Drug WarRant

I had a great time last night speaking to the Illinois State University chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. We had a wonderful discussion, and then watched 10 Rules for Dealing with Police

And, of course, one of the most important things you learn in that video (which I’ve been preaching for years) is “I don’t consent to searches” — a very important phrase that isn’t just for those with something to hide.

Remember that the innocent do not benefit from searches either.

1. The search wastes your time.
2. The search takes up the time of the officers, who should be out solving crime rather than wasting taxpayer dollars searching the car of an innocent person.
3. Police may not be responsible for damage to any of your belongings as a result of the search.
4. If anyone ever rode in your car and something illegal fell out of their pocket, you’re screwed.
5. And now…

… the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that when a driver gave DPS troopers consent to search his vehicle, they were justified in taking out a screwdriver and dismantling his car speakers on the side of the road to look for drugs.

Remember, when police say that they will make sure things go easier on you if you consent, they are lying. They’re allowed to do that.

And, of course, don’t forget this Deep Thought:

Sometimes people say I shouldn’t mind being searched if I have nothing to hide. I immediately accuse them of having a swastika tattooed on their genitalia — if they have nothing to hide, then surely they shouldn’t mind dropping their pants to prove me wrong.

(You probably shouldn’t actually try using that with the cops.)

Welcome new readers from FireDogLake, where voting has begun on their Name our Pot Campaign.

Thanks for the nice mention from Jane.

I’m feeling even better about the victory with my petition to the ONDCP today.

We’ve known that this push to talk about drugged driving was leading to a policy effort, and today’s post at the drug czar’s “blog” makes it clear where they’re going. Pushing for “per se” drugged driving laws in all the states.

For example, when the substance is an illegal drug, there is no need to require a minimum blood level. There is a minimum level with alcohol because it is a legal substance for adults to use. In contrast, if the drug is already illegal to use and we know it affects judgment and reaction time, it is reasonable to say that driving with any level of that drug in the driver’s system poses an unacceptable risk.

Um, no, that is not reasonable. It’s complete nonsense.

But take a look at the tortured way they have to set it up:

One of these challenges is drugged driving. According to a recent NHTSA study, on an average weekend night, one in six drivers tested positive for licit or illicit drugs. The most commonly detected drugs are marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines. Several recent fatal collisions involving drugged drivers have garnered much attention. Each of us who uses our Nation’s roads is at risk from the danger posed by drugged drivers. This is a disturbing problem.

Disconnected statements with no relevance to each other. And since they can no longer say “impaired” or “under the influence” when talking about the NHTSA study, it makes it much less compelling.

Of course, the real truth is that the NHTSA study has absolutely nothing to do with any trends in drugged driving, but the ONDCP has absolutely nothing else to use!

That’s the news here — the fact that they’re twisting an NHTSA study to fit their agenda, rather than creating an agenda based on actual evidence.

How did I manage to miss the fact that one of the top progressive political blogging sites is planning a legalization campaign? I’ve not really followed Jane Hamsher’s FireDogLake much, although I’ve been aware that she’s often worked with civil liberties defender extraordinaire Glenn Greenwald, which makes her a good guy in my book.

Anyway, Jane is holding a contest:

We need a great name for our marijuana campaign.

Some suggested that we simply appropriate the “yes we cannabis” slogan that other campaigns have used, but after perusing a bunch of old High Times covers I became convinced that our readers, inspired by the subject matter, could easily surpass that. So here are the rules:

1. All entries must be submitted in the form below by 8pm ET tomorrow night. [that’s tonight – Wednesday]
2. Slogan must be no longer than 5 words — should be able to fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt.
3. Semi-final voting will begin tomorrow night at 8pm, when we’ll be here at Late Nite once again to let everyone know what the entries are. Voting will close at 8pm the following night.
4. The top 10 vote getters will proceed to the finals on Thursday Night Late Night, and voting will continue through the weekend.
5. We’ll announce the Gold, Silver and Bronze medalists at Late Nite a week from tonight.

Remember — the campaign is not aimed at babes in bikinis roller skating on the Venice boardwalk. Well, not exclusively anyway. When marijuana legislation goes on the ballot in November and beyond, many voters are older and likely to be persuaded more by pragmatism than stoner puns. But, hell. Who are we to limit anyone’s creativity.

If you’ve got some ideas, get over there and suggest. There are prizes.

Update: Jane Hamsher’s post about the contest tonight gives the list of entries so far and extends the contest until tomorrow night.

I received this letter in my mailbox today in response to my petition:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Washington, DC

April 15, 2010

Mr. Peter Guither
909 W. Market Street
Bloomington, IL 61701

Dear Mr. Guither:

This letter is in response to the petition for correction that you emailed to the Office of the National Drug Control Policy on March 16, 2010. The sentence on the ONDCP website regarding the Department of Transportation study has been reworded to state “that 16 percent of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for a licit or illicit drug.” This should fully address the specific point raised in your correspondence.

Pursuant to Section III of ONDCP’s information Quality Guidelines, you have a right to request reconsideration if you believe appropriate corrective action has not been taken. Such a request must be filed within 30 days of notification of ONDCP’s response to your original request.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Quinn
Chief of Staff

It may not be a huge victory in the overall scheme of things — the change of a few words in an archived document — but it shows that an ordinary individual can “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” and succeed. One person can make a difference.

You can make a difference.

Sure, I would have liked further promises not to misuse the spirit of the data from the NHTSA study, but we’re already seeing, possibly as a result of my petition, the ONDCP at least being more cautious about misusing the data.

And that’s going to make it harder to ram through an unsupported drugged driving agenda.

One little step toward holding our government responsible for telling the truth.

420: Put Down That Joint and Pick Up a Pen by Norm Stamper

You don’t have to be a Californian to strike a blow for freedom and justice. As a voter and/or a toker, perhaps at 4:20 on 4/20/10 you’ll pick up a pen and compose a letter to the editor and/or write a check to the campaign. What happens in the nation’s largest state will certainly reverberate throughout the other forty-nine.

As a special 420 promotion, the publishers of “Marijuana is Safer, So Why Are We Driving People to Drink” are allowing free downloads of the book from 12 a.m. on 4/20 to 12 a.m. on 4/21 EST at scribd.com. You need to go to this link (free registration and a few annoying click-throughs may be required, but it’s worth it).

Marijuana and Money – a CNBC Special Report. Lots of great stuff…. and then you have Joyce Nalepka and Robert DuPont in the Commentary.

What are your 420 additions/events/stories?

From Reason.

I know we’ve gotten a bit excited about the excellent hearing conducted by Representative Kucinich this week.

Some have wondered what it will mean.

One powerful hearing like that one will not mean the end of the ONDCP, or the DEA, or the drug war, or even this Drug Czar. It won’t even mean a significant change in this year’s drug policy budget. This subcommittee doesn’t have that power (or imagine what Mark Souder would have done with the subcommittee he chaired).

But it still is a sea change. As Kaptinemo noted in comments, it’s a long way from when Congressional hearings were about whether we can arrest drug policy reformers…

Suggesting the depth of hostility toward the notion of legal drugs, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., asked whether anti-racketeering laws could be used to prosecute people conspiring to legalize drugs.

Oh yeah. That happened.

Mostly this is big because it opens the discussion on the Hill. Staffers have been getting regular visits from LEAP and COP lobbyists, softening them up. Now, the Drug Czar looks weak and vulnerable — not someone to line up behind. That makes some kind of reform much more possible.

So what reform might Congress enact? Particularly when it comes to the reauthorization of the ONDCP?

Here, in my mind, is the most important part of Ethan Nadelmann’s testimony before the committee:

When it comes to performance measures, ONDCP historically has pointed to increases or decreases in the total number of Americans who admit to using an illegal drug within the last year as the most important criteria for judging the success or failure of U.S. drug policy. The agency sets two- and five-year goals based on annual surveys of drug use. It is not evident yet what performance measures ONDCP will lay out in its forthcoming Strategy, but when speaking before the 53rd UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs last month Director Kerlikowske said, “[t]he U.S. Strategy will emphasize and focus on our commitment to reduce U.S. drug consumption.”

Drug use rates tell us surprisingly little, however, about our nation’s progress toward reducing the actual harms associated with drugs. If the number of Americans using illegal drugs decreases, but overdose fatalities, new HIV/AIDS infections, racial disparities and addiction increases, the Drug Policy Alliance would consider that failure. In contrast, if the number of Americans using illegal drugs increases, but overdose fatalities, new HIV/AIDS infections, racial disparities and addiction declines, the Drug Policy Alliance would consider that success. Key performance measurements should focus on the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drugs and our drug policies, not drug use per se.

Simply stated, ups and downs in how many people say they used marijuana or other drugs last year are far less important than ups and downs in drug overdose fatalities, or new HIV and hepatitis C infections, or expenditures on incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.

If this subcommittee advances only one drug-related reform it should be to require ONDCP to set objectives for reducing the harms associated with both drugs and the war on drugs. ONDCP shouldn’t just set short- and long-term goals for reducing drug use; it should set specific goals for reducing fatal overdoses, the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, racial disparities, the number of nonviolent offenders behind bars, and other negative consequences of both drug use and drug control policies.

This is almost exactly what I would tell Congress if I had the opportunity.

You see, as much as we might want to tell Congress that they have no right to be involved in drug consumption, or that they simply shouldn’t be involved, any such attempt would be ignored at best. More likely, we’d be seen as kooks. These are the folks who feel like they should meddle in every aspect of our lives, and as wrong as that is, they’re not going to have their sense of paternalistic right changed overnight.

If, however, we can convince them that the metrics they use must be changed to actually do any good (and we’ve demonstrated that past), then that could seem to be a mere positive technical correction — not anything ridiculously “radical” like legalization.

One of the biggest problem with federal drug policy has been the emphasis on “use” rather than “harm.” That’s why the feds spend so much time on marijuana. Since it’s the most used illicit drug with a lot of casual use (and easy to quit), it’s a much more attractive target for getting quick numbers.

The other thing is that when “use” is the only metric, there’s no reason to track, or even acknowledge, the vast harms from prohibition.

Converting the ONDCP’s mission to a “harm” metric would force a complete restructuring of data collection related to the drug war and open up an entirely new dialog at a governmental level about the relative harms of drugs and prohibition.

We would suddenly see the Drug Czar’s office heavily promoting needle exchange (and maybe even heroin maintenance programs) in a desperate attempt to generate some numbers that show reduced harm. And the harms of prohibition, while certainly understated by the government, would have to be at least acknowledged.

This would be a huge step forward for the country as it would take us out of the automatic prohibition mindset that comes from the meaningless directive to “reduce use.”

They’re certainly not getting honest, but at least they’re learning that they can’t get away with the obvious lies.

It’s been over 30 days since I submitted my Petition for Correction Under teh ONDCP Information Quality Guidelines regarding their misuse of NHTSA study data to claim numbers of impaired drivers. They haven’t yet responded, but it appears that they got the message.

On the Drug Czar’s “blog,” they report about soon-to-be-resigning Deputy Director Tom McLellan speaking at an event about drugged driving. Note the caution:

Speaking at the closing luncheon of the national conference, Deputy Director McLellan stated that according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s 2007 Roadside Survey, 16% of weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive for the presence of an illicit or licit drug, the most common of which are marijuana and cocaine. This Study marks the first time that a Roadside Survey included a test for the presence of drugs among drivers.

All true. Carefully avoided this time were words like “impaired” or “under the influence.” And, of course, the paragraph is completely useless for making any kind of conclusion about drugged driving. But, pathetically, it’s the best they’ve got. So they just have to hope the listener will make his/her own false assumption.

It also says something about the character of the ONDCP staff that, faced with a correction of fact, they choose to weasel around it rather than face it.

I know if I worked in such a place, I wouldn’t want to stick around long. I’d probably make some sort of comment about how I was just “ill-suited to government work.”

From Drug War Chronicle:

A coca-based soft drink went on sale in Bolivia this week. Coca Colla, made from the coca leaf and named after Bolivia’s indigenous Colla people, is the latest manifestation of President Evo Morales’ quest to expand legal markets for coca products.

The first batch of Coca Colla, about 12,000 half-litre bottles going for $1.50 each, went on sale in La Paz, Santa Cruz, and Cochabamba. Like Coca-Cola, it is black, sweet, and comes in a bottle with a red label. Unlike Coca-Cola, which originally used full-fledged coca leaf extract but began de-cocainizing it early in the company’s history, Coca Colla is the real thing.