Drug WarRant

PAMELA ANDERSON has urged BARACK OBAMA to legalise drugs.

The ex-Baywatch star, 43, said: “I sent a letter to Obama, who I think is a great president, asking him to liberalise all of them.

“I think people would use fewer drugs if they were legal.”

The actress, who was speaking on an Italian TV chat show, will appear on the cover of Playboy in January – her 11th time in 22 years.

I guess I’ll be able to hang it up soon.

Naturally, they want to blame drug war violence on the wrong thing.

New pot law blamed as violence escalates

Since recreational marijuana use was decriminalized in Massachusetts last year, pot-related trafficking and violence have escalated across the state, frustrated law enforcement officials tell the Herald.

Smoking weed is not a victimless crime, they say.

“We knew it was going to be a nightmare for public safety and law enforcement. An ounce of marijuana can make a thousand joints,” Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr. said.

Of course, all the violence they noted had to do with turf wars — caused by marijuana still being illegal, not by decriminalization.

And… An ounce of marijuana can make a thousand joints.

Who are these morons?

There are a little over 28 grams in an ounce. That would mean you’d have to make over 35 joints per gram.

That wouldn’t satisfy a hobbit.

The drug warriors who have been fighting this immoral war for decades have dug themselves so deep into the muck that they’ve lost the ability to even see that they’re standing chin-deep in feces.

There are more bizarre elements of the drug war than you could count, but many of the more absurd derive from the fact that the drug warriors are unable to actually enforce the drug laws.

If that happened to rational people, they’d question whether the drug war is legitimate, but with prohibitionists, they just look for ways to subvert the principles of American law to assist them — whether it’s employing snitches, dismantling the fourth amendment, or even forcing people to do their job for them.

The latter is the basis for this latest DEA action:

Congrats to our Allan Erickson for getting Letter of the Week honors over at DrugSense/MAPinc.

Further, Kevin Sabet, as part of the ONDCP, is mandated by law to lie.[…]

If science and truth were the standard, cannabis never would have
been made illegal in the first place.

Link

PHOENIX (AP) — A measure that would legalize medical marijuana in Arizona pulled ahead for the first time Friday, with both supporters and opponents saying they believed the proposal that went before voters on Election Day would pass.

Proposition 203 was ahead by 4,421 votes out of more than 1.63 million votes counted. The measure started out losing by about 7,200 votes on Nov. 2 and the gap gradually narrowed in the following 10 days.

Only about 10,000 early and provisional ballots remain to be counted in the state, and all are in Maricopa County.

If the measure passes, Arizona would be the 15th state with a medical marijuana law.

“We were optimistic that this is what the result was going to be today, and we’re thrilled that it came to reality,” said Andrew Myers, campaign manager for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project. “Moving forward it’s our responsibility to help implement a program that Arizona can be proud of.”

Opponents of the initiative, including all Arizona’s sheriff’s and county prosecutors, the governor, attorney general, and many other politicians, came out against the proposed law.

It’s been quite a long wait for the results.

A fun article by Bill McClellan in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: It would be great if our state went to pot

These things start in California and move east. I saw it with blue sneakers. When I was a kid growing up in Chicago, sneakers came in two colors: black and white. One day a kid moved in from California. He wore blue sneakers. My friends and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing we had ever seen. Blue sneakers! Oh, how we laughed at him.

Within six months, we all had blue sneakers.

It’s going to be the same with pot.

We have two choices. We can let California legalize pot in 2012 or 2014 or 2016, and then we can eventually follow, or we can take the lead.

There is precedent for the latter. When Prohibition ended, who was ready? We were. That is, Anheuser-Busch was. The day Prohibition ended, August Busch Jr. read a proclamation on KMOX. “We’re back!” The brewery sent a case of Budweiser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

For the next 75 years, we were the beer capital of the country, if not the world. […]

I was afraid California was going to beat us with marijuana. It did not. Opportunity knocks.

This is something our Legislature should work on. Republicans ought to embrace it. The Obama administration opposed the California proposition. Isn’t that enough to make us want to do it? Down with the feds and their nanny state! Up with states’ rights!

Somewhere in rural Missouri is the next August Busch. If we give free enterprise a chance, we might have another 75-year ride. A new Napa Valley. Taxes and jobs and tourism like we’ve never seen.

A pipe dream, you say? Sort of.

IPS News

Two Georgian women are facing the death sentence in Malaysia in a case that human rights campaigners say has highlighted worries over the continued imposition of capital punishment for drugs offences.

Babutsa Gorgadze, 26, and Darejan Kokhtashvili, 37, were arrested last month in Malaysia after they were found with more than 10 kilos of methamphetamine.

Under strict Malaysian laws the pair, both mothers, are now facing mandatory death penalties if convicted and efforts are under way by Georgian authorities to stop the pair being sentenced to death if convicted.

Human rights campaigners say the case has brought into focus the dangers of imposing capital punishment for drugs crimes. The case took a new turn this week when Georgian media reported the husband of one of the women had confessed to Georgian police that he had been behind the drug smuggling, and that the women had gone to Malaysia unaware that they were carrying illegal narcotics.

I’m opposed to the death penalty in any situation, for a whole number of reasons, not the least of which is my lack of belief that it can be administered fairly or without murdering innocent people.

I’m even more opposed to it, if that’s possible, as a deterrent/punishment in drug cases, where it makes absolutely no sense that society should feel so threatened by the prospect of a voluntary transaction.

It’s clearly not a deterrent, as evidenced by the fact that Malaysia, Singapore, China, Iran, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia manage to find large numbers to execute each year.

Additionally, if your enforcement goal is to get the “big fish,” then a policy of execution is counter-productive. The big fish will put layers between themselves and harm’s way, using unsuspecting mules or desperate losers to take the risks (again, making the notion of deterrence ridiculous).

To add insult to stupidity, apparently in some countries these “crimes” are also tried differently.

Rights groups point to a high proportion of foreigners sentenced to death for drug offences in some countries and also question the fairness of trials for drug crimes, pointing to the fact that in some countries drug cases are referred to special courts where accepted standards of fair trial may not be met.

The specific legal paragraph of Malaysian law under which Goradze and Kokthashvili have been charged breaks international legal standards as it assumes the defendant is guilty unless they can prove their own innocence, according to Amnesty International.

So where is the international community on this? Well of course, organizations like Amnesty International and the International Harm Reduction Association are doing their best to get the word out.

But the lead international body has been complicit even as it mouths objections.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has also said it is opposed to the death penalty for drugs crimes.

The UNODC has made that statement several times, but never with authority or conviction. It regularly bullies countries into being tougher on drug offenses and then when there is some negative press about executions, they dutifully express their opposition. If i was one of those countries, I swear I would be able to see the UNODC wink at the end.

A report by IHRA released earlier this year also showed how abolitionist states helping fund efforts to battle the international drug trade are, in some cases, actually helping bring about executions for drug crimes.

The group cited case studies where such programmes supported by UNODC and funded by, among others, the European Union and states such as Sweden, Australia, and the UK had ended in the execution of convicts. […]

Rights groups argue that there is now a question mark over international organisations’ complicity in subsequent human rights violations when these operations are carried out and that all similar drug enforcement projects must be closely examined prior to funding.

Recently, there has been some favorable movement in the international arena as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, whose mandate is derived from the UN Human Rights Council, issued a report dramatically challenging the drug war as it is being waged internationally right now in terms of its violation of basic human rights (full report available here and it’s worth reading).

The current international system of drug control has focused on creating a drugfree world, almost exclusively through use of law enforcement policies and criminal sanctions. Mounting evidence, however, suggests this approach has failed, primarily because it does not acknowledge the realities of drug use and dependence. […]

The primary goal of the international drug control regime, as set forth in the preamble of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), is the “health and welfare of mankind”, but the current approach to controlling drug use and possession works against that aim. […]

Currently, there is a lack of coordination and discussion between the actors involved in drug control and human rights at the international level. Law enforcement approaches are ingrained institutionally in the international drug control regime, as drug control is housed within UNODC, which leads the United Nations efforts on organized crime. This association between law enforcement and drug control, in part, precludes adoption of a human rights-based approach and interaction with the human rights bodies of the United Nations.

As you can see, this isn’t specifically about the use of the death penalty in drug offenses, but rather the larger human rights picture — the philosophy of dealing with drug policy — which demands a radical shift, where things such as the complicity of the UNODC with state executions would simply no longer exist.

Interestingly, the UNODC and INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) recently issued a joint statement to respond to the UN Special Rapporteur report. They addressed none of the concerns, but merely re-stated their belief that what they do works.

The international drug control mechanisms were to set up to protect human health by preventing drug abuse and drug dependence and ensuring access to drugs for medical and scientific purposes. These control measures, which have been developed over the last 100 years with the consensus of Member States, have protected millions of people from falling into addiction to drugs. The present drug control system has been successful at the international level in preventing diversion of drugs from licit channels to illicit uses.

Law enforcement and criminal sanctions play a key role in enforcing these drug prevention conventions and strategies, targeting principally the organized crime groups making profit out of the misery of millions. Such enforcement measures however should be part of a balanced approach to tackling both supply and demand issues.

Pathetic.

From his “blog”

On Veteran’s Day, we take time to honor the brave men and women who defend and protect America’s freedoms. Often times, these service members experience significant mental health and substance abuse issues after returning home from duty. As we reflect on their bravery and sacrifice, we must not forget our commitment to fight for them and ensure they have access to the highest quality medical and treatment support to address these issues.

… as long as it doesn’t involve cannabis.

Art Linkletter, and later Bill Cosby, used to bring small children on and ask them questions. The humor of the show came from the “darndest” things that kids would say.

That’s partially why I like to check out the college editorial pages when they talk about drug policy. Now some can be quite serious and well-informed, particularly if they have a good SSDP chapter there. But there’s always a few that are good for a laugh.

Today we have Staff Writer Shane Smith of The Daily Skiff at Texas Christian University with Legalization of marijuana is a danger to society

Arguments for legalizing marijuana in California were that the drug would help decrease the state’s debt and decrease drug war violence. However, there is no substantial evidence that supports these outrageous claims. [emphasis added]

Well, you see, Shane — we never claimed that “the drug” would help decrease the debt and violence. It’s the change in legal status that makes the difference. No wonder you thought the claims were outrageous (although even “the drug” could probably reduce violence).

Here’s a good one:

By not legalizing marijuana, society is doing its job of protecting individuals from others that take advantage of individual freedoms. If marijuana were legal, we would see people walking around and going to work high on pot. Society has the responsibility of protecting individuals from those who exceed their individual rights. The decline of Prop 19 does exactly that.

That is one of the most bizarre definitions of society’s role that I’ve ever read. And “protecting individuals from others that take advantage of individual freedoms” — I don’t remember reading that in the Constitution.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, but they should imprison those who take advantage of these rights.

And then Shane turns around completely and torpedoes his own argument:

There is a misconception that making marijuana legal will help the state budget. This is not true at all. The main problem with the argument is that proponents assume that by making marijuana legal, more people will start buying the drug. This is a false assumption. Assumptions like this are dangerous because humans tend to be consistent. Whether or not it is legal, those who smoke pot now will do it again later. Those who do not smoke pot will most likely never smoke the drug even if it were made legal. Marijuana sales would hardly impact the budget in California.

In other words, legalization will have absolutely no impact on marijuana use, but…

The good news is that Californians are smart enough to realize that the legalization of marijuana is dangerous to society.

Shane Smith is a senior secondary education major from Fort Worth.

That’s right. He’s going to be teaching High School.

… if you’re a pharmaceutical company.

It was, of course, fascinating (although unsurprising) how fast Marinol was able to get moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. Marinol is, after all, synthetic THC (or dronabinol) and marketed to function the same as marijuana (although its limitations can be quite severe compared to whole plant cannabis).

Marinol has, interestingly, even marketed itself as “legal marijuana.”

Well now the DEA is concerned that some companies who want to sell “legal marijuana” might have a hard time doing it, so they’ve published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would allow them to open up the definition of Marinol in Schedule 3 to include “Any drug product in hard or soft gelatin capsule form containing natural dronabinol (derived from the cannabis plant) or synthetic dronabinol (produced from synthetic materials).”

After all, they want companies to be able to market alternative versions and generic versions of Marinol…. just so long as it isn’t actually cannabis.

(ii) Any drug product in hard or soft gelatin capsule form containing natural dronabinol (derived from the cannabis
plant) or synthetic dronabinol (produced from synthetic materials) in
sesame oil, for which an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) has been approved by the FDA.

Once again you have the DEA and the FDA working together to make sure that the pharmaceutical companies are taken care of without having to worry about trivialities like proving “accepted medical use.”

When drug products that reference Marinol® receive FDA approval, they will have a currently accepted medical use in the United States.

Actual cannabis, on the other hand, is claimed by the DEA to not have a currently accepted medical use in the United States, despite reams of evidence.

You can comment on the proposed rule making by January 3. Not sure what good it’ll do. Not even sure what comment I’d make… “Yes, please expand the definition because that might eventually lead to…” or “No, don’t let the other drug companies in until cannabis itself gets invited…” Not that the DEA is going to be interested in what I have to say.