Drug WarRant

Lie to them.

At least, that appears to be the case from reading her comments in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Nicole Kurash, clinical manager of youth programs at Gateway Rehabilitation Center, which treats up to 500 teens across Southwest Pennsylvania each year, said she had noticed changing attitudes toward marijuana, especially among parents.

“I would definitely say the attitude is much more relaxed than a decade ago,” she said. “We see a number of kids whose parents smoke marijuana. We see parents who say, ‘I don’t mind if they smoke it, but I don’t want them to do anything else.’ ”

While teens seem well aware that tobacco causes cancer, Kurash said, they appear not to realize that marijuana use also has been linked to cancer.

“We hear kids saying, ‘It’s natural. It comes from the ground. It can’t be bad,’ ” she said.

The attitude shift that Kurash noticed was reflected in the survey, which showed a decrease in teens who saw marijuana as carrying “great risk” or who disapproved of using it regularly.

Maybe the teens are better educated than Gateway Rehabilitation Center’s Clinical Manager of Inpatient Youth Programs, with her Master’s Degree and Clinical Inpatient Addictions Counselor certification. They’re either better educated than Nicole Kurash, or better educated than she’d like them to be.

They might have actually read about the largest study done on the subject of marijuana and cancer, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings “were against our expectations,” said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

“We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” he said. “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”

Maybe Nicole Kurash isn’t lying. Maybe an addictions counselor somehow doesn’t know about the largest study in the world, one that took place four years ago, was funded by the federal government, and widely reported in the press, including health publications and the Washington Post.

Right.

Paul Armentano at NORML: Drug Czar Blames Rising Teen Pot Use On Medical Cannabis Laws Rather Than On His Own Failed Policies

Okay, let me get this straight: California enacted legislation legalizing the physician-supervised use of medical marijuana in 1996 — some fourteen years ago — thus kicking off the national debate that is still taking place today. Between 1996 and 2005, nine additional states enacted similar laws (Alaska, 1999; Colorado, 2000; Hawaii, 2000; Maine, 1999; Montana, 2004; Nevada, 2000; Oregon, 1998; Vermont, 2004; Washington, 1998). Yet, the Drug Czar claims to the national media that this discussion has only been taking place in earnest for “the past couple years”?! Does he really think the public is that stupid?! […]

But wait, it gets even sillier. One statistic gleaned from the Monitoring the Future study that was not emphasized by the Drug Czar (for obvious reasons) was that more than eight out of ten 12th graders report that marijuana is “fairly easy” or “very easy” to get — a percentage that has remained constant for three and a half decades! So much for the notion that criminal prohibition is limiting youth marijuana access.

Mike Meno at Marijuana Policy Project:

“It’s really no surprise that more American teenagers are using marijuana and continue to say it’s easy to get. Our government has spent decades refusing to regulate marijuana in order to keep it out of the hands of drug dealers who aren’t required to check customer ID and have no qualms about selling marijuana to young people,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “The continued decline in teen tobacco use is proof that sensible regulations, coupled with honest, and science-based public education can be effective in keeping substances away from young people. It’s time we acknowledge that our current marijuana laws have utterly failed to accomplish one of their primary objectives – to keep marijuana away from young people – and do the right thing by regulating marijuana, bringing its sale under the rule of law, and working to reduce the unfettered access to marijuana our broken laws have given teenagers.”

Jacob Sullum at Hit and Run: Drug Czar Blames Cancer and AIDS Patients for Increase in Pot Use by Teenagers

The timing of the increase in marijuana use does not seem to fit this theory. States began legalizing the medical use of marijuana in 1996, after which past-month marijuana use among high school seniors went up and down until 2003, when it began a decline that continued until 2007. Furthermore, as the Drug Policy Alliance’s Bill Piper points out, states that have liberalized their marijuana policies have not seen noticeably bigger increases in use than states that have not

Mason Tvert, writing at FireDogLake: Teen Marijuana Use Up, Alcohol Use Down – A Good Thing?

According to the annual Monitoring the Future survey released today by the National Institutes of Health, marijuana use is up and alcohol use is down amongst America’s teens.

Although U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has taken to the airwaves to tell us “we should be very concerned about these marijuana numbers,” those numbers might actually be indicative of progress. […]

Not surprisingly, the drug czar is singling out medical marijuana laws and the debate surrounding them as the be-all-end-all cause of teens’ ease in attitude toward marijuana. This from a guy overseeing a major anti-marijuana ad campaign that has actually been found to increase the likelihood that those frequently exposed to the ads will experiment with marijuana. And when’s the last time you heard him complain about all the TV ads and billboards — visible to young and older people alike — that tout beer and liquor as the key to a good time. . . .

We must do a better job of lying to teens or they might see through all the lies we told them before.

White House Drug Czar: Teen Marijuana Use on the Rise

“We have been telling young people, particularly for the past couple years, that marijuana is medicine,” the former Seattle police chief argued. “So it shouldn’t be a great surprise to us that young people are now misperceiving the dangers or the risks around marijuana.”

That’s right. We must stop helping sick and dying people and stop telling the truth about the medical value of marijuana, or young people will start to realize that marijuana isn’t as bad as we’ve been telling them!

…

In what perverse world is that the basis for drug policy?

There’s a fascinating article in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press: They drink more, and you pay less by Bob Shaw.

It’s a concept that can seem counterintuitive, yet actually makes perfect sense — with some people who are dependent on a drug, maintenance of that dependence is a better form of harm reduction than continually attempting forced abstinence.

In this case, the drug is alcohol.

But while the drinking binges continue for Britton and the 59 other alcoholics at St. Anthony, the spending binges have ended. The St. Paul “wet house” is slashing the public’s financial burden for those men by more than 80 percent — saving about $5 million a year.

In a sense, St. Anthony wins the war against alcoholism by surrendering. The facility does what no treatment program will do — allow some of the state’s worst drunks to keep drinking.

That’s how it inspires their respect. Once the street drunks have food, housing and alcohol, they almost completely stop the barroom fights, the drunken driving, the late-night trips to emergency rooms.

This is not a one-size-fits-all situation. For many drunks, getting off the bottle for good is possible and preferable. But for some — those who return again and again and don’t respond to treatment — it’s better both for the individual and for society.

Consider Marion Hagerman. In his 39 years of drinking, the 54-year-old has been arrested about 60 times. He has kept drinking despite six drunken-driving convictions and six 28-day treatment sessions.

His drinking has cost the public more than $450,000. And since he was admitted to St. Anthony’s two years ago?

Nothing. Not a single arrest, detox stay or emergency-room visit.

Something to think about.

And in the larger drug policy arena, it’s also important to remember that one size doesn’t fit all. Each drug is different, and not all users are the same.

Just another city in the long list of major drug-war-related law enforcement scandals.

Scandal Roils Tulsa Police by Stephanie Simon in the Wall Street Journal gives a good overview of the situation.

A federal investigation into the Tulsa Police Department that began nearly two years ago has unearthed a flood of corruption allegations.

Federal prosecutors allege that a handful of veteran officers, aided by a federal agent, fabricated informants, planted evidence, stole drugs and cash from criminal suspects, coerced perjured testimony, intimidated witnesses and trafficked in cocaine and methamphetamine.

The drug war corrupts. Sure, we don’t have it nearly as bad as in parts of other countries where entire police forces have been bought off, but still, in the drug war, there are enormous sums of money involved, there’s political pressure to make lots of arrests, there’s a culture that treats a certain part of the population as sub-human scum, there’s a sense of real and sometimes unaccountable power that we give to law enforcement, and finally, there are the tactics that are used to enforce drug laws (because the transactions are consensual) that encourage law enforcement to lie and cheat to accomplish goals.

It’s a recipe for corruption.

It’s not like there are full-blown corrupt individuals being recruited into the police force. Many times it’s much more subtle and gradual than that. I often turn to this particular section of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition’s video that explains how it can start.

But, the question you may ask is, how does it get as big as the apparent scandal in Tulsa without somebody noticing?

Until you reach a certain critical mass of scandal, there’s very little to be done, because the police officers hold all the cards.

Several Tulsa-area criminal-defense lawyers say their clients had long alleged that police had fabricated evidence and attributed it to anonymous informants. But they could rarely make a judge take notice, not when it was a suspect’s word against an officer’s.

“You going to believe the police, or someone from the ghetto who has been in trouble before?” said DeMarco Deon Williams.

As it is, that culture may still protect some of the officers on the edge of the scandal.

Four additional officers and one retired officer are under indictment on multiple charges including depriving suspects of their civil rights and distributing drugs. Trials are set for January. All five men deny wrongdoing.

Officer Phil Evans, president of the police union, says he has a hard time believing the allegations. And attorneys for the indicted officers predict vindication. They say the evidence against the officers is flimsy—and relies heavily on the word of convicted criminals.

“This will be a credibility contest and, quite frankly, we welcome that,” said Stephen Jones, who represents indicted Officer Jeff Henderson

Credibility. Yeah. You know, it means more than just whether you wear a uniform (or work for someone who does).

As the property tax rates in Tulsa go up to pay off the inevitable lawsuits, the homeowners should start asking about the credibility of those who sold them this drug war.

Jacob Sullum at Reason’s Hit and Run:

Today John R. Jones III, associate vice president of Northern Illinois University, informed Jeremy Orbach, president of the school’s chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, that NIU’s administration is stepping in to recognize SSDP as a “social justice, advocacy, and support organization,” which means it can use campus facilities and is eligible for activity fee funding. The administration is thereby overriding the Student Association Senate, which twice voted against recognizing SSDP based on vague, constitutionally suspect criteria. In a letter (PDF) to Orbach, Jones writes:

I have made the determination, under the unique circumstances of this case, to administratively recognize SSDP as a student organization at Northern Illinois University. Your application appears to be in order, and the other documentation that I have reviewed is not sufficiently clear to identify a justifiable reason for the denial of such recognition….

This is not a big surprise. As a state university, NIU is the government as far as the 1st Amendment is concerned.

Once this story hit the news, their legal counsel probably told them that the student association actions were leading to an legally actionable result.

Congrats to NIU for such a prompt response and for going the step beyond to fix the process.

In addition to this action, the Division of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management is establishing a task force comprised of University officials and Student Association members to review and revise the recognition and funding processes as they relate to student organizations…

Lastly, the SA is collaborating with the University to develop a more formal training module for use by the Student Association on the applicable legal standards that have been established by the court systems regarding student recognition processes in public university settings.

I know a lot of you aren’t on Facebook, but for those who are, there are more and more good drug policy reform resources all the time.

Here’s a good one I hadn’t seen before:

A War on Drugs: A War on People

This excellent page discusses the global ramifications of the drug war and is:

Committed to raising awareness about the human rights violations that occur under the auspices of the war on drugs

And, of course, don’t forget to join Willie Nelson’s Teapot Party on Facebook (which has organized its first national meetupevent.

Of course, Students for Sensible Drug Policy have a strong presence on Facebook, not only from their national organization, but individual chapters around the world with their own pages.

There are active pages for Law Enforcement Against Prohitibion, Drug Policy Alliance, NORML Women’s Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, Marijuana is Safer, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Flex Your Rights, The Vienna Declaration, and more.

And don’t forget, you can follow Drug WarRant on Facebook as well, where all Drug WarRant posts are also duplicated with its own audience of over 1,000 daily views.

Are there good drug policy reform Facebook pages that I’m missing?

I ended up yanking about 5 comments today from a variety of folks for breaking the rules, so I thought it might be a good idea to recap my philosophy on comment moderating.

• Don’t call other commenters nasty names.

Pretty simple, huh?

Why? It’s not that I’m squeamish about the language or haven’t used that language myself to talk about the DEA or someone else in prohibition — rather it’s my experience that once it happens, the whole conversation turns into nothing but a shouting match and nothing interesting is said again.

Also, since this is my blog, I reserve the right to be completely arbitrary and unfair about it. I may yank yours even though someone else said something worse to you. Just like in football, it may be the retaliation that gets the penalty.

Sometimes it’s because I’ve been too busy to read them all, but other times I have my reasons.

For instance, if a prohibitionist or prohibition enabler stops by and calls us nasty names, I’ll probably leave the post up. We don’t get them here often enough and it’s nice to have a chance to argue with them (argue, not call them names). If you respond in kind, it brings you down to that level, cuts off any chance of having a discussion, and allows them to prance away gloating that “those legalizers didn’t even have a response to my argument — they just called me names, because they knew I was right.”

A couple of you found clever backhanded ways to give a dig back, while refuting the arguments. That’s cool.

Final note: a commenter I’ve never seen before left a comment wishing someone a bullet in the head. Comments like that will not only be pulled, but will probably get the commenter banned.

Feel free to disagree — actively, passionately, vocally, and intelligently, but civilly.

Thanks! I’ve got some of the best commenters out there and we have some amazing discussions.

The December 27, 2010 edition of The Nation focuses heavily on Drug Policy Reform

Nearly forty years after President Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” it is painfully clear that the nation’s approach to drug policy is counterproductive and cruel. Shifting our priorities toward a more sensible approach—one that offers treatment rather than punishment for addicts, and that recognizes the deep injustice of mass incarceration—seems like a daunting task. But as the writers in this forum suggest, we have all the answers and resources we need. If ever there was a time to say enough is enough, it’s now. —The Editors

There are 13 articles on the drug war in this issue. Many of them available now online (a few of them are subscriber-only).

If you’re not familiar with the concept of official student groups at state universities, here’s how it works in most cases….

A group of students can get together and form an organization (which may or may not be connected to a national organization) and get approved as an official student group (usually by submitting a set of by-laws, list of officers and getting a faculty advisor). Once approved, the group usually gets certain benefits, such as being able to check out university rooms for free for meetings and events, being able to promote their events and meetings through a variety of means on campus, and have the ability to apply for student fee money for the purpose of providing programming or other activities that are open to the student body as a whole.

Since state universities are government entities, they cannot by law discriminate based on viewpoint.

Northern Illinois University has an odd system. They differentiate between political organizations (campus Republicans and Democrats) and social advocacy organizations (including such things as anti-war organizations and pro-or-anti abortion groups). Political organizations are not allowed to apply for funds, but get the other benefits of being a student organization, social advocacy organizations can also apply for funds.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy was established as a social advocacy organization at NIU but was told by members of the student government, who apparently didn’t agree with their message, that they should apply as a political organization. The SSDP members felt that was wrong and that they shouldn’t be denied the option of applying for funding, so they went ahead and applied as a social advocacy organization. The NIU Student Association Senate denied their application completely, so now SSDP cannot even meet on campus.

Press release from SSDP

“It’s clear that the NIU Student Association Senate is incapable of fairly imposing its policies on student groups and after speaking with lawyers and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), we believe that the NIU Student Association Senate is in violation of the First Amendment,” explained Jonathan Perri, Associate Director at SSDP. “Unfortunately, it also seems that some members of the Senate are simply opposed to SSDP’s mission to promote an open and rational discussion about alternatives to current drug policies, including marijuana legalization, and that this may be the basis for their decision.”

SSDP has been an important voice of reform in this country (and internationally) by involving young people in issues of extreme importance. Just downstate at Illinois State University, where I function as faculty advisor for the SSDP chapter, the group is well received in the university community and their Constitutional rights are protected by both the student government and upper administration.

The student government at NIU is shooting themselves in the foot. They should welcome the debate that SSDP brings, and they should eliminate the bizarre and impractical distinction between political and social advocacy groups.