Drug WarRant

Although the recent Holder memo doesn’t really change anything in a concrete way (and the Drug Czar and DEA claim that it’s business as usual), there is at least a public perception that there is a kind of tipping point happening here (and perception often drives public policy more than fact).

Sasha Abramsky, writing in the Guardian, says

In and of itself, this is a relatively minor event, a common-sense corrective to another rigid and bullying Bush-era policy. And, in and of itself, there’s not much political capital at stake here for Obama. […]

But, there’s a bigger story here. And it’s that story of the ship of state.

If you exercise too sharp a turn, you risk capsizing. If you go into the turn gradually, giving yourself plenty of room to manoeuvre, you’ve got a much better chance of getting where you want to ultimately go. […]

If you analyse politics simply via the 24-hour-news-cycle, then Obama’s achievements in reforming drug policy have been modest. But, if you think long term […] then I would venture to bet that Monday’s shift on medical marijuana presages some fundamental changes in how America approaches its many drug problems in the years to come.

Over at Narco News, Al Giordano also makes the case for incrementalism The Medical Cannabis Victory: A Textbook Case of Organizing and Resistance

It’s a powerful piece that will be controversial with many, including some regulars here.

…small steps lead to big change […]

In the mid-1990s, some forward-thinking advocates of drug policy reform concluded that the big, central matter – whether recreational drugs should be legalized or not – was simply too big and confusing a matter for so much of the public to tackle all at once. Even the matter of legalizing relatively harmless marijuana was overwhelming in terms of public opinion. As the Gallup poll graph above recounts, in 1996 only 25 percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana, with 73 percent opposed. Any organizing strategy under such overwhelming negative numbers that chose polarization over organizing was doomed to fail.

And so some pioneering voices and organizers set about on a path of incremental change. They chose to hit hard upon a brittle crack in the drug war artifice: that even if three-quarters of Americans did not then want cannabis legalized for everyone, a critical mass had grave misgivings about policies that persecuted people who were ill – with glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, MS and other ailments – and needed the plant as medicine. […]

Thirteen years later, those who enacted the incremental strategy have proved correct, indeed, prophetic. […]

The history textbooks will note forevermore, when looking back at how the United States repealed pot prohibition (something that will likely now come in most of our lifetimes) that it was the strategy of incremental change that opened the floodgates to fundamental change. […]

…there is also a lesson here for the cynics who, in lieu of participating in community organizing and civil resistance campaigns, preferred to talk trash against step-by-step movements for change on any policy front and pose as somehow more “radical” or “pure.” […]

It is by winning those step-by-step incremental victories – through proven methods of community organizing and civil resistance – that more fundamental change is made possible, indeed, likely to come faster than many dreamed just thirteen years ago.

Have at it.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that police can include the entire weight of bong water that tests positive for the presence of a drug when computing the amount of drug possession.

The case involved meth, but you can imagine that they’ll immediately start using it to jack up the amounts for pot possession as well. One cup of water weighs just over 8 ounces.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Paul Anderson said the majority’s decision “does not make sense, and borders on the absurd.” He said it isn’t consistent with what the Legislature intended when it wrote the state’s drug laws. And he blasted Rice County authorities for charging Peck with such a serious crime.

Having strange server problems and can’t seem to post anything other than a short line or two without getting “Service Temporarily Unavailable: The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later..” Hopefully I’ll be able to fix this later today.

In the meantime, feel free to have at it in comments.

Boston.com has The Big Picture — 37 photos from the world of drug use and the drug war.

These are powerful and sometimes very disturbing images.

It’s interesting how perspective changes based on what you know. I look at these photos and I see graphic proof of the undeniable need to end this war on drugs.

And yet, based on the comments, there are others who see these photos as evidence that we need to continue the war on drugs.

Lots of good comments, and some heated words…

…and then there are the ones like this:

So it would be easier to legalize drugs rather than fight the war? That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. What about legalizing murder and pedophilia because they too have been around forever, and people will always kill and harm children anyway. We could just get them counseling and slowly ween them away from their violent and distructive behavior. That is the problem with the liberal mind and why this world is in the shape its in. KILL ALL DEALORS AND THEIR FAMILIES, thats a solution

Sigh.

So far, the responses to the Holder memo (that puts in writing the administration policy of not interfering with state medical marijuana operations unless they feel like it) has gotten a lot of favorable press — so much so that it’s likely to help apply pressure on the feds to actually make good their… pledge to prioritize. So despite the lack of teeth in the memo, it has served up a powerful result.

The prohibitionist nay-sayers have been pretty inconspicuous in this discussion. I already talked about the Christian Science Monitor, and the Drug Czar finally gave his two bits here).

But what about the outrageous ones? OK, you know you love these…

1st up: former Baltimore County drug czar and recovering addict Mike Gimbel in the Baltimore Sun (save us from recovering addicts who want to arrest everyone else for their weaknesses): Medical marijuana is an excuse to get high. Yeah, you know this’ll be good…

This is how we handle all potential new drugs in this country, and if the FDA gives its approval, we get our prescriptions filled at a licensed pharmacy. However, this has never been done with marijuana because we all know the results would be negative since the drug is far more dangerous than anyone wants to admit and its medical use is at best minimal.

No, the FDA is really a government arm of the pharmaceutical industry and not set up to handle drugs like marijuana. Every drug that the FDA has approved is more dangerous than marijuana (you know, side effects like death), and despite the government’s unwillingness to deal with it, the science on marijuana’s medical value fills volumes.

Instead, baby boomer lobbyists have convinced several states to set up independent “marijuana dispensaries” to sell marijuana directly to the public, with a doctor’s prescription. No other drug is dispensed this way. Can you imagine an OxyContin dispensary in your neighborhood?

Yes, I can. They’re called Walgreens, and CVS, and Duane Reade, and Costco. They’re all over the place. How else do you sell prescription drugs, but directly to the public with a doctor’s prescription?

Let’s remember that the two drugs that kill more Americans are the two legal drugs: tobacco and alcohol. Making marijuana legal would only lead to the same results.

And that makes sense… how? Are you saying that things kill you because they’re legal? That somehow legalizing marijuana would suddenly make it lethal when it isn’t now? This is like saying “Let’s remember that the two transportation methods that kill more Americans are two legal ones: cars and motorcycles. Making walking legal would only lead to the same results.”

The major difference is when you smoke pot, the goal is to get “stoned or high,” unlike alcohol and tobacco, where you can use a small amount without creating impairment.

First, what’s wrong with getting high? Everybody looks to do that, whether it’s from eating chocolate, having sex, or going to a prayer meeting. Second, you can have a small amount of pot without creating impairment. Third, if getting high was an undesirable side-effect of drinking, why aren’t there more sales of O’Doul’s and sparkling grape juice?

If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that the higher you get after smoking marijuana, the more impaired you get. So if there is a medical use, let’s put it through the proper channels, but if the real goal is to legalize marijuana, we need to think about the consequences.

Um, yes, the higher you get, the more impaired you get. What does that have to do with this argument?

….

For outrageous, but less funny, you’ll need to read Charles Lane’s post in the Washington Post: Medical marijuana is an insult to our intelligence

He essentially calls Angel Raich a hypochondriac pothead, which did not set well with her considering she has to go in for brain surgery next Wednesday (the tumor is very close to her brain stem).

And Lane throws stuff around without any real connection to reality…

What other substances should we handle this way? Cocaine? Laetrile? Didn’t President Obama just sign a bill authorizing the FDA to regulate the nicotine content of tobacco? And I thought he promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” […] The “medical marijuana” movement may not be a threat to our civilization, but it is an insult to our intelligence.

Considering Lane does believe that there are some uses for medical marijuana and that decriminalization is a discussion worth having, the inflammatory nature of this article was just an opportunity to be nasty.

If he was looking to stir up the pot, he certainly succeeded — the comments section is boiling over.

Update: Lane changed his post to drop out some of the more inflammatory statements.

The drug czar’s getting kind of lazy with his “blog.” Apparently somebody decided that they should post something today encouraging people to get involved in drug-free work week, which begins began… Monday.

Shoot, only one week to be drug-free, and we’ve already missed half of it.

That got me wandering around some of the Department of Labor pages on the topic and I ran into something I hadn’t heard before. Apparently, the Department of Transportation has a new rule, as of August, requiring certain drug testing situations to utilize mandatory direct observation collections.

What does that mean?

Direct observation is a procedure that requires a same-gender observer to “watch the urine go from the employee’s body into the collection container.” […] The direct observation rule also requires that immediately prior to all direct observation tests, employees must raise their shirts above the waist and lower their lower clothing to allow observers to verify the absence of any cheating devices.

Now there’s a job for you.

What kind of a sick society are we breeding?

Kathleen Parker writes of Reefer Sanity in the Washington Post, and notes a shift that we’ve talked about here…

But the shift toward a more sensible national policy is no longer confined to the left. Nor is the long-haired stoner the face of the pro-pot lobby. Today’s activist, more likely, doesn’t have facial hair, but she does have kids.

Lately to the smallish conservative crowd, notably once led by anti-prohibitionist William F. Buckley, is Jessica Corry of Colorado, a married, pro-life Republican mom, soon to be “freedom fighter of the month” in High Times magazine.

Recent partakers undoubtedly will have to rub their eyes for a double take when they spot Corry, who spoke last month at a NORML conference (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) in San Francisco, wearing an American flag lapel pin, a triple strand of pearls and a gold marijuana leaf pin.

Another day, another stereotype in the dust bin.

We noted that the recent Gallup Poll showed a 12 percentage point increase in support for marijuana legalization among women from 2005 to 2009. Recent articles in Marie Claire and Elle have talked about the successful female pot smoker.

And yes, mothers have power.

There’s nothing like imagining one’s own children as “criminals” to put irrational laws in perspective.

Kathleen Parker finishes by going back to the first prohibition…

In 1929, the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform led the movement to end alcohol prohibition. Might women lead the next revolution in personal autonomy?

Fine with me.

Their introduction says it

Good news, hippies! President Obama will not be arresting medical marijuana users who comply with state laws. That’s right, the potheads are soon going to be roaming the streets, treating their cancer and glaucoma willy-nilly in some sort of warped Fear-and-Loathing-in-Las-Vegas-esque perversion of America where the sick are dealt with humanely and with reason. With that in mind, here are some of the best War on Drugs-themed clips from The Daily Show. Watch them with some of your kindest buds.

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.