Drug WarRant

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on prohibition. Interesting in that it managed to not even mention today’s prohibition once.

Drug prohibition doesn’t work – so what do we do next? – a good OpEd by Chris Middendorp in the Sydney Morning Herald

The focus of any drug debate should not be morals or the law; it should concentrate on the welfare of human beings. The common use of the term “junkie” helps us to maintain the belief that users of substances are in some way lesser beings. Part of the reason we’ve comfortably followed the prohibition path for so long has been mainstream culture’s view of drug users as subhuman creatures who need redemption. What they really need is medical support and laws that make sense.

As long as we’re down under, Logan sent me this delightful article about a real Australian individualist from Mountain Creek.

A MOUNTAIN Creek man told a magistrate yesterday that he grew his own marijuana crops because he refused to fund the Sunshine Coast’s illegal drug trade.

Terry John Lanigan said it did not matter what penalty the magistrate handed down, he would continue to grow organic cannabis for him and his partner to use. […]

“I don’t mean to be cheeky, but I’ll always continue to smoke marijuana and grow a little bit of marijuana for myself.”

Another nice article by Tim King at Salem-News.com. He’s pointing out the position of a particular local candidate, yet manages to take the time to point out the history of hemp in the U.S.

On the other hand, check out this bizarre editorial in the Democrat Herald: Forty years of ‘drug war’ What a pathetic editorial staff. They seem afraid to take a position.

The obvious question: Has the drug war been worth it, especially in regard to marijuana?

Nobody can say for sure.

Really?

Perhaps if, after 40 years, you can’t say for sure that it’s been worth it, then maybe that’s evidence that it hasn’t, hmmm?

This is disturbing. ‘Anthrax heroin’ cases spreading

Health officials believe contaminated heroin – thought to be responsible for cases of anthrax in Glasgow – may be circulating elsewhere in Scotland.

It comes after the death of two more drug users with the infection in Glasgow and Tayside.

Just as with the fentanyl spiked heroin deaths in the U.S., these are sad, but clear reminders that legalization is needed to reduce harm. In a legal, regulated market, such a thing would be unlikely to happen. But no, we turn the safety controls of drugs over to criminals.

Nice job by LEAP getting a punch in after the recent criticism by the DEA of the New York City pamphlet on harm reduction for heroin use.

group of police officers, judges and prosecutors who fought in the “war on drugs” and witnessed its failures is pushing back against the DEA for its criticism of a New York City-funded booklet that encourages heroin users to adopt safer practices. The group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), points out that the booklet is intended to prevent overdose deaths and help reverse the high rate of disease transmission related to injection drug use.

“While we all want to stop addiction to dangerous drugs like heroin, the fact is that some people do choose to use despite the billions of dollars we spend on the failed ‘war on drugs,'” said Norm Stamper, a speaker for LEAP and Seattle’s retired chief of police. “Providing users with tips on how to keep themselves as safe as possible and reduce the spread of disease makes us all safer and cuts down on public health and criminal justice expenses elsewhere. The booklet is like a vaccine that helps reduce some of the harm related to heroin abuse. Who could be against that?”

Anthony Papa also has a response at Alternet.

I ran into an interesting paragraph at Family Security Matters. I’ve run across their site a couple of times and don’t find their views particularly useful, but I was intrigued by this article by Frank Hill, in which he suggested that we should stop blaming others for so many of our troubles.

Here’s the paragraph — it’s worth analyzing because of the power inside these two simple sentences:

The drug crisis would disappear if we and our children stopped using cocaine and marijuana for recreational purposes. Drug pushers don’t force it down our throats; we willingly buy it and use it and talk about it as if it was something to be proud of.

Let’s start with the second sentence: “Drug pushers don’t force it down our throats; we willingly buy it and use it…” Very true. And this is an area where we constantly face blatantly absurd statements. The liberals will talk about the dangerous drugs that poison people, while the conservatives bemoan the evil drug dealers that poison people, but, in fact, the incidents of people being drugged against their will are rare indeed.

Most people who receive drugs seek them out willingly, even eagerly, and voluntarily offer to pay money for them. And, most of them do so with full knowledge of the risks involved (to the extent that they don’t, that’s another bad side-effect of prohibition).

It’s nice to see this point acknowledged, and it’s important that we make it clear to people.

Back to the first sentence: “The drug crisis would disappear if we and our children stopped using cocaine and marijuana for recreational purposes.” Also true. If everyone voluntarily stopped using currently illicit drugs, the problems related to those drugs and the prohibition of those drugs would go away pretty much overnight. Absolutely true. And absolutely irrelevant, because it’s an absolute impossibility.

This is like saying “If everyone stopped having sex, we could eliminate STDs, abortions, and unwanted pregnancies.” True, but absurd — not even worthy of a science fiction short story.

You can take responsibility for yourself, and say “I’m not going to take these drugs,” and you can attempt to encourage those around you to follow your lead, but you have no power to force the rest of the world to suddenly move into your fantasy world where nobody wants to do drugs, and all the hot people want to sleep with you.

In the article, Frank Hill invokes Pogo’s famous cartoon line “Yep, son, we have met the enemy and he is us.” And it’s true, but not in the way Hill envisions. Yes, people choose to do drugs, but that’s not us-as-enemy, that’s freedom. And yes, we could end drug problems by stopping all drug use, but that’s also not us-as-enemy, that’s fantasy.

The enemy that is us… is prohibition. It is the war that we fight against our own people, our own children, with our own money. It is the politician afraid to follow the truth, the neighbor seduced by the propaganda, the cop and prosecutor caught up in the heat of the battle. It’s the academic who just wants to find a better way to make prohibition work, the scientist who goes for the gold and the publicity, rather than the science. It’s the political party member who says this just isn’t the time for reform.

The enemy is us, indeed.

There’s a new Law Enforcement Against Prohibition billboard up in Oklahoma, and LEAP member Wes Johnson got interviewed about it in this television news spot.

Of course, they had to get the “other side” and they naturally got someone whose paycheck is imperiled by such a message. His response was pretty easy to see through to those of us who know the facts.

“I’d personally like to see the billboard go away.” Mark Woodward is with the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics — he not only disagrees with their message, but those behind it. “It’s giving people, whether it’s parents or kids, the wrong impression, that the police support the legalization of drugs and that’s absolutely not the truth.” He says any real police officer could not support legalizing drugs. “Anybody that has seen how drug addiction forces children to live in deplorable conditions would never come out and support this. In fact, they would continue to do everything they could to stop this.”

It probably is true that there are people out there in Oklahoma (and maybe even in that news team) that will listen to what Mark Woodward says and believe it without critical thought. But there are fewer of them, and their days are numbered.

Via LEAP…

Man Says Judge Arrested Him ‘On a Hunch’

NASHVILLE (CN) – A judge in Dickson County, Tenn., had officers pull a spectator out of his courtroom “on a hunch,” held him in custody and made him submit to a urinalysis for drugs, the man claims in Federal Court. Benjamin Marchant claims that General Sessions Judge Durwood Moore admitted that he “routinely drug-screens ‘spectators’ in his courtroom if he ‘thinks’ they may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” Moore allegedly called it the “routine policy of the court.”

Routine policy? Fortunately, someone else had read the Constitution.

Moore acknowledged he had violated Marchant’s rights and was censured by the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Judiciary Court on May 1, 2009, the highest form of punishment short of seeking a judge’s removal from the bench, according to the complaint.

The court ordered Moore to “never violate a person’s constitutional rights as he did to the Plaintiff,” the complaint states.

Really. How does this guy get to be a judge? You have to be better informed to get a cosmetology license.

Mexico Arrests Brother of Slain Drug Kingpin

…. Ah, but wait…

Mexico nabs 3rd brother in reputed drug family

That’s right — we’re really dismantling the Beltran Leyva brothers now. So that should end the war in Mexico. After all, the Beltran Leyva brothers were… Wait. I don’t remember even hearing much about them before… but if they were so powerful, then dismantling them should still end the violence, right?

“The Zetas may now move against the Beltran Leyva and take them over, saying, ‘You are now taking orders from us, or we’ll kill you,'” Grayson said. “The good news is you’ve got a bad guy behind bars. The bad news is that this may enhance the Zetas.”

That possibility raises fears of even bloodier turf battles in a drug war that has already claimed more than 15,000 lives since Calderon took office in 2006.

In a possible sign of that fight, the bound, beaten bodies of two men were found Wednesday hanging by their necks from a highway overpass in the Sinaloa town of Los Mochis.

Nearby, a message was written on a piece of cardboard: “This territory already has an owner.” The message appeared to be from the Beltran Leyva cartel.

Authorities have blamed the Zetas for killing the marine’s relatives in retaliation for Arturo Beltran’s death.

Of course.

Well, at least we’re sending the message that we won’t stop our drug policy madness regardless of how many people die.

That’s something.

It’s not that often that you get such a neatly laid out list of reactions of candidates on this subject as we’ve gotten here from an AP questionnaire:

DEMOCRATS

— Dan Hynes: “I do not support the outright legalization of marijuana.”

— Pat Quinn: “People who are seriously ill deserve access to all medical treatments that will help them.”

GREEN

— Rich Whitney: “I support legalization of marijuana, period.”

REPUBLICANS

— Adam Andrzejewski: “I could support this bill as long as (it’s) for qualified medical uses only.”

— Bill Brady: “Legalizing medical marijuana appears to me to be nothing more than moving us down the slope of legalizing marijuana.”

— Kirk Dillard: “I do not support legalizing medical marijuana due to the concerns of the law enforcement community that it will be difficult to enforce.”

— Andy McKenna: “I would have opposed the legislation presented to the Senate.”

— Dan Proft: “In narrowly-defined instances where a doctor believes this treatment would alleviate the suffering of an individual … I would be inclined to allow a licensed doctor to prescribe such treatment.”

— Jim Ryan: “I would be open to a narrowly drawn bill that legalizes medical marijuana. It can provide needed relief for patients with various afflictions.”

— Bob Schillerstrom: “No conclusive evidence has been put forward to justify its legalization for medical purposes.”

Unfortunately, despite the fact that Whitney is probably most in tune with the electorate on this issue, it’s unlikely that he’ll get more than 8% of the vote, simply because the two major parties are way too powerful.

I’ve added a new feature for Drug WarRant readers who follow the site on mobile devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, Blackberry, etc.). You’ll now get a new streamlined version of the site that’s a fast download and very easy to read on those devices.

Don’t worry — if you prefer to get it the usual way on your mobile device, just scroll down to the bottom and make the switch.

I’d love to hear from any mobile users — let me know if it works OK for you. This change shouldn’t have affected anything for regular users (Firefox, Safari, IE, etc. on a computer), so please let me know if, for some reason, you’re getting the mobile version when you shouldn’t.

There’s an excellent OpEd at Alternet, written by Penny Coleman, the widow of a Vietnam veteran who took his own life after coming home: 10 Reasons the U.S. Military Should (Officially) Use Pot

I know this is an issue of some importance to a number of our regular readers.

Lots of good points… here are some interesting ones:

Restore the reputation of the VA among veterans.

After all the criticism of the VA for limiting access, shredding claims, misdiagnosing illnesses as a cost-saving trick and using soldiers as uninformed guinea pigs to test pharmaceutical drugs linked to suicide and other violent side effects, veterans invited by the VA to knowingly participate in a marijuana study might be inclined to allow the euphorogenic qualities associated with cannabis to blur their outrage, even to the point of forgiveness.

Israeli rats have less stress than American soldiers.

In an article published in the September issue of the Journal of Neuroscience, Israeli scientists revealed that injecting synthetic marijuana into the brains of rats allowed them to recover faster from trauma. In fact, it “cancelled out the symptoms of stress.” […]

Soldier Suicides […]

Soldier suicides are at an all-time high and so are prescriptions for all kinds of new and dangerous drugs. Nobody can say for sure if there is a connection between those two facts, and I would never suggest that marijuana could or should take the place of SSRIs or any other drugs proven to be effective in managing PTSD. Or that marijuana could prevent soldier suicides. But the vast majority of drugs the VA prescribes for PTSD are known to worsen depression, increase suicidal thinking or increase risk of death in enough people to warrant the warning.

The same is not true of marijuana.

Supporting our troops is not accomplished by putting a ribbon on your car or a God Bless America poster in your window. More soldiers are surviving combat these days but coming back with serious conditions that need help. How can we be said to be supporting our troops when we force veterans to turn to street criminals to score medicine that will help them?

We have some amazing discussions in the comments section here and I tend to let them run without interfering too much. Lately, though, it has, on occasion, gotten a bit contentious among people of differing views who should be working together.

With the new year, it’s probably a good time for me to clarify once again the views of this site.

Drug WarRant believes in working toward the ultimate goal of the legalization of currently illicit drugs. That legalization could include different regulation regimes for different drugs. Legalization is defined as a state where “responsible adults may legally acquire, possess, and use a particular drug, although there may be restrictions on time, place and manner.”

Legalization of all drugs is important as a matter of individual liberty. It is also a matter of extreme importance to eliminate the horrendous worldwide damage caused by prohibition. Any “solution” that doesn’t dismantle the criminal prohibition regime and dramatically reduce the black market profits/corruption is incomplete.

In an ideal world, we would eliminate prohibition today, all at once. Some prefer to push for that approach. Others believe that it can only happen in steps — that legalization of marijuana (the largest of the illicit drugs) is a major step in dismantling the prohibition regime, making it easier to tackle the other drugs — or that legalizing medical marijuana will make it easier for the people to accept the idea of legalizing recreational marijuana.

We welcome all those looking for drug policy reform to this site. That includes those who may only be focused on one aspect of reform (such as medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, freeing up opioid pain management, harm reduction techniques, prison reform, oxycontin for fun, etc., etc.) The fact that they are focused on one area doesn’t mean that they are antagonistic to the bigger picture (nor are they hypocrites). As disagreements occur, educating others on our side as to why your approach to the big picture is important is fine — a great idea. However, spending lots of time calling allies names is unproductive.

Drug Policy Reform is a tiring business (I know — I’ve been writing this blog for over 6 years). It certainly feels like we should be able to go faster, and it’s frustrating to see the same lies and deceits in the media and our government officials. And yet, progress is being made, and it’s because of us. It’s because we’re doing a better job of educating the public as to the truth of drug policy issues than the government is doing with propagandizing them.

Drug policy reform can be a messy coalition. Conservatives have a set of good reasons to want reform, which may be different from the set of good reasons of liberal drug policy reformers. Hippies, corporatists, capitalists, environmentalists, Christians, atheists, ex-cons, ex-cops all have disagreements, yet can all have compelling reasons to support drug policy reform. If we want to build the critical mass that will force politicians to follow us, we need all those disparate views

So let’s make an effort to avoid calling our allies names. If you find yourself doing that too often, channel that into something productive. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper (or one of thousands across the country) — go to MAPinc for help in writing letters, or finding papers to write, or finding how you can volunteer as a newshawk. Or volunteer to help Law Enforcement Against Prohibition set up speaker engagements.

Thanks to all of you for your passion, your commitment, and your determination to end the destruction of prohibition.

Let’s work together toward another good year.