Drug WarRant

Since the day his officers gunned down two pet Labrador dogs and handcuffed two innocent people for hours in a drug raid in 2008 at the home of the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Prince George’s County Sheriff Michael Jackson has clung to what seems like a preposterous notion that his men did nothing wrong.

Of course, that insistence is accompanied by constant stonewalling — blocking Mayor Cheye Calvo’s every attempt to get even basic information from the county.

And this is just one of many instances. So what kind of fallout is the Sheriff facing?

Jackson confirmed to political associates last week that he’s running for county executive.

Don’t be surprised, though, if Jackson suffers only modest political damage from the dog-shooting incident. In a crowded Democratic primary in September, he’ll be targeting voters who welcome a tough law-and-order candidate.

Note that discovery on the Calvo case could be blocked by Jackson until after the election. Convenient.

Kudos to the folks who raised a ruckus this week about the fact that the DEA had not yet removed the reference to American Medical Association’s support for marijuana being in Schedule 1. With the AMA’s turnaround last week, it was unlikely that the DEA would actually, uh, mention the AMA’s call for a schedule change, but it certainly made sense to get the old info cleared off.

It’s gone now. Which, if you read the changed page, is kind of like removing one maggot from a large sack of feces.

So CNN paid 8 million dollars to make Lou Dobbs go away. Could be money well spent. However, if they wanted me to stay away from CNN, I’d do it for half that. Maybe less.

I’m all for gender equality, but… not this way.

As drug violence seeps deeper into Mexican society, women are taking a more hands-on role.

In growing numbers, they are being recruited into the ranks of drug smugglers, dealers and foot soldiers. And in growing numbers, they are being jailed and killed for their efforts.

This is from a while ago — it got lost on my desktop. Secretary Napolitano Applauds President Obama’s Intent to Nominate Grayling Williams as Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement.

The Office of what? Huh? How is it that I’ve been writing about drug policy for over 6 years and I missed an entire federal drug war bureaucracy? And it’s been around since 2004! Apparently they somehow coordinate “stopping the entry of illegal drugs into the U.S.”

So, how’s that going?

A couple of weeks ago, I noticed this article about medical marijuana and the workplace. It included this passage:

Clouding the issue even more is a decision earlier this month by the U.S. Justice Department not to pursue criminal charges against medical marijuana producers and users in states where it’s legal.

“That’s a very significant retreat from federal policy,” said Mark de Bernardo, executive director of the Institute for a Drug Free Workplace. “Marijuana is a dangerous drug that detrimentally affects the workplace. It has impacts on health care costs, productivity, accidents and employee turnover.”

I wrote a letter to Mr. de Bernardo, asking him for any data he had to support his claims, but he hasn’t responded. Surprise, surprise.

I’d still love to hear from you, Mark.

Breaking at The Agitator

This is great news. Look forward to hearing more details.

Item #1: Boomers see views relaxing on marijuana

“There’s gotten to be greater tolerance, that’s for sure,” said Lee, the son of one-time acting Maryland governor Blair Lee III. “I know literally hundreds of people my age who smoke. They are upright citizens, good parents who are holding down jobs. You take two or three puffs, and you’re good to go. I’m not a Rastafarian; I don’t treat this as some holy sacrament. But pot is fun.”

Item #2: US opens its first marijuana cafe

The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified medical marijuana users a place to obtain the drug and smoke it, as long as they are out of public view, despite a federal ban.

The cafe was formerly a speakeasy and adult erotic club, Rumpspankers. Technically it is private, but is open to any Oregon members of Norml – a group pushing for marijuana legalisation – who hold a medical marijuana card. It has no drinks licence.

Well.

Clearly, such a casual approach to such a dangerous drug means we should expect some serious ramifications.

What do you think will happen first? The fall of civilization, the forced marching of all our children off the edge of a cliff, or a plague of locusts?

Well the final day of the conference came and went yesterday; here are some of my thoughts on the panels I attended and the closing plenary.

Panel:  Intoxicants, Addiction, & the Future of Drug Control  Moderator: Harry Levine (Queens College)  Panelists: Stanton Peele (New School Univ.) and Craig Reinarman (UC-Santa Cruz).

This panel had all the air of an academic picnic in the rain.  At times there seemed to be tension between the moderator and panelists and other times it seemed amusing and chummy.  Some things I found interesting that Craig Reinarman told of were how bars and clubs have alcohol consumption built into them by sometimes not having chairs or stools so drinkers have to stand and will likely drink more.  Another way was for clubs to have loud music to drown out conversation and have people hopefully drink more.  One thing he touched on that I liked was how user oriented drug cultures generally look out for another, which can reduce harms.  The concept of medical imperialism also popped up, you know, how more conditions will simply require more drugs, yay!

Stanton Peele’s deep statement “How we think about addiction influences addiction,” is the best way to sum up his presentation.  He went over a cigarette-smoking poll that found most people quit when they wanted to and did not require treatment.  Marketing addiction was also brought up, specifically the campaign to quit smoking with the help of drugs.  He also said that the most stated reason for quitting an addiction is parenthood.  There was some discussion during the question period afterwards about how much of a better solution coerced treatment is to incarceration and the consensus seemed to be that coerced treatment is generally a bad idea but better than prison and treatment on demand is the best option.  The moderator put in some good thoughts like how most drug use is not abuse and that the brunt of drug laws are felt by the least powerful.

Panel:   After Prohibition, Imagining Alternative Drug Regimes, Present & Future.  Moderator:  Eric Sterling (Criminal Justice Policy Foundation)  Panelists:  Roger Goodman (Washington State Representative), Mark Haden (Vancouver Coastal Health), Danny Kushlick (Transform Drug Policy), Robin Room (Beckley Foundation) and Debby Goldsberry (Berkely Patients Group)

My favorite panel of the conference, really great presentations and extremely useful information, and I was able to briefly chat with a few of the panelists afterwards.  The new Transform books got stuck in transit so Danny Kushlick was rightfully upset about that but kept plugging the new books and offering boxes of them to those who are interested.  The “After the War on Drugs: Tools for the Debate” book I received from the 2007 conference was an outstanding piece of literature and I know Pete thinks highly of Transform Drug Policy Foundation too, because Transform really does do some great work outlining the concepts of regulated drug use post prohibition.  Danny made clear that drug prohibition is what makes drugs sexy, “it’s like a movie, violence, sex, guns, excitement!”  Regulation would be boring, going to the doctor for a prescription, going to the pharmacy for an over the counter substance or simply a retail outlet that is not a pharmacy, typical boring stuff that people do.  There would be supplier controls and user controls, with more controls for more harmful substances.

Robin Room gave a good overview of how alcohol prohibition ended and explored the depths of regulatory schemes for alcohol.  Noting that some provinces in Canada have a monopoly of off sales of alcohol and other licensing schemes that usually form an oligopoly, a limited monopoly, where those in the market prefer to keep the market limited.  Other ideas for drug regulation would be to have per capita limits for licenses for drug sales or a rationing system for individual consumption, although the latter seems unlikely and compromising of liberty.

Mark Haden had some great thoughts on trying to balance human rights with public health and addressed how one of human rights’ weaknesses is that it does not adequately address individual responsibility.  An increasingly more attractive idea to me that brushed upon was to have prior to purchase and use training similar to what Canada does for guns and most countries do for driving.  He did announce one reason that he has heard to maintain prohibition is that it allows for some of the profits from the illicit drug trade to make their way back to third world producer nations, and there is a fear that if drugs were legal and regulated industrial nations could come in and oppress the producing nation further cutting of any money that might have been making its way back.  However, that could be avoided with Fair Trade practices.  There were some great slides of cross marketing drugs like ads for Four Twenty Lager and a Canadian Club ad with lines and piles of a white powder.  Lastly, he called for incremental change by moving from administrative controls to social controls.

Debby Goldsberry is working on the Medical Cannabis Safety Council aiming to become a self-regulating agency for medical cannabis dispensaries and compassion centers.  They have a 21-point plan for safe medicine and noted that the government does not regulate some of the most dangerous activities like skydiving, scuba diving and electricity manufacturing (UL).  She feels that self-regulation or trade type organizations would be best for regulating medical cannabis and possibly other substance distribution.

Roger Goodman made clear the differences between free and regulated markets and pointed out that the bootleggers did turn into legitimate businesses after the repeal of prohibition.  He stated that licensed growers could produce cannabis to sell to the state, which then could sell to the pubic without advertising.  Either way the commercial interests take over in place of the criminal once prohibition ends.

Eric Sterling mentioned between speakers how conservative politicians need to hear about methods they know, specifically mentioning hunting and gun licenses.  This is something we have been considering pushing in Illinois, a legal cannabis system similar to how we allow for people to carry guns in Illinois, by purchasing a Firearms Owners ID card.  The card then allows the person to use the gun or in our case cannabis so long as it is done legally.  If used illegally the right to own, consume or produce is revoked, plus punishment for the crime committed.  It is definitely on the libertarian end of our cannabis regulatory scheme but it might appeal to those who favor minimal government.  Of course the other method is one similar to what Roger stated above, state grown and distributed.  I asked the panelists and moderator if they could imagine any pitfalls to the “hunting license” regulatory scheme for cannabis and none of them really addressed it in the answers (they took multiple questions before responding.)

Panel: Taking the Profit out of the Drug War  Moderator:  Margaret Dooley-Sammuli (DPA)  Panelists:  Scott Bullock (Institute for Justice), Matt Fogg (LEAP), Nsombi Lambright (ALCU of Mississippi), Paul Wright (Prison Legal News).

The first panelist Paul Wright elaborated on how private prisons are friends with the Republicans and are opposed by Prison Guard Unions who are friends with the Democrats.  The private prisons employ non-union guards and pay them significantly less and short staff them, often starting them out at $7.50/hour in Florida and Mississippi contrasted with union guards in California who start at $40K/year and quickly move to $60K/year.  He put the Corrections Corporation of America as donating $2 Million to federal lobbying alone.  Another point was that there is no real federal push back in lobbying from drug policy reform, whereas other issues have more equal pressuring.

Scott Bullock delved into the outrageous realm of civil asset forfeiture.  Bringing up cases like U.S. vs. $10,480 or New Jersey vs. 1994 Chevy Corvette because under civil asset forfeiture laws the property commits the crime and the owner of the property must prove that the property was not paid for or acquired with illegal drug money or illegal methods.  Often the property owners are not convicted of a crime and the burden of proof is on the property owners.  One stat he had was that in 2008 there was $1 Billion in the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund.  Asset forfeiture he told us was a legal form of money laundering between the states and feds because in some states with less seizing ability of the state the feds can adopt the case and then the feds and state equally split the money.  Furthermore, only 29 states have reporting on asset forfeiture and there is very little public discourse about civil asset forfeiture.

Mississippi has some problems, and one that Nsombi Lambright mentioned was that the police are setting up roadblocks outside of black churches on Sundays looking for drugs.  Plus, the city of Jackson is still paying for the costs of the mayor destroying reputed crack houses.  Another example she spoke of was a case where a man was sentenced to 34 years in prison for less than an ounce of cocaine that was scrapped off the floor of his car.  Adding also how felons cannot vote unless they pass a bill through the legislature specifically restoring their voting rights.

One of the great LEAP speakers that I have heard before, Matt Fogg, recalled how when he was running a drug task force he realized how racially biased the enforcement of drug laws were and people around him would not support him bringing it to attention.  One of his great lines was, “If we locked up people who were doing drugs across the board, this drug war would’ve ended long ago.”  Another LEAP member, an active New Hampshire police officer, briefly cited how New Hampshire will release some of their state prisoners in order to contract out with the feds to house their inmates for more money.

And in the closing plenary former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson praised drug policy reformers for the work that we are doing and told of a personal injury and how he was prescribed painkillers for ten days but then had four weeks of withdrawal from them.  He also stated that methamphetamine is a prohibition drug because if cocaine were legal most people who use meth would use cocaine.

There were about seven other speakers giving very brief closing remarks I didn’t catch all their names but a few I did. First was Nubia Legarda who recollected how she was unable to go back to Ciudad Juarez when her grandma died and her work with UT- El Paso SSDP.  Another was “Moe” Maestas the sponsor of the New Mexico medical cannabis law brought back how he had to debate crazy people on the floor of the House of Representatives for three hours.  Lynn Paltrow correctly commented on the misnomer of a title of one panel “Collateral Damage of the Drug War, women, children and families.”   Adding that we need to unite under shared values with other causes like gay rights, abortion, housing, education etc.  Then there was Lorenzo Jones reciting some Notorious BIG “Everyday Struggle” lyrics and telling us how his pastor told him “you can’t bring that shit in here,” referring to talking about drug policy reform and harm reduction.  Finally gabriel sayegh closed it out with a moment of silence for Michael Phillips a man with a brain stem illness who had never left his home much less Alabama but was able to make it to New Orleans for the previous DPA conference and died there.  Following that was a chant of Si, Se Puede and the conference ended, signaling that it was time for the troops to disperse back to their parts of the planet and continue fighting in this War on Drugs.

Overall, the conference was great, lots of insightful information, although some of it tragic and horrible but still empowering and invigorating.  One of the registration staff told me there were approximately 1,200 registrants and that it was the most internationally attended drug policy reform conference yet.  The final night we hit up a place called Blackbird where the jalapeno bottle caps were tantalizing and the sweet potato fries crisp and salty.  A folksy-western blues band with a stand up bass and violinist played in the corner by the bar; it was a pleasant close to the conference.  And for those who are keeping score at home, the two green chile chicken burritos I had Friday night, from the same street corner vendor, makes it three for the entire conference.

This OpEd in the Milwaukee Journal-Star Sentinel was too bizarre to pass up. Written by freelance writer Jenny Rae Armstrong: Think pot’s harmless? Think again

It starts out as one of the standard pieces about how many people think pot is harmless, but they’re ignoring all the people dying in Mexico because of pot (really because of prohibition). The problem with all these OpEds is that they then propose that people simply stop buying pot and solve the problem (which, of course, won’t work, while legalization will).

Armstrong takes it to new heights of absurdity:

So what to do? Create tougher drug laws to crack down on marijuana suppliers, dealers and the 40% of Americans who have in fact inhaled? Legalize marijuana in the hopes of turning drug cartels into respectable, tax-paying entities? Press for domestic production of pot, so our struggling farmers can rake in some green? After all, there’s big money to be made in marijuana. Enough money to warrant widespread kidnappings, torture and murder.

Or, we the people could employ the time-honored techniques we Wisconsinites have traditionally used to combat exploitative business practices. We could band together, make a lot of noise and bring the issues to light. We could protest the greed, corruption and violence being committed in the name of commerce. We could take personal responsibility, make sacrifices, vote with our pocketbooks and drive the drug cartels out of business.

We could be a good neighbor and just say no.

Make a lot of noise, protest, and vote with our pocketbooks? What does that mean?

Friday was a psychedelic day for me as all three panels I attended covered current research into the use of psychedelics for cognitive, behavioral, and psychological treatment for systems ranging from end-of-life anxiety, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), anorexia, cancer, depression, and addictive disorders.

One highlight for me was to hear Dennis McKenna speak twice—first on the ancient uses for psilocybin in ancient and Aztec cultures; second on the healing potential of ayahuasca, a hallucinogenic tea originating from South America. He discussed the findings of the Hoasca study, which showed that ayahuasca has no acute toxicity, no neurological, cognitive, or personality dysfunctions in both short and long-term users. The study did find that long-term users had elevated densities of serotonin transporters; whereas, people who suffer from alcoholism, suicidal thoughts, and binge eating have deficits in these transporters.

Another highlight for me was hearing Franz Voillenweider, student of Albert Hoffman, discuss his current research into the chemical activity of the brain in users of psychedelics. He is perplexed by the question as to why and how psychedelics change, blur, and otherwise disrupt the boundary between ego and other in users. One question his research explores is whether or not there is a common denominator in the change of brain activity in various types of consciousness-altering behavior, such as meditation, drumming, and use of psychedelics since most people express a common “feeling of oneness with all” when participating in these activities.

The first panel, “Psychedelic Research: Neuroscience and Ethnobotanical Roots,” explored potential uses of psilocybin for medicine and psychiatry. The second, “The Re-emergence of Psychedelics: Implications for Novel Treatment Paradigms,” reviewed various treatment models and explored a common theme among reports from test subjects, which is that they had a mystical experience during treatment. The last panel, “Ayahuasca: Traditional Uses and Modern Adaptations,” explored the social and cultural contexts in which ayahuasca is used and projected ways in which it will be used in the future.

By tamara

The Award Dinner at the 2009 Drug Policy Alliance reform conference will be with me forever.

The award winners are:

• The Edward M. Brecher Award for Achievement in the Field of Journalism:
  Montel Williams
• The Alfred R. Lindesmith Award for Achievement in the Filed of Scholarship:
  Jeffrey Miron
• The Robert C. Randall Award for Achievement in the Field of Citizen Action:
  Howard Lotsof
  &
  Deborah Peterson Small
• The Norman E. Zinberg Award for Achievement in the Field of Medicine:
  Dr. Martin Schechter
• The H.B. Spear Award for Achievement in the Field of Control and Enforcement:
  Peter Christ
• The Justice Gerald Le Dain Award for Achievement in the Field of Law:
  Assembly member Jeffrion L. Aubry
• The Dr. Andrew Weil Award for Achievement in the Field of Drug Education:
  Marsha Rosenbaum
• The Richard J. Dennis Drugpeace Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Drug Policy Reform:
  Donald MacPherson

If you met any of these amazing, passionate people, or if their work ever touched you, let us know in the comments.

I will say only this: I know you have our backs, Montel, but that goes both ways!

Panel: Fundraising in a tough economy  Facilitator and Panelist:  Clovis Thorn (DPA), Panelists:  asha bandele (DPA), David Glowka (DPA), Leonard Noisette (OSI).

This panel was interesting for me since fundraising has become a necessary evil for me in my efforts to reform drug policy on the state and local level in Illinois.  I hate asking people for money but have learned over the years that as long as you’re working for a good cause and your work can speak for itself fundraising does not have to be painful or dreaded.  The panelists explained what works when asking them for funds and what has been successful in their efforts at securing funding.  One thing they emphasized was treating donors as partners and not just as money bags, stating how a “no” should be seen as an opportunity to ask that donor for someone who would be willing to fund the project.   Some numbers were provided in the beginning of the session stating how foundations are operating at a lower level than previously but small donations and internet donations have been an exception to donation drops in the hard economy.

The second session I attended was a training session on Hepatitis C advocacy titled “Hepatitis C:  Crossroads of Public Health and Drug Policy.”  Presenters:  Daniel Raymond (Harm Reduction Coalition), Narelle Ellendon (Harm Reduction Coalition).

My desire to become a more vocal advocate for Hepatitis patients stems from the death of a friend and colleague last summer, Derek Rea.  Derek was a Board Member of Illinois NORML and administered the Letter of the Week selection for the DrugSense Weekly Newsletter and he contracted Hepatitis while incarcerated many years ago.  He had told me about how while in prison he turned to injection drug use for comfort and contracted the virus.

This session was very informative on how Hep. C is frequently contracted in prisons and corrections facilities avoid testing for it because once inmates have been diagnosed then the prison will have to provide them with treatment.  However, if they never test for it, they never know the patients have it, so they don’t have to pay for the healthcare needed to treat Hep. C.  It is simply a matter of money, as it so often is. . . . Info was also provided on how Hep. C patients are often disenfranchised especially when compared with HIV/AIDS patients because there are some many more resources for HIV/AIDS patients than Hep. C patients.  Furthermore, advocates and Hep. C patients are not organized very well and therefore are not mobilized very well to advocate for the research and treatment that is necessary to combat this virus.

The feature plenary today, Global Drug Prohibition: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives was moderated by Kasia Malinowska (OSI) and the presenters were Jorge Casteneda (Former Foreign Minister of Mexico), Alex Wodak (International Harm Reduction Association) and Daniel Wolfe (OSI).

Alex Wodak started the plenary off with a humorous PowerPoint presentation looking at the success of drug prohibition and likened the drug war to a “political Viagra.”  The drug war “increases potency in elections.”  The presentation was well received and appreciated because it was right after lunch (kosher hot dog for me) and a dull talk would’ve put me to sleep.  However, it was just what the attendees seemed to need, an amusing look at how the US has exported a failed drug policy in a futile attempt to claim it as victorious and successful.  Mr. Wodak mentioned how narco states like Afghanistan, Mexico, Pakistan, Burma, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia all have been impacted by drug prohibition and run the risk of becoming failed states, especially Mexico and Pakistan.  His presentation was supposed to be made available either online or on compact discs at the conference but I haven’t seen them but if anyone can find them it is entertaining and educating.

He was followed up Jorge Castaneda who focused primarily on Latin America and how leaders in those countries cannot change their policy even if they wanted to.  American authorities can and will intervene in their countries as the Americans wish and they do not need to disguise their intentions because they simply can get away with it.  This “radioactive” political issue, as he put it, is not applicable to elder statesmen or people like himself with “no political future.”  He stated how drug policy is, however, a central issue with most Latin Americans and praised the former Latin American political leaders for their position paper denouncing the failed drug prohibition.

Lastly, Daniel Wolfe spoke of other countries and their disastrous drug policies.  Namely, Vietnam with over 50,000 drug prisoners forced in work camps, essentially becoming slaves to the state.  Also noteworthy were Bali and Indonesia where he claimed that 90% of people in prison were there for nonviolent drug offenses.  On a more positive note it was revealed how Brazil decriminalized drugs in 2001 but waited until they had the data supporting the policy change to formally announce it, likely for fear of US backlash.  One other strange coincidence, or perhaps a deeper understanding of those who grasp the failure of drug prohibition, was the fact that both Brazil and Portugal have now decriminalized drugs and they both speak Portuguese.

During the follow up Q + A it was declared that $322 Billion US Dollars are spent each year in the illicit drug trade.  How they came up with that number I have no idea because they could not come up with a number for the total amount of money spent combating the drug war and one would think that legal money is easier to track than illegal, right?

The final panel I attended today was “Policing Drug Markets”  Moderator:  Ira Glasser (DPA) Panelists:  Harry Levine (Queens College), Sonny Leeper (Law Enforcement Training Institute), Kris Nyrop (The Defender Associaiton), Matt McCally (LEAP), and Daniel Bear (London School of Economics).

I wanted to catch this panel because I live in Chicago and on my corner is a flashing blue light and police camera because it is a “high crime area.”  What I have noticed and learned from such approaches is that the drug dealing that probably was occurring on the corner before the light was there (the light was there when I moved into the neighborhood) is now occurring in the alley and the corner two blocks away.  So I felt I could add that to the conversation if needed but the panel was very talkative and there were far too many questions to be fielded once Q + A time began, so I saved it for a few thoughts I shared with Ira after the panel concluded.

Harry Levine’s presentation I had recently seen at the NORML conference in San Francisco in September and it still astonishes me.  It does so because I read about the Chicago Police Department and their “problems” but the NYPD just seems have the edge on our boys in blue.  That is because of their aggressive hunting techniques in seeking drug arrests, specifically low-level cannabis violations where state law has decriminalized possession of up to almost an ounce so long as it is in your pocket, backpack, home, or simply out of public site.  Even so, there were more arrests for cannabis in NYC than any other city in the world.  That is because it is good policing to lie and this is the easiest way to get “files in the system.”  In other words, these cannabis and other drug arrests are the best way to get fingerprints, photos and sometimes DNA of folks who otherwise the FBI might not have info on.

The other presenter I found to be exceptional on this panel was Sonny Leeper, a man who has trained police officers and also testified in favor of New Mexico’s medical cannabis law, syringe exchanges and other drug policy reform causes.  He blamed officers’ discretion as “too wide” in drug policing and some officers use drug arrest to boost their stats and seek promotions.  He elaborated on the need to work with law enforcement officers, educate them, seek common values and then they will comply with reform laws and help pass new ones.  Another thing he talked about was the need for police to stop using confidential informants, as the tragedy of Rachel Hoffman should have taught us.

There were some disagreements as to whether it is best to work top-down with law enforcement or to start by educating and working with the police on the streets in our neighborhoods and then build up.  I’d offer that both methods should be utilized simultaneously.

I’m really enjoying reading the posts by Jesper, Dan, and Tamara. Makes me feel a little bit like I’m there, enjoying the conference. Instead, I’m cruising at 31,000 feet mid-flight on my way to Baltimore for a conference for work (WiFi on Delta is pretty good). I’ll be there tonight and tomorrow night.

The American Medical Association Reconsiders Marijuana. Will The Justice Department Follow? (No.) by Jessica Bennett

The Economist: Drugs. Virtually Legal

The excellent Transform Report: After the War on Drugs. Blueprint for Regulation is picking up some good press.

There’s Legalise drugs and save Scotland £2bn a year, says think-tank by Lachlan Mackinnon in the Daily Record (UK).

Then there’s Sue Blackmore in the Guardian with The jaw-jaw after the war on drugs. Very nice piece.

Blueprint comes up with a discussion model for psychedelics based on membership of psychedelic groups or clubs, and licensed vendors with specific responsibilities as well as licensed users. Does this make sense? Would it work? I don’t know. But then no one knows.

I can only say that I would welcome such a step. If LSD were legally available I personally would like to take it quite rarely – perhaps once a year or so – for the extraordinary insights it can give and the lessons it teaches. I am not alone: an online survey by Erowid of thousands of experienced LSD users showed that most would want to take it about once a year if it were legal.

The BBC weighs in with Sell drugs in shops – think tank. The Home Office response was amusing:

But the Home Office said it had “no intention of either decriminalising or legalising currently controlled drugs”.

She added: “Drugs are controlled for good reason — they are harmful to health. Their control protects individuals and the public from the harms caused by their misuse.”

Ah, not interested in regulating drugs, because they are “controlled.” By whom?

Jacob Sullum reviews the publication over at Reason. He does a good job, but I feel for him in this. In many ways, this piece is anathema to libertarians — it’s about regulation, Nanny state, health codes, and so forth. And yet prohibition it the absolute worst thing for libertarians. Most libertarians understand that it’ll be impossible to get the numbers on the side of legalization without the believe that there are practical and workable regulatory systems that could be put in place.

I understand that ending the war on drugs will require an alliance between people whose main concern is individual freedom and people whose main concern is promoting “public health.” Although both groups of antiprohibitionists recognize the terrible toll wrought by the vain crusade for a drug-free society, the public-health types are bound to have more say about the details of the system that replaces prohibition, which is likely to have many features that offend libertarians. That prospect should not deter us from thinking about what the world will look like after the war on drugs, and this report is good way to start that debate.

Exactly.

Earlier, I mentioned a section of the report that really rang true with me, and I want to share it here.

Supporters of prohibition present any steps towards legal regulation of drug markets as ‘radical’, and therefore innately confrontational and dangerous. However, the historical evidence demonstrates that, in fact, it is prohibition that is the radical policy. Legal regulation of drug production, supply and use is far more in line with currently accepted ways of managing health and social risks in almost all other spheres of life.

By contrast, the presentation of drugs as an existential ‘threat’ has generated a policy response within which unevidenced and radical measures are justified. Drug policy has evolved within a context of ‘securitization’, characterised by increasing powers and resources for enforcement and state security apparatus. The outcomes of this strategy, framed as a drug ‘war’, include the legitimisation of propaganda, and the suspension of many of the working principles that define more conventional social policy, health or legal interventions. Given that the War on Drugs is predicated on ‘eradication’ of the ‘evil’ drug threat as a way of achieving a ‘drug free world’, it has effectively established a permanent state of war. This has led to a high level policy environment that ignores critical scientific thinking, and health and social policy norms. Fighting the threat becomes an end in itself and as such, it creates a largely self-referential and self-justifying rhetoric that makes meaningful evaluation, review and debate difficult, if not impossible.

Prohibition has become so entrenched and institutionalised that many in the drugs field, even those from the more critical progressive end of the spectrum, view it as immutable, an assumed reality of the legal and policy landscape to be worked within or around, rather than a policy choice. It is in this context that we seek to highlight how the basics of normative health and social policy can be applied to developing effective responses to drugs. Put bluntly, it is prohibition, not legal regulation that is the radical policy.

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.