Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Why Prohibitionism Will Harm the Children It Purports to Protect

Kennedy’s Reefer Madness

by SIA HENRY

Back in November 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first political jurisdictions anywhere in the world to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults. These bold statements by the voters of Colorado and Washington have incited unexpected push back, most notably from former Rhode Island Congressman, Patrick Kennedy.

Kennedy seems to fear that the legalization of marijuana will increase the chance that children such as his own, born into families with extensive histories of alcohol and drug addiction, will succumb to drug abuse. He recently formed a group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) to fight against ending marijuana prohibition.

Kennedy, who has struggled with drug misuse in the past, joins the vast majority of parents nationwide who want to protect their children from the potential harms of alcohol and other drugs. Still, his support for continued marijuana prohibition is not only impractical and expensive, but counterproductive to adolescent health and well-being.

Decades of government-commissioned and academic studies overwhelmingly affirm that a decrease in marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use (NORML). Moreover, a 2007 Columbia University study found that despite decades of severe drug policies, US teens report finding it easier to buy marijuana than beer. This is largely due to the law restricting alcohol sales to those 21 and over. Since Colorado and Washington have incorporated this same age requirement into their bills, legalization should essentially make it harder for young people to obtain marijuana.

Along with incorrectly fearing that legalization will lead to increased juvenile consumption, Kennedy’s anti-marijuana campaign actually harms children more than marijuana control and regulation. While at least 100 million Americans report having used marijuana, the primary victims of harsh marijuana laws continue to be young people.

By virtue of receiving a criminal record for marijuana possession, many juveniles are unnecessarily barred from benefiting from a host of opportunities and support programs. For instance, states can permanently ban individuals with felony drug convictions from receiving Food Stamps or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This law affects an estimated 135,000 children.

Moreover, those who supervise federally assisted housing have the authority to deny housing to an entire family when any household member uses controlled substances or is convicted of a drug-related crime.

People with drug convictions are also denied federal financial aid for higher education. Alongside these official sanctions are the unofficial consequences of prohibition such as the negative effect that a criminal record can have on an individual’s employment prospects. These collateral consequences are devastating and can permanently hinder a young person’s personal, educational, and professional success.

Prohibition also makes marijuana use more attractive to many juveniles who actively seek the thrill of rebelling against accepted mainstream conventions. In other words, some young people find marijuana use appealing simply because it is illegal.

Anti-marijuana policies consume a fair portion of law enforcement resources while drawing police officers away from investigating crimes that pose a far greater threat, such as assault, robbery, and murder. A substantial amount of tax-payer dollars are necessary to cover the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana offenders and funding foster care and social services for the children of those offenders.

Alternatively, marijuana legalization allows state governments to redirect some of these resources to promote proven drug prevention, education, and treatment programs that are significantly cheaper and more effective in reducing drug use. In the eyes of children in families with histories of substance abuse, such vociferous support for drug prohibition likely drips with hypocrisy. Such a “do as I say, not as I do” approach isolates the kids and closes the door to open, honest communication. Such candid discussions provide young people with a safe space to gain autonomy over their own life choices and, more importantly, to seek help if needed.

While I applaud Kennedy’s concerns for his children, keeping marijuana illegal is far more likely to endanger young people – especially those lacking the wealth and connections of a Kennedy.

Sia Henry is a legal intern with the Drug Policy Alliance