department into groundbreaking research and innovative programs. In 1976 McNamara was appointed police chief for the city of San Jose, where he remained until his retirement in 1991. During his tenure, San Jose (the third-largest city in California and the eleventh largest in the United States) became the safest city in the country, despite having the fewest police per capita.

McNamara has served as lecturer and adjunct professor at five different colleges and has lectured at many of the nation's top universities, including Harvard, Stanford, and the University of California at Berkeley. In 1980, he was appointed by the U.S. attorney general to the advisory board of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

He has been a consultant for the United States Department of Justice, State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and some of the nation's largest corporations.

McNamara's books include three national best-selling detective novels and a respected crime prevention text. He is completing a book on U.S. police corruption in the drug war. He has been a commentator for National Public Broadcasting and has appeared on numerous news programs. He has published articles in national and scholarly publications.

He holds a B.S. from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a Criminal Justice Research Fellowship, Harvard Law School, and a doctorate in public administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

[RainDog]

13. would seem he's definitely conservative if he's a fellow at the Hoover Institute

what did he do that was so effective?

[CreekDog]

16. not sure his politics, but he definitely doesn't fit a conservative mold

http://sanjosecopwatch.org/bad_cops.htm

America's Plague of Bad Cops

By Joseph D. McNamara ( Former San Jose Police Chief. )

Los Angeles Times - September 17, 1995

Citizens are having trouble distinguishing the good guys from the bad. Retired LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman spouts venomous racism and brags to an aspiring screenwriter about torturing, beating and framing suspects. Cops across the country murder people, pull armed robberies while in uniform, sell dope, steal drug-buy money, shake down criminals, accept bribes and falsify evidence against criminal defendants. The standard defense coming from law enforcement is that only a relative handful of the 400,000 cops nationwide go bad. For several reasons, the public is not reassured.

First, the number of reported cases of bad cops is rising. Some L.A. County deputy sheriffs get caught robbing and extorting money from drug dealers. In New Orleans, a uniformed cop is accused of murdering her partner and shop owners during a robbery committed while she was on patrol. In Washington, D.C., and in Atlanta, cops in drug stings are arrested for stealing and taking bribes. In Boston, two white cops frame a black man for murdering a white woman. New York State troopers falsify evidence that sends people to prison. In San Francisco, counterfeit evidence means hundreds of drug convictions are likely to be overturned. Similar evidence tampering forces the prosecution to reopen many cases in Philadelphia.

It's not just the rank and file, either. The former police chief of Detroit is in prison for stealing drug-buy money. In a small New England town. the chief steals drugs from the evidence locker for his own use. A number of Southern sheriffs are convicted of being in league with drug smugglers.

(snip)

------------------------

[KamaAina]

5. Can we please bring him back?

We actually have a vacancy. The current chief (no McNamara, he) is retiring. :bounce:

[CreekDog]

8. McNamara was great and there should be more like him

i always wondered why his career didn't seem to go anywhere after the 90's and i think it's because despite his success, his approach to law enforcement was frowned upon by others in the law enforcement community. Just my hunch.

[CreekDog]

9. I'm voting for Prop. 19, enthusiastically

I think most people I know will too and I'll work on some of my older relatives who may be leaning against. You know, they might be thinking of voting for it but then predictably, the SF Chronicle will write an OP-ed saying, we can't legalize it because it will blah, blah, blah and typical of the SF Chronicle, that will be wrong anyway --but nonetheless influential.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RainDog.

[RainDog]

12. thank you! n/t

[RainDog]

15. LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) announces support of Prop 19

From left, Stephen Downing, retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, William Fox, former deputy Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, former Torrance Police Department beat officer and drug identification expert Kyle Kazan, at podium; and retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, right. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100914/NEWS/100919783/1350?Title=Law-group-backs-pot-bill#

Current law enforcement officials are obligated to support laws and are ethically unable to oppose it in public, but retired officers can speak out, said McNamara, who is now a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute.

“We’re pushing police into a war they didn’t declare and they can’t win, and that comes at so much cost to taxpayers and society,” he said.

Nationally, President Barack Obama’s director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, spoke out against the proposed law. Nine former Drug Enforcement Administration bosses wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that legalizing the drug threatens federal authority.

LOL!! Well, OF COURSE legalization threatens federal authority. You can't target African-Americans, suppress Democratic votes, can't make a career punishing Americans for a VICTIMLESS crime, can't continue to lie with impunity... but the truth is that anyone with any sense already knows federal authority regarding scheduling of cannabis has been undermined by their stubborn refusal to acknowledge the reality that cannabis has medicinal value.

Some people ALWAYS have to be brought kicking and screaming into a better way of dealing with various issues. This case is no different than other attempts to repress targeted groups because of irrational beliefs.

[Fumesucker]

17. Every single one "former" or "retired"...

Cops still on the job are remarkably reticent about criticizing the Law Enforcement Officer's Job Protection and Wage Enhancement Act, aka the drug war.

[Mariana]

18. Yeah, I've noticed that, too. nt.

[RainDog]

19. acting law enforcement is prohibited by law from speaking out

that's why you hear from the retired law enforcement people.

[Fumesucker]

20. They are?

And yet we often hear law enforcement officers speaking out in favor of more strict laws.

Are they only prohibited from speaking for more leniency?

[RainDog]

22. they cannot speak against existing laws

so, yeah, they can speak about making existing laws tougher, but cannot call to overturn existing law.

[Fumesucker]

23. Is that a federal law? n/t

[m00nbeam]

21. I have met Judge Gray

What a fine, well spoken man. He is really a good ally for the Proposition 19 cause.