Drug WarRant

Lawmakers ponder immunity in overdose cases

Springfield (AP) – Kathie Kane-Willis faced a life-and-death dilemma: Her boyfriend’s lips were blue. He was going into cardiac arrest from a drug overdose. Would she be arrested if she called the authorities for help?

If a law had been in place offering legal immunity to drug users who overdose and the person who calls for medical assistance to save them, Kane-Willis would have had an easier decision.

Along with the parents of overdose victims, she now is one of the principal advocates of a bill moving through the Illinois General Assembly that would offer that immunity

This should not even be a minor controversy. It should be approached as an unfortunate error in the crafting of existing laws, that left in place the fear of being prosecuted for doing the right thing and helping save someone’s life.

After all, what’s the worst that happens by allowing this bill to pass? Some people who were involved in a drug transaction in some way will avoid arrest at the time they are helping save someone’s life. Is that such a loss to society?

Who could oppose such a thing?

Originally, the bill had no limits for the amount of drugs emergency callers could possess and still earn immunity. But the bill was changed in the Senate to limit the amounts of possession — for example, to less than three grams of a substance containing heroin. […]

The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police prefers offering legal immunity solely to the person who overdoses. Instead of immunity for callers, they suggest the matter be left to the discretion of judges, who could take the caller’s actions into account when sentencing for drug

“By doing the right thing, you’re going to be rewarded with the fact that you did the right thing,” said Laimutis Nargelenas, a lobbyist for the chiefs organization. “So it’s a personal issue. And the prosecutor and the judge can take that into consideration.”

Ah, yes. Whenever something comes up in Illinois that could involve saving some lives but might cut into the profits or easy arrests for the police, you can always count on Limey Nargelenas lobbying for the police chiefs against saving lives.

Talk about easy arrests – distraught people at the emergency room.

I’m sure the police chief lobbying fund doesn’t care if some more druggies die. Particularly not when it means they can pad their arrest records and get more funding.

…

VANCOUVER — A batch of extra-strength heroin is on a deadly rampage in B.C.’s Lower Mainland, the B.C. Coroners Service warned Thursday.

“Heroin being dealt to users in some areas is at least twice as potent as usual,” the coroners service advised, citing 20 heroin overdose deaths so far in 2011, double the number of deaths last year.

Drug users should “never be alone when ingesting drugs, and where possible (should) use available community services such as INSITE or needle exchanges,” the coroners service warned.

Those 20 overdose deaths are directly attributable to prohibition; they would not have happened in a legalized and regulated system.

But at least in Vancouver, they seem to understand that harm reduction is better than the “arrest at all costs” mentality in Illinois.

My mom sometimes reads this blog to keep up with what I’m doing, so just in case… Happy Mother’s Day, mom! (yes, I’ll call her, too)

This is an open thread.

“We don’t torture people in America and people who say we do simply know nothing about our country.”

– George W. Bush [Interview with Australian TV – 10/18/03]

At the recent GOP Presidential candidate debate on Fox, the five participants were asked to raise their hands if they could support the use of torture – specifically waterboarding. Three raised their hands. The two that didn’t were Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, and those are the ones who support ending the drug war.

Coincidence? I think not.

I believe that this is just one more example that illustrates a frightening trend in the political arena today that tends to reward:

1. A pathologically disturbed psychological profile,
2. A lack of knowledge or interest in how the world actually works,
3. A willingness to sacrifice any principles related to morality or liberty in order to toss out red meat to stir up the masses, or
4. Some combination of the above.

I torture people. There are a lot of techniques that I use to disorient my victims, but then comes my favorite. I drown them. Slowly. Painfully. Make no mistake about it, they are drowning. They are suffocating and would die if I didn’t stop at just the right moment. This isn’t merely temporary pain like cutting off a finger or taking a drill to their teeth without novocaine. No, this is a slow and agonizing death. And then I bring them back and kill them again. I am aware that this is illegal under both U.S. and International law.

I grow plants. After germinating and creating seedlings, I make sure I’ve got good pH-balanced soil, warm temperatures, lots of light, and just the right amount of water and nutrients. I do some topping and pinching to encourage growth and then remove the male plants to insure maximum value of remaining plants. These plants are useful in thousands of ways and also provide a pleasant and safe recreational value. I share some of them with my adult friends at their request. I am aware that this is illegal under both U.S. and International law.

In a country that prides itself on liberty, justice, and the rule of law, which person is more likely to be sent to prison?

Which one should be more likely to be sent to prison?

From the latest DEA email newsletter…

DID YOU KNOW?

All too frequently criminals pose at DEA Special Agents on the phone or via the internet in an attempt to illegally scam innocent individuals. DEA Special Agents will never demand money or any other form of payment over the phone or the internet. Those who engage in these criminal acts are violating federal law, and there are severe penalties for impersonating a federal law enforcement officer. If you are contacted on the phone or via the internet by an individual who claims to be a DEA Special Agent and demands money, do not send it to them—instead, call our extortion scam hotline at 1-877-792-2873, or click here to find out more information.

Here at the DEA, we will never demand money or any other form of payment from you. We just seize it.

This is from back in 2009

SUBJECT: Breaking the UNGASS Impasse on “Harm Reduction” […]

Summary

Negotiations for the UNGA special session have hit an impasse, created by EU insistence on adding the controversial term “harm reduction” to various parts of the draft UNGASS action plan and political declaration. While Canada, an opponent of the term’s inclusion, is considering conceding to EU demands, other opponents are standing firm with the U.S. in preventing such a problematic element’s inclusion. Mission has engaged counterparts at every level, from experts to ambassadors in an attempt to break the impasse and find compromise language. Mission believes there is increasing pressure within the EU to resolve this gridlock and avoid an embarrassing showdown at the March Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) but some delegations will be inclined to hold this issue hostage up until the opening of the CND, in hopes the US will relent. To facilitate EU compromise, Mission recommends that the Department reach out to various capitals and the European Commission to help underscore the firmness of U.S. resolve-both to our allies and to the EU, before the EU horizontal group meeting in Brussels on February 4. Mission has urged like-minded countries here (Japan, Russia, Colombia) to take similar actions. End Summary.

EU Crusade on “Harm Reduction”

There have been difficult negotiations in Vienna on the “harm reduction” issue in the demand reduction chapter of the draft UNGASS action plan (Ref A) and political declaration. The Czech Republic reiterated this demand on January 26 on behalf of the presidency. The plan will be annexed to the political declaration expected to be issued by ministers attending the high-level segment of the UNGASS review meeting in Vienna March 10-12, 2009. The main
divide is between EU advocates for including “harm reduction” in the plan, and those who oppose such inclusion, namely U.S., Russia, Japan, Colombia and possibly Canada. Although opposed to harm reduction, Canada’s experts in Ottawa are receptive of a recent compromise (including the term in a footnote rather than in the text), and we understand that Ottawa will have a discussion on the political level to decide how to handle this issue.

The U.S. succeeded in keeping “harm reduction” out of the declaration at that time thereby increasing harm throughout the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIgT_NGgek

Mexican protesters begin 3-day march seeking end to drug war

Hundreds of protesters began a three-day march to Mexico’s capital Thursday, demanding peace in the war between the government and drug cartels.

Some carried signs bearing the names of victims of the brutal wave of drug-related violence that has hit many parts of the country. Others who gathered in the central Mexican city of Cuernavaca toted a large black banner that said “STOP THE WAR.”

One of the most persistent enemies of finding real solutions to the violence is the pathetic war mentality that is completely blind to the fact that they’re throwing gasoline onto the fire. That same traditional war mentality also convinces them that any suggestion other than continuing the present course is an unacceptable “retreat” or “surrender.”

“Retreating from the fight is not an option. Quite the opposite. We must redouble our efforts, because if we stop fighting, they are going to kidnap, extort and kill all over the country,” Calderon said. “Because marching back means things will get worse. If we retreat, we will allow gangs of criminals to walk all the streets of Mexico with impunity, assaulting people without anyone stopping them.” […]

In his statement Wednesday, Calderon acknowledged that some Mexicans are less committed to — and afraid of — his fight against criminals. But he showed no sign of changing his approach.

“Just like you, I also want a Mexico without violence. I want a peaceful Mexico. But this goal will not be accomplished with false exits. The solution is to stop the criminals, who are the enemies of Mexico,” he said.

Perhaps the people of Mexico are stepping up and saying “This is my house that’s burning down and you keep throwing gasoline on it. Stop it! Take your gas can and back away — I don’t care if you call it retreat or something else, but our house doesn’t need your kind of help.”

It’s finals week and the end of an extremely busy semester.

OK, this music video isn’t for everyone, and it certainly is not going to do much to convert those who are opposed to legalization and the cannabis culture, but I think it’s very well done on a number of levels.

We don’t fear no plant.

Getting Relief in Wartime: Opioids, Pain Management, and the War on Drugs by Siobhan Reynolds

Siobhan does a good job of showing the flaws in the government’s latest push to fight prescription drug abuse.

Anti-Drug War Movement Emerges in Mexico

After four years of war that has left nearly 40,000 people dead, countless more disappeared, and soldiers on the streets of every state in the country, many Mexicans are finally “fed up” with President Felipe Calderón’s drug policy. This weekend, Mexicans in at least 25 of the country’s 31 states will protest to “stop the war, for a just and peaceful Mexico.” Protests are also planned in solidarity in at least twelve cities in Europe, Canada, the United States, and Brazil.

Mexico: Netizens Put Death of Osama Bin Laden in Context

I found this by blogger Richard Grabman appropriate:

The government here, at the behest of the United States, targeted – and killed – any number of supposedly indispensable men in generic evil-doing business. While there’s a tendency to give these groups inappropriate names like “cartels,” or ridiculously inflated bureaucratic terms like “Transnational Criminal Organizations,” the Mexican fight has been against a known – and not all that complicated – an enemy: gangsters.

Every time some “drug king-pin” has been blown away we’re told it’s an incredible victory for the government and the “war on drugs”… and the result is more violence, more mayhem. […]

The U.S. has supposedly been waging not a war on Al Qaida, but a “war on terror” – the abstract noun that may have on[c]e referred specifically to Bin Laden’s organization, and by extension similar armed ideological movements, but has proven elastic enough to cover nearly any organized violent resistance to the status quo.[…]

What frankly scares quite a number of people here is not that the criminals might “win,” but that the state will lose legitimacy. Or, that in its infinite expansion of the “war on terror,” the United States will drop the pretense of “cooperation” and simply intervene directly in this country. Which, of course, would lead to resistance, which would be labeled “terrorism,” which would require more intervention….

Drug Policy that promotes security: The paradox of de-securitisation – a new paper by Transform Drug Policy Foundation.

Most interesting non-story: Marijuana crops planted outside Osama Bin Laden’s compound; farmers growing ganja near terror lair

You can see the reporters trying to find a way to make a story out of this, but the simple fact is that marijuana is popular everywhere and grows just about anywhere. That’s probably the only story there.

In an interview with Robert Naiman reported in the Huffington Post, Presidential candidate Gary Johnson was asked about the drug war.

RN: I wanted to ask you about your opinion the “war on drugs.” This is kind of a signature issue for you, I wanted you to talk about the cost, your perception of the failure, and particularly the implications of the “war on drugs” for people in other countries, particularly in Mexico and Latin America, Mexico where thousands of people have been killed in the war on drugs there, Central America where there is now apparently a big expansion of the criminal drug trade. So tell me about your thoughts on the war on drugs, and what you think the U.S. should be doing instead, particularly as that relates to the impact of the war on drugs on other countries.

Gary Johnson: As Governor of New Mexico, what my pledge was, and what I did, and I’m really proud of this, and I said I was going to do this, that everything was going to be a cost-benefit analysis. Everything. What are we spending our money on, and what are we getting for the money that we’re spending. That there wouldn’t be any sacred cows, that politics was going to be the last consideration on the list, that first and foremost it was going to be about the issues, and understanding the issues. So when it comes to the war on drugs, I’m opposed to the war on drugs A through Z. But I came at it initially from the standpoint of – and, you know, there’s naivety, I guess, on a broad number of issues, and this is after I’m elected, one of them is, I guess I really didn’t understand that half of everything we spend on law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons is drug-related, and when you think about that, that is just staggering.

And when you think about what are we getting for half law enforcement, half the courts, and half the prisons? Well what we’re getting, is we’re arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country, which I point out is the population of New Mexico, that gets arrested every single year. And, we now have 2.3 million people behind bars. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. And this is America? Liberty, freedom, the personal responsibility that goes along with that? I guess, except when it comes to your own body and what the decisions are surrounding that.

So going back to 1999, I came to the conclusion… that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use-related. That’s not to discount the problems with use and abuse, but that ought to be the focus. So in 1999, I advocated then, I advocate it now. Legalize marijuana. Control it, regulate it, tax it. It’s never going to be legal to smoke pot, become impaired, get behind the wheel of a car, do harm to others. It’s never going to be legal for kids to smoke pot or buy pot. And under which scenario is it going to be easier for kids to smoke pot or buy pot? The situation that exists today, where it’s virtually available anywhere, and the person that sells pot also sells harder drugs? Or a situation where to purchase it, you would have to produce an ID in a controlled environment, like alcohol, to be able to buy it. I think you can make the case that it would be harder to buy it, in that controlled environment.

When it comes to all the other drugs – [marijuana] is the only drug that I’m advocating legalizing – but when it comes to all the other drugs, I think what we ought to really be concentrating on are harm reduction strategies – the things that we really care about, which is reducing death, disease, crime, corruption – in a nutshell, it is looking at the drug problem first as a health issue, rather than a criminal justice issue.

So here we have the border violence with Mexico. 28,000 deaths south of the border over the last four years. I believe that if we legalize marijuana 75% of that border violence goes away, because that’s the estimate of the drug cartel’s activities that revolve around the drug trade. The drug trade – prohibition – these are disputes that are being played out with guns, rather than the courts. Control this stuff, regulate this stuff, take the money out of drugs, and so goes the violence.

This is the advantage of a Gary Johnson candidacy. Public discussions about the drug war.

New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg had a hard time making himself clear on his radio show. After a question about medical marijuana he incoherently tried to show why he opposed it while clearly describing the arguments for the overall legalization of drugs.

Choire Sicha provides the transcript.

“The argument is that the only ways you’re ever going to end the drug trades is legalize drugs and take away the profit motive and that to legalize—the corruption funds enormous dislocation of society. Mexico, you know, thousands and tens of thousands of people have been killed in the wars of the government trying to clamp down on the drug dealers.

There’s no easy answer to any of these things.

Nobody really — there are places where they legalized drugs. And then whether it destroyed the society or didn’t is up to debate, again.”

Huh?

No, I don’t think it really is up to debate. It’s like saying “And then whether unicorns caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is up to debate again.” It really isn’t. I mean you could debate it just for fun, but there’s no valid reason.

It’s fascinating that, as a supposed opponent of legalization, he gives a pretty clear account of the reasons for legalization, but seems utterly incapable of coherently stating why we shouldn’t.

Ah, but that’s the beauty of being a politician. No need to actually make sense.