Drug WarRant

Nora Volkow, Director of NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) guest posts at the Drug Czar’s “blog”: Marijuana Research: The Facts

When we come to the topic of marijuana, it’s easy to be stirred by the heat of the debate between Gate-busters and Gate-keepers. This fight is fought almost entirely on the basis of personal and cultural beliefs, many times without knowledge of the scientific evidence about the acute and chronic effects of marijuana use on the human brain.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse’s (NIDA) mission is to gather this evidence objectively.

And then she goes on to tell us what’s wrong with marijuana.

So NIDA’s mission is to “gather evidence objectively.” Really?

Let’s go back to 2006.

A study had just discovered that “Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance” and part of its funding had come from NIDA.

Nora wasn’t all that keen on objective evidence gathering then, when she apologized for NIDA funding being used to find something good about illicit drugs.

Nora Volkow: “As the nation’s preeminent drug abuse research organization, NIDA’s mission is to support research and provide information on the addictive and adverse health consequences of drugs of abuse.

So which is it, Nora?

Is the mission of NIDA to “gather evidence objectively,” or to promote “adverse health consequences” of certain drugs? Quite a difference there.

Let’s look further.

On NIDA’s website, we have this statement by NIDA on marijuana and cancer:

It’s hard to know for sure whether marijuana use alone causes cancer, because many people who smoke marijuana also smoke cigarettes and use other drugs. But it is known that marijuana smoke contains some of the same, and sometimes even more, of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per day may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day (15) .

Now that’s interesting. You know what’s really interesting about it? Not one word about the definitive 2006 study that was done on marijuana and cancer that was funded by NIDA — you know, the one that demonstrated conclusively that there was no additional risk of head, neck or lung cancers in even heavy marijuana smokers, and that, in fact, there was a slight reduction of risk.

So, NIDA’s so-called objective gathering of evidence actually involves footnoting an old 1988 NIDA-funded study, ignoring their own definitive 2006 study, and ominously implying a reality that is contrary to their own funded research.

Nora Volkow isn’t your friend. She’s also not a friend to science… or the truth.

Now running in California…

Make a contribution to keep the ad running all the way up to election day.

Russ Belville does a really nice job over at Alternet clearly explaining 19 good reasons to vote from Prop 19.

It also clearly counters some of the truly idiotic stuff I’ve heard from the stoners against Prop 19 crowd.

It includes categories of reasons such as “For the concerned parents,” “For the law and order crowd,” “For the medical marijuana patients,” “For the business community” “For the Latinos and African-Americans,” “For the people of all political ideologies,” and “For the Future…”

19. To change the world. Prop 19 is not just another California initiative. Prop 19 is being watched in all fifty states and throughout the hemisphere as the “shot heard round the world” in ending the prohibition of marijuana.

It’s up to you, California, to take that one small step for your state that will be one giant leap for the nation. Vote Yes on Prop 19!

Scott has been a very good friend of mine for some decades now, and he has started his own blog: Practical Biking: Riding for everyday transportation. (You may see some similarities in site structure to mine.)

If you really enjoy biking, but aren’t one of those biking racing snobs, then Scott’s the go-to guy. He has practical advice, is very knowledgeable about Bromptons (collapsible bikes) and leads bike rides in Seattle regularly. As he says:

I know about how to use a bike to get from point A to point B and back again, possibly with a bag or two of groceries, and that’s what this blog is about.

His most recent post is an impressive, if totally impractical bike ride from Telluride, Colorado to Moab, Utah.

I recommend following the internal links to the various days of the trip, because there is some really nice photography in there.

So if you like bikes at all, go visit his site and give him some much-needed comments. Maybe encourage him to blog more often.

For some more incredible photography, we have our own regular allan420, AKA Allan Erickson. His latest project is a gorgeous calendar now available online. These are pictures from a medical cannabis farm in Oregon.

When packing a bowl, it’s generally considered a good idea to start with a small amount, maybe a few grams, rather than lighting up 134,000 tons all at once.

More photos here.

Listen to ad here.

Philip Smith notes what it is the Chamber of Commerce really is upset about:

The Chamber wants employers to continue to be able to fire workers for failing a drug test for marijuana, even though such test do not measure actual impairment, but only the presence of metabolites in the body. Those metabolites can remain for days or even weeks after the psychoactive effects of marijuana have worn off.

As I’ve mentioned here before, I’m not much of a poll watcher. I figure that every minute you spend looking at polls is a minute you’re not working on getting someone to actually vote. I think polls are good for determining if you’re in the game or not, but once you know that, the only thing that will tell you if you’re going to win or lose is the voters on election day.

It’s been clear for quite some time that with Prop 19 we’re in the game. In the final days, you have poll numbers jumping all over the place. So you have absurd situations like an LA Times blog proclaiming California’s Marijuana Legalization Effort Going Down In Flames In Latest Poll based on their own poll with a sample size not much larger than the margin of error. And then that post has a disclaimer:

Also see our newer post about how pot-legalization backers say their own data shows Prop. 19 winning.

When a single post contradicts itself regarding polling data, you have an idea of its volatility.

For the best analysis of poll numbers that I’ve seen, read Al Giordano (who has an excellent track record): I Have Seen the Future of US Politics & Its Name is Prop 19

A friend emailed me and asked me to give my predictions regarding Prop 19. Well, I hate doing that, but I also hate to say no, so I’ll give you… something. I’m going to hedge my bets, though, and give three entirely different predictions.

Scenario #1 Prop 19 supporters do an incredible job with their Get Out the Vote efforts, particularly motivating new voters, minority voters, and cell phone voters (those young people who no longer have a land line). Democrats, while unhappy with their own representatives, fear some of the extreme rhetoric they’ve seen from the far right, and come out in respectable numbers. Republicans, Social Conservatives, and Tea Partiers are motivated, but have some identity fractures. There are lines at the polling stations. Prop 19 wins 57-43.

Scenario #2 Young people and first-time voters stay home. The whole thing was too damned confusing what with having to register and figure out where to vote and it’s not like one vote’s going to make a difference anyway. Democrats stay home. What’s the use? They’re all worthless anyway. Social Conservatives come out in force seeing an opportunity to seize. Polling places are quiet. Prop 19 loses 37-63.

Scenario #3 Relatively good GOTV efforts by the Prop 19 supporters combine with a decent Democratic turnout. Motivated Republicans also have a decent showing. Average crowds at the polling places. Prop 19 ends up in a dead heat 50-50. After 3 recounts they are still unable to find a sufficient margin of victory and it goes to the courts. Without an Al Gore willing to step down, both sides declare victory. People start growing marijuana plots and carrying small amounts of pot. Cops continue arresting people. The courts get jammed as judges put all cases on hold pending State Supreme Court decisions on the election. The state has to rent storage facilities to store all the evidence for delayed trials…

No, I don’t have any answers.

Here’s what I know. The Get Out the Vote efforts are going to be the most crucial. And you can actually help with that by calling voters from your home wherever you live. Go to Just Say Now for more info.

or this one

Charles M. Blow has a scathing OpEd in today’s New York Times blasting Democratic politicians: Smoke and Horrors

He refers to a war “being waged primarily against minorities and promoted, fueled and financed primarily by Democratic politicians.”

He notes the latest figures in California showing a marijuana war that grossly and disproportionately targets minorities, yet has a Democratic administration “chest-thumping” against an initiative designed, in part, to address that problem.

He points out that it was a Democratic president who signed the provision forcing young people out of college for drug offenses (aimed primarily at poor young people).

And he reminds us that it’s Democrats that keep pushing to restore funding to the Byrne grants — grants that push a numbers-oriented drug war frenzy that naturally is staged predominantly in minority communities.

Why would Democrats support a program that has such a deleterious effect on their most loyal constituencies? It is, in part, callous political calculus. It’s an easy and relatively cheap way for them to buy a tough-on-crime badge while simultaneously pleasing police unions. The fact that they are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of black and Hispanic men and, by extension, the communities they belong to barely seems to register.

This is outrageous and immoral and the Democrat’s complicity is unconscionable, particularly for a party that likes to promote its social justice bona fides.

No one knows all the repercussions of legalizing marijuana, but it is clear that criminalizing it has made it a life-ruining racial weapon. As Ms. Alexander told me, “Our failed war on drugs has done incalculable damage.”

When will politicians have the courage to stand up, acknowledge this fact and stop allowing young minority men to be collateral damage?

Powerful.

I think this would be a good article to send to your Democratic representatives. For too long (all the way back to Tip O’Neill and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986), the Democratic politicians have gotten a free ride on expanding and supporting the drug war as a way to act tough. They need to learn that there are consequences (that Prohibition Isn’t Free), and that these consequences can affect them politically.

Note: There is an odd disconnect between Democratic voters and Democratic politicians on this issue. It’s true that Democratic voters tend to be more likely to support drug policy reform. Yet while there often are political repercussions for a Democratic politician who doesn’t support gay marriage or abortion rights, they are rarely held to account for their position on drug policy. That needs to change.

This article gives them something they must answer.

Update:

Some commenters seem to be missing the point entirely, here.

Of course it’s not just the Democratic politicians. Republican politicians have included Nixon, Reagan, Walters, Souder, and tons of other hard-core drug warriors.

The point is that, for too long, Democratic politicians have viewed themselves in the drug war as Republican-lite, and therefore have acted like they should get credit for being as tough as Republicans, but not have the responsibility for the drug war they’ve been fully complicit in creating and sustaining.

If we continue to call them “almost as bad as the Republicans” then they have no political reason to change. They can continue to prattle on about how drug policy reform is a difficult political thing and now is not the time to waste political capital when there are important other things like health care and abortion rights that need to be front and center.

It’s healthy for Democratic politicians to be held to the fire and made to be aware that they can’t hide behind Republican-lite, but that they are personally responsible for racist policy that harms their constituents. And their constituents have to realize that as well.

The fact that this powerful OpEd from a minority author is in the New York Times one week before election is good timing to get their attention and help them start realizing that this could be a real election issue for them personally one day very soon.

The U.N. has mostly stood by silently while its drug control agencies (United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC), International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)) set and ran international drug control policy, and those agencies have been mostly influenced by their biggest contributors (United States and Sweden).

Theoretically, all United Nations efforts are subordinate to the Human Rights Treaties, although the UNODC has rarely done anything but pay lip service to them, and no one else in the U.N. has called them on it.

That could change.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation reports on a very interesting development that will culminate in a press conference in New York this coming Tuesday.

Anand Grover, from India, is 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. Mr Grover’s annual thematic report, to be presented on October 25/26, sets out the range of human rights abuses that have resulted from international drug control efforts, and calls on Governments to:

• Ensure that all harm-reduction measures (as itemized by UNAIDS) and drug-dependence treatment services, particularly opioid substitution therapy, are available to people who use drugs, in particular those among incarcerated populations.
• Decriminalize or de-penalize possession and use of drugs.
• Repeal or substantially reform laws and policies inhibiting the delivery of essential health services to drug users, and review law enforcement initiatives around drug control to ensure compliance with human rights obligations.
• Amend laws, regulations and policies to increase access to controlled essential medicines
• To the UN drug control agencies, Mr Grover recommends the creation of an alternative drug regulatory framework based on a model such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The report is the clearest statement to date from within the UN system about the harms that drug policies have caused and the need for a fundamental shift in drug policy.

The report has been welcomed by the European Union in the EU statement on crime and drugs to the UN General Assembly.

The U.N. drug control regime is not going to change overnight, yet this is a powerful development that signals the potential for major shifts. It states that the status quo in drug control systems is no longer a certainty, and, in fact, is in conflict with higher goals of the U.N. This could open the door to change. Additionally, this may weaken attempts by the United States to claim that significant drug policy change here in the States is impossible due to international treaty obligations.