Marijuana Prohibitionists and Profiteers: Naked Opposition Exposed in The New York Times

  • by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director February 27, 2012

    You can’t make this stuff up!

    I often say to staff, supporters and the media that: We’re blessed by our opponents to cannabis law reform!”

    A few weeks ago the New York Times featured a straight forward story during these recessionary times about local and state governments with legal protections for medical cannabis patients struggling to cobble together taxation and other revenue streams derived from medical cannabis in the face of federal recalcitrance and outright law enforcement opposition.

    The national affairs story is almost a no-brainer that wrote itself regarding this clear conflict between state and federal governments over the country’s festering 74-year old and increasingly unpopular Cannabis Prohibition.

    While not clear if whether or not an indication of the dearth of letters received by the NYT on the subject matter (i.e., meaning the subject matter was not controversial), or, the letters’ editors casting needed public light on the kind of remaining, almost teetering and naked public opposition that solidly supports another eight decades of the failed and expensive public policy of Cannabis Prohibition, the publishing of only these two letters, from such clearly bias sources, is potentially revealing.

    The first letter is from a drug rehabilitation center CEO in NYC (back in the late 1980s and throughout most of the 1990s, one of the most frequently published commentators and letter writers in the New York Times against virtually any pro-cannabis law reforms was Mitchell Rosenthal of Phoenix House, another drug rehabilitation provider like competitor Odyssey House. Not too surprisingly the current CEO of Odyssey House used to be employed at Phoenix House….).

    The second letter is from a decidedly unsurprising duo of longtime anti-cannabis propagandists and prohibition profiteers, former National Institute of Drug Abuse head Robert DuPont, M.D. (who, as director of NIDA, at one time publicly supported major cannabis law reforms, including decriminalization) and former Drug Enforcement Administration honcho Peter Bensinger.

    Both the former G-men and current pee testers, like rehabbers Rosenthal and Odyssey House CEO Peter Provet, are now some of the very few and clearly committed individuals remaining in a country with an estimated population in excess of 300 million to consistently write and publish letters to the editors of major newspapers and magazines condemning all things cannabis and favor not only the status quo, but a doubling-down by government passing even more stringent and invasive anti-cannabis laws and enforcement.

    While the NYT correctly identifies these two prohibitionists’ former executive roles in federal government anti-drug bureaucracies going back 30 years ago, what the NYT failed to inform readers is that DuPont and Bensinger are the longtime and current principles of a lucrative drug testing (their company has been chosen by members of Congress to perform individual drug tests) and anti-drug counseling business to Fortune 1000 companies and small businesses.

    As previously stated, currently in America, almost all of the public opposition against cannabis law reform historically comes from government agencies, industries and companies who most financially benefit from the current and failed status quo of Cannabis Prohibition:

    –>Law Enforcement Agencies: Employees from local police to the Drug Enforcement Administration, to sheriffs, prosecutors, probation officers and prison guards, in modern times are usually the first in line, loudest and most strident against ending Cannabis Prohibition in America.

    –>Government Bureaucracies Born of Cannabis Prohibition: DEA, ONDCP, FBI, NIDA, SAMHSA, DARE, PDFA, etc…

    –>Industries and Companies That Will Compete With Legal Cannabis: Tobacco, Alcohol, Pharmaceutical, Wood and Fuel

    –>Industries and Companies That Currently Benefit From Cannabis Prohibition Laws: Private Prisons, Drug Testing, Drug Rehab, Drug Detection Device Makers, Mercenary Private Military Companies That Perform Duties and Actions Once Reserved for the Civilian Military

    The below letters published by the NYT demonstrate how limited, parochial and self-interested today’s anti-cannabis activists are becoming in a country where 50% of the public no longer supports Cannabis Prohibition.


    Taxing Medical Marijuana

    Published: February 23, 2012

    To the Editor:

    Struggling Cities Turn to a Crop for Cash” (news article, Feb. 12) doesn’t mention a major issue of concern that has to be considered before claims of attractive financial benefits from taxing medical marijuana can be made.

    In the states mentioned — California, Colorado, Maine and Oregon — 3.2 million people are not receiving the treatment services they need for drug abuse and dependence. California alone accounts for 2.3 million people with untreated substance abuse disorders.

    Before hard-pressed municipalities, in these and other states around the country, look at medical marijuana as a new source of tax revenue to finance essential services, taxpayers should be given the opportunity to consider allocating some of this money to under-supported treatment and prevention programs.

    This will not mitigate the effects of untreated substance abuse, but it will help send a clear message to young people that marijuana, prescribed or not, has addictive potential that too often requires intensive treatment.

    President and Chief Executive
    Odyssey House
    New York, Feb. 13, 2012




    To the Editor:

    California cities’ meager tax payments are a tiny fraction of the costs of their misguided “medical marijuana” initiatives.

    The taxes imposed on medical marijuana place it in a category with alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs that demonstrate the same appalling disparity between tax revenues and societal costs. The state and federal alcohol revenue of $14 billion and the $25 billion collected in tobacco taxes in the United States are overshadowed by the $235 billion and $200 billion in social costs they produce, respectively.

    Among all Americans 12 and older who abuse or are dependent on an illegal drug, 60 percent abuse or are dependent on marijuana. Nationally, admissions for primary marijuana use to state-financed treatment have increased by 31 percent from 1998 to 2008 (the most recent year for which data are available).

    California and other states that have legalized medical marijuana face the disturbing reality of the drug’s true costs in long-term health care, increased treatment admissions, loss of productivity at work and at school, and increased risk of motor vehicle crashes.

    In addition to the disproportion of small tax revenue compared with large societal costs, medical marijuana sharply increases marijuana use and dependency. With 60 percent more cancer-causing chemicals than cigarettes and four times more tar, making marijuana more available is bad economic policy and bad health care policy.

    Chicago, Feb. 14, 2012

    The writers are, respectively, former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, 1976-81; and a psychiatrist and founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1973-78.

    63 Responses to “Marijuana Prohibitionists and Profiteers: Naked Opposition Exposed in The New York Times”

    1. Thinking Clearly says:

      There is another adjacent to this bottom line. These substance abuse prohibitionist campaigners are not sincere in their professions. Putting ones own interests in front of the help professions they are pretending to be experts in makes them hypocrites. How can they help anyone when their primary interest is in their power and pocketbooks?

    2. Paul Pot says:

      These dear gentlemen have good reason to come out fighting in the face of a turning tide.
      For so many decades they were the winners enjoying wealth and status as warriors of the drug war.
      Now that times are a changing they face loss of income and status and more run the risk of being tried for crimes against humanity as the war criminals they are.
      Like Gaddafi’s henchmen, there comes a time in the battle when one side is no longer fighting to win but just to stay alive.
      This unfortunately is when they are at their most dangerous. The cornered beast syndrome.
      Keep your guard up and your spears ready.
      The final battle will be bloody but nothing can stop the people from overcoming the tyrants.
      Then we put them on trial.

    3. disvet13 says:

      if we learn nothing from history…dupont was instrumental in having cannabis prohibited. big money owns the think tanks per se, thus what they think matters most, cause it’s their MONEY. There is an element that has invaded our government, a small group of contemptible men have made us a contemptible nation…woodrow wilson, and they’ve had 90 years to infiltrate and control your government. Now, they follow their own agenda’s…robert byrd.

    4. Thinking Clearly says:

      Rehabilitation and Substance Abuse programs supported by Government Agencies and the Courts are usually nothing more than efforts to control bad behavior offered in lieu of punishment. This is very distant in nature from efforts at rehabilitation undertaken at the behest of an individual who knows he needs a change and has requested help.

      The first form of rehabilitation is nothing more than behavior modification with the begrudging consent of an unwilling individual. Its not brainwashing, but it more closely fits into that category than it does the category of rehabilitation.

      Common sense will tell you that if you don’t want to be helped, its not going to happen. True rehabilitation is a joint effort undertaken to produce an improved state in the estimation of the individual himself. It is the opposite of modifying behavior to something more agreeable to a therapist and a Judge.

      I don’t support Government funded efforts at rehab undertaken not for help, but for controlling and changing behavior. Its never genuine help. George Orwell described it quite well long before now in his book “1984”.

      Bottom line is the Government should stick to governing and get out of the marijuana and rehab business.

    5. The Oracle says:

      These guys all sound like a bunch of outsiders wanting to tell everybody how to live their lives. The fact that their letters got published must follow with pro-legalization balance, i.e. the newspaper outright supports legalization and/or pro-legalization letters to the editor are published.

      If they don’t want it in their municipalities, then set your will through there. But don’t you tell everyone else how to live if they want legal cannabis. Minister Ivo Opstelten tried that bullshit in The Netherlands, and it’s up to the mayor to decide now, just as before.

      The house guys getting the referrals from prohibitionist policies, if they are correct that cannabis is highly addictive, are saying like, hey, we don’t want more profits and we don’t want to expand our locations after legalization to treat those who need help; or are they saying they want more money from the mmj states? I thought they were greedy, money-grubbing bastards, so why are they acting like good two shoes? Could it be because after legalization, they’ll have fewer patients because it’s not as hyped up as they’ve hyped it up to be? Or they have the same amount, accounting for an increase to make up the difference with dearth created by no more people being referred for being popped on a piss test for it alone?

      Anyway, since when does anybody tell New Yorkers what the hell they can and can’t do?! Fuckin’ out-of-towner fascists. Doesn’t Bloomberg have enough of his own money to live well if the feds prevent his political career from continuing? I mean, did Bloomberg actually ever think he wanted to go higher in politics? Showing some chutzpah could do him some good as a populist, you know, keeping things moving along the lines of giving people more freedom. Their body, their choice, heal them or shut the fuck up! My body, my choice, heal me or shut the fuck up! You ain’t no messiah. That’s what I have to say about prohibitionists.

      Bloomberg ought to declare The Big Apple a cannabis sanctuary city, like their are sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. Citizens ought to have some sanctuary cities, too. Well then? Let’s go, Bloomberg. Same thing for Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore. You ought to coordinate it and orchestrate it together, jointly, at the same time, simultaneously.

      Make the announcement, press release about the proposal and meeting to discuss it, and get a response from the feds. Measure their response with their funding and slash their funding for cannabis prohibition enforcement drastically so they can’t hope and can’t claim publicly to be able to enforce federal laws against cannabis. That is the tipping point or we are Sisyphus.

    6. John Wayne Gacy says:

      “If cannabis is a gateway to hard drugs, then masturbation is a gateway to rape.”

      best comment on here

    7. Stephen Daniel says:

      Nobody ever mentions, the gigantic fact, tobacco has polonium 210. It is a radio active element thousands of times more toxic than cyanide. This must be the reason people get oral cancer for chewing tobacco. Vaporization of such a dangerous radioactive element inhaled in small quantities would cause cancer. Cannabis smoke does not equal tobacco smoke. Cannabis does not cause cancer when consumed. Period. Any form.

    8. Reese says:

      If cannabis is a gateway to hard drugs, then masturbation is a gateway to rape.

    9. Reese says:

      And ill-educated people are in opposition…which is a lot in America.

    Leave a Reply