Drug WarRant

Thanks to Dan Linn for helping out while I’m in New York. Some others may stop in as well. I’ve got an incredibly busy schedule here with 70 people that I’m showing around New York, along with seeing shows every night. On Tuesday, we saw “Fences” by August Wilson, starring Denzel Washington. Amazing. Last night, Sean Hayes and Kristin Chenoweth did a fine job in “Promises, Promises,” and tonight we’re seeing Catherine Zeta-Jones and Angela Lansbury in “A Little Night Music.”

MAPinc is an incredibly useful resource, so please follow Allan’s advice in the comments to the last post, and get involved there, if you can.

Here’s one that’ll get your blood boiling. It’s an extremely ignorant rant by Kurt Schlichter at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood: Sting and Soros Hook Up For A Duet Of Pro-Drug Stupidity

I think it was just the fact that Soros was involved in the Drug Policy Alliance video that got him so bent out of shape that he couldn’t think straight. The whole column is full of bizarre nonsense.

Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous: Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault. […]

One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves. Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all.

Where it really gets strange is when he acknowledges that libertarians — yes, some conservatives — support reform. Follow the contortions as he tries to separate them from Soros.

There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it. The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason. Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them. Many celebrities are among them, but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners. They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting. No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore.

Hate to tell you this, but the libertarians at Reason aren’t just talking about legalizing pot, either.

Tony Newman takes on Schlichter at Huffington Post

The Tea Party and the Drug War — Jeffrey A. Miron, writing at National Review Online, explains to the Tea Party why ending the drug war has to be a key part of their foundation if they have any principles at all.

It’s an important point, as many who have called themselves Tea Partiers, or who have co-opted the Tea Party movement, have been less than clear on their support for ending prohibition.

This is an open thread.

Each week, I read the all of the published letters to the editor on drug policy that are archived at the Media Awareness Project.  Then I select the five that clearly and concisely call for an end to drug prohibition, in my opinion.  I send these top five out to a relatively small email list, who then vote on it and the one with the most votes is awarded the “Letter Of The Week” in the Drugsense Drug Policy Reform Blog.  Normally I would do this on Tuesday morning and the voting ends Thursday night at midnight CST, however, this week I haven’t gotten around to selecting the Top 5 until about an hour ago.  I’ll open up the voting for the Letter Of The Week today to the Drug War Rant community and will tally up all the votes from here and the email list for the LOTW to be announced tomorrow on both blogs.  And for those who are not familiar with MAPinc I highly recommend it as a way to get involved in helping bring an end to drug prohibition, either by Newshawking or writing letters to editors. Below is the LOTW TOP 5 choices to vote on this week, feel free to vote in the comments section.  PUB LTEs represent letters that favor ending prohibition, LTEs are letters that support drug prohibition.

From June 1-7, 2010 there were 6 LTEs archived and 26 PUB LTEs archived at the
Media Awareness Project.  Here are the top five PUB LTEs in my opinion.

US CA: PUB LTE: Stop The Bleeding
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n428/a05.html?1151

US NC: PUB LTE: Lobby Legislators To Approve Hemp, Medical
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n427/a09.html?1151

US HI: PUB LTE: DARE Program
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n426/a02.html?1151

US MT: PUB LTE: Medical Marijuana: Let's Look On The Bright
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n421/a02.html?1151

Canada: PUB LTE: War Without End
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n418/a09.html?1159

In response to a member of LEAP calling for an end to prohibition to make the streets of Chicago safer, the Chicago Sun Times ran this follow up letter to the editor on Monday, “Legalizing drugs not that easy.”  What I found interesting about the letter is that it is not directly opposed to legalizing drugs, the writer simply has some questions about how the drugs would be regulated in a legal setting.   Here is the letter:

James E. Gierach’s proposal to end the war on drugs poses many questions. Decriminalization and legalization of drugs would be a lot more complicated than it seems. Questions such as who would manufacture the drugs, which drugs would be legalized and who would distribute them. Would Walgreens and CVS dispense said drugs? Would they be open to legal liability in cases of overdose? Would U.S. companies partner with Colombian and Mexican drug lords for supply and demand purposes?

And finally, what would the current drug dealers, particularly ones without any marketable skills, do for income? Would the government, in a time of tight budgetary restraints, be willing to treat and train them to be accepted back into society? There are a combination of causes for Chicago’s street violence connected with corruption, dysfunction, disinvestment and sheer rebellion at authority to name a few. But if the answer is for people to call for an end to the drug war, then that means there has to be a call for a start to reinvesting and retraining the participants in the drug trade so that they won’t look for other illegal means to survive.

Steven Majors,

Auburn Gresham

So, Steven is not necessarily against legalizing drugs, he just wants the government to “reinvest and retrain” drug dealers and drug consumers.   I think that we should do a better job of reinvesting and retraining those who have been unjustly imprisoned for drug offenses and that would prevent those released from jail and/or prison from returning to a life of crime.  However, while there are problems with education in Chicago, the fact that these Americans are incarcerated for putting a substance into their own body or selling or producing a substance for others to willfully consume is the problem.  Any felon can attest to the lack of jobs out there for those branded by the criminal justice system and the drug war is to blame for many felonies in Chicago and across the country. Nevertheless, Steven’s questions can be answered and in no way should be reason to oppose a logical solution like legalizing drugs.

The only people that find legalizing drugs difficult are politicians, which is sort of strange because they are in the regulatory business by making, and in very few circumstances, repealing laws.  One would imagine they could conjure up a set of rules for the production, distribution and consumption of these substances just like they do with everything else.  I suppose those with a vested financial interest in maintaining prohibition might find it difficult to legalize drugs but America needs a new replacement economy because the prison industrial complex is simply costing too much life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among the supposedly free.  When the factory jobs went overseas, the prison building boom took off, now it is time to reinvest and retrain America to find some other economy that does not feed off caging illegal drug producers, traders, and consumers.

In case folks were wondering about the violence in Chicago there were “at least” 27 people shot over Memorial Day Weekend and that was not in celebration of Obama coming back to the city for the holiday weekend.  Chicago and Iraq have an ongoing race of where more people are shot and killed each summer and year, but legalizing drugs and pulling the financial rug out from the gangs is still too absurd for consideration.  In Illinois we cannot even allow people to consume cannabis with a recommendation from their doctor, as evident by our medical cannabis legislation once again stalling and being put on the back burner for consideration after the November election.  And for those interested in exploring different regulatory models for different drugs, I suggest turning to Transform’s Blueprint for Regulation

If the war’s over, why am I still here?

I’m leaving very early tomorrow morning for a week in New York City, along with 70 people. I’m host of this annual theatre trip and will be conducting walking tours of the city each day, along with seeing six shows with the group.

Naturally, it’ll keep me pretty busy. I’ll stop by when I can, but posting will be very light. However, I’ve got a few friends who may drop in and add a post now and then. Treat them well.

Not just a high by Nathan Seppa in Science News — a nice roundup of some of the discoveries going on now regarding the miracle plant cannabis.

But while the medical marijuana movement has been generating political news, some researchers have been quietly moving in new directions — testing cannabis and its derivatives against a host of diseases. The scientific literature now brims with potential uses for cannabis that extend beyond its well-known abilities to fend off nausea and block pain in people with cancer and AIDS. Cannabis derivatives may combat multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory conditions, the new research finds. Cannabis may even kill cancerous tumors.

Would like to see more candidates for Congress talk this way:

The closest thing I could see to a quick fix with all the economic issues we’re having is the legalization of marijuana and hemp. We just can’t continue to fund this war on drugs and lock up people, breaking up families and all the other issues that come up with it.

Jamaica Says it Can Win Its Drug War for $1 Billion

What a great idea. If only we would spend a billion dollars on the drug war, maybe we could win ours… oh, wait.

Opponents are getting desperate and turning to dirty tactics… Montana kids warned of ‘Medical Marijuana Crises’ in flyers — and these flyers were passed out by the schools.

‘War on drugs’ behind endless misery by Evan Wood at CNN.

Given that the scenes of violence between rival drug gangs are so common, people often fail to consider the factors that fuel this violence. The reality is that Jamaicans are just the latest victims in a misguided and expensive war that has taken countless thousands of lives, from the streets of New York to the slums and shantytowns of Colombia, Mexico and other third-world nations.

It was through this article that I discovered the new International Centre for Science in Drug Policy. This looks like an excellent, and much needed, organization, urging scientists to speak out to counter the self-interested lobbying of the drug warriors.

There remain critical areas in public health where the gap between evidence and public policy persists. Few areas suffer from this concern more than society’s response to the illicit drug problem. Despite the wealth of scientific evidence that drug law enforcement may be associated with increases in violence and homicide, policymakers continue to focus energy on police and prisons at the expense of effective public health and regulatory approaches.

Continue to read their overview of the challenge of Science and Drug Policy.

This is an open thread.

(Remember, when possible if posting links, please try to use shortened links, or else use html.)

I just about dropped my coffee when I read this letter to the editor by Shirley Bradley of Bloomington this morning: Marijuana law would send mixed message

Of course, it’s in opposition to the medical marijuana bill in Illinois. But the key line:

Legislators are not doctors, and they do not have the expertise to determine what constitutes medicine.

Ummm…. right. And that’s supposed to be an argument for asking legislators to keep it from being a decision made by doctors?

Thanks for playing, Shirley!

Michael Gerson, in the Washington Post, thinks we’ve been too hard on Mark Souder, the drug warrior and abstinence warrior who recently resigned from Congress because he had an affair with a staff member.

Mark Souder and the case for grace

Gerson is disturbed by the “national mirth” over Souder’s departure, and notes that Souder was decent to him.

Not long after I started working there, my father died suddenly. Mark drove from Washington to Atlanta to attend the funeral. I won’t forget.

That’s nice. And completely irrelevant to the national discussion about the hypocrisy of Mark Souder. I’m sure that even mass murderers have done nice and decent things for their friends and associates.

Gerson also notes:

The failure of human beings to meet their own ideals does not disprove or discredit those ideals.

Of course not. People are imperfect. It is not the moment of Souder’s fall that disproved his ideals. They had already been clearly disproved. His fall was merely the “I told you so” moment. And that’s what made it worthy of national mirth.

Mark Souder promoted failed and bad policy because it fit his own personal sadomoralistic views. This was not a matter of someone doing good things, but having a moment of weakness — I’m not bothered by that at all. Mark Souder was constantly shown that the policies he promoted (in both the drug war and abstinence education) didn’t work and caused harm. And yet he used his power to force his personal morality onto others, despite the damage.

Lee at HorsesAss had already said it clearly last week:

The reason that Mark Souder’s downfall has everything to do with abstinence-only education is because if even the biggest nanny in Congress doesn’t have the ability to abstain from sex that he knows could have serious consequences, very few teenagers out there do either. That’s the basis for why comprehensive sex-education is more realistic and more effective than trying to scare teens into keeping their pants on.

And of course the same is true for drug policy.

Legislation isn’t about deciding what you personally believe to be morally correct and then turning it into law. It is about crafting public policy that serves the greater good (you know, that actually works). Souder had long been a horrible failure as a legislator and deserved a kick out the door many years ago for his legislative work. Again, the affair was just the “I told you so” moment.

Gerson says:

But I would rather live among those who recognize standards and fail to meet them than among those who mock all standards as lies. In the end, hypocrisy is preferable to decadence.

That, of course, is a distortion of what really is going on. Souder didn’t “recognize” standards. He imposed them (and failed to meet them). And we don’t mock all standards as lies — only those that are lies.

Michael Gerson wants us to show Mark Souder a little grace. Not divine grace, but merely some mercy. That’s hard. I keep wondering where the grace was for all the young people whose lives were destroyed by Mr. Souder’s drug and sex policies.

The sad thing to me in this affair (even though I did take considerable pleasure in the “I told you so” moment), is that it took an affair for him to leave office. The right reason for him to leave office was not the affair, but because his public policy efforts were so damaging.

Yet by calling his agenda “morality,” Souder was able to convince the voters in Indiana (who apparently never read the first four books of the New Testament) to put him in office time and again. That’s the real tragedy.

Attorney General Eric Holder re-confirms the Administration’s new policy of throwing a whole bunch of prohibition words together and calling it “balanced.”

In his opening to the Strategy, the President calls for “a balanced approach of prevention, treatment and law enforcement” in addressing the drug problem. Our current fight against the threats posed by drug use and trafficking has many areas of focus – international and domestic; sources of supply and centers of demand; and law enforcement, prevention, and treatment efforts. The Justice Department is committed to the implementation of every part of the Strategy. Let me assure you all that, while we will continue to enforce our drug laws to their fullest extent, and continue to attack with all of our resources drug producers, distributors, and traffickers, we will also continue our support for innovative prevention and treatment programs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a7qoFwSqDs

This video from Democracy Now! demonstrates that more and more people are coming to realize and accept that violence and corruption, such as what we’re seeing now in Jamaica, is a direct result of the U.S. war on drugs.

More on this: Jamaica bleeds for our ‘war on drugs’ by Ben Bowling

This is an open thread.

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s post about a very poor article by Jennifer Johnson in the Pioneer Press: Legalization talk cited in teen pot use spike. In it, Margaret Polovchak, executive director of the Maine Community Youth Assistance Foundation (Chicago suburbs, not the state of Maine), claims that an increase of pot use among high school students has occurred, that it’s the result of talking about medical marijuana in Illinois and that medical marijuana should be opposed for that reason.

We shouldn’t really be surprised by this kind of ignorant talk — the MCYAF is a tool of the drug war machine (even their website is paid for by grants from ONDCP and SAMHSA), and we know that those entities have shown little actual interest in the welfare of children.

But Margaret’s statement demonstrates the sickness of the drug war’s interaction with youth. The very notion that we need to reduce or eliminate public discussion about current events (assuming such an absurdity would work) in order to protect children (!) demonstrates that she considers young people to be somewhat akin to hamsters.

And guess what? Young people are smarter than that. You can pretend all you want that if you shield them from discussions about sex they’ll remain blissfully and naturally celibate, but then you’d better be ready to be a grandparent. And you can pretend that if we talked less about medical marijuana then they wouldn’t use marijuana, but if you really want that to work, you’d better raise them in a big cage with a wheel.

So what happens when you treat young people this way? They immediately realize that you’re lying to them. They don’t like it, and they see you as the enemy rather than someone who is there to help. They become suspicious of all attempts to help them and tend to disbelieve even important truths.

Once they realize that they’ve been lied to about marijuana, then they assume that everything else has been a lie (often leading to fatal results). When they aren’t given reality-based education that teaches them the truth, then they are forced to try to discover it on their own, through trial and error, again often with disastrous results.

What people like Margaret Polovchak are doing is destroying the safety net of experiential wisdom for young people that should be provided by the family, the village, society.

Instead, children are treated as though they cannot be trusted with what we know. We turn them into suspects by making them pee into cups, and we send dogs through their schools sniffing their belongings. We lie to them and withhold information that is critical to them and have the gall to wonder why they rebel.

Does that mean we have to roll over and just accept any level of drug use by young people? Of course not. We’ll never be able to stop all of it, but we can control it and reduce the harm of it by regulating drugs, teaching young people the truth about them, and explaining why we want them to wait until a later time to experiment with them.

Now there are other ways that Margaret Polovchak harms children, too. Some of the children at these schools certainly have family members who now, or in the future, could benefit from medical marijuana. Those children are harmed by Polovchak’s efforts, either because their family member is denied valuable medicine or because their family member ends up incarcerated in order to obtain their medicine.

By attempting to reduce the level of public discussion of matters of public policy in general, Margaret harms children because then public policy isn’t getting the proper analysis, and more bad policy ends up as law, harming everyone.

And by supporting prohibition, Margaret Polovchak harms children by being part of a system that fuels violence and voluntarily puts drug regulation in the hands of criminals.

So if your child is ever offered a Margaret Polovchak, be sure to tell them to just say “no.”