Drug WarRant

In today’s editorial: A federal misstep with medical marijuana?, they make their concerns about the recent Holder memo clear.

That cost is Washington’s tacit approval of state-sanctioned medical marijuana, which the drug’s proponents will take as a green light to push even harder for their ultimate goal: full legalization of marijuana use and distribution.

And that, of course, is the sham argument to fear of the prohibitionist — if we allow medical marijuana efforts to continue, people will start to accept marijuana and maybe lead to legalizing it, therefore, because we have no valid moral position to stand on, we should deny sick people something that will help them.

So what is this great fear they have of legalized marijuana. Note as more and more science has debunked the various reefer madness talking points, their arguments sound pathetically weak (even if they don’t realize it).

Generally, marijuana is not nearly as harmless as its proponents make it out to be. While pot cannot directly kill its user the way that alcohol or, say, an overdose of heroin can, heavy use can lead to dependence. About 1 in 10 people who have ever used marijuana become dependent at some time, according to Kevin Sabet, in the 2006 book, “Pot Politics.” Mr. Sabet, a staunch opponent of legalizing marijuana, is now a drug policy adviser to the president.

Heavy use can also lead to serious mental-health problems, especially in young people. Even casual use distorts perception, reduces motor skills, and affects alertness – a hazard in driving and other activities.

These concerns should cause the public to stop and rethink its growing support for legal use of marijuana (44 percent, according to an October Gallup poll, up from 34 percent in 2003).

Other than the “serious mental-health problems” from heavy use by teens (extremely disputable, and even if true, a good argument for regulation), there is nothing there conceivably warranting anything more than a warning label on the packaging at most.

I want to go back to part of that, though…

Mr. Sabet, a staunch opponent of legalizing marijuana, is now a drug policy adviser to the president.

Excuse me? When did this happen? Was I asleep?

I was beginning to think it was an outright lie, until I found this article online.

Sabet, 30, a special advisor for policy and strategic planning at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, joined two other panelists to discuss the “State of Addiction Healthcare” in Illinois and the U.S. […]

Sabet, who joined President Barack Obama’s Administration in August, previously worked on policy and speechwriting at White House drug control office from 2003-2004 and 2000 in both the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton Administrations, making him one of the youngest people to have served in the last three Administrations as a political appointee.

I knew the part about him working with past administrations, but I missed the announcement about his new gig with the Obama administration.

A search of the ONDCP website for Sabet comes up with 0 hits, nor does he show up on the DOJ site.

What is a special advisor for policy and strategic planning at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and if you are one, why wouldn’t you be listed at the ONDCP?

Does anyone know what’s up with this?

Update: I’ve received confirmation that Kevin Sabet is indeed working with the ONDCP — just not in a high profile way. Interesting.

I’ve seen Kevin debate. His arguments are those of the prohibitionist, so they’re weak and don’t stand up to rebuttal. However, compared to the outrageous folks that filled the ONDCP in the last administration, Sabet comes off as a somewhat reasonable fellow who is at least willing to listen, even though his mind’s made up.

Well, the Monday release of the medical marijuana non-interference guidelines memo resulted in some pretty good national coverage. It’s been big news all over the media and the internet.

Here’s a brief rundown of some of the more interesting ones…

Marijuana And State Budgets: Now What? — US News and World Report Money uses the memo and the recent Gallup poll to speculate on when states will step up and eye the potential tax revenue.

U.S. Won’t Prosecute in States That Allow Medical Marijuana, in the New York Times, contained this rather ironic reaction to the news.

But one prominent conservative, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, criticized the Justice Department’s position, saying it would weaken drug enforcement.

“By directing federal law enforcement officers to ignore federal drug laws, the administration is tacitly condoning the use of marijuana in the United States,” said Mr. Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “If we want to win the war on drugs, federal prosecutors have a responsibility to investigate and prosecute all medical marijuana dispensaries and not just those that are merely fronts for illegal marijuana distribution.”

Two notes: Win the war on drugs? Right. And did you notice how he essentially stated that we need to prosecute legal dispensaries (by comparing them to illegal ones)?

Holder’s Baby Step On Medical Marijuana. Chris Weigant isn’t impressed.

What this all means is that today’s news, while good for the medical marijuana movement, is simply not good enough, because it changes no underlying federal law. Meaning that, if President Obama — and Attorney General Holder, and the local Drug Enforcement Agency, and the local federal prosecutor — all deem a particular medical marijuana dispensary acceptable, then it won’t be raided. But if anyone in that chain of command decides you’re outside the state law in any way, then you cannot even mention the words “medical marijuana” in your court case after they arrest you. You will simply be prosecuted as a “dealer” or “trafficker” and will be gagged so you cannot explain who you were really selling marijuana to.

This is still unacceptable. The citizens of fourteen states have determined that medical marijuana should be allowable. At the very least, you should be able to present this defense to a jury in a federal courtroom. Because without this change, all it would take is one D.E.A. office or one federal attorney to take a dislike to your operation, and you won’t even be allowed to adequately defend yourself in court. And even if everyone in that chain of authority behaves themselves for the next four (or eight) years, Obama won’t always be president. Meaning that all it would take is another memo by another attorney general, and the policy will go right back to where it was previously.

Gateway Drug Policy: Will Obama’s new medical marijuana directive actually change anything? by Christopher Beam at Slate

Where the new federal guidelines could have an effect is on states currently considering medical marijuana laws. Right now, 13 states allow some degree of medical marijuana consumption. (There are 14 if you count Maryland, which reduces the penalty if the marijuana you’re caught using is for medical purposes.) Another dozen or so have bills moving through their legislature. In many cases, lawmakers have been skittish about OKing dispensaries for fear that the Drug Enforcement Administration would come and shut them down. Now that’s no longer a concern. […]

Most states take their cues from the federal government on drug policy. The practice traces back to passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which aimed to create a uniform set of drug regulations across the country. During the drug war in the 1980s and ’90s, the federal government started awarding grants to help states with law enforcement in exchange for aligning their drug policies with federal guidelines. So when the federal government signals its preference not to pursue medical marijuana users, states may take the cue.

A New Course on Medical Marijuana?, also in the New York Times, features reactions to the news from five individuals (two of which are LEAP members!)

Former ONDCP associate director Tom Riley thinks the memo is no big deal and changes nothing.

Joseph D. McNamara, James E. Gierach, and Richard N. Van Wickler generally see it as a somewhat positive step forward but are looking for more.

Former FDA official Henry I. Miller is unsurprised, but falls back on the annoying old whine that we don’t know enough about marijuana, that we need to study it for a couple more centuries and turn it into pharmaceuticals that can profit big pharma before we allow any sick people to feel better.

Of course, the problem with polls is that each one has a different set of data, and the sampling methods and the questions asked are huge factors. And the question asked can have an even bigger effect when you’re talking about marijuana, where propaganda has influenced the public’s ability to think rationally.

For example, if you conducted two random polls using the following two questions:

• Should marijuana be legalized?
• Should people be arrested for marijuana?

… I think you’d find dramatically different results. Imagine the results if you asked:

• Should marijuana be regulated with age and purity controls, or should it be left in the hands of criminals to manage?

Still, the new poll results from Gallup are encouraging, particularly as they show a consistent direction that is very positive.

The gallup poll has a couple of other interesting points. One is that we’ve done very with women, with a 12% increase in support from 2005 to 2009 (bringing them now essentially even with male support). That’s impressive.

The other point is that we’ve still got a real uphill battle with Republicans/conservatives. While both categories showed increases in support for legalization, their previous numbers were so skewed that they’re still by far the greatest opponents of legalization.

How do we change that?

Another tiny step forward.

Associated Press

A 3-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

It’s a positive step, and having a detailed memo is certainly better than some vague statements by the Attorney General (I’ll be interested to see exactly what it says), but based on these preliminary reports, it still amounts to little more than a well meaning, but toothless, suggestion.

You want to make a statement? Tell the DEA and federal prosecutors that medical marijuana cases are completely off-limits in medical marijuana states (strictly state jurisdiction), unless specifically invited in by the state government (and not just local law enforcement). Now that would be a good start.

Update: Glenn Greenwald briefly discusses this and other drug war trends in his post today.

Update 2: It’s interesting that the administration chose to roll this out on a Monday, and even went so far as to advance prep the AP on the story. Rather than dumping it in the trash (ie, when the White House wants to downplay a story, they release it with a bunch of other stuff on Friday afternoon to reduce the coverage), they seem to be promoting it.

This seems to be a positive development — perhaps recognition that not being against medical marijuana is politically savvy? Too soon to tell.

I’m also interested by the fact that all the medical marijuana advocates seem to be trumpeting this heavily as a total victory, even before the text of the memo is released. This could be good strategy, as it may help spin the rest of the media to play it that way. But it also has the potential to lead to disappointment when the next DEA medical marijuana raids happen in California following the caveats in the new guidelines (and they will).

Update 3: Full text of the memo after the jump…
Continue reading →

Newsweek:

• Ethan Nadelmann’s Fight to Legalize Marijuana
• Video: Pot’s Biggest Bud – about Ethan Nadelmann
• Welcome to Potopia – How Oakland is Leading Marijuana Legalization
• Video: Marijuana Mecca
• How L.A. Became Overrun With Legal Marijuana

Elle Magazine:

• Pot Stirring – Some are using marijuana as their drug of choice to curb anxiety

New York Times:

• Los Angeles Prepares for Clash Over Marijuana

I know this is hardly worth noting, but we so seldom get visitors like this showing up at Drug WarRant, I get a kind of perverse thrill when one does.

Back in one of my recent posts about Caballes (the really bad Supreme Court ruling that allows dog-triggered searches on cars without any other suspicion), there is a new comment from Bob, responding to my concerns:

You are a certified fucking idiot. Why don’t we just hand the roads to the miscreants who sell drugs to kids on street corners. Lets play paddy cake with these dirt bags while we are at it. Or better yet how about blind man’s bluff. If you want to give carte blance to the degenerates who sell drugs for a living be my guest. We use dogs for just about every conceivable thing under the sun but not find drugs. You know what your problem is you moron? Your a moron. And there is nobody more self-righteous than a self righteous moron. Fuck You.

Apparently, I am an idiot or a moron. Perhaps both.

Some New York Republicans are thinking about going the “soft on drugs” route

Queens Republicans and their Assembly colleagues signaled last week that they will make a major issue of the repealed Rockefeller drug laws in next year’s legislative elections.

Personally, I think it’s a bad political move in this economy. [Via]

I love the title of this OpEd by Bruce Mirken: Why Is L.A’.s District Attorney Helping Mexican Drug Cartels?

LAST Thursday, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley announced a sweeping new plan to boost the profits of Mexican drug cartels, a plan almost certain to increase the slaughter these vicious gangs are perpetrating on both sides of the U.S. – Mexico border.

Of course, Cooley didn’t call it that. He claimed, on dubious legal grounds, that all medical marijuana dispensaries in the county are illegal and announced plans to crack down on them.

Why I Give Marijuana to my Autistic Child by Marie Myung-Ok Lee. Powerful piece you should read.

Don’t walk up to a policeman with a bag of marijuana stuck to your forehead. Just a thought. [Via]

Looking for one of those articles that really makes you doubt the humanity of the author? Here’s one. [Thanks, Tom]

First, drug addiction needs to be viewed as a choice, not an illness. Mao Zedong, the former leader of China, cured 20 million opium addicts over just one weekend by announcing that anyone still addicted would be shot on Monday.

Economics and the Drug War by Bart Frazier at Lew Rockwell. Basic stuff (to us).

Headline: Cops report dead man ate broccoli on the night he died.

That would make as much sense as this one: Cops: Stephen had smoked cannabis
(the article is even worse). [Thanks, Mike]

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.

Washington Post:

The Senate’s second-ranking Democrat introduced a bill Thursday that would eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cocaine, an issue that has frustrated judges, civil rights advocates and drug reform proponents for more than two decades. […]

Some law enforcement officials have advocated eliminating the disparity by increasing the penalties for possession of powder cocaine, rather than, as Durbin’s bill does, reducing the sentence for crack.

But those calling for a change in the law also cite economic reasons at a time when budgets are tight, noting that half of all federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses.

Good for my senator Durbin. I just wonder what’s taken so long for it to get to this level. Sentencing commission, Obama, and everyone else (except certain law enforcement and prison lobbying groups, of course), have called for this final step in ending the disparity.

Remember, this is part 2 of the sentencing reform. In January, 2008, there was a small amount of crack cocaine sentencing reform that involved the early release of some of the longest sentences for crack cocaine.

At the time…

Speaking before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that “a sudden influx of criminals from federal prison into your communities could lead to a surge in new victims as a tragic, but predictable, result.”

A year later, I noted that the fear card was toothless.

You can bet that the fear card will be played again to try to derail the Durbin bill (and its companion in the House).

But perhaps people are starting to realize that the fear card has been maxed out.

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police in Washington, said Thursday he was still digesting the Durbin bill. In the past, his members had taken the position that “the best way to eliminate the disparity would be to raise the penalties for powder to those of crack.” But Pasco said his organization had developed a good relationship with the Judiciary Committee and that he would “look forward to the process” in Congress.

That’s a new one.

David Montgomery, in the Washington Post, has a delightful article about the symbolic planting that took place Tuesday at DEA headquarters by industrial hemp advocates.

The group included David Bronner of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, North Dakota farmer Wayne Hauge, and 73-year-old Will Allen, a farmer from Vermont. VoteHemp staff were there as well.

A total of six were arrested for trespassing and will have hearings this week. The expected fine is $240.

The DEA had nothing to say.

Phillip Smith has detailed coverage of this protest, including video, over at Stop the Drug War.

The Tri-City Times has published several letters responding to the Illegal drugs means danger OpEd that we discussed.