Drug WarRant

From Sloshspot via the Daily Dish.

I’ve been on the road visiting family, and now I’m going to my Dad’s where there’s usually only dial-up available, so posting may be light for a few days.

Support for legalizing marijuana grows rapidly around U.S

The “Drug War” is doing far more harm than marijuana itself ever will. Requires subscription to Hightower Lowdown to read the entire article. I have no idea if that’s worth it.

BBC: Steve Rolles, who led in the creation of Transform’s Blueprint for Regulation debated old-school drug warrior Robert DuPont. I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet.

Visiting my Mom in Iowa, I opened up the Des Moines Register to see an OpEd by Senator Grassley, defending his amendment. The amendment would have prevented the commission that is looking into all aspects of our criminal justice system, from even discussing drug legalization or decriminalization.

Grassley’s OpEd? Congress should debate drug policy

What??? Grassley has never been interested in Congress debating drug policy.

Here’s the thin rationale:

First and foremost, Congress ought to tackle issues whenever possible before bucking them to commissions. Increasingly, Congress is using commissions to avoid doing what Americans elect members to do: ask tough questions, identify possible answers, debate policy solutions and take a stand. This commission also would cost $14 million. It’s hard to justify that expenditure in the current fiscal situation, especially when it’s work that Congress should be doing itself.

The point of a commission is that Congress is unwilling to tackle the problems directly, nor do they have the expertise. A commission is supposed to look at all aspects of a problem and report back recommendations which Congress can then debate.

Pretty weak, Senator. (But it’s interesting that he got so backed in the corner over the furor of his amendment that he felt it necessary to defend it this way.)

Update: What Scott said.

Both Jacob Sullum and Scott Morgan Phil Smith catch a continuing disturbing trend in political circles. It’s kind of a shoot-first and ask-questions-later approach, except this is a ban-first and study-it-later philosophy.

Sullum (in a good report on Salvia):

A couple of years ago, John Bulloch watched an alarming report on an Atlanta TV station about an exotic-sounding drug called Salvia divinorum. Bulloch had never heard of the plant, a psychoactive relative of sage that the Mazatec Indians of Oaxaca, Mexico, have used for centuries in healing and divination rituals. […]

Bulloch—a Republican state senator who represents the area around Ochlocknee, Georgia, a tiny town near the Florida border—was astounded. “I thought, ‘Why hasn’t somebody already jumped on this?’ ” he told the Florida Times-Union in March 2007. “I hurriedly got legislative counsel to draft the bill”—legislation making it a misdemeanor to grow, sell, or possess salvia. […]

Bulloch’s approach to salvia—ban first, ask questions later—epitomizes how drug policy is made in America.

Phil Smith:

Kansas state Rep. Peggy Mast (R-Emporia) had never heard of K-2 before being approached by a local newspaper reporting on the phenomenon last week, but that didn’t stop her from being ready to criminalize it. “I would be very happy to sponsor a bill to make this illegal,” she said. […]

“I don’t think the public should have ready access to anything that has not been studied,” Mast said.

That last sentence is frightening. Where does that kind of world-view come from?

I guess we’ll just have to make the universe illegal and legalize it one item at a time. I know some of you have been asking for air. We’re working on it, and should have a definitively study from the FDA on that in a couple of years.

Travis Erbacher writes a letter.

Bill C-15’s biggest supporters are criminal gangs and drug kingpins. After struggling to find anybody who could provide evidence that mandatory minimums work, or that tougher sentences will catch high-level dealers, they gave up and decided on Fassbender as a witness.

Mr. Fassbender agrees with gangs on drug policy.

Mayor Fassbender clearly has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to drug policy or fighting criminal gangs. He states that an argument for tougher sentences is that gangs produce drugs. That is a great argument, but it is a key reason why we should NOT pass C-15, and instead legalize and regulate substance use.

If drugs were legalized, gangs could not profit off of them. Drug-dealing “turf” would be worthless, and there would be nothing to fight over. Users would buy their drugs from pharmacies, and gangs would go bankrupt.

Instead of advocating for a policy that will actually make our streets safer, Mayor Fassbender is doing the exact opposite.

If we can do more of this — letting people know that their representatives are making their lives less safe by supporting prohibition, we’ll be on our way to eliminating the political fear of advocating for reform.

The Los Angeles Times lauds the American Medical Association’s reversal, but fails to understand basic facts.

For all the debate over whether marijuana has medicinal value, arguments that the drug has significant palliative properties or that it has none suffer from the same flaw: There’s little scientific proof either way.

This lack of conclusive evidence isn’t accidental. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, classifying marijuana — which had been illegal since 1937 — as a Schedule I drug, which meant that it had a high potential for abuse and no medicinal value. In keeping with this position, the government has allowed only the University of Mississippi to cultivate research-grade marijuana, and has so restricted access to its small supply that determining the drug’s efficacy is for all intents and purposes impossible. […]

The states that have legalized the drug’s use for medicinal purposes have done so on the basis of a small body of research and a large amount of anecdotal evidence, but more facts are needed.

Wrong.

Yes, it’s good that the AMA is encouraging more research. More research is always good. I’m in favor of more research. And yes, there has been a squelching of research because of the Schedule 1 status of marijuana. That needs to stop.

But that doesn’t mean that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether marijuana is medicine, nor that it is merely “anecdotal.”

This is because the vast majority of use of medical marijuana is for symptom relief, not for cures. Proof of symptom relief is simple.

• You have a symptom (pain, nausea, etc).
• You do something for the symptom
• The symptom goes away – the something worked… or
• The symptom doesn’t go away – the something didn’t work. Try something else.

You don’t need double blind test groups. You need one individual and his or her doctor (See the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 Report calling for N of 1 trials.) The doctor asks, “Did the pain go away after taking it?” “Yes.” “Then it worked.” Period.

It doesn’t matter if it was a placebo, a Hostess Twinkie, or prayer. If it relieves the symptoms, it works. The only issue is whether the side effects of the treatment are worse than the symptom or the side effects of other effective treatments. And we know that marijuana’s side effects are ridiculously better than just about anything else.

Now it’s an entirely different story if you’re looking for a cure. Let’s say I believe marijuana cures cancer. It’s not enough to believe it, because someone could end up taking marijuana instead of following other proven treatments that might save their life. Therefore proof (of the kind they’re always talking about) is necessary (and I hope they do the research to determine if this is true.)

There are tons of evidence to support the vast majority of medical marijuana usages to date. And there’s no reason to deny people their relief until some medically unnecessary standard is reached.

If a patient said that they didn’t want pain pills, but would rather relieve the pain through prayer, we might be skeptical, but we wouldn’t deny them the opportunity to find out. If they said that prayer would cure their cancer and they shouldn’t take any other treatments, we’d be horrified and try to convince them to take medical advice.

But we wouldn’t criminalize prayer.

“It’s time to use science and common sense to direct our efforts — not ideology, not positions of the past, but a fresh look at what the data tells us. We also need the willingness to rethink old positions and particularly to change direction when the science says it’s time to change direction”

That’s from a recent keynote address on drug policy. Who said it?

Update: Billy Bob gets a point for being the first to guess that it was by “Deputy Director of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, A. Thomas McLellan. Gil Kerlikowske’s #2 guy.” It was delivered to the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD 46) of the Organization of American States (OAS) on Wednesday in Miami, Florida.

Of course, McLellan works for Kerlikowske, for whom changes of direction are not even in his vocabulary, so it’s not likely that the ONDCP or the administration are going to actually, in any significant way, follow those words.

But hearing them said can embolden others, and open up the minds of individuals who otherwise have been closed by government propaganda. And that’s where the real battles are that we’ll win — with the people, not the bureaucracy.

Consider this an open thread

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.

Many of you have read my piece on Irv Rosenfeld. He’s quite an amazing individual.

The Mail has a piece on him now: American stockbroker sets record for cannabis consumption with 115,000th joint (and it’s all legal)

An American stockbroker has one of the world’s most prolific cannabis smokers – thanks to a constant supply of the drug to treat a rare bone disease.

Fort Lauderdale stockbroker Irvin Rosenfeld will tomorrow smoke his 115,000th joint – and it’s all legal.

The 56-year-old has been provided with cannabis by the government since 1982, when he became a patient in the Federal Drug Administration’s Investigational New Drug Programme. […]

He has been receiving 300 joints of the drug every 25 days for the past 27 years, NBC Miami reported. […]

‘If you truly think marijuana’s as bad as you think it is, explain me.’

115,000 joints and not only is his condition taken care of, but he has no other ill-effects. (Note: if he was able to get some good pot, instead of the low-grade stuff from the feds, he probably could have managed with a whole lot fewer.)

This one is by James Swift in the Kennesaw Sate University Sentinel: Actually, DON’T legalize it, and it’s a lot of fun.

I’m going to take a controversial stance and assert that marijuana shouldn’t be legalized. As a college student, that puts me in a very detested minority and sets me up for perhaps four years of campus castigation. […]

Alas, I vaunt my innate principles over such vanities, regardless. Sure, I may miss out on a few dates and get my tires slashed by a guy in a Phish tee-shirt, but that’s the price of so-called “free” speech, I suppose.

Ah yes, the martyr. Like so many of the great ones over the centuries, willing to suffer in order to maintain his principles. So noble. So admirable. Unless, of course, you’re completely (and easily provably) wrong. Then, it’s sad and pathetic.

A little note to James: if you’ve decided you’re willing to be a martyr, I suggest really doing some research to make sure you know what you’re talking about.

OK, so what are the principles that he defends?

To the “Really Green” Party out there, I proclaim the following: in your rhetoric, you claim that the illegalization of marijuana is due to corporate finagling and government paranoia. Essentially, pot is outlawed because the suits can’t regulate it, anybody can grow it and that billions of dollars that would’ve been taxed end up squandered as a result.

As much as I hate to say this, the government isn’t always preoccupied with devouring your wallet. If I may use some second grade logic; dead people can’t possess money. Therefore, it benefits the government to instigate measures to prolong the existence of its citizens to insure that fiscal funds are later usurped. Hey, it’s a necessary evil, that taking care of citizens’ well-being, you know.

The authentic rationale for marijuana’s illegalization is that it kills people, plain and simple. Sure, one joint isn’t going to give you a brain tumor, but a good forty years of exposure? Yeah, there’s going to be some negative implications on the smoker’s health. A granule of asbestos won’t give you lymphoma, but a lifelong courtship with the product very much will. Thusly, if a known carcinogen is introduced to the general populace, it is the government’s job to help curb the miasmic Diaspora.

Hey, some cute writing there (I love miasmic Diaspora), but “dead people can’t possess money” is your argument? “it kills people, plain and simple.” Really? Can you name one?

I can name people who were killed by drinking water, yet I cannot name a single one killed by marijuana (not to say that there haven’t been any in some way over the long term, but if it was really a significant issue, there would be evidence.) And, of course, as we all know, the best evidence shows that it contains the ability to destroy cancer. There is at least as much evidence that use of marijuana will prolong your life as there is that it will shorten your life.

Oh, and by the way, James. Just how well has the government been doing using prohibition as the tool to curb the Diaspora?

But wait, he’s got more!

Marijuana inhibits one’s cognitive capabilities, which ensures deterioration of one’s physical capabilities, which in turn, provides a risk to public safety. How efficient is a half-baked construction worker, huh? You want to undergo a filling while under the care of Cheech Marin, D.D.S.? For those of you who really believe that the drug is “harmless,” maybe you should try talking to the neglected child of a marijuana-user. Yeah, it’s a victimless crime, all right.

And then go talk to the neglected child of a soap opera watcher. Or the neglected child of a church bingo player. What does that have to do with legalization? And getting a filling from Cheech Marin, D.D.S.? Sure, I’d be happy to, if he was really trained as a dentist, but he’s an actor. If he was a dentist, he’d know not to be stoned, or drunk, or tired, or getting a blow job while drilling. There are things you do in your free time that you don’t while working. And again, legalization has no relevance here.

Ah, but James also has philosophy.

Those factors considered, my prime reasoning for maintaining the ban on marijuana stems not from a health or sociological standpoint, but a philosophical one. Marijuana is an agent that distances the user from the world, from the totality of reality as it exists. For a soul to desire such absconding, there is clearly a pre-existing disenchantment, a sense of insecurity and ineffectiveness. These are real problems, with real consequences, that marijuana simply masks and keeps the individual from exploring and resolving.

Ah, I see. Well, we’d better ban all those escapist movies, then. Science fiction — not allowed. Theatre — gone. iPods —(talk about distancing from the real world!) — illegal, along with all music. Any kind of play-acting (OMG, the children!) Yeah, a person must be sick to want to escape from the real world for even a short time. Best to make all that illegal.

The good news? Based on what I’ve seen in the comments at his article so far, James will be getting his wish to play the martyr.

Via Reason

Jeralyn at TalkLeft received this from the Department of Justice:

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Assistance are hosting a symposium November 18-20, 2009, to explore the potential for implementing predictive policing strategies to help make communities safer. Predictive policing integrates data analysis with law enforcement strategies and tactics. To find out how best to apply predictive policing approaches, the DOJ is supporting a number of police departments nationwide in demonstrations, or field experiments, designed to test the effectiveness of various predictive policing strategies and techniques.

Without greater drug policy reform, I somehow doubt that “predictive policing” is going to lead us to improved policing. It seems much more likely to lead to an additional excuse for suspicion-less searches of black youths in urban areas, with any “minority reports” conveniently suppressed.