Drug WarRant

Jonathan Ayers was a pastor at the Shoal Creek Baptist Church. One of the people he had been helping was a woman who had a history of problems. One day he gave her a ride and talked to her to see how she was doing. She said she needed some help with back rent, and he gave her $23 — all the cash he had on him.

Ayers didn’t know the woman was being targeted by an undercover plainclothes drug operation. When he dropped her off, they decided to follow him. Ayers immediately went to the convenience store to get some cash from the ATM. Walking out with cash from the ATM, he saw some guys with guns get out of a car. Fearing for his life, he got in his car and pulled out (remember, these were plainclothes cops). The cops shot and killed him as he drove off.

Here’s the blurry video from the Convenience store showing officers shooting at him as he drives away. Here’s the update back in October from Radley Balko.

Now we have a new update on the case:
Grand jury clears officers in minister shooting: Officials claim law enforcement fatally shot pastor after he drove car in threatening way

“Concerning the actions of the officers involved in the death of Jonathan Ayers on Sept. 1, 2009, we find that the use of deadly force by Agent Billy Shane Harrison was legally justified based upon his objectively reasonable belief that such use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or others,” a statement signed by the grand jurors read. “Based upon this finding, we the Grand Jury believe that the officers involved in this incident would be immune from criminal prosecution pursuant to Official Code of Georgia Annotated 16-3-24.2.”

Surprised? I thought not. Happens all the time in the drug war. Officers create a dangerous situation where none existed and then blame the victim for being in that dangerous situation.

The family of Jonathan Ayers isn’t giving up. They’re suing.

“We are in the process of gathering all the facts surrounding this terrible incident,” [family attorney] Stroberg said. “Once all these facts are in public view, we feel it will be abundantly clear that there was no legal justification for the undercover drug agent to shoot and kill Jonathan Ayers in broad daylight on the streets of Toccoa, Ga.”

Stroberg has been critical of how the case was presented to the grand jury. He said the panel that convened this week was charged with deciding only whether the case should go to a separate grand jury for possible criminal prosecution.

Follow-up on the Ashley III Halsey story… As a reminder, Halsey reported, as the main point of his story, that a government study said something which it clearly did not. This is not a he-said-he-said situation, or something that’s open to interpretation. Either he was duped or he was lazy, but he clearly wrote something that was factually wrong, and then got angry when asked to correct it.

It appears now that the Washington Post ombudsman isn’t going to do anything to correct it. It’s a small thing in the big picture, but it would have been nice to hold a reporter accountable, if for no other reason than to get them to be more wary of being duped by the Drug Czar.

One additional story to give you a look into the world of the reporter… A friend of mine wrote Ashley and the Ombudsman about this whole thing, and instead of actually reading the study that he had reported on, Ashley defended himself in an email exchange by claiming (to Andy Anderson, the Ombudsman) to have gotten the information directly from the Drug Czar and by demonizing his critics as drug policy reformers.

Andy,

Just so you know, Mr. Allured is a drug decriminalization advocate, former president of his college’s chapter of the National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws and the Students for Sensible Drug Policy. It’s not clear to me whether he’s actually read the story or just the excerpt presented by a blogger who writes something called the “DrugRant.” In any case, as the story said, the 11 percent figure came from Gil Kerlikowske, the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, who spoke at the event I covered. Kerlikowske’s number actually was lower than the number contained in the report that Allured would have you read. Judging from a quick look at the writings of Allured and other advocates, there seems to be general agreement among them that figures presented by federal officials are distorted.
Below is a bit of background from Allured’s undergrad days.

Best,
Ashley

He then included an old news story from 2005 about Ryan Allured helping organize a marijuana legalization event.

Ryan responded the only proper way.

Halsey is correct; I am an advocate of drug policy reform. However, this has nothing to do with my objections to the factual inaccuracies in his article. This is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of responding to my actual argument, he has done nothing but attack my character (if one subscribes to the fact that being a drug policy reform advocate is negative). My argument still stands. Halsey blatantly misrepresented the findings of the NHTSA report. If his primary source for the figure was the drug czar, then would it not be a good idea to check the facts behind the statement? I have always been under the impression that it is the responsibility of the media to check the government, rather than reporting their statements as absolute truths…

Good OpEd in the Sydney Morning Herald by Duncan Fine: Drug haze needs straight talking

Marijuana was legal in the United States until 1937. Meanwhile from 1920 to 1933 the sale of alcohol was banned under the US constitution.

Many people seem to take a good versus evil approach to illicit drugs. But then based on this quick history of drug use, how can they answer the question that I just know my son will ask me one day soon – how can a drug be evil one year and good the next?

And here’s another question I’m sure he’s going to ask me – if illicit drugs are such a scourge on society then why do so many seemingly respectable, intelligent people take them?

While you’re mulling over a response to that one, here’s another. Isn’t it hopelessly hypocritical to continue with the simplistic dichotomy of legal drugs good, illicit drugs bad, when out of the $40 billion economic costs of drug use, tobacco accounts for 60 per cent, alcohol 22 per cent, and illicit drugs merely 17 per cent?

The failure to come up with intelligent persuasive answers to these questions is the key reason the war on drugs has failed – because a smart 10-year-old boy can see it is totally disconnected with the reality of modern life.

Split Decision in N.J. Medical Marijuana Trial Good news, but with a nasty piece in it…

But any crack in the wall against medical marijuana does not go down well with many drug addiction experts. A block from the courthouse in Somerville, the feeling at the Somerset Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency is that medical marijuana may lead to increased recreational use of pot.
Executive Director Sharon Lutz quoted a recent study at the University of Michigan that draws that conclusion. “It’s(marijuana use) going to skyrocket once this occurs and you’ve seen it in other states that have passed it,” said Lutz. “There’s no way to monitor it and the message to the kids is ‘Yes, this is OK, it’s safe, it’s medically used, then I can do it,'” she added.

Another complete lie, this time promulgated by NIDA — there was nothing in that study that could possibly lead to that conclusion.

You Can’t Handle the Truth, by Mark Pothier in the Boston Globe. Worth reading.

Director Kerlikowske calls for “smarter” approach to address the Nation’s drug problems Unfortunately, it was unclear if the Drug Czar was listening, or actually understood the words Kerlikowske spoke.

DrugSense Weekly – a weekly review of the most interesting or relevant articles in the press and on the web related to drug policy reform.

Drug War Chronicle – weekly update of drug war news and analysis from Stop the Drug War.org.

There’s nothing like marijuana to completely unhinge the integrity of science reporting. Any study that reveals some bit of information that could be interpreted in a way that could lead in a direction of eventually showing harmful effects about marijuana is hyped as if it had been proved conclusively.

One of the things that is most potentially controversial about marijuana is its effect on children and developing brains. Now, those of us in drug policy reform are all for more research, and if it does harm developing brains, we want to know it. But we want real science, real research, real results. Quite frankly, if it’s true, it makes our argument stronger — after all, we’re the ones for regulating. The criminals that work under the prohibition regime don’t check I.D.s.

And yet, a lot of “science” reporting seems just intended to scare people.

Take this article in Science Daily: Cannabis Damages Young Brains More Than Originally Thought, Study Finds

Canadian teenagers are among the largest consumers of cannabis worldwide. The damaging effects of this illicit drug on young brains are worse than originally thought, according to new research by Dr. Gabriella Gobbi, a psychiatric researcher from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The new study, published in Neurobiology of Disease, suggests that daily consumption of cannabis in teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have an irreversible long-term effect on the brain.

Hmmm… OK. Sounds serious. I should look into this. I wonder what kind of research was employed…. Wait, let me read the article again. I still wonder what kind of research was employed! There’s all this talk about teenagers and adolescents, but nothing about how they studied them.

So I went to the study. But…. but the researchers didn’t study teenagers. Not one. They studied adolescent rats.

The pathophysiological neural mechanism underlying the depressogenic and anxiogenic effects of chronic adolescent cannabinoid use may be linked to perturbations in monoaminergic neurotransmission. We tested this hypothesis by administering the CB1 receptor agonist WIN55,212-2, once daily for 20 days to adolescent and adult rats, subsequently subjecting them to tests for emotional reactivity paralleled by the in vivo extracellular recordings of serotonergic and noradrenergic neurons. Chronic adolescent exposure but not adult exposure to low (0.2 mg/kg) and high (1.0 mg/kg) doses led to depression-like behaviour in the forced swim and sucrose preference test, while the high dose also induced anxiety-like consequences in the novelty-suppressed feeding test. Electrophysiological recordings revealed both doses to have attenuated serotonergic activity, while the high dose also led to a hyperactivity of noradrenergic neurons only after adolescent exposure. These suggest that long-term exposure to cannabinoids during adolescence induces anxiety-like and depression-like behaviours in adulthood and that this may be instigated by serotonergic hypoactivity and noradrenergic hyperactivity.

Notice that their test results “suggest” certain vague conclusions. Yet in the ScienceDaily article, the study finds that cannabis damages brains. And yes, results in rats can suggest that certain things may be true in humans as well, but it certainly doesn’t prove it.

It would be nice to have integrity in science reporting. It would also be nice to have scientific researchers to have the integrity to refuse to feed these media morons.

You know you love ’em. You love to trash ’em. Sure, some of you complain that I even give space to these ravings, but I figure it’s part of our entertainment.

First up, from The Olympian in Washington is Jill Wellock with Marijuana Saps Initiative, Ambition and Responsibility

She starts out with the obligatory proof-by-example fallacy:

In eighth grade my friend started hanging out behind the portables with the stoners, which was weird because she was the school’s star softball pitcher. She could swing her arm around so fast that I thought it might dislocate and fly off toward the bleachers.

She smoked pot before school every day. Before long she started missing practice, which didn’t matter once her grades failed and she couldn’t play softball. She had spent years perfecting that pitch.

My friend and I attended different high schools, but I saw her at the end of freshman year at the mall, about 20 pounds heavier, with greasy hair and dirty clothes. I asked a guy from her school what had happened, and he just said, “Burn out.”

Gateway drug marijuana is now legal, used medicinally in Washington and 12 other states, with 15 states pending legislation for its medicinal use.

Yep. Because her friend followed a particular course, that will be true of every person who smokes marijuana. Barack Obama? Burnout. Carl Sagan? Burnout. Willie Nelson? Burnout. Michael Phelps? Burnout. See, I can use examples, too. Based on that approach, I can argue that everyone who smokes marijuana will win multiple gold medals in the Olympics.

Wellock’s other argument is that legalization will cause everyone to work stoned.

Most users likely work. If demand is so high that comedian Jay Leno framed a whole joke segment around the new medical marijuana industry on Dec. 3, then Californians can expect to encounter a lot of high workers.

Drivers, too. […]

Consider marijuana’s effects on workers who multitask, or who safeguard others. How about the staff at your child’s day care? Bus drivers? Construction workers?

No one wants their ER phlebotomist to smoke a joint before an IV start, but if Washington state follows California’s lead in legalizing dispensaries, health care facilities – and all businesses – will have to drug test workers with frequent signs of fatigue and red eyes.

What an image. Phlebotomists smoking joints. And day care/bus drivers — you knew there had to be some kind of “What about the children?” reference. Apparently, it’s OK if your phlebotomist chugs a bottle of Jack Daniels before drawing your blood or if the day care has a kegger. Interesting.

…

Next up is a student OpEd in the Orion – Chico State’s Independent Student Newspaper. James Jelenko has Legal weed problems: Both sides take an all-or-nothing approach to marijuana legalization

He takes a rather unusual approach in his OpEd.

He’s doing that Journalism 101 thing of “it’s not black-or-white and the truth is somewhere in the middle” — an academically sound approach to journalistic investigation, but not to writing an OpEd, unless you can actually demonstrate that premise.

Note how he sets off the two sides:

The debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana is like a twisted NASCAR race. One machine — filled with pungent smoke and long-haired freaky people — blazes toward an ashy world constructed almost entirely of hemp byproducts. Another, piloted by Gil Kerlikowske, the chief of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, moves in the opposite direction toward a drug-free nation where marijuana simply doesn’t exist.

Ah yes, the “long-haired freaky people” (if you’re wondering why that phrase is sticking in your head, it’s probably because of the song “Signs” by Five Man Electrical Band). It would be interesting to see how he’d react if he met some members of LEAP.

Of course, he throws in some obligatory pot “jokes.”

Both sides are stuck to their perspectives like a stoner stuck to a couch.
But if any headway is going to be made on this issue, it needs to be a joint effort.

He actually scores some points against the prohibitionists (mention of the Compassionate IND program, for example), but his entire actual slam of the legalization side is:

The pro-legalization advocates claim marijuana has enormous medical potential, but conveniently ignore or refute the plain and simple argument that it is still a drug and has negative side-effects.

Huh? First of all, if we actually refuted it, then it’s not true. If it’s true, then it’s just like any other drug with enormous medical potential. And if we ignored it, that doesn’t change the truth of the claim.

What I really love is why he’s so upset by the fact that the two sides won’t compromise.

The problem with this status-quo is that taxpayers — many of whom have little or no opinion when it comes to the legalization of marijuana — get stuck footing the bill for this ideologically-charged debate.

When it comes to governmental action, nothing happens for free. There are many wheels in the machine of government and each one of them needs greasing. Every time legalization, decriminalization — or any other type of bill — goes to Congress for a vote, someone has to pay for it. If the conversation were going anywhere, I’d be fine with providing financial support because that is the responsibility of a citizen. However, it seems that whenever the issue arises, both sides try to bogart the conversation instead of listening and working together.

Congress just passed $2 billion for the DEA for one year without debate, and he’s worried about the cost of all the votes Congress is having regarding legalization and decriminalization? Did I miss something on C-Span?

…

For some real discussions — well thought-out substantive ones about drug policy, stay away from the OpEds, and instead proceed directly to the comments section of this blog, where the best discussions are going on right now. If you’re only reading the blog entries here, you’re missing a lot.

Ben Morris at MPP points out that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has updated their information to reflect new policy from the American Medical Association, while at the same time actually leaving out that new policy.

Check out their new quote:

The American Medical Association: “To help facilitate scientific research and the development of cannabionoid-based medicines, the AMA adopted (a) new policy … This should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product.”

Note that, as presented, it’s a nonsensical statement, because the policy itself is missing. The next words that would be in place of the ellipse in that statement are: “urging the federal government to review marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.” (also note that the ONDCP misspelled “cannabinoid”)

The thing is, the AMA isn’t endorsing medical marijuana — they’re just saying we should review marijuana’s status. But apparently that’s too much for the Drug Czar’s office, while at the same time the qualifying parts of the AMA statement were too rich to pass up.

…

Why is it that the ONDCP takes this approach to all their lying? I mean, they lie all the time, but they constantly use this game of being “technically” true (like some 6-year-old), when in fact, all that needs to qualify as a lie is the intent to deceive.

I mean, if they’re going to do this, why don’t they simply make up a quote from the AMA?

It was Bill’s birthday yesterday, and I forgot to mention it. Mr. Rights was born (ratified) on December 15, 1791, making him… oh, pretty old now (you do the math). His mind is clear and sharp as a tack, but his body is on life support at the nursing home. He’s been mugged so many times, it’s a wonder he’s alive at all. Some of his limbs are mere stumps now. Fortunately, he’s made of stronger stuff than you or I, and his body can regenerate — though it’s extremely difficult and would take all of our efforts to make it happen.

Bill’s a great guy. Keep him in your thoughts and remind people how important he is to all of us.

Dr. Nora Volkow, director of National Institute on Drug Abuse, regarding the recent Monitoring the Future survey:

The other things that are worrisome have to do with the indicators of attitudes. For example, in the case of marijuana, we have not seen any change. It’s sort of stable. The values are stable — they have not gone down as they have for other drugs. But what is worrisome is not only that we still have 32 percent of twelfth graders having abuse in the past year (which is very high, one in three) but the fact that the attitudes toward the perception of risk for marijuana are actually going down. That is to say there are fewer kids that feel that marijuana is dangerous. And in the case of marijuana, all along the survey, we have shown from the data that the attitudes regarding its dangerousness very much predict the prevalence of its abuse.

But because it’s a drug that is widely available — actually 80 percent of kids state that they can get access to it very easily — when you have a situation like that, where the perception that the drug is easily available, the variable that constitutes the most to whether they will take it or not is the sense of whether the drug is risky or not.

So we’ve been seeing significant decreases in the number of adolescents believing that marijuana is dangerous. We are concerned that if this is not addressed, then we will start [having] an increase in the rate of consumption of marijuana. So that was on of the things that raised an alert flag.

Translation:

We don’t have any way of regulating marijuana use for teens. With cigarettes, we have age limits, but with marijuana, we turned that all over to the black market — and they’ll sell it to anybody. Obviously, law enforcement can’t do shit about stopping the black market in marijuana. Kids can get it easily.

So the only way we can think of to prevent teens from using marijuana is to lie to them about its dangers.

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, and a whole lot of lies, they’re starting to learn the truth. Somebody must be talking.

We’re in big trouble.

We’ve had some good (and some volatile) discussions in comments recently, particularly over what constitutes drug policy reform and its end goals. This is quite healthy (as long as we avoid the name-calling). We have a number of people who frequent this site with different views both of our destination and our route to get there (and even how we should publicly describe our route to get there).

I’m going to inject LEAP’s Norm Stamper into that discussion, with a particularly appropriate piece over at Alternet: Let’s Not Stop at Marijuana Legalization

Yet, I’m alarmed that the above-mentioned poll showing majority support for marijuana legalization also found that fewer than one in 10 people agree that it’s time to end the prohibition of other drugs.

This no doubt makes sense to some readers at first glance, since more people are familiar with marijuana than other drugs like cocaine, heroin or meth. However, even a cursory study of our drug war policies will reveal that legalizing pot but not other drugs will leave huge social harms unresolved. […]

Marijuana legalization is a great step in the direction of sane and sensible drug policy. But we reformers must remember that we’re working to legalize drugs not because we think they are safe, but because prohibition is far more dangerous to users and nonusers alike.

Read the whole thing — it’s worth it.

Norm’s OpEd very closely echoes my views.

I’m fine with incrementalism. I think medical marijuana, for example, serves us in two ways — on its own merits, and as a stepping stone toward acceptance of marijuana in general. I realize there are others who believe we should instead build and wield the Weapon of Instant Legalization of all things, but I seem unable to make sense out of the blueprints.

I’m not fine at stopping with marijuana. Like Norm, I’m perhaps less interested in the ability to freely shoot heroin than I am in stopping the evils of prohibition. I’m not opposed to regulation, and will accept that to the extent that it makes it possible to virtually eliminate black market harms.

I’m not concerned that we don’t yet have a finalized policy model for each legalized drug. I believe that there’s more than one that is acceptable and meets the requirements, and that these will come with trial and error (probably in the laboratory of the states), but we do have some good blueprints, despite the unwillingness of the “academics” in the U.S. to do their job and actually craft policy options.

Next, while I know some don’t like the word “legalization,” I will continue to use it. Sure, the word can scare people, and our opponents know it and try to demonize us with it. And I understand “framing.” But by avoiding the word, we cede to it that dark power, when in fact, the meaning of the word has nothing inherently in it to elicit fear or shame.

Every time a former cop from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition steps up in front of a Kiwanis Club and says “We need to legalize all drugs, and here’s why…,” the word “legalization” takes a giant step over to our side. When our opponents no long have that word to scare people, what do they have left?

Finally, I understand that we’re in it for the long haul — not just in terms that have to do with continuing beyond marijuana legalization, but because it’s the nature of our fight. The only way we’ll win is by changing people’s minds, one at a time. There’s no wizard who can ride up and wave their magic wand to undo decades of corruption and propaganda. No President is going to step in and tear up the Controlled Substances Act on national TV.

We had a victory this week in Congress on syringe exchange, and I really appreciate the sentiment in this OpEd by Julie Davids at Prevention Justice.

Bill Clinton said NOT lifting the federal funding ban on syringe exchange was one of the biggest regrets in his presidency. But he didn’t fess up to that till he was safely out of the White House.

Barack Obama pledged to lift the ban. Then pointedly didn’t publicly work to do so, even when his imprimatur could have given a much-needed margin of safety for congressional efforts.

But who really did work to lift the ban? People with HIV, drug users, harm reduction leaders and their allies. Long-time and brand new AIDS activists who took to the streets and the halls of Congress and the plaza of HHS and the UN for decades at this point, including those who got arrested in the Capitol Rotunda in one of the first acts of civil disobedience against the Obama Adminstration. Organizers and policy wonks who counted the votes and worked hand in hand with grassroots activists to persuade and convert legislators. Religous people who spoke up about what faith and redemption and compassion really means. AIDS service and prevention providers and drug treatment people and harm reduction counselors and people in recovery, and people in and out of recovery, who spoke up about their lives and their work.

And because of all this – not because of the political cowardice of those who knew they were doing the wrong thing by allowing the ban to persist but who time and again shrank in the face of ideological opposition – the ban will now be lifted.

We’re in it for the long haul.

It’s Monitoring the Future time again. That annual release of the study of teens and drug use, where the ONDCP goes to great lengths to cherry-pick the results to show:

1. The drug war is working.
2. There are serious problems (not the result of the drug war) that require more drug war.

Smoking marijuana is becoming even more popular among U.S. teens and they have cut down on smoking cigarettes, binge drinking and using methamphetamine, according to a federal survey released Monday. […]

The increase of teens smoking pot is partly because the national debate over medical use of marijuana can make the drugs seem safer to teenagers, researchers said. In addition to marijuana, fewer teens also view prescription drugs and Ecstasy as dangerous, which often means more could use them in the future, said White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske.

Ah, yes. It’s our fault.

The “continued erosion in youth attitudes and behavior toward substance abuse should give pause to all parents and policy-makers,” Kerlikowske said.

“These latest data confirm that we must redouble our efforts to implement a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to preventing and treating drug use,” Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in remarks prepared for his Monday speech at the National Press Club in Washington.

Now, let’s take a look at the simple facts.

To me the big story is that high school seniors are now more likely to smoke pot than smoke cigarettes.

Interesting. Cigarettes are legal, yet with legal age restrictions and fact-based education about the harms, we’ve managed to decrease the use of cigarettes.

Marijuana is illegal, and despite turning over all controls to criminals and using lie-based education about the harms, we’ve managed to increase the use of pot.

Wonder if there’s a lesson there, somewhere…

$2 Billion for the DEA. Yeah, that’s with a “B.” Jeralyn at TalkLeft has coverage of the 2010 appropriations bill.

While there is prevention money in the bill, there’s also a lot of funding for the War on Drugs.

Combating Illegal Drugs: $2 billion, $81 million above 2009, to combat illegal drugs through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). These funds will provide for 128 new DEA positions to help stop the flow of illegal drugs across the Southwest border and to investigate, disrupt and dismantle major Mexican drug cartels.

Universities are laying off teachers and the DEA is looking at 128 new positions.

Read the rest of Jeralyn’s post to see how much more is being spent on the drug war throughout the various agencies.

The ONDCP talks about how important it is to focus on treatment rather than incarceration or supply side, but when it comes to the dollars, forget it — too many people profit off the war.