Drug WarRant

It’s been just a little over a year now since we made the move from SalonBlogs to our own server. Other than the challenges in getting good ads served by Google since the move, it’s been very smooth.

Discussions have been active and excellent, with 10,091 comments since the move (the spammers have also been active, with 97,704 spam comments stopped).

This summer has been a busy one for me, and I completely missed mentioning the anniversary of this blog on July 26, when it turned seven years old. Wow. Seven years. 4,128 posts.

Thanks, as always, for your support.

US cops: armed and dangerous? by Jennifer Abel in the Guardian

Hero-cop TV dramas show brave officers risking their lives to rescue hostages or stop carjackers. There’s some like that in real life, too. But in most cases of egregious police overreaction, especially Swat raids in which innocent people are killed, cops aren’t going after dangerous hostage-takers, but looking for drugs or serving warrants for other, non-violent crimes.

Bizarre quote regarding Oregon medical marijuana laws.

“You can’t have a Vicodin tree in your backyard,” he said, referring to a prescription pain medication. “This (1998) law was one of the biggest mistakes the state has ever made.”

Narco-censorship

Leading doctor urges decriminalisation of drugs

One of the UK’s leading doctors said today the government should consider decriminalising drugs because the blanket ban has failed to cut crime or improve health.

“I’m not saying we should make heroin available to everyone, but we should be treating it as a health issue rather than criminalising people,” said Sir Ian Gilmore, former president of the Royal College of Physicians.

Gilmore put his position on the record publicly today after telling fellows and members of the college last month in a statement that he felt like “finishing my presidency on a controversial note”.

…

This is an open thread.

The city of Atlanta is paying $4.9 million to the family of drug war victim Kathryn Johnston.

The money is important. But even more important is whether anyone learned a lesson. Perhaps a little…

“The resolution of this case is an important step in the healing process for the city and its residents,” [Mayor Kasim] Reed said in the statement. “As a result of the incident, several police officers were indicted in federal and state court on charges and were later convicted and sentenced for their actions. In addition, the narcotics unit of the Atlanta Police Department was completely reorganized, which included changes in policy and personnel.”

We’ll see.

Over at the Reality Based Community, Mark Kleiman makes his case for his own version of legalized cannabis: Against commercial cannabis

In the cannabis front, my plea is for a “grow-your-own” policy: consumers would be allowed to cultivate pot for their own use, to give it away, or to join small consumer-owned co-ops to produce the stuff for them. No commercial sales.

“Why not?” demanded several outraged commenters. Why allow use but not sale?

Two words provide the gist of the answer: marketing and lobbying. A legal cannabis industry, like the legal beer industry, the legal tobacco industry, the legal fast-food and junk-food industries, and the legal gambling industry, would do everything in its power to expand its sales, including taking political action to weaken whatever regulations and minimize whatever taxes were imposed.

Well, again, why not? What’s wrong with persuading someone to engage in what would be a perfectly lawful behavior?

Nothing, if the behavior is harmless as well as lawful. Everything, if the behavior predictably inflicts harm on the person being persuaded.

But cannabis use (like drinking, eating, and gambling) is harmless to most of the people who engage in it. Is it wrong to suggest that someone start a potentially benign activity simply because it might turn into a bad habit?

Might. “Aye, there’s the rub.” To the consumer, developing a bad habit is bad news. To the marketing executive, it’s the whole point of the exercise.

The commenters there have addressed this argument somewhat, but there are some important points that I believe need to be made.

The whole concept behind this paternalistic and nanny-statist argument is that, because some individuals might not be able to handle a free market system, everyone should be kept from participating in a free market system.

It is an argument that says that we should decide things based on what is often erroneously referred to as the “least common denominator” (when what people really mean is the greatest common divisor). In other words, the idea is that policy for everyone should be based on that which is best for the least capable.

It’s a philosophy that says that fast food places should not be allowed to serve bacon, because some people can’t control their appetites and may end up with heart disease. Sure, you can have bacon at home as long as you’re not an abuser, but no more bacon cheeseburgers at Wendy’s for any of us, even if we’re in good health and eat them responsibly. (In fact, it sounds above like Mark Kleiman might support such a move.)

It’s the belief that the internet should only contain material that isn’t “harmful to minors.” (Fortunately, our First Amendment has prevented that kind of odious suppression of speech.)

We are not a Greatest Common Divisor country. It really goes against everything about us. We are a country of diverse ideas, diverse options, diverse freedoms. And that means that we need responsibility, not uniformity.

Mark Kleiman notes that only a small portion of marijuana users have a problem with over-use and even then, it’s for a relatively short time, yet the idea of a free market system with marketing, he says “fills me with fear.”

Fine. Get over it. If you’re worried about the portion of those who cannot handle the seductive marketing and will fall victim to pot advertising, then let’s use our resources and ingenuity to help those individuals who abuse. But we don’t dramatically restrict the options of everyone else in some kind of desperate attempt to prevent a few from making mistakes. That, in fact, is what prohibition is all about.

We are the country that proudly proclaimed

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Not “Some of you may just be here to make anchor babies, so we’re not going to count your children born here.”

We are not a Greatest Common Divisor country.

But wait, you may say — what’s wrong with a grow-your-own policy? You can still have pot legally.

Lagavulin 16 neat. Tanqueray and Tonic. Cu-Avana, Robusto. Kalamata olives.

In a brew-your-own world, I could probably make a beer of some kind (or find a neighbor who could). But where would I get a quality single-malt aged scotch that had been influenced by the peat in Islay? In a grow-your-own world, I might be able to achieve a usable tobacco for a cigarette, but the mildness of a Dominican cigar made by experts for generations? Unlikely. In a grow-your-own produce world, I might be able to come up with some green beans and tomatoes, but Kalamata olives? No way.

In a legal Cannabis regime, I should be able to get the Cannabis version of Lagavulin 16, not just Schlitz. That requires a market. And I shouldn’t be prevented from doing that because Mark fears that some people will succumb to the advertising and get stoned on Pete’s couch.

There’s one additional challenge to this fear of the free market that I’d like to mention.

We don’t know that it really would produce the results that Kleiman fears. First of all, it is possible to regulate commercial advertising. Second, those who are likely to have problems with abusing drugs are likely to find them regardless of the marketing. Third, any advertising that promotes marijuana is likely to end up getting some people to consume pot rather than some more harmful drug.

For sure, what we don’t want is to dumb down this country to the level of those least able to participate responsibly. Nor to give that power to paternalists.

Tim Condon, Ph.D., a Science Policy Advisor at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, guest posts at the ONDCP’s “blog.”

With so much misinformation about drugs floating around the blogosphere, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) re-launches its annual NIDA Goes Back to School Initiative (NGBS). This initiative focuses on science-based drug education materials for teachers, parents, and students at all grade levels. […]

Although we can’t be looking over our kids shoulders all day at school, we can help ensure that when confronted with decision about drugs that the facts they get in front of them about drugs are credible, accurate and science-based. [emphasis original]

Well, as one of the premiere drug policy bloggers out there, I’ll be happy to take that “blogosphere” crack personally. The ironic part, of course, is that Condon is posting at a so-called “blog” that is at the nexus of scientific misinformation on drugs in the whole world.

The government drug policy apparatus in general, and ONDCP in particular, have treated science as though it were silly putty — molding it and shaping it to fit pre-determined policy decisions, and hoping the public won’t see that everything is printed backward.

After all, it is the owner of this blog that has forced the owner of the ONDCP blog to retract a misuse of scientific data.

It’s also mildly interesting that Timothy Condon apparently moved from NIDA to the ONDCP last month to be their science policy advisor. Interesting that this bit of information was left out of the post, and that Condon, supposedly promoting science-based information is now working for the top propaganda agency around. If Timothy Condon would be willing to stop by, I’d love to hear just exactly what a “science policy advisor” does when he’s working for a propaganda generator.

Because you can count on it: the mainstream media won’t analyze it at all

There has been a jungle of growing chatter within the pro-cannabis community over the issue of Proposition 19, resulting in a rift between growers and advocates.

What could possibly be the issue? – one might ask. The November initiative will give Californians a choice: to either vote for legalization of cannabis, with a tax and regulation plan that assures to ease the state’s budget crisis; or to keep the therapeutic herb outlawed, to continue turning anyone who uses the weed other than a papered medicinal marijuana patient into an outlaw.

But to be droll, the devil is in the details.

From heated Internet debates to kitchen-side coffee/bong klatches, longtime pot-based partnerships have teetered on the verge of dissolution over what each side believes will be the ultimate result of this proposition, should it pass. Many cannabis farmers and brokers (otherwise known as “pushers” to the morally corrupt, “providers” to those of us who know better) believe 19 is overburdened with regulations, that it squeezes out the smaller cultivators with exorbitant fees, licenses and taxes, and that a possible excise tax on every ounce will strain the wallets of their clients. Indeed, the Prop. 19-wary envision Big Tobacco and Wal-Mart overtaking the market, to the point where a refer could become as harmful and hideously unfair as a genetically tinkered ear of Monsanto corn.

They make excellent points, though professional economists may warn that capitalism does not naturally work that way, for one thing. Competition, if allowed to flourish relatively unfettered, produces high quality goods at lowered prices, regardless of the political obstacles. Secondly, there is a sea-change of thinking in this nation right now regarding what we ingest and where it all comes from. Smaller, sustainable, chemical-free local farming, with farmers’ markets and rooftop gardens, are the wave of the future.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the smaller guys do lose out, that big industry co-opts the cannabis market and that it gets so bad Big Pharma even undermines the medicinal marijuana movement. What is the alternative at this point?

To vote no? That would mean the small guys would STILL be outlaws. That our prisons would STILL burst at the seams with more criminals persecuted for consensual “crimes” over a bogus “moral” issue. That the DEA would be smug with what they perceive to be a green light to generate STILL more corruption and jack-booted terror. That no money goes to saving the STILL bankrupt state. That more people, unable to obtain medical marijuana cards over technicalities, will STILL writhe in pain. That no one STILL has the right to “get high” – God forbid! That fewer folks, let’s face it, will be in a good mood.

That Prohibition STILL marches on.

And, for me, here’s the kicker: If you know of fellow cannabis supporters who vote no on Proposition 19 because it is not perfect, you can safely tell them they have encouraged mental de-evolution in the human species. It would be a massive slide backwards taking years to overcome, and here’s why.

If Proposition 19 is defeated, how do you think the glamour pusses in the talking head video media will report it? Or for that matter, the spineless weenies in the coagulated print media… and of this I know what I speak, being an expatriate of that field. The mainstream media does not ask the question “Why?” anymore, and has not for some time now. They will give dummy-downed sound bytes, proclaiming, “Well, the voters said NO with a capital N today, to legalizing pot! Tee-hee!” — or – “Californians drew a line in the sand today – saying medical marijuana… maybe… but NO WAY to wasties with the munchies who just wanna get high!” – or how about — “The children were saved today when voters decided they don’t want drug pushers peddling at the grammar schools….” Yes, it’s absurd, incorrect, even putrid, but there you have it.

They won’t go into the fact that the pro-cannabis community split the vote because some of them thought it was crafted unfairly for some growers or users. The media won’t analyze it so intellectually – because their editors wouldn’t allow such intricate, confusing thought! The mainstream media can’t wrap their heads around this, so how can they expect what they see as the “dense public” to understand it? Ergo, the public will be spoon-fed – and will swallow – the simplistic, retarded “wrap-ups” of this issue, effectively killing any chances of bringing legalization back to the table for years.

Remember, medicinal marijuana – voted in by the public in 1996 – wasn’t perfect either. In fact, it had to be amended some eight years later to allow dispensaries to operate. (Oh, I know. If only local city councils realized that dispensaries are legal, that patients are really in pain, that medicinal marijuana is legal to smoke, to sell.)

Let’s unite ourselves, once and for all, on our collective goal. We have come so far, and it would be a travesty if some of our own – disgruntled over just half a pot of gold instead of a whole pot of gold – were to lose the entire prize for all of us. If there is a glaring problem that presents itself after the victory, believe me, it can and will be fixed. If we can get this so long overdue proposal on the ballot, we can certainly rally ourselves and the system to work out the kinks soon after.

….

Kate Woods is a freelance writer and a staff writer for Union Local 13

The NYPD Just Won’t Stop On Frisking

The New York Police Department’s stop and frisk tactics had increased 21 percent over the past year, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights. The findings are from a departmental quarterly report that was released to Congress on Tuesday, and also show that a stunning 88 percent of those stopped were black and Latino.

And this isn’t just happening in New York, or just with frisking…

I was talking to a black woman at a professional work-related function and she just matter-of-factly talked about the circuitous route her husband takes to drive home from his night job. Turns out the direct route took him through a part of town where he was stopped by the police so often for no reason, that it was worth taking a longer route to get home sooner. She made it sound like it was a routine thing, no big deal (and that really angered me).

Police in St. Louis discovered a marijuana lab in a house. Yes, a “marijuana growth lab,” was in the basement.

Todd and Angela Priest have been charged with child endangerment.

The Priests knowingly allowed the children to enter the house from Feb. 1 through 12, according to court documents.

How dare they let their four kids, aged 2 through 14, enter the house! They should have made them sleep in the alley. After all, there was a drug lab in the basement and they were in the same house with things like water and light and plant food.

The Oppenheimer Report in the Miami Herald: Has the time come to legalize drugs?

I haven’t really mentioned Vicente Fox’s recent call for legalization. Andres Oppenheimer discusses it.

While the three centrist former presidents’ proposal amounted to not prosecuting people for consuming marijuana, Fox’s proposal calls for legalization of all major drugs — the whole enchilada.

In an extended interview, Fox told me that he is making his proposal because drug-related violence in Mexico has reached intolerable levels, and because the experience of other countries such as the Netherlands has shown that allowing drug sales has not significantly driven up drug consumption.

“Prohibitionist policies have hardly worked anywhere,” Fox told me. “Prohibition of alcohol in the United States [in the 1920’s] never worked, and it only helped trigger violence and crime.”

Since possession of small amounts of marijuana has already been decriminalized in Mexico, what’s needed now are bolder steps, such as legalizing drug production and using the taxes it generates to fund anti-drug education programs, he said.

“What I’m proposing is that, instead of allowing this business to continue being run by criminals, by cartels, that it be run by law-abiding business people who are registered with the Finance Ministry, pay taxes and create jobs,” Fox said.

That’s about as clear as you can get.

And the antics of our drug warriors just keep looking more pathetic every day…

In a separate interview, White House drug czar R. Gil Kerlikowske told me that drug legalization is a “non-starter” in the Obama administration.

Kerlikowske disputed the idea that alcohol prohibition drove up crime in the United States in the 1920s, arguing that there were no reliable crime statistics at the time.

A very interesting article by Paul Elam (thanks to Radley): When Your Kid Smokes Pot

O.K., so you found some weed in your teen-agers room.

Depending on the kind of parent you are, your reaction to that can range from mild amusement to thermonuclear. But assuming you are not going to smoke the stuff yourself, you are confronted with making some decisions on what to do about it. Perhaps you think it is time to call a counselor, or maybe even the thought of a treatment center for young people with drug problems crosses your mind.

As someone who worked in the chemical dependency treatment field for two decades, and who wrote and directed several treatment programs, let me make a suggestion about that.

Don’t.

Don’t even think about it.

To clarify, let me tell you some things you won’t hear from the staff at treatment programs, or anyone else interested in making a buck off your child’s “problem.”

First, there‘s this funny thing about teenage drug addicts. There aren’t any. Or at least they are so far and few between that I can count the ones I have seen on two fingers.

So why are so many teens in treatment?

Well, money, of course. There’s gold in the ignorance of them thar parents.

It’s a good and important read and fits in with other information that’s emerging about treatment… when even NIDA’s director notes that it can be harmful:

“Just putting kids in group therapy actually promotes greater drug use,” says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Drug Treatment is, in many ways, the unexamined scam of the moment. Sure, there is drug treatment that works and that is very important, and yet… and yet… why have I gotten spammed from so many drug treatment centers? And why am I contacted every week by someone “representing” a treatment center that is willing to pay me to put a text link somewhere on my site — even on an old page (I always turn them down).

Oh, yeah, there’s a ton of gold out there.

The sad part is that everyone is being told (partly by the government) that drug problems require treatment. And so parents, at great expense, are forcing their kids (who may have only experimented with pot) into treatment where they lose trust with their family and gain contact with hard core drug users and end up increasing their access to drugs. And then those treatment statistics are used to claim that marijuana is dangerous.

I think it would be interesting if a group of people got together and decided to picket their local drug store chain (Walgreens, Duane Reed, CVS, etc.). Sort of a NIMBY movement to make fun of the fears some people have of medical marijuana moving into a neighborhood.

There’s all sorts of creative picket signs that could be made…

– This store sells drugs that can cause anemia, high blood pressure, nausea, suicidal thoughts, and death. Think of the children!

– People buy drugs here and then drive on our streets. Nobody is safe.

– Stop Dealing Drugs!

– We Want a Drug-Free Community. Walgreens Must Go!

– They let airline pilots buy drugs here!

– Walgreens sells Candy and Drugs. They’re after the children!

What other slogans could we put on picket signs outside a drug store?