Drug WarRant

This one really set off my B.S. meter: State officials hoping to shut off drug pipeline by putting in cameras.
Huh?

Illinois officials are hoping to shut off the drug pipeline between Chicago and Mexico with a few snapshots.

Illinois State Police officials, on behalf of 13 states to the south and west of Illinois, are asking for federal stimulus money to buy hundreds of special cameras that would be placed on interstates known as frequent routes for drug-runners.

The projected cost is listed at $9.9 million.

I don’t get it.

The cameras, 242 in all, would be able to record license plate numbers. That information would then be shared with other states involved in the proposal.

Most of the cameras would be mounted, but some would be placed on mobile vehicles traveling up and down interstates 55 and 80 in Illinois, as well as a handful of other cross-country routes between Illinois and Texas.

And what’s the point?

Chicago is at the heart of the proposal because it is a top destination for drugs flowing into the nation from Mexico, said Kurt Schmid, who leads the Chicago office of White House Office of Drug Control Policy, specializing in drug trafficking.

“Chicago is a major major transit point,” said Schmid.

Similarly, the same couriers who bring drugs to Chicago often return along the same routes with large sums of money or guns, Schmid said. The cameras could be used in those instances, too.

Um, OK, let me get this straight. You have a whole bunch of cameras capturing thousands of license plates traveling on a heavily used set of expressways. And you’re going to catch drug trafficking… how?

During the summer, I travel to Chicago on I-55 every week, so I suppose the cameras might find that interesting, along with hundreds of salespeople, or admissions counselors, or customer service representatives, or students going home for the weekend, or…

How is the information from these cameras going to be stored and analyzed?

How is this anything but a massive attempt at comprehensive data collection on the movement of American citizens (under the completely unexplained guise of shutting down drug trafficking)?

I have a pretty rich fantasy life, and some of my daydreams involve finding ways to fix the drug war. One of the simplest, and yet intellectually rewarding, is imagining having the opportunity to sit down and have an extended conversation with someone about the drug war, over dinner.

If you could do that, who would be your dinner partner? Remember, in this fantasy, it could be anyone. They’d agree to have dinner and discussion with you, but they wouldn’t be required to stay, so if you’re interested in just abusing them, it’s unlikely the evening will last long.

In comments, let us know what approach you’d take in talking with them about drug policy.

[polldaddy poll=2023235]

Update: Remember, this is a fantasy, not real life. You don’t necessarily need to change the world with this dinner. It may just be a chance to match wits, get something off your chest, or to see what makes them tick.

It’s one of the more pathetic efforts I’ve seen by UNODC head Antonio Maria Costa. In today’s Guardian (The Observer), check out this headline and opening paragraph:

How many lives would have been lost if we didn’t have controls on drugs?

There is a growing chorus, not least in the pages of the Observer, calling for an end to drug control. The arguments are by now well known: too many people are going to jail and not to treatment. Eradicating the supply of illicit drugs is meaningless without reducing demand. Drug control has spawned a massive criminal black market. Some even say that the costs of prohibition far outweigh the benefits (although there is no body count of people who haven’t died thanks to drug control versus those who have been killed in the crossfire).

He knows our extremely legitimate and powerful argument (that prohibition is actually an absence of control) and is trying to turn it on its head by claiming that we’ve been controlling drugs all along, and that legalization is calling for “an end to drug control.” He also claims that whatever we’ve been doing all along has been saving lives (lots of them), but offers no evidence at all to support that.

His attempts to own the word “control” go to ridiculous lengths.

Drugs are controlled (not prohibited) because they are dangerous.

I beg your pardon? Drugs aren’t prohibited? Since when? Where? You can’t just waive a magic wand and say that since you don’t like the word “prohibited” you declare it to mean something else.

“Drugs… are dangerous.” Which ones? Compared to what?

“…because they are dangerous.” Right. That’s fine if you want to ignore, like, history and stuff.

Here was another good one in his attempt to counter legalizers:

First, drugs should be regarded as a health issue.

Addiction is an illness, not a lifestyle, and should be treated as such.

Um, no. Drug abuse should be regarded as a health issue, not “drugs.” Calling “drugs” a health issue is like calling “shoes” a health issue.

All in all, a particularly ridiculous OpEd.

There’s an amazing conference going on in El Paso, Texas this week, evaluating 40 years of the drug war, with an impressive list of speakers.

However, two of the speakers pulled out at the last minute: Drug Czar Kerlikowske and Border Czar Alan Bersin.

UTEP Assistant Professor Tony Payan, an authority on the two-year conflict between the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels, said the absence of Obama’s two top advisors suggests that the young administration is still uncertain about its own stand on the nation’s decades-old drug policy.

El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles offered this scathing assessment:

“I don’t know why you’re all so surprised about the federal government’s unwillingness to address this because, quite frankly, they’ve ignored the problem for years, and that’s why we’re in the situation we’re in now.

“As a matter of fact, the only reason that we’ve got national attention is because it’s on the backs of the dead people in Juarez.”

A big thanks to Tom and Tom (you know who you are), two wonderful people who probably don’t know each other, but who are always on the lookout for interesting and/or informative drug war news and send it my way.

The Day the SWAT Team Came Crashing Through My Door by Cheye M. Calvo.

…the wagons have circled in Upper Marlboro. The response is textbook: Law enforcement stands its ground and concedes no wrongdoing — and elected officials burrow their heads in the sand.

Just go and read it.

Ending the ‘War on Drugs’ by Misha Glenny in the New York Times

I have spoken to countless politicians who agree in private that, as one of them put it, “in 100 years we may look back and ask what on earth were we doing by prohibiting narcotics?” But they remain hesitant to articulate this in public for fear of the opprobrium it will bring.

Supporters of legalization have all but won the moral and intellectual debate, but they now face the most difficult argument of all — the political one. That is unlikely to be won in Washington, where prohibition continues to enjoy powerful support. But we are seeing an erosion of the drug-war consensus in countries like Argentina, Mexico, Portugal and Switzerland — where drugs either have been decriminalized or de facto legalized.

Not high on my must-see-TV list… Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) is airing a special TV program on September 24 (webcast or C-band) titled Countering the Drug Culture. Hmm, should I watch that, or Weeds?

Venezuela considers shooting down drug planes

President Hugo Chavez said Thursday he’s mulling the possibility of allowing Venezuela’s air force to shoot down suspected drug planes, but he is not convinced it’s a good idea.

“We are studying it. This is something tough. There are countries that have it: authorization to shoot down planes,” Chavez said. “I don’t like the idea, but I’m thinking about it.”

Never forget: Veronica and Charity Bowers

Drug legalisation is no solution – it’s a disaster waiting to happen by Neil McKeganey in The Guardian.

This is a particularly stupid OpEd by a “professor of drug misuse research at the University of Glasgow.” As several commenters noted, this is trash that is expected in the Daily Mail, not the Guardian.

No Matter How Bad You Think the Drug War Is, It’s Worse by Scott Morgan

Just imagine what would happen if the average American actually came to grasp the full breadth of abject unfairness that characterizes the application of our drug laws in every conceivable circumstance. The totality of injustice in the war on drugs is its own galaxy. Even as someone who actively tries to keep track of it, I’m routinely stunned by the magnitude of systemic corruption, callousness and incompetence that festers in every corner of the massive drug war juggernaut.

As advocates for change, we must accept that we can never teach everyone among us to truly understand and appreciate the full spectrum of cruelty and perversion that defines the war on drugs. Fortunately we don’t have to….

Odd moment in news gathering… I was browsing through my news reader earlier this week and was struck by this headline: “University Allows Freshman Pot Patients to Live.”

Turns out the title had been truncated and the word “Off-Campus” had been left off the end. Much different meaning.

This ABCnews article has a nice quote from Tom Angell in it. But I was also taken with the stock image they used to illustrate the article.

Does anybody else find it odd? First of all, drugs (marijuana?) these days in a quart size zip-lock baggie? Second, shouldn’t the guy with his face on the car hood be young and black? Third, the officer’s expression is very… Joe Friday.

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.

I really enjoyed this article by David Downs in the Columbia Journalism Review: Get stoked: the MSM are acting less childish about pot.

We’ve all experienced the media’s childishness over the years when it comes to weed. Every story about marijuana was full of puns, double entendres, and sniggering reporters. It was the rule. No story could escape it.

But now…

“The de facto ban on serious, cogent mainstream media discussion about the topic has been lifted,” says Stephen Gutwillig, State Policy Director for the Drug Policy Alliance in Washington. “They’ve stopped acting like they’re in sixth grade. There’s less puns and ‘scare quotes.’ The Wall Street Journal did a front-page story last week that treated medical marijuana like just another industry story.”

Recently, The New York Times ran a classic, “Style” section hit piece on cannabis, but then followed it up, almost as a mea culpa, with an extremely insightful and bold “roundtable discussion” with leading thinkers on the topic. The Economist now stands alongside the National Review in calling for legalization, and even the staid Congressional Quarterly Researcher devoted its entire June issue to a thorough review of the topic.

Quite a change. Of course, the sniggering hasn’t stopped completely. Bruce Mirken reports on how the New York Daily News had to completely make up a quote in order to insert the phrase “harshed the buzz” when talking about serious MPP TV ads on medical marijuana.

But that’s the Daily News.

There has been a sea change, and it get more noticeable every day. Serious articles about marijuana in leading papers, with quotes from doctors and cops and, and as the Columbia Journalism Review article notes, “reporters keep telling us how difficult it is to find opposition quotes.” [quotes from prohibitionists]

It’s true. Look how often Calvina Fay has shown up recently.

Here’s a part I particularly enjoyed…

At the same time, though, the influence of network television is waning amid the rise of an old-style partisan press on the Internet. Just as “we’re seeing a rapid decline of straight media on electoral campaigns,” California political consultant Larry Tramutola points out, the Web is diversifying the conversation about marijuana. The debate “may be decided in the blogosphere,” Tramutola says. “It may be decided on informal networks.”

That’s us, baby! That’s us.

A couple weeks ago, I let you know about an upcoming online event sponsored by Harvard, featuring the Drug Czar.

The audio file from that discussion is now available for download here (WMA file – 55 MB) [Thanks, Tom!]

I’m attempting to listen to it. I’m really a text kind of guy (I despise video or audio of talking heads – I don’t have the patience, and I’d rather read the transcript, if available). The first part was mostly softball questions and vague answers. Things like how we need to look closely at finding the right balance between treatment and enforcement.

The questions from the field were apparently across the board and included quite a few of what the moderator termed “provocative” questions, some regarding medical marijuana. Gil said that that he’s waiting to talk more with the Attorney General and wait for science to help him out regarding medical uses of marijuana (apparently that means that there hasn’t been any science on medical marijuana yet) – even to the point of kind of admitting that he was ducking the question.

A good question got asked regarding the fact that many people arrested for marijuana end up in treatment whether they need it or not, taking up spaces that could be used for those who do need it.

The answer (and I think this was the guy with Gil, not Gil himself) was in two parts.

1. We need more treatment. [paraphrased]
2. “I think it’d be a mistake to imagine that marijuana is a benign substance. Yes, it’s quite true that not everybody that smokes marijuana needs treatment, but a growing proportion of people who seek treatment are those whose major problem is marijuana…” [Let me interrupt there. That’s only true if “seek treatment” means “are forced into treatment” and “major problem” means “drug they got caught with.”] “… Marijuana’s more potent than it’s ever been. It exacerbates other kinds of significant medical problems [?!?], and requires treatment. So we want to make treatment available for those people who need it.”

Wow.

That was 18 minutes and as far as I was willing to listen. Anybody else want to report on the rest, I’m all ears eyes.

Interesting side note to this. There’s some ultra-prohibitionist woman named Linda who does a lot of commenting on some discussion boards and shows up at some events on the west coast — from what I can tell, a kind of local Calvina Fay wannabe. She found my post on the subject, quoted from the comments and seemed fascinated by our ability to be… organized, I guess.

It’s interesting to see how it all works. From the time they receive the information, to how long it takes to get the word out to other pro druggies, and how the internet is so important in accomplishing that task.

As long as we’re being organized… Oops, we missed this one. The Drug Czar and Loveline’s Dr. Drew Pinsky.

[While I failed my job in organizing the druggies, I did manage to squeeze in a question myself before it closed. Won’t know until the transcript comes out whether they addressed it. Of course, I asked it using a nom de plume (actually, it was a nom de mal orthographiés).]

Finally, we’ve got a call for questions from George Stephanopoulos for his upcoming discussion with President Obama on Sunday.

Update: Congratulations! Congress was inundated with phone calls, and Souder was encouraged to withdraw the amendment. Excellent work.

Continue reading →

Just recently, David Raynes was telling us about the failures of the British programs in heroin maintenance.

Now the results of a new study are out. It’s the Randomised Injectable Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT), which not only tried heroin maintenance, but compared it to other options in a randomized controlled trial. It was for a group of hard core street heroin users and they received either supervised injectable heroin, supervised injectable methadone or optimised oral methadone.

No surprise that the injectable heroin group had, by far, the best results, and showed dramatically positive response in: retention, abstinence from street heroin, reduction of crime, reduction in crack use, and improved physical, mental health and social functioning.

Danny at Transform provides some perspective:

That should not be news to anyone. I realised during my third or fourth interview yesterday, that the feigned shock from radio presenters that the Great British Public would be funding heroin users ‘addiction’, should be as nothing compared to their real shock that we are all funding the prohibition that leads users to steal and compromises their health in the first place.

Whilst the presumed roll out is to be welcomed, one has to ask why it has taken so long to come to this conclusion. Evidence has existed for years that, for those assessed as having a clinical need, heroin prescribing will keep them alive, improve their health and wellbeing and reduce the collateral damage of their use to wider society.

Danny also pointed out some disturbing facts:

The substantially increased cost of prescribing injectable heroin, compared with oral methadone, must also be seen in the context of the Macfarlane Smith monopoly on the UK opiates market that the Department of Health buys from. That means that the UK pays well over the odds for our diamorphine (£12,000 a year per user), compared to the Dutch (£2000 a year for the same product). This artificial cost barrier has been a major political obstacle.

How stupid is that? We have a massive, dirt-cheap supply of poppies available just a short distance away in Afghanistan. Why do business with a drug cartel that has forced out all competition?

Note: I really don’t know how a heroin maintenance program would work as the full model for legalization (because it’s never been tried in that way – it’s always been limited to the hard core user), but it’s clear that heroin maintenance is an effective and valuable tool in drug policy, and should be included as part of any legalization or decriminalization plan.

I am very pleased with the results of the move from SalonBlogs and RadioUserland to DreamHost and WordPress. Most people have found us in the new digs, and thanks to the marvelous Lawrence Lee at SalonBlogs, so has Google. He put 301 re-directs on some of the most popular pages on my old site to their equivalent pages here, and now if you search Google for “Why is marijuana illegal,” “Drug war victims,” or “the drug czar is required by law to lie” the number one result will be the appropriate pages on the new site (I was really worried that I’d lose all that Google advantage).

Thanks to all of you for joining in the discussions and helping to make this transition fun.