Drug WarRant

As everyone know, needle exchange programs work. They dramatically reduce disease and don’t increase drug abuse. That hasn’t stopped the neanderthal sado-moralists in Congress from reflexively opposing such programs.

Progress was made last year, when Congress allowed the district to fund needle exchange with their own money. Then, this year, it appeared that the ban on federal funding for needle exchange was finally to be lifted.

Except…

Jack Kingston (R-Georgia) inserted an amendment prohibiting the programs from operating (whether funded by federal or district money) “within 1,000 feet of a school, library, park, college, video arcade or any place where children might be present.”

Now remember, 1,000 feet is the length of 3 football fields. Can you name a single place in the District of Columbia that isn’t within three football fields of a place where children might be present?

The only hope is that a copycat amendment won’t be added to the Senate bill and the Kingston amendment can be erased in conference.

The Washington Post has a strong editorial today:
Blunted needles: Congress is set to stick it to clean-syringe programs.

The Harm Reduction Coalition has an action alert for writing to your Senators.

A stimulating and explosive point-counterpoint at CBS between retired Superior Court Justice (and LEAP member) James P. Gray, and Drug Free America Foundation’s David Evans (who looks like, if he could loosen up a little, the father on That 70’s Show).

• Part 1
• Part 2

Gray has the patience of a saint in dealing with Evans. Evans avoids all the tough questions, keeps going back to his talking points without responding to Gray’s rebuttals, and then, when backed into a corner, accuses Gray of not documenting his assertions.

Ben Goldacre has a scathing critique of the UK government’s position that science can only go so far in crafting drug policy, and then it has to be simply a political decision (regarding the Nutt sacking).

He points out a list of ways public policy science can analyze drug policy to make informed decisions — as opposed to the government’s apparent ‘pull it out of their ass’ approach.

If you wish to justify a policy that will plainly increase the harms associated with each individual act of drug use, by creating violent criminal gangs as distributors, driving the sale of contaminated black market drugs, blighting the careers of users caught by the police, criminalising three million people, and so on, then people will reasonably expect, as a trade-off, that you will also provide good quality evidence showing that your policy achieves its stated aim of reducing the overall numbers of people using drugs.

Marijuana may be able to help with bi-polar disorder.

Somewhat frustrating article by John Cloud in Time: Is Pot Good For You?. It’s well researched, and has a lot of excellent information. It’s not taken directly from prohibitionist’s talking points, and it gets a lot of information from drug policy reformers.

But it continually takes the “on the one side/on the other side” approach even when not warranted. Sort of like saying “The round-earthers show pictures and evidence to support their view, while the flat earthers counter with tales of ships never heard from again that must have fallen off the edge. Clearly more evidence will be needed to resolve those differences.”

Here’s a frustrating example:

Data on cancer also generate mixed conclusions. A 1999 study of 173 patients with head and neck cancers found that pot smoking elevated the risk of such cancers. (Smokers of anything should also worry about lung cancer.) But it’s not clear that THC is carcinogenic. The latest research suggests that THC may have a dual effect, promoting tumors by increasing free radicals and simultaneously protecting against tumors by playing a beneficial role in a process known as programmed cell DEAth.

OK, a relatively good ending. But why specifically cite a 1999 study of 173 patients, without specifically citing the much more definitive study of thousands of patients in 2006?

Or take this analysis of the supposed lack of medical science supporting medical marijuana:

The A.M.A. issued a report last year summarizing the body of knowledge about medical marijuana. It’s shockingly slim. […]

The A.M.A. concludes that the lack of “high-quality clinical research …continues to hamper development of rational public policy” on medical marijuana. Which raises the question, Why, after five millenniums, doesn’t such research exist? Two possible answers: First, the government may have rejected cannabis studies to avoid any challenge to its view that pot is dangerous and medically useless. Second, pot may just be dangerous and medically useless.

???

Jay Ambrose has a particularly unintelligent OpEd for Scripps Howard News Service: Believe it or not, there are drawbacks to legalizing drugs. You know this is going nowhere when the two people Ambrose turns to for support are James Q. Wilson and John Walters.

With more drug use, Wilson says, will come more people on welfare, more traffic deaths and more ruined marriages.

That’s just the beginning. Because they so decisively unravel our self-control, drugs can render us more likely to do all kinds of things we wouldn’t otherwise do.

Half of all those arrested for committing violent crimes were under the influence of drugs, says John Walters, former director of the Office of National Drug Policy.

He cites this startling statistic: 80 percent of all child abuse cases are drug-related. So this is the great libertarian cause — increase child abuse in America? The obvious fact is that use of illegal drugs does more than harm just the user.

That’s just embarrassing.

I love the conclusion.

And Mexico? Walters observes that decriminalizing marijuana there has hardly put the violent drug gangs out of business.

Wow. First of all, it’s been, what, a couple of months? And anyway, decriminalization wouldn’t put the violent drug gangs out of business. Nobody has said it would. What it would take is legalization (not decriminalization) in the U.S. (not Mexico) to make a serious dent in the violent drug gangs’ financial support.

It has always amazed me the extent to which legislators (and the drug war industry) go way beyond criminalizing drug possession and sale, to the point of creatively finding ways to criminalize all sorts of other activities.

Part of this is the difficulty of “catching” people in victimless crimes, so they need extra ways to charge people, so they can pile on charges and possible turn arrestees into snitches.

Paraphernalia was the big one, of course. The notion of making a piece of glass illegal simply because it’s shaped in a way that could be used to smoke marijuana, is patently absurd. Or getting additional charges because you possess Baggies or a postal scale.

Then there’s the problem catching people actually selling drugs. No problem — don’t require a sale. Simply make a certain quantity “proof” of intent to sell (and then keep reducing that quantity).

Here’s a thought — who needs the drugs anyway? In some places you can arrest people for possession of look-alike drugs if the substance is packed in a manner to resemble a real drug.

Prosecutors have added money laundering charges to a simple drug sale (saying that merely receiving the money is enough to qualify), and even charged meth lab owners with manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon.

At one point, until the Supreme Court reversed, simply having cash hidden in your car, and driving toward Mexico, was evidence of money laundering.

Eugene Volokh, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, writes about another drug war excess: making it illegal to (Among Other Things) “Be[] at a Location Frequented by Persons Who Use, Possess or Sell Drugs

Winston-Salem, N.C., had an ordinance that provided,

(b) It shall be unlawful for a person to remain or wander about in a public place under circumstances manifesting the purpose to engage in a violation of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act, G.S. 90–89 et seq. Such circumstances are:
(1) Repeatedly beckoning to, stopping or attempting to stop passersby, or repeatedly attempting to engage passersby in conversation;

(2) Repeatedly stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicles;

(3) Repeatedly interfering with the free passage of other persons;

(4) Such person behaving in such a manner as to raise a reasonable suspicion that he is about to engage in or is engaged in an unlawful drug-related activity;

(5) Such person repeatedly passing to or receiving from passersby, whether on foot or in a vehicle, money or objects;

(6) Such person taking flight upon the approach or appearance of a police officer; or

(7) Such person being at a location frequented by persons who use, possess or sell drugs.

Fortunately, the North Carolina Court of Appeals struck this down last week.

The court noted the absurdity of the endless possibilities that could result from the law:

Thus, the Ordinance permits the police to arrest a person who socializes at a community event for “repeatedly attempting to engage passersby in conversation[.]” Anyone who attempts to flag down taxicabs violates the Ordinance by “[r]epeatedly stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicles[.]” If an individual stops people on the sidewalk to conduct a public survey, he is “repeatedly interfering with the free passage of other persons[.]” Somebody who hands out fliers in public or collects donations is “repeatedly passing to or receiving from passersby … money or objects[.]” A person who walks in the opposite direction of a police officer that he observes could be considered to be “taking flight upon the approach or appearance of a police officer[.]” A person who is present in an area where drug arrests have occurred or drug-dealers have visited, can be arrested for “being at a location frequented by persons who use, possess or sell drugs.” Accordingly, we hold the Ordinance to be unconstitutionally overbroad

This is just one more reminder of one of the most insidious tactics of the drug war: criminalize everything, so anyone can be subject to the threat of arrest.

Regardless of what you may think of Ayn Rand, or “Atlas Shrugged,” it’s hard not to think of the oft-used quote from that book…

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against . . . We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” — Floyd Ferris, Director of the State Science Institute

The AP has a story — Expanding drug treatment: Is US ready to step up? by David Crary — about treatment, its relative value compared to enforcement, and how states are hesitant to, as Scott Burns says, “put their money where their mouth is.”

As is often the case in articles like this one, plenty of mention is given to the fact that treatment saves money.

The economic case for expanding treatment, especially amid a recession, seems clear. Study after study concludes that treating addicts, even in lengthy residential programs, costs markedly less than incarcerating them, so budget-strapped states could save millions.

However, what’s always missing is the rather obvious corollary that the money needed for expanding treatment could come from enforcement budgets, rather than needing new funds.

Nobody is willing to actually talk about that part.

One of those in the article pushing for more emphasis on treatment dollars (without calling for less emphasis on anything else) is deputy drug czar Tom McLellan.

McLellan, insisting he’s not “a wild-eyed liberal,” said expanding treatment wouldn’t negate the war on drugs.

“Law enforcement is necessary, but it’s not sufficient,” he said.

Interesting that a man appointed by a Democrat would feel it necessary to claim that he’s not a “wild-eyed liberal” holding positions like that held by William F. Buckley, Jr., Ron Paul, Walter Cronkite, all those former cops and judges in Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, clergy in the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, Republican mother Jessica Corry, my parents, and so many others from all walks of life.

Wild-eyed liberals?

I’m up in Chicago for the day with the Illinois State University Improv Mafia — an awesome group competing in the College Improv Regional Tournament.

So I’m a bit out of touch.

What’s going on?

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.

We’ve talked about the inherently racist nature of drug policy quite a bit, but several things brought it to the front of my mind again today.

First, Stephen Gutwillig has an excellent piece in CNN Opinion: Pot acceptable? Not for young and nonwhite

Pot is indeed flourishing in the mainstream as never before, but the sometimes giddy discussion overlooks a sinister parallel phenomenon: More people are being arrested for pot crimes than ever; they are increasingly young and disproportionately nonwhite. […]

Most striking, the marijuana arrest rate in the United States has nearly tripled since 1991. […]

How can the notion that marijuana is “here to stay” coexist with these rates of marijuana arrests? Apparently because the people caught in the crossfire aren’t considered part of the mainstream. In California, African-Americans are three times as likely as whites to be arrested for a pot crime, according to the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice. If you’re young and nonwhite, you are especially targeted.

The increase in marijuana possession arrests of California teenagers of color since 1990 is quadruple that group’s population growth.

It’s an important aspect of drug policy that we can never forget, and one of the many important reasons to push for legalization.

Jacob Sullum at Reason mentions a discussion by John McWhorter regarding books on race that have been under-appreciated, including Ethan Brown’s book (which I am embarrassed to say I have not yet picked up): Snitch: Informants, Cooperators, and the Corruption of Justice. In the discussion McWhorter said something very powerful, that I think is true:

If there were no War on Drugs, I sincerely believe that within a single generation, there would be no perceptible “crisis in black America,” and this book shows much of why that’s true. The War on Drugs turns whole neighborhoods against the cops—with no discernible benefit after more than 30 years.

Sullum follows that quote up with one from The Wire co-creator David Simon:

Look. For 35 years, you’ve…marginalized a certain percentage of your population, most of them minority, and placed them in a situation where the only viable economic engine in their hypersegregated neighborhoods is the drug trade. Then you’ve alienated them further by fighting this draconian war in their neighborhoods, and not being able to distinguish between friend or foe and between that which is truly dangerous or that which is just illegal. And you want to sit across the table from me and say ‘What’s the solution?’ and get it in a paragraph? The solution is to undo the last 35 years, brick by brick. How long is that going to take? I don’t know, but until you start it’s only going to get worse.

Interestingly, today I received a copy of a new book by A. Rafik Mohamed and Erik D. Fritsvold: Dorm Room Dealers: Drugs and the Privileges of Race and Class

I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but from a first skim it’s quite interesting, following the lives and adventures of actual white college student pot dealers, and observing their relative immunity from significant law enforcement targeting, particularly compared to their non-white counterparts on the streets in town.

This is not to say that white college students don’t get arrested (I’ve personally known a few). But the fact is, Rachel Hoffman is the exception, not the rule.

I was caught by a particular passage in the conclusion:

Because of the relationships we established with some of the dealers […] we were fortunately able to remain in contact with or otherwise keep track of several of the dealers […]

Across the board, none […] is presently involved in illicit drug sales, at least not in any substantial way. […] the majority of our former dealers have matured out of crime and are living the “traditional” lives they, their families, and society at large always assumed they would fall into. Unquestionably, this maturation process was made far easier by their lack of formal interaction with the criminal justice system and being formally labeled a drug dealer.

Interestingly, though, the entrepreneurial savvy and spirit of capitalism that were essential assets in many of their illicit businesses are currently evident in their endeavors as they have crossed over to become full-time actors in the lawful economy.

So the black youth on the street corner ends up with a lot of experience in the criminal justice system (from the wrong side), and the white youth in the dorm room gains valuable entrepreneurial experience.

Sure, there are some pretty gross generalizations going on here, but that doesn’t prevent them from being statistically true.

Scott Morgan has a good post: Why Legalizing Marijuana Protects Young People, where he quotes from a parent in Psychology Today:

As a parent, I ask myself, “what are the dangers to teens?” And, what are the likely scenarios? If pot is still illegal to anyone under 21, how will teens get it? I think the most likely scenario is the same as beer and cigarettes. Older brothers and sisters, with IDs, will legally buy packaged marijuana cigarettes at gas stations and share them with younger ones on Friday night parties. As a parent, I ask myself, “how do I feel about this?” And… after a little thought, I actually feel better knowing my child is with trusted friends, ingesting measured substances than on a corner at night buying an illegal substance from a stranger.

Exactly – a rational thought process.

One additional benefit that parents might consider. Under prohibition, if their child has a joint and is caught, the consequences can be much worse to their future.

Stephen Colbert, in his usual style, takes on the privatization of the prison industry, and manages to get in a few good digs (including mention of the Juvenile sentencing for kickbacks scheme in a private detention center).

Link

Medical marijuana users in Maine will be able to buy their pot at licensed dispensaries after voters approved a bill that expands the state’s existing medical marijuana law.

The new law allows patients to buy marijuana at nonprofit dispensaries. It also expands the medical conditions under which people can be prescribed the drug.

In unofficial returns, Question 5 was leading 60 percent to 40 percent with half of precincts reporting.

Link

BRECKENRIDGE, Colo. — The skiing town of Breckenridge voted Tuesday night by a margin of nearly 3 to 1 to legalize the adult possession of marijuana.

Breckenridge voters passed Measure 2F, which removes criminal penalties from the town code for the private possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults 21 and older. The ordinance also removes criminal penalties for the possession of bongs, pipes and other drug paraphernalia.

It passed 73 percent to 27 percent.