There have been early termination procedures in place for decades. Each case is reviewed after 12-24 months with a presumption that early termination will be indicated if no new arrests or serious supervision infractions occur. Even that lowly standard is elusive to most.

Progressives have been trying to degrade supervision standards for years. They would bar a return to prison for "technical violations" such as drug use and failure to report for supervision.

What is next, providing a government "stipend" for each month of supervision with no violations?

How about a completely different approach to these matters, mjs, like legalizing soft drugs like marijuana and treating hard drug use/abuse as a public health issue?

Doug: I do not subscribe to the theory that marijuana is a harmless drug. It destroys the work ethic, is expensive, psycho-active, and can be addictive and/or a gateway drug to more dangerous substances.

I would not tie the hands of a probation officer who makes a daytime home visit and gets marijuana smoke blown in his face by an unemployed, victim of "mass probation."

Douglas,

Hard drugs are already treated as a "public health" issue. A heroin addict can go to a treatment center and have it paid for by their health insurance or Medicaid. If you are too strung out to even get yourself onto Medicaid, they all have social workers who will sign you up on the spot for it and just about every other welfare program you can think of.

If you are referring to having someone caught by police and having treatment mandated instead of prison, then it is still a criminal justice matter.

Not to mention, mandated treatment is a joke. If you do not want to get better, you will not.

I do not think marijuana is harmless either, mjs, but neither is alcohol or tobacco or Big Gulps or lots of other stuff we do not use the criminal justice system as a primary means of control and regulation. You asked "what's next" and I was making a suggestion.

And I agree Tarls that public health concerns inform out approach to some hard drugs, but we still order agents in our inefficient and often ineffective criminal justice systems to go after persons involved in drug use.

But I think you miss my point, Douglas.

People can already voluntarily enter drug rehab with no legal ramifications. This is usually free or at a very low out of pocket cost to the abuser. The "public health" approach is just not working, as can be seen even in places like New Hampshire where the epidemic has reached tragic levels. They are not entering and changing behavior, at least at a level to dent the epidemic.

The fact that they could have been arrested for drug use does not make them less likely to seek out rehab on their own.

Your "treat it as a public health issue" gambit is being done and does not work. When you find a treatment model where people are volunteering to go to rehab and are being cured of their addiction on a grand scale, then come back to us with a realistic proposal that does not include the CJS. Until then, you are just pushing the typical liberal "get out of jail free" canard.

Doug: I don't believe your comparison is apt. Marijuana is expensive, ambition-draining, and immediately mind-altering.

Soda, cigarettes, or whatever other public health issue the nanny state fabricates are an affordable vice that have no immediate impact on the consumer's health or the public order.

Tarls: Do you think the "treat it as a public health issue" gambit does not work for alcohol and cigarettes? That is the "public health" model I generaly have in mind.

Simialrly, mjs, how is alcohol not similar to marijuana (except that you can die from OD on alcohol, but cannot on marijuana)?

Douglas,

Your alcohol/marijuana argument has always been specious.

First, alcohol actually has a societal benefit, with the socialization that goes on when people drink responsibly and socially (not to mention, health benefits when taken at reasonable levels). Is it worth it? Perhaps not, but there is no benefit at all to pot.

A lot of things are more dangerous than pot. For example, crossing the street in Midtown Manhattan during rush hour. Do we tie those two acts together and gauge legalization against how it compares to the Manhattan stroll? Of course not, nor should we. We accept the dangers of crossing the street because there is a personal and societal benefit from getting where we are going. Pot has no such benefit.

It is a false choice anyway. People are not going to stop drinking to smoke pot. They will do both and will still drive, while driving high is more dangerous than driving drunk. It merely adds another public health concern onto the pile of existing ones with no benefit whatsoever. It is like saying, "Cholesterol is worse for the heart than gaining weight, so I might as well gain 10 pounds," and pretending that you are at less risk for a heart attack.

Tarls: You commment perfectly captures why mostly older people are against MJ reform and most younger people are for it. Older people see the social benefits of responsible drinking, but no comparable benefits from responsible use of MJ. In sharp contrast, younger people see the social benefits of responsible use of MJ and they especially see the harms of irresponsible drinking (particularly on college campuses, where it contributes to sexual abuse and leads often to more than a few avoidable deaths of young people every day). And I am leaving aside the considerable benefits that responsible parents see in giving CBD oils to their young children suffering from Dravet syndrome.

Moreover, putting aside your personal, age-influenced assessment of social benefits, most of the current benefits of legal alcohol and potential benefit of legal MJ are economic. The modern restaurant industry would not be as robust as it now is without legal alcohol and its high margins, and the same likely is true about modern professional sports. Millions of jobs were lost thanks to alcohol Prohibition, and Dry forces pushed for the income tax amendment as well as the 18th Amendment, both of which surely played a role creating the conditions for the Great Depression.

Not surprisingly, post stock-market crash, once the country could no longer afford "big-govt, do-gooders" pushing all the economic benefits of alcohol into the hands of Al Capones, alcohol Prohibition was swiftly repealed. At a time when many are concerned about economic growth in the US, everyone should look at how low unemployment is (and how high property values have become) during the "green rush" in Colorado. In Nov 2012, the CO unemployement rate was 7.3% and the latest data place it at 3.5% (and the labor force grew during this period).

Long story short, the cost-benefit data and debate over alcohol, marijuana and tobacco is mixed, complicated and quite context-dynamic. It is an important and worthy debate right now, especially because we could (and I think should) design laws to encourage folks to substitute MJ for alcohol (e.g., by saying a bar/store can serve one or the other, but not both.) But I surmise from your comments that your mind (and Bill's) is already made up on this front, so perhaps we should just end the conversation here with me making my core final points: (1) I do not think dynamic cost-benefit assessments for any potentially dangerous product (e.g., not just intoxicants, but also weapons and cars and new technologies) can ever be simply resolved, and (2) big-govt criminal law seems to me an especially crude and often costly way to try to make policy when dealing with these kinds of dynamic cost-benefit assessments.

Douglas,

Four large paragraphs and you could not come up with a single social benefit of marijuana?

There is an old saying about "not seeing the forest for the trees." You seem to be trying to point out the trees so that no one sees the forest.

We both know why youth like marijuana, it gets them high. However, it has no social benefit. It does not grease the skids of socialization, in fact, it has an opposite effect.

About your "core final points." They are a wonderful case study in the "burden of proof" logical fallacy. You, not me, want to make a major change in how we deal with marijuana use. It is up to you, not me, to show that it will benefit the nation. "I think" does not cut it as an argument.

Sorry, Tarls, I was unclear that you were looking for a formal list of social benefits for marijuana. I will give you 10 obvious benefits and then stop to ask if you dispute all of these:

1. Some forms of high CBD oils help people (especially kids) with severe seizure disorders not well treated by other drugs.

2. Many vets report using marijuana helps them with PTSD and other post-service pains.

3. Many NFL football players report marijuana helps them more with brain injuries and other chronic pains than other drugs.

4. Many other people struggling with chronic diseases (like MS) and persistent pain report report that marijuana helps them with their condition better than other drugs and with fewer side effects.

5. Many marijuana smokers do report that marijuana does in fact "grease the skids of socialization."

6. There is significant statistical evidence that states that reform MJ laws have lower suicide rates, especially among young men.

7. There is significant statistical evidence that states that reform MJ laws have lower overdose deaths from opiods and heroin.

8. States that have reformed their marijuana laws have collected significant license and tax revenues that has been use for schools and public health programming.

9. States that have reformed their marijuana laws have created hundreds (sometimes thousands) of new jobs.

10. States that have reformed their marijuana laws have seen considerable increase in business property values as farming/warehouse/retails spaces become more valuable.

Critically, Tarls, none of these benefits depend on people substituting MJ for alcohol, they come from bringing a widely used drug now traded in black markets into the light. Nor does my list highlight the potential social and economic benefits of having big govt no longer trying to police and prosecute those involved in a robust black market.

I would be very interested, Tarls, if you would deny many or all of these listed benefits. Specifically, I want to know if you think we ought not consider, e.g, helping vets deal with PTSD to be a social benefit, or if you just do not believe the self-reports from many vets that MJ helps with their PTSD struggles.

1) That is a substance in pot, not pot.
2) Tylenol with codeine also would help my headache, but plain Tylenol is a better option. Your hypocrisy on this matter is legendary. You want to sue Big Pharma for opioids (that you go through a doctor and pharmacist to get) but want a soldier to use something grown in his backyard with no medical assistance or FDA approval?
3) LOL Yeah, I bet they do. And Crackhead Bob says crack cures his ills better than Tylenol too.
4) What does the FDA say? (Again, the THC could be given without the pot, right?) And "fewer side effects?" Let's see what Mayo has to say about that:
"All cannabis-based medicines have side effects, and some can be serious, including:

Difficulty with attention or concentration
Dizziness or faintness
Dry mouth
Hallucinations
Loss of balance and falls
Depression or psychosis

The role of cannabis for MS symptoms has not been fully defined. "

http://www.mayoclinic.org/cannabis-for-ms-can-it-help-treat-symptoms/expert-answers/faq-20112500

Mr. Data Driven Solutions wants to get wayyyyyy ahead of the data.
5) Hogwash.
6) Correlation/causation fallacy
7) Unsupported and correlation/causation fallacy.
8) You can raise income that does the same thing without encouraging people to put toxic chemicals into their bodies. (More proof of your libertarian facade)
9) We could employ people making heroin too.
10) Yeah, the retail spaces are being filled with treatment centers.

Your social benefits are laughable. Your economic benefits do nothing to account for the human carnage addiction causes. More violence against women and children. Less likely to be fully employed. More likely to move to harder drugs (I have seen stats claiming 85Xs more likely).

In the end, it is your responsibility to come up with an argument for legalization. So far, it is very weak if an argument at all.

Bill:

1. I have never asserted people go to jail for obtaining pot for the treatment of a serious medical condition. But doing so is still against federal law, and I would like to see that changed. Do you think the rule of law has any meaning and social value, or are you content to have federal laws that it seems you do not think ought to be enforced?

2. Lots of stuff can bring in tax $$, and that can be a social benefit. Tarls asserted "there is no benefit at all to pot," and tax coffers and jobnumbers in Colorado suggest otherwise. You may think this is outweighed by social costs, and I said before, cost-benefit data and debate over marijuana (and alcohol) is mixed, complicated and quite context-dynamic. But Tarls makes the blanket assertion that "there is no benefit at all to pot," and I was responding to this inaccurate statement.

3. Fakery about medical marijuana is surely common in California, similarly to how there was fakery over medical alcohol during Prohibition. My solution would be full legalization because I see more potential benefits from legalization than prohibition for both alcohol and marijuana.

4. I fear I have still not have had time to read the Weinstein opinion, in due time. Also, I believe I tried to explain earlier that we'd need a grand accounting of the many lives improved by the thousands of persons released earlier before being in a sound position to do cost/benefit assessment of the retroactivity of the crack guidelines.

Tarls:

1. It seems you are saying, right at the outset, that you see social benefits from CBD oil and thus would support ending blanket cannabis prohibition as currently exists under federal law. So it seems we both agree in the need to reform federal law in at least this way. I am glad to hear you do recognize social benefit at least from CBD oils, and I did not perviously realize your assertion that when you said "there is no benefit at all to pot," that you were actually saying that you do acknowledge there is a social benefit in a substance in pot.

2. The fact that people can and do socialize over dinner while drinking water (or while listening to music or playing cards or watching football) does not undermine the accuracy of your claim that "alcohol actually has a societal benefit, with the socialization that goes on when people drink responsibly and socially." Similarly, the fact people can combat PTSD and pain and other problems with Tylenol or exercise or meditation does not undermine the accuracy of my claim that marijuana has a societal benefit for those who prefer this means of dealing with their ailments.

3. In the end, you are saying (as many reasonably do) that you see the potential social costs of marijuana reform to be greater than the potential social benefits. That is a respectable position, but what is laughable is your blanket assertion that "there is no benefit at all to pot." If that is true, why have a majority of voters in a majority of those states with a marijuana reform initiative voted for reform? That fact alone is proof that a whole lot of folks see social benefit from marijuana reform. Again, you may reasonably claim that voters are foolish to fail to see that potential social costs may be greater than the potential social benefits. But that is a much different claim than the blanket assertion that "there is no benefit at all to pot."

4. Why do you keep false asserting that I "want to sue Big Pharma for opioids" when I do not believe I ever made such an assertion. I have said, when Bill has argued for getting tougher with criminal law in the hope of stemming heroin opiod addiction, that we ought to consider looking into how Big Pharma pushed opioids for a long period by claiming there were not addictive. Personally, I do not believe criminal law (or tort law) is best the way to deal with the modern opioid/heroin problem. But if you big-govt types think strongly such laws could help, I just think Big Pharma should not get a free pass when it is their dangerous products, often marketed in false ways, at the root of the modern addiction problems.

In the end, I see in your comments Tarls a continuous trust in big government to make social decisions for us, and that kind of thinking led to alcohol Prohibition and continues to support persistent commitment by folks on both the left and the right to expect government to solve personal problems. That is fine, but in these settings I wish both you and Bill would own up to the fact that you have far more trust and respect for the choices of government officials than the choices of individuals.

Thanks for this reply, Bill, which highlights lots of important issues in this space:

1. I agree that all criminal law states statutes can/should/will be enforced with discretion. But an overly broad like blanket MJ prohibition with MJ listed as a schedule 1 drug under the FSA, not only serves to thwart needed research but it also breeds disrespect for the law (and the rule of law) when folks like you and Tarls and others seemingly recognize that some sick people in some settings should be able to have some access to some parts of the marijuana plant. Alcohol Prohibition was enforced with discretion, but I think it was repealed in part because it led to a nation of scofflaws and a nation of hypocrites (to use terms from the great Ken Buns' PBS documentary on Prohibition).

Put simply, if the vast majority of Americans believe seriously ill people ought to able to use marijuana (and polls suggest 90% do), I think we would serve the rule of law well to have federal law reflect this reasonable perspective.

2. The social costs of marijuana reform is mentioned all the time in serious debates. Of course, hard-core partisan advocates will sometimes foolishly assert there are no potential social costs to marijuana reform. But such silly, obviously-inaccurate claims should be seen akin to Tarls' silly assertion in this thread that "there is no benefit at all to pot."

3. By using the term "full legalization," I was meaning to reference the adult-use legalization with regulation (and some criminal backstop) that is the norm for alcohol and tobacco that is now being developed in 4 US states and is to be voted upon in likely 5 others in November. You are right to suggest I should not use this term if it suggests something going beyond the approaches being tried in a number of US states right now. (And I agree that fraud is still fraud, and that reality was the basis for hoping some prosecutors would look more into suspect opioid marketing by Big Pharma.)

4. Given a recent ruling by Judge Block (which I have posted about on my blog), I now think it is more likely there with be an appeal to the Second Circuit in the RV case. But I still feel I need to review the full opinion before making any bets on whether the Second Circuit might be prepared to decide it is substantively unreasonable. The Blistline opinion from the Sixth Circuit will be surely cited a lot in the appeal, but (Reagan appointee) Judge James Graham wrote an article for FSR saying Blistline contravenes Booker.

5. I am glad we agree about the importance of cost/benefit analysis. Notably the USSC did such a big report on the FSA in August 2015 and seemed to conclude that the FSA and its retroactive implementation had more benefits than costs: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/drug-topics/201507_RtC_Fair-Sentencing-Act.pdf

Obviously, the recent Columbus, Ohio triple murder that we both lament took place after the USSC wrote this report. I especially wonder if you disagree with my reading that the USSC seems to think the FSA as passed and implemented was a net positive for America, or whether you think the USSC's general analysis would or should be significantly different now.

1) What I am saying, quite clearly, is that any supposed benefit to pot can be achieved without smoking pot (e.g. Marinol), IF the medical community and the FDA decide it can be done safely and it actually treats an illness better than any other method. That has not yet happened and it still would not be a "societal benefit" to pot legalization. Don't confuse smoking pot (what we are talking about legalizing) and extracting some chemicals from it.

2) Of course, all of that is dependent on actual proof that pot actually does do that, other than the claims of people who like to smoke pot. Even then, no, it is not a benefit to put a harmful substance into your body when a cheaper, proven, much less harmful product will do the exact same thing. Your analogy is like saying swallowing turpentine has a "benefit" because it can cure some stomach problems (and was used early last century) when we can do the same with an antacid.

3) You stated: "In the end, you are saying (as many reasonably do) that you see the potential social costs of marijuana reform to be greater than the potential social benefits."

No, there is no "benefit" until medical science shows a use for smoking actual pot (not taking a pill with cannabis oil) that cannot be achieved by other means. You claim to be following the science, but "the science" still has it as a schedule 1 drug.

4) You stated: "4. Why do you keep false asserting that I "want to sue Big Pharma for opioids" when I do not believe I ever made such an assertion."

You before: "1. Just like Big Tobacco got in big trouble with government officials because of aggressive marketing and misreprentations of the potential harms of their products, so too do I wish Big Pharma would face some consequences based on aggressive marketing and misreprentations of the potential harms of their products. As in the Big Tobacco setting, this might be a civil action rather than a criminal one,..."

I then questioned you about it and you doubled down: "Most libertarians generally want markets to be fair and transparent, and most also generally support tort suits and product liability to help ensure economic actors in the marketplace have to internalize the full costs produced by their products"

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/01/an-evidence-based-libertarian-.html#comments

Working backwards, Tarls,

4) the kind of civil action I was referencing was that brought by state AGs which lead to the The Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) which dealt with how the five largest tobacco companies in America were to be allowed to advertise, market and promote tobacco products. I think the suits brought by state AGs using civil laws likely served the public interest better than, say, having local prosecutors arrest and prosecute individuals who may have sold cigarettes to underage kids. I say this without being expert or even very well-versed on these civil/state lawsuit matters, but noticing that the criminal justice approach to only going after the pill mill docs and heroin dealers does not seem to be working very well lately.

More to the point, though I see the value of tort law to help force producers to internalize the full costs of their products, I tend not be be a fan of tort lawyers who chase cases hoping for a windfall award. Long story short, I tend to subscribe to Professor Richard Epstein's libertarian conceptions of tort law, and that in turn makes misguided your insinuations that I am trying to help the tort bar.

3 + 2. The quirky way you are now describing a "benefit" here Tarls makes it hard for me to understand your prior assertion that "alcohol actually has a societal benefit." Has medical science shown a beneficial use for whiskey "that cannot be achieved by other means"? Moreover, lots of responsible people (e.g., vets) report that marijuana for has been a "cheaper, proven, much less harmful product" than opioids for dealing with chronic pain. I share your interest in more research from scientists on this front, but prominent groups like the AMA and ACS recognize that having marijuana as a schedule 1 drug hinders this needed research. So when a long history of government prohibition has blocked medical science in this arena, we have to rely on individuals making reasonable claims that they benefit from marijuana use. (This seems to be another example in which I trust individuals, whereas you seem to trust government. That's fine, but I continue to wish you would own up to your faith in big government in this setting.)

1. To the extent I am coming to understand you mean to distinguish sharply smoking marijuana from, say, the use of CBD/THC extracts in oils and balms and perhaps even edibles, maybe we are more in agreeement than I realize. Minnesota and New York have, interestingly, legalized medical marijuana, but have prohibited it from be consumed through smoking. Are you supportive of these kinds of medical marijuana reform because they disallow smoking of marijuana, but allow extracting some chemicals from it for use in various product?

If your assertion "there is no benefit at all to pot" was only a reference to people smoking marijuana, and if you now acknowledge there is potential social benefit from people consuming CBD and even THC products via other means, then perhaps we do not disagree so much. At the very least, it seems we may agree MJ ought to be taken off schedule 1 to enable more independent medical research. And though I see lots of potential economic benefits from going further with MJ reform, it may be the case that your see other economic (and non-economic) costs eclipsing any benefits.

In the end, though, it may well be my bias against big government --- informed further by America's troubled experience with alcohol Prohibition --- that draws me to a pro-individual, anti-nanny-state approach to this issue (and many others). I sumrmise from this conversation that many folks on the right do not agree with me on this front, but my sense is that it is mostly social conservatives, not fiscal conservatives, who are most concerned with marijuana reform.