Drug WarRant

I’m not always aware of the various state-based or local-based reform groups, and sometimes forget that there are dedicated people working hard on changing state and local laws all the time whose efforts may not get national attention.

I just learned of Missouri’s Show-Me Cannabis Regulation group even though it looks like they’ve been around for a couple of years and I know some of the people involved.

What caught my attention was this news release:

On Thursday, Show-Me Cannabis Regulation announced that it has contracted with Gary Wiegert to lobby for the reform of Missouri’s marijuana laws in Jefferson City. Wiegert is a sergeant with the Saint Louis Police Department and has served on the city’s police force for over 32 years. He also represented his fellow officers as president of the Saint Louis Police Officer’s Association from 1999 to 2003 and again from 2007 to 2009.

In his political life, Wiegert has long advocated for a more limited government. He hosted WGNU radio shows Bad Boys from 1999 to 2006 and Constitutionally Correct in 2012. Most recently, Wiegert has put his conservative principles into action as a lobbyist for the Saint Louis Tea Party.

“Our marijuana policies are the perfect example of a wasteful, big government program,” Wiegert said. “Arresting people for marijuana is a waste of my time as a police officer, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and has done nothing to reduce the use of marijuana.”

“We are very excited to have Gary on the team,” said Show-Me Cannabis Regulation Executive Director John Payne. “He can speak firsthand to the failure of cannabis prohibition, demonstrates the strong bipartisan appeal of the issue, and will be taken seriously by the legislature.”

Fascinating. An active-duty police officer and tea-party enthusiast as a paid lobbyist for marijuana legelizationn. I like it.

So today, Attorney General Holder is supposed to be grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee (going on right now). There’s a general sense that he will address the administration’s “response” to marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado.

There’s also a general sense that the timing of a couple of other things were not coincidental.

1. A ridiculous letter from a bunch of former DEA heads, Drug Czars and other drug warriors, released through an organization with a history of torturing children.
2. The release of a report from the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) — a completely unaccountable organization through the United Nations that supports the killing and torturing of innocents through encouraging the ratcheting up of the drug war internationally.

Both of these destructive groups want to save the United States and the world from someone eating a pot brownie in Denver, and are hoping the Senate will push Holder into kicking some heads in.

Jacob Sullum does a great job of covering this so I don’t really have to: Totally Disinterested Drug Warriors Demand That Holder Stop Marijuana Legalization Before It’s Too Late

However, I thought some of you might be interested in reading the section of the intro from INCB president Raymond Yans:

We note with concern, however, that in this debate, some declarations and initiatives have included proposals for the legalization of the possession of drugs for non-medical and non-scientific use, that is, for “recreational” use, that would allow the cultivation and consumption of cannabis for non-medical purposes. Any such initiatives, if implemented, would violate the international drug control conventions and could undermine the noble objectives of the entire drug control system, which are to ensure the availability of drugs for medical purposes while preventing their abuse. Proponents of such initiatives ignore the commitment that all Governments have made to promote the health and well-being of their communities, and such initiatives run counter to the growing body of scientific evidence documenting the harm associated with drug abuse, including occasional
use, particularly among young people during their formative years.

Furthermore, such initiatives would create a false sense of security and would send a false message to the public, in particular children, regarding the health impact of abuse of drugs. Some have argued that these proposals would eliminate the illicit markets and organized crime associated with drugs of abuse. Yet, even if such initiatives were implemented, organized criminal groups would get even more deeply involved, for instance by creating a black market for the illicit supply of newly legalized drugs to young people.

I really love the phrase “undermine the noble objectives of the entire drug control system.” Wow. That takes some chutzpah.

And the notion that legalization would create a black market for the illicit supply of drugs to young people… Isn’t that what we have now?

I’m really kind of surprised that Forbes Magazine is giving space to an absolutely ignorant nut-job like Paul Johnson.

The War On Drugs: A Defining Moment

Johnson attempts to explain some of the terrible things that might happen if we legalize drugs…

Another possibility to consider is that a rogue state, such as North Korea, will enter the burgeoning drug market. North Korea’s evil regime survives by performing tasks no other government is able or willing to contemplate. For instance, it has supplied nuclear technology to other rogue states in contravention of all international law. Both Syria and Iran have paid North Korea in gold for its aid in their nuclear efforts. There is no way to stop these transactions as long as China refuses to take punitive steps against its former military and ideological ally.

Recreational drugs are comparatively easy for a ruthless and determined government to grow and/or manufacture. Supplying these drugs to Americans is precisely the kind of prospect that would appeal to the North Korean leadership. They’ve always claimed that capitalist democracies are essentially corrupt and decadent. This would enable them to “prove” it, especially if the release of vast quantities of cheap soft drugs into Western cities were followed by an increase in the supply and use of hard drugs, as many experts believe would be inevitable.

China, which has a drug problem of its own, might be prepared to act against North Korea in this context. But it would extract a high price from the West, which might result in the balance of power in the Pacific tilting in China’s favor.

I’ve been discussing possibilities. But in the world of highly dangerous drugs, it’s safer to treat possible outcomes as probabilities. If we allow this drug use to become legal, we’ll be embarking on a voyage into horror with our eyes open.

This has got to be the stupidest reason for not legalizing that I’ve heard yet. It doesn’t even make enough false sense to debunk. If marijuana is legal, why in the world would we buy it from North Korea?

Somebody at Forbes has got to have some egg on their face.

“Follow the money.” Always good advice when considering the motivations of prohibitionists. Certainly it’s true with the true drug warriors, including DEA, police unions, etc.

And, while the treatment industry is comprised of both the truly caring and the avariciously opportunistic, the general sense has been that most of their vocal opposition to legalization has come from those who see legalization as a threat to their revenue.

Well, Kevin Sabet has been pushing back against that with his own notion that legalization will actually result in an increase in profits for the treatment industry (and even for the enforcement industry).

Kevin Sabet tweet:

Repeating this for the uninformed: if drugs were legal, I, and the treatment and enforcement sectors, would be MUCH richer. > use = > need

He seems very sure of himself, but I’d advise you not to take any financial advice from him, ’cause assuming he actually believes what he says, his analytical skills are crap.

The notion that enforcement would profit from legalization is so laughable it’s not worth my time to address, but let’s look at treatment.

if drugs were legal…

– Which drugs, how regulated?

> use = > need

– Unspoken assumption that legalization leads to greater use, which may not be true in all situations.

– Conflation of use and abuse.

– What about all those referred to treatment by criminal justice and others, including many for cannabis who don’t need treatment?

– What about the fact that addictive illegal drugs have more uncertain dosages/purity causing serious problems for addicts? How would that differ with regulated drugs with controlled purity?

– What about substitution? Legal pure amphetimines would cause less treatment problems than homemade meth.

– No thought is given to the notion that those who wouldn’t use while a drug is illegal, but would when it is legal, are less likely to become addicted.

…

Now personally, I don’t think that Kevin is in this racket for the money. My sense is that he’s hitched his career wagon to the anti-legalization movement and likes being a “leader” in it, regardless of whether he benefits financially (although he wouldn’t mind getting both).

_____

For more on Kevin Sabet and SAM, see Where now for opponents of cannabis law reform? at Transform.

… he does.

Remember the tragedy that I posted about a little while ago? A young man had been caught with a tiny amount of marijuana, and, aggravated by a police mistake, was in jeopardy of losing his career plans, so he committed suicide.

Well, Peter Hitchens responds with: If the law had been strongly enforced over the last 40 years, schoolboys like Edward Thornber wouldn’t risk toying with cannabis

Yeah, that’s right. Hitchens says that the problem is that the drug war wasn’t enforced enough.

If the law had been strongly and consistently applied during the past 40 years, schoolboys would never take the terrible risk of toying with this dangerous, mind-bending substance, increasingly correlated with severe and irreversible mental illness.

And many lives, not just that of Edward Thornber and his family, would have been spared tragedies of many different kinds.

Weakness is not the same thing as compassion.

A very powerful and fascinating read in Spiegel Online: Failing Drug War: When Cops Become Criminals

When you follow the story of Martinez and his journey from fresh DEA agent to prison convict, what’s really fascinating is his own perception of right and wrong…

In prison, Martinez developed his own opinion of his actions. Today, he says that he was innocent. What he did wasn’t right, but it also wasn’t wrong, he says. He was simply applying the methods he had learned.

It really points out how little difference there is between the hard liners on both sides of the drug war. The drug war corrupts them both, making them believe that what they’re doing, while maybe not right, isn’t really wrong.

And we keep pouring fresh meat into that grinder.

Josh Harkinson at Mother Jones: Marijuana Legalization May Be Unstoppable

On Tuesday, US Attorney General Eric Holder told America to expect a decision “soon” on how he’ll respond to the recent legalization of pot by Colorado and Washington state. To which the rest of the country has basically said, “Whatever, dude.”

Exactly.

It takes continued work on our part, but as the people we have the potential power to make any decision by functionaries in the federal government irrelevant.

Holder promises marijuana verdict coming ‘soon’

I have no idea what that means.

“We’re still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed,” said Holder, speaking at the National Association of Attorney General annual conference in Washington, D.C.

“You will hear soon. We’re in the last stages of that review and we’re trying to make a determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are — there are a whole variety of things that go into this determination — but the people of [Colorado] and Washington deserve an answer and you will have one soon.”

I’m sorry. What was the question?

Lessons from some free Americans, taught on American soil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg&feature=player_embedded

For many decades, part of the prohibition tactic was to make illegal drugs so taboo that even discussing them was considered improper. People even whispered when they said the word “marijuana” as if some Orwellian hidden government microphones might catch that they were talking about drugs.

Of course, if people couldn’t talk about them, it was tougher to educate them about drugs except in the specific terms pushed by the propagandists. They knew that if people started talking about marijuana, they might start asking why it’s illegal.

So I enjoy little moments when I see how much that taboo has shattered in recent years…

I’m a foodie. I admit it. I watch the Food Network and love programs like “Chopped” and “Iron Chef America” and I also love to cook (and eat).

Recently, I watched the “Top Chef” series on Bravo. At one point, the chefs are taken to a beautiful remote mountaintop in Alaska, and chef-contestant Sheldon says, “I really wish I had some reefer right now!”

In another episode, chef-contestant Kristen is given a smoke gun with tiny wood chips for adding smoke flavor to food. She’s never used one before, and the clock is ticking as she tries to figure it out. Finally she does and exclaims “Oh, it’s just like lighting a bong!” and the audience of chefs cheers the bong reference. The producers of the show not only left that in, but used that clip as re-cap footage so it was seen multiple times.

These are little things, but it’s the little things (even more so than an entire series like “Weeds”) that demonstrate the shift in thinking.

Speaking of a shift in thinking, it was interesting to wrap my head around the fact that the New York Times chose to devote an entire feature article in Fashion & Style on Marijuana Etiquette, raising interesting and important questions about how to handle marijuana when entertaining.