Drug WarRant

Pennsylvania is having a debate on medical marijuana in the legislature. Good for them.

The heart-wrenching stories came from both sides.

Huh? Both sides?

How is that possible? Was there a pharmaceutical manufacturer who lost income in California due to medical marijuana and wasn’t able to buy a new car?

I don’t get it. How do you have a heart-wrenching story from opponents of medical marijuana?

Sharon Smith of Mechanicsburg lost her 18-year-old daughter to a heroin overdose in 1998. She said the state should not legislate medical policy decisions.

Ah, I see. Let’s pass by the delicious irony of someone who supports continued laws preventing doctors from practicing medicine claiming that the state “should not legislate medical policy decisions.”

It is really offensive to me that drug prohibitionists seem to be able to recruit parents of dead kids to campaign against medical marijuana. (Steve Steiner of DAMMMAD is the prime example, but there are many others.)

The worst was when the DEA sponsored a Vigil for Lost Promise that was held on the grounds of the DEA headquarters.

What possible relevance does the death of an 18-year-old girl to a heroin overdose have with regulated medical marijuana? None at all.

When a parent loses a child to a drug overdose, how do they get from there to opposing marijuana (which has never had a fatal overdose)? It seems to me that somebody must lead them there.

The real discussion they need to have is: “What was the role that prohibition played in this tragedy?” After all, it happened within the context of prohibition. “Would things have been different if drugs had been legal and regulated?”

A new video of Marilyn Monroe has surfaced, smoking pot with some friends (from what you see in the video it could as well be a cigarette, but apparently the person who shot the film verified the pot story).

Of course, it’s not a surprise. Marijuana has always been popular in the creative fields, and Marilyn wasn’t one to worry about whether something was “proper” (or legal).

“Well behaved women rarely make history.”
— Marilyn Monroe (after Laurel Thatcher Ulrich)

I’ve highlighted a couple of rather ignorant OpEds in college newspapers in the past, but it’s good to note that, particularly due to the efforts of SSDP, you’re more likely to get a good piece like this one by Beth Mendenhall in the Kansas State Collegian (I don’t know if Beth is an SSDP member): Consistency Demands Cannabis

Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are enough to warrant legalization of marijuana. So be a good patriot…

A few random things…

If you’re going to be doing any Christmas shopping at Amazon.com, use the link at the left to get there, and I’ll get a few cents from whatever you buy on that visit. It won’t cost you any more. Also, check out the DWR Amazon Store linked at left, for some great ideas of books, DVDs and other items to give to someone you’d like to educate about drug policy reform (there are also a number of items just for fun).

An off-topic call for help. I have worked with a great group of students at Illinois State University called the Improv Mafia. Over the years, these guys, on their own without a coach, have put together some of the best and most original improv comedy I’ve ever seen. I’ve done some piano playing for them and it’s a blast!

They competed in this year’s College Improv Tournament and did a great job in the Midwest Regional despite losing one of their six performers to food poisoning just before the final round. They came in second by 1.5 points. They still have a chance to compete in the National Tournament — all 6 regional 2nd place finishers compete through online voting for the wild card slot.

Here’s where you come in. Go and vote. Be sure to select The Improv Mafia (Illinois State University). You have to use a valid email address and verify it. Thanks!

There have been some great, involved discussions in comments recently. Be sure to check those out when you have a chance. Thanks to all the regulars who keep this place so exciting, and add additional perspectives to my own.

Gateway drug?

In the study, 40 percent of marijuana users said they have used marijuana to control their alcohol addictions, 66 percent said they used marijuana instead of prescription drugs, and 26 percent said marijuana helped them stay off other illegal drugs. [Via Scott Morgan]

Consider this an open thread.

Nicholas Eyle has a good post over at ReconsiDer: How To Create A Problem Where None Exists.

It’s about the research being done to create a THC-based drug that could be used to treat people who are addicted to marijuana.

NIDA director Nora Volkow says the agency “is interested in exploring the role of transdermal THC delivery as an innovative way to treat marijuana withdrawal symptoms and dependence… This is especially relevant to our efforts to fill a critical gap in available treatments for the many Americans struggling with marijuana-related disorders and their detrimental medical and social consequences.” So how many marijuana addicted Americans are there?

Good question. Must be a pretty big problem for NIDA to give $4 million to AllTranz to develop this “treatment.”

But, of course, it’s mostly a government agency looking for a solution to justify the problem they’ve mostly invented.

Oh, sure, yes I know that a small number of people have dependency issues with marijuana and that they can experience minor withdrawal effects significantly less severe than caffeine.

But of all the things we could do to help people who abuse drugs, finding a treatment for marijuana dependency has got to be pretty low on the list.

However, with all those hundreds of thousands of people in treatment for marijuana dependency, you gotta pretend to deliver some kind of actual… treatment, I guess.

As noted in comments, Opposing Views has the info on the Senate Judiciary Committee plans this week:

This Thursday, December 3, members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will debate Senate Bill 714, The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009. The time and location of the hearing are available here […]

It’s been many years since a federally appointed commission has taken an objective look at American criminal justice policies, and it’s been nearly 40 years since federal lawmakers have undertaken a critical examination of U.S. marijuana policy. Please take time today to urge your United States senators to support Senate Bill 714. If your senators sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, then it is especially important that that they hear from you. For your convenience, a pre-written letter will be e-mailed to your members of Congress when you enter your contact information here.

…

In unfortunately potentially related news…

I’m only peripherally aware of the crime du jour — the Seattle shooting that left officers dead, apparently committed by someone whose earlier sentence was commuted years ago by Mike Huckabee. In this story, I share Mark Draghn’s concerns…

I’m more worried that it will lead to an election-fueled backlash against lenient treatment of prisoners. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that a guy who kills four cops should be let out the door, and if our legislators can craft a fine-tuned change to the law to prevent such catatrophes, I’m all for it.

The thing is, our legislators can’t do that.

And yes, we already have liberals chomping at the bit to make political hay out of this tragedy. Stella Barkwell at Crooks and Liars, Tristero at Hullabaloo, and Joe Conason at Salon are prime examples of people who likely would have had a completely different take on the story back when Dukakis was being tarred with Willie Horton.

TalkLeft treats the story right, noting likely poor judgement, but cautioning against backlash.

We can’t get in the position where Governors and Presidents are afraid to pardon or commute the sentences of anyone. After all, our current President finally, finally made his first pardon last week… and it wasn’t even for a human.

Taking bets: Will Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, or Tom Coburn find a creative way to bring this up on Thursday to sabotage criminal justice reform despite being on the same side of the aisle as Huckabee? Or maybe newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter? Or will it be Democrat Dianne Feinstein looking to take political advantage? If so, who will be first?

I’m one of those who believes that it’s best to have recreational marijuana use legal, but that it’s better to have only medical marijuana legal than no marijuana legal, and that medical marijuana legalization can help the rest of the population get behind further legalization.

That said, there’s no doubt that the sheer stupidity of the feds continuing to outlaw any use of marijuana even in the face of state medical marijuana laws can cause some pretty strange things…

Court may rule on whether medical marijuana can be bought on black market

Madappa, who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, became a licensed medical marijuana patient in early October, according to an article in The Taos News today. He is also on probation, a status that has brought his use of medical marijuana into conflict with the criminal justice system.

A routine drug test showed marijuana in Madappa’s system, and his probation officer reasoned that he broke the law by purchasing the drug from the black market rather than a qualified dispensary, since Madappa got his license during a period of time in which the single licensed facility in the state was out of its product. New Mexico state attorney Michael Cox agreed with that reasoning.

The court ruled that Madappa may only purchase his medicine from a state licensed dispensary, and that he has to provide documentation showing how much, when and where he got the marijuana.

Now, Madappa has to decide whether or not to appeal the Second Judicial District Court order

Judge: Marijuana limits up to juries

The amendment illegally set limits not in the original measure, the court said. Juries, not the state, should decide what amount of marijuana is “reasonably related” to someone’s medical needs, it said.

“This has real ramifications,” Russel Babcock, Archer’s lawyer, said. “It becomes a case-by-case basis for juries of reasonableness.”

Here at Drug WarRant, we don’t get a fraction of the kind of traffic that the major political blogs do, so I’m always pleased when they “discover” that drug policy is an actual, you know, issue.

Part of the problem has been that the drug war has been an equal-opportunity offender, with both the Democrats and the Republicans high on the bandwagon (even to the point where it was recently noted that the prison industries lobby Republicans for harsher drug sentences, while the prison guard unions lobby Democrats for harsher drug sentences). With both so thoroughly tarred, it’s hard for the political bloggers to bash the other side.

David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars found a way to do it with Republicans are clinging to their old ‘Reefer Madness’ mentality. It’s a good piece with a nice shout-out to our friend Lee over at HorsesAss.

The video of “Dr.” Tom Coburn getting all bent out of shape because we might not arrest every medical marijuana user out there is worth seeing (and getting riled up about).

Of course, on the other side (or perhaps his own side), Andrew Sullivan at Daily Dish has long been serving up marijuana policy reform. And Jeralyn Merritt’s lefty TalkLeft often promotes drug policy reform as part of its criminal justice emphasis.

It would be nice to see more of the A-list bloggers realize that the issue of drug policy reform is as big as just about anything else out there they discuss on a regular basis.

It’s still a holiday week, but I’m back home now after a wonderful visit with my parents. I have internet access again, and am working to catch up (along with enjoying the weekend).

I’m noticing a lot of tension in the comments from some folks. Don’t overdo it. It’s good to get worked up, but it’s unproductive to be randomly angry at the world. I won’t allow the comments section to degrade into a lot of unrelated anger. Discussions are much better.

And again, thanks to all the folks who keep me informed with useful links and information. Additional thanks to the wonderful folks at Transform.

Did US law spur Mexico’s meth sales?

The US slowed production of meth by cutting off key ingredients. But a blow to US methamphetamine labs became a boon to La Familia drug gang in Mexico.

Yep. That’s exactly the way the drug war works.

“The entire history of US interdiction policies toward Latin America in the 20th century has created that pattern. The inadvertent [results] of crackdowns or interdiction policies in the Andes, and in the Caribbean, have always had enormously adverse effects,” says Paul Gootenberg, a history professor at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, and the author of “Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug.”

Speaking of how the drug war works… Program to help truckers attracts drug smugglers

A U.S. program that offers trusted trucking companies speedy passage across American borders has begun attracting just the sort of customers who place a premium on avoiding inspections: Mexican drug smugglers.

Interesting and useful document (pdf): Legislative Innovation in
Drug Policy by Martin Jelsma, Transnational Institute.

Israel Moves Toward Expanded Medical Marijuana Law

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.

Allen St. Pierre, over at NORML blog, reports on an interview with Deputy Drug Czar Tom McLellan that is uniquely… absurd. This has already been discussed briefly in comments here, but I wanted to have a post devoted to it. The interview was by Harold Pollack for The New Republic

Here are some portions…

The issue of marijuana has been interestingly framed by legalization activists. It’s been framed as, “Marijuana’s not bad for you. In fact, it’s really medically good for certain people.” That was extremely cleverly done, because we could debate that all day long with existing evidence. How bad is marijuana? Is it as bad as alcohol? Does it even have some medical benefits for people that have nausea or glaucoma and all that?

Well, that’s not what’s at issue. What’s at issue is: there are efforts being made to increase the availability, and thus the use, the penetration if you will, of marijuana use. In order to show that availability expansion efforts are sensible and that we should reverse policies and laws and everything else, it seems to me the argument to be proven is, “It’s good for you.” That should be the standard, rather than “Marijuana’s not that bad.” Name for me another substance that you would say, “It’s not that bad, so let’s reverse state laws. Let’s increase availability to a product that really is targeted to young people.” For that, you should have to prove that it’s genuinely good, not just “not that bad”.

It’s “good for you” should be the standard for legalization? How absurd. Are Hostess Twinkies good for you? Is climbing a tree good for you? And, of course, under McLellan’s world-view, the answer to those should probably be “no.” But in a free society, the answer to all of those, including marijuana, is “yes.” (Doesn’t mean harmless, but does mean that it provides positive value to the individual in some way.)

And, of course, if he’s concerned about marijuana being targeted to young people, why is he opposed to regulating it?

And our position is very simple on this, and I think, frankly, you can’t refute it. Marijuana is not good for you. You have to get that one exactly right. I didn’t say, “Marijuana’s not that bad.“ I said, “Marijuana’s not good for you.” And more people using marijuana is not good for society. And I believe these to be facts, by the way….

Facts? You haven’t even defined the terms. What does “good for you” mean?

It is possible to reduce availability, not eliminate, but reduce availability. It’s already been done. It is possible to prevent abuse of marijuana, and it’s possible treat marijuana and other drug addictions. If you do those things, you have a better socially functioning society.

Sure you can reduce availability, for about two weeks in a very localized area. But that’s about it, and it has no long-term effect on use.

Notice how he snuck in “other drug addictions” to cover up the fact that he had nothing?

The other artful thing that’s been done by advocates about marijuana is that it has been pitched on one side of the base, “You know, marijuana’s not that bad for you. OK? And by the way, the only alternative to legalization is mass incarceration, which is really bad and it’s really expensive and all that.”

It’s a beautifully crafted, misleading argument. Our argument’s entirely different. Nobody wants mass incarceration of marijuana users. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph–what a waste of money that is. But, marijuana’s not good for you. So we need policies that keep marijuana illegal, are sensible, and that reduce availability and use of marijuana. And those policies–unlike the current legalize and tax proposals being floated –could generate revenue for the public. A city or state could generate a lot of revenue through fines for marijuana users.

Nobody wants mass incarceration of marijuana users? AND he’s proposing a cash cow from marijuana fines. Should we be promoting the fact that the Deputy Drug Czar is calling for Massachusetts-style decrim with fines for use but no criminal sanctions?

Of course, he’s not (but we should call him on it anyway).

People like him talk about not wanting to incarcerate our way out of a problem, but they never actually propose cutting back on incarceration. And the notion that fines would be better cash revenue for local and state governments than taxed legal sales, is really absurd.

Pollack: In my own public health work, I don’t really do that much with marijuana. It’s striking to me that marijuana is such a touchstone of drug policy debate.

McLellan: It’s the center of the universe. Yeah (laughs). With all the really serious problems that we’ve got facing us–prescription drug use probably among the top, and you know, name the other drugs, why we’re spending this time on this nonsense about medical marijuana and legalization. It’s the damnest thing to me. I can’t get over it. It’s almost as though there were a contingent of people out there really eager to keep it at the front of the newspapers. Well, it isn’t us. We don’t want it there.

If it’s nonsense that you don’t want to spend time on, then stop doing it. It’s the federal government that’s been spending billions of dollars fighting this war on marijuana. The vast majority of the drug war spending is on it. If you don’t like it, stop doing it.

And yes, as long as you keep fighting us, there will be a contingent of us eager to keep it at the front of the newspapers. Because when we do, you lose.

Pollack: There’s a culture war in which marijuana is one of the key fronts.

McLellan: People make a living debating this on stage. You know? That’s hard for me to believe, that there’s a living to be made going around debating about marijuana’s benefits and why you ought to legalize drugs and crap like that. It’s just like a silly discussion to me.

Allen St. Pierre fields this one nicely:

-Mr. McLellan appears genuinely amazed if not chagrined that there are citizens who exist that disagree with the prohibition of cannabis; that there are actual organizations of citizen-stakeholders advocating for alternatives to the self-evidently failed status quo of cannabis prohibition, complaining that some ‘make a career’ of advocating for obviously needed policy changes.

I suggest Mr. McLellan pause for a moment, look around his ONDCP office, and fully realize that he, and tens or thousands of anti-drug bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel employed by the federal government (ie, ONDCP, DEA, NIDA, Customs, TSA, Border Patrols, VA, SAMSHA, NDIC, EPIC; and hundreds of government organs funded by the taxpayers, like CADCA, NFIA and Partnership for a Drug-Free America) are careerists as well….However, unlike reformers, who employ privately donated dollars (maybe $15-$20 million donated in total to all drug policy reform groups annually), Mr. McLellan and his other career prohibitionists employ tens of billions annually of taxpayer’s money.

If McLellan wants to stop being distracted by the “silly” discussions about marijuana, there’s a simple thing that can be done. Just have the federal government say that it’s not going to pay attention to marijuana any more and leave it to the states. Period. Fine with us.