Drug WarRant

I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual) that is used almost universally for mental health issues and pretty much everything having to do with drug dependence and addiction.

When the controversy over the new DSM-5 was brewing and people were saying that this could significantly affect the number of people with specific mental health issues, that sent up red flags: How could a person’s mental health condition change based on rewriting a manual (unless you were actually stuck on the committee re-writing it, of course)? It started to sound to a layman like me that the entire field of mental health diagnosis (and thus all discussions about potential psychiatric harms of drug use and abuse) were based mostly on semantics.

Thus I was particularly interested in this article by Dr. Harold Kopleicz: The National Institute of Mental Health Declares Independence from the DSM-5

The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” — each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure.

It is no secret that the DSM is a clinical tool more than a scientific one, designed to compensate for the often unknown “etiology” or cause of psychiatric illness. This has been true since we began perceiving mental illnesses as real diseases of the brain. Lacking objective diagnostic tests — for now — the manual creates a set of clinical categories so that doctors are on the same page, and so that research into treatments could be effectively compared.

Dr. Insel’s “abandonment” of the DSM is in fact a symptom of his optimism that we are now or will soon be able to discover the “real,” biological causes of mental illness. The DSM is inconsistent with this science. “We cannot succeed if we use DSM categories,” he writes. “The diagnostic system has to be based on the emerging research data, not on the current symptom-based categories.”

This really helps me put the DSM into perspective. It also points out the fact that we should be wary of statistics showing numbers of people dependent on, or addicted to, various drugs, as these are also based on arbitrary DSM categories, not actual biological science.

Some of you may recall that former Senator Jim Webb had been leading a charge to create a blue-ribbon commission to take a look at our criminal justice system – a much needed and long overdue task.

Well, this week there were some hopeful signs in the House…

… ten House Judiciary Committee members joined together to pass a resolution to form the Over-Criminalization Task Force of 2013 to examine and make recommendations for paring down the federal criminal code, which has expanded rapidly in recent years. The Task Force will conduct hearings and investigations on over-criminalization issues within the Committee on the Judiciary’s jurisdiction, and has the opportunity to issue reports to the Committee on its findings and provide policy reform recommendations. This is the first review of the expansive federal criminal code since a Department of Justice review in the 1980s.

It’s not quite the same as Jim Webb’s commission, but it has a similar apparent intent.

The Drug Policy Alliance also notes that the task force will address mens rea issues. Supposedly all our criminal law is reuired to demonstrate criminal intent, but in fact in recent years, the mens rea requirement has been dramatically watered down (particularly in drug “conspiracy” cases).

Of course, just because there’s a task force doesn’t mean that we’ll end up with positive results. This is Congress, after all. They could decide that we’re over-criminalizing banking fraud and leave the rest as is.

That would be really cool.

They have one in Brazil, and seven former ministers of justice have sent a letter to the Supreme Federal Court.

Rio de Janeiro, April 16th, 2013.

To His Excelency Mr. Gilmar Ferreira Mendes
Minister of the Supreme Federal Court

Subject: Manifest for the unconstitutionality of the penal repression of drug possession for personal consumption.

Your Excelency Mr. Minister

Considering that Brazil is a constitutional State founded on the principles of human dignity and pluralism and that every citizen has the freedom to live as they deem, so long as said freedom does not interfere with that of a third, the criminalization of a behavior that is practiced within the sphere of an individual’s personal privacy and does not harm a third party is not legitimate.

For this, we the subscribers of this document- all having served as State Minister of Justice – manifest our position on the unconstitutionality of the penal repression of drug possession for personal consumption.

The failures of the war on drugs, based on the criminalization of the consumer, reveal the impropriety of the strategy used to this day. Treating drug users as citizens and offering them treatment and support by means of harm reduction, is more adequate than stigmatizing them as a criminals.

Experiences in Portugal, Spain, Colombia, Argentina, Italy, Germany, amongst others, have shown that the decriminalization of the use of narcotics is an important step towards rationalizing a policy that combats drug traffickers without transforming the primary victim of the illicit product into the object of penal persecution. Drug users deserve respect and access to dignified treatment, not time behind bars.

In response to the above, the subscribers of this document stand united behind the manifests stated in the case of Extraordinary appeal number 635.659, requesting this Court the recognition of the incompatibility of the crime of drug possession for personal consumption with the present constitutional model, which is based on human dignity, pluralism and the respect for personal privacy and that of the private lives of its citizens.

Tarso Genro
Ministro da Justiça, between 16/03/2007 and 10/02/2010
Mandato do Presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Aloysio Nunes Ferreira Filho
Minister of justice, between 14/11/2001 and 03/04/2002
Presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso

José Gregori
Minister of justice, between 14/04/2000 and 14/11/2001
Presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso

Márcio Thomaz Bastos
Minister of justice, between 01/01/2003 and 16/03/2007
Presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Miguel Reale Júnior
Minister of justice, between 03/04/2002 and 10/07/2002
Presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso

José Carlos Dias
Minister of justice, between 19/07/1999 and 14/04/2000
Presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso

Nelson Jobim
Minister of justice, between 01/01/1995 and 08/04/1997
Presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso

Impressive.

I wish our founding fathers had had the foresight to set up some kind of system that granted only limited powers to the government and preserved basic human rights.

Good article by Mike Krause, regarding Colorado Senate Bill 250 A Net Reduction in Drug War Stupidity. He details both the good and the bad in the bill.

It’s a shame that’s the best we can hope for from our leaders – a net decrease in stupidity – but that’s better than we’ve had for so many years, where the political impulse has been to double down.

Mike Krause also points out some of the important aspects of the drug war often neglected in political discussion:

Longer sentences for certain classes of crime are fine as a tool of incarceration and separation. But placing drug offenses, including sale and manufacture, in the same sentencing scheme as violent and property crimes is counter-productive, since incarceration does not affect the use or availability of drugs outside of prison. For example, imprison one serial burglar and there is one less burglar committing burglaries. There is not another burglar waiting to take over the newly vacant burglary territory. The same holds true for other predatory criminals. But the imprisonment of one drug dealer (or even an entire drug network) only temporarily disrupts the flow of illegal drugs. As soon as one supplier is gone, another quickly moves in to take his place.

It also consumes the criminal justice system’s most valuable resource; prison beds, distracting prisons from their primary mission of incapacitating violent and predatory criminals.

Ending “extraordinary risk” sentencing enhancements for drug offenses: One of the most irrational theories propping up the failed war on drugs is that illegal drug sales and use are inherently violent and constitute a threat to public safety, this despite the fact that the DOC lists all drug offenses as “non-violent.” Under current law, most manufacturing and sales drug offenses in Colorado are labeled as “extraordinary risk of harm to society” crimes, which automatically increase sentences in Colorado’s presumptive sentencing scheme. But in reality, much of the violence related to illegal drugs is due mostly to drug laws themselves. Violence from disputes between dealers (turf wars) is engendered by prohibition, just as alcohol prohibition caused violence in another era. Robberies and other crimes committed by drug users to support a drug habit are caused in part by the “risk premium” charged by drug dealers as part of their risk of going to prison.

The people are ready for reform. The politicians are cautiously dipping their toes into the waters of slightly less stupid.

Busy time here with the last week of school and finals.

Had an interesting and somewhat frustrating set of discussions dealing with people who seemed to think that attempting to prohibit substance use for college students during their final weekend of school was a practical (or even possible) idea. Clearly, however, harm reduction, reducing binge drinking, and providing safe and supportive environments is the far smarter approach if you really care about the well-being of the students.

I wish marijuana was legal so substitution could be actively encouraged.

It’s not only a police state, it’s an incompetent police state.

So in August, 2011, a member of the Missouri Highway Patrol spots Bob Harte doing something suspicious. He was leaving a store with a small bag of merchandise that he bought from that store. It happened to be a hydroponics store.

Bob Harte didn’t think he was doing anything suspicious. He thought he was doing a father-son project to grow tomatoes and squash.

Seven months later, the Missouri Highway Patrol passes on that “tip” to the Johnson County Sherriff’s Office, which then puts together an investigation spanning several weeks involving early-morning searches of the Harte’s trash, but apparantly not involving any actual… investigation.

Using notoriously unreliable field testing kits and a complete lack of intelligence, they determine that plant matter in the trash is marijuana, and get a warrant to serve a SWAT-style search of the home, terrifying the family.

They found… tomatoes and squash.

Here’s the story

There are several things to take away from this story. One is, of course, the incredible amount of incompetence displayed by law enforcement.

Another is the disconnect involved in expending this much effort on a chance of arresting somebody for something that most Americans think should be legal. Is there no other crime to combat?

Update: President Obama articulates his plan for Mexico and the drug war! (ie, he spends 3 minutes saying absolutely nothing).

—- Original Post —-

President Obama has another challenging trip ahead of him.

U.S. role at a crossroads in Mexico’s intelligence war on the cartels

The December inauguration of President Enrique Peña Nieto brought the nationalistic Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) back to power after 13 years, and with it a whiff of resentment over the deep U.S. involvement in Mexico’s fight against narco-traffickers. […]

U.S. officials got their first inkling that the relationship might change just two weeks after Peña Nieto assumed office Dec. 1. At the U.S. ambassador’s request, the new president sent his top five security officials to an unusual meeting at the U.S. Embassy here. In a crowded conference room, the new attorney general and interior minister sat in silence, not knowing what to expect, next to the new leaders of the army, navy and Mexican intelligence agency. […]

In front of them at the Dec. 15 meeting were representatives from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the CIA, the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other U.S. agencies tasked with helping Mexico destroy the drug cartels that had besieged the country for the past decade.

The Mexicans remained stone-faced as they learned for the first time just how entwined the two countries had become during the battle against narco-traffickers, and how, in the process, the United States had been given near-complete entree to Mexico’s territory and the secrets of its citizens, according to several U.S. officials familiar with the meeting. […]

Also unremarked upon was the mounting criticism that success against the cartels’ leadership had helped incite more violence than anyone had predicted, more than 60,000 deaths and 25,000 disappearances in the past seven years alone.

Meanwhile, the drug flow into the United States continued unabated. Mexico remains the U.S. market’s largest supplier of heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine and the transshipment point for 95 percent of its cocaine.

Mexico Is Ready to End Failed Drug-War Policies—Why Isn’t the U.S.? — Conor Friedersdorf comments on the article:

Yet the fact that it completely failed plays basically no role in the rest of the article, in large part because everyone in the United States government apparently wants to preserve the failed status quo. American officials are very upset that Mexico’s new leader has decided to go his own way.

Look at the very next sentences:

No one had come up with a quick, realistic alternative to Calderon’s novel use of the Mexican military with U.S. support. But stopping the cartel violence had become Peña Nieto’s top priority during the campaign. The U.S. administration didn’t know what that meant. Some feared a scaling back of the bilateral efforts and a willingness to trade the relentless drive against cartel leaders for calmer streets.

Does anyone else think that “a willingness to trade the relentless drive against cartel leaders for calmer streets” just might be “a quick, realistic alternative to Calderon’s novel use of the Mexican military with U.S. support”? At the very least, it surely it doesn’t make sense to presume, as the article seems to, that the obviously failed status quo is the most “realistic” way forward.

Meanwhile…

Obama urged to address drug war related human rights violations during visit to Mexico

In a letter to Obama, Human Rights Watch said the country’s public security strategy pursued by Calderon during the so-called war on drugs failed to address the corruption of police forces and “virtually zero accountability” for those who commit crimes. […]

In a letter to Obama, Human Rights Watch said the country’s public security strategy pursued by Calderon during the so-called war on drugs failed to address the corruption of police forces and “virtually zero accountability” for those who commit crimes.

“Unfortunately, while the Pena Nieto government has taken the first step of recognizing the crisis at hand and the need to change strategies, your administration has been noticeably silent,” said the letter signed by Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the group’s Americas division.

Maybe the President can convince some of the Secret Service and DEA folks to get caught up in a prostitution scandal again to distract the media from paying attention to the issues.

Kevin Sabet is particularly good at one thing: getting the media to quote him. He obviously works hard at this and has been quite successful at positioning himself as a go-to person for any kind of quote related to marijuana legalization.

After the Colorado and Washington votes, the press was frustrated by the lack of comment in the administration, so they turned to Kevin, who was happy to oblige with completely pulled-from-the-ass speculation as to how the federal government would react which, of course, turned out to be entirely wrong.

It didn’t matter that there was no reason to think he had any real knowledge, since obviously even the drug czar was being told to stay quiet.

In the L.A. Times, Richard Simon has this article: California conservative defends state’s pot law in Congress about Dana Rohrabacher’s long-term efforts to get the feds out of interfering with states on medical marijuana.

Then, out of the blue, there’s this:

Kevin Sabet, a former advisor to Kerlikowske, said Rohrabacher’s latest attempt would “likely suffer the same fate as his several previous failed attempts have over the past decade.”

So Kevin is now the expert to whom Richard Simon turns to find out how Congress will vote. Fascinating.

Stephen Duke of Yale has put together a very nice little paper: The Future of Marijuana in the United States

He covers a lot of ground in the discussion, with brief, well-researched, sections on each. It’s not anything ground-breaking to us, but a good addition to the literature.

Professor Kleiman is not impressed.

Alas, Duke’s performance is typical, rather than unusual, for the academic “anti-prohibitionists.” Reverse the sign of the bias and you have a typical drug war handout.

Because Duke failed to show sufficient reverence for Kleiman’s unprovable uncertainties, he is painted with the same brush as prohibitionist lies.

Obama Drug Control Policy: Gets Called Out For Not Meeting Its Own Standards

Excellent article by Mayura Iyer at PolicyMic discusses the recent GAO report that found that the government has made no progress towards its drug policy goals, and also talks about the disconnect in the newest strategy.

Despite hailing his plan as a “Drug Policy for the 21st Century,” Kerlikowske’s reforms are incomplete, as it completely neglects the issues surrounding marijuana use. The administration has yet to take a stance on medicinal and recreational use of marijuana, arguably its most complex drug issue to tackle within the problem. The report doesn’t even mention marijuana once, despite the fact that the number of states that have legalized marijuana is approaching 40%. Additionally, while the approach the White House has taken claims to be “science-based,” the amount of bureaucratic red tape scientists must go through to perform research on the medicinal qualities of marijuana prevents any effective research from being performed, an issue the report also failed to address.

Moreover, the National Drug Control Budget for 2014 released by the White House seems to value drug punishment over treatment for addiction, as 58% of the resources allocated for its drug policies are used for punishment and interdiction, while 42% is allocated for treatment and prevention. While this is a slight improvement from the ratio presented in the 2013 budget (62% to 38%), it’s nowhere near enough for the nation’s drug control policy to be headed towards substantial improvement.

The drug czar is fooling a number of people in the media with his latest PR blitz claiming to be leading a huge shift in policy (which is nothing more than talking about treatment while keeping the same old prohibition), but it’s good to see that it’s not swallowed whole by everyone.