Drug WarRant

There’s a new book out: Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano, and Mason Tvert.

Don’t buy it today.

Wait until tomorrow, 8/20, when organizers are attempting a “book bomb on Amazon.com. The idea is, if enough people buy the book on the same day, it could increase the temporary ranking on Amazon (computed hourly) to vault it into 1st place, which would be a first for a drug policy reform book.

I’m willing to give it a shot and buy my copy tomorrow. Join me. I’ll have this post with the link to buying the book on Amazon at the top of the page all day tomorrow.

I have not read the book, but I’ve heard excellent things about it. And while the “marijuana is safer than alcohol” argument is not the one that guides my vision of drug policy reform, I think I agree with Norm Stamper who wrote today in the Huffington Post.

I’m a drug “legalizer,” not an “incrementalist.” I do not believe drug policy reform should end with the legalization of marijuana. Yet, when asked to contribute a foreword to the new book, Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink, I eagerly accepted. Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project, Paul Armentano of NORML, and Mason Tvert of SAFER have written the definitive answer to the question: Why is booze legal and pot is not? They’ve also offered the most lucid, persuasive strategy for ending this hypocrisy I’ve yet seen. Any book that strikes a blow for drug policy sanity deserves our support, regardless of any ideological differences.

I know that the reasons for ending prohibition go way beyond the relative “safety” of different drugs (in fact the most compelling reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with inherent drug safety). Yet if showing people that marijuana is safer than alcohol will help them take a step out of the darkened room of prohibition, then that’s great. We can help them find the rest of their way into the light.

Join me tomorrow in purchasing this book.

Every war has them, and the longer the war, the more entrenched they become. They are parasites who make their living off the war, off the suffering and the death. The worst of them use their influence to expand, sustain, and prolong the war in order to keep the gravy train running.

They justify their efforts by proclaiming that the war is holy and thus fool themselves into believing that their profits are merely well-earned side-effects of a noble cause — when in fact the war serves no purpose except to act as a fertile breeding ground for their corruption.

The profiteers in the drug war are numerous, from the drug testing companies to the drug task forces to the prison industry.

A remarkable piece at NPR — Folsom Embodies California’s Prison Blues by Laura Sullivan — explores how the prison union exploded the prison population in California.

California wasn’t the only state to toughen laws in the throes of the 1980s crack wars. But Californians took it to a new level.

Voters increased parole sanctions and gave prison time to nonviolent drug offenders. They eliminated indeterminate sentencing, removing any leeway to let inmates out early for good behavior. Then came the “Three Strikes You’re Out” law in 1994. Offenders who had committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences.

Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. “Three strikes is the most important victory yet in the fight to take back our streets,” Wilson told crowds.

But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major player: the correctional officers union.

Continue reading →

So a recent study found that up to 90% of U.S. currency (especially in large cities) contains cocaine residue.

A team from University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth has found that bills from the US and Canada are highly likely to have trace amounts of cocaine, showing for the first time a growing prevalence in the abuse of the drug.

Um, no. That would be what we call an unsupported conclusion. All we know from this is that a lot of currency contains trace amounts of cocaine and probably that there is a lot of cocaine used in the U.S. It doesn’t tell us about growing abuse or even growing use. It could have to do with how it’s used, increased accuracy of detection technology, or other factors.

As one commenter at Slashdot humorously conjectured when seeing that only 12% of Japan’s currency had traces of the drug…

Everyone in Japan has Hello Kitty coke spoons.

Yes, lots of factors could be involved.

The true importance of this data comes from Jeralyn at TalkLeft:

It’s time to resurrect those motions to suppress based on cocaine traces found on currency. […]

The Time article goes on to give this incorrect advice:

Yet, don’t worry, you’re not likely to face any legal trouble or fail any company drug tests as a result: the amounts of cocaine found on bills ranged from a minuscule .006 micrograms to 1,240 micrograms—an amount comparable in weight to about 50 grains of sand, according to the researchers.

It should have added the caveat: Unless you’re charged with a cocaine offense or the Government is seeking to forfeit your property. In that case, you can bet the Government will try to introduce evidence that money in your pocket contained cocaine residue, particularly if a dog sniffed it out.

These studies have been around since the 80’s, and despite some courts finding there’s no relevance, prosecutors said they’ll continue to try and make the connection.

This study should provide some assistance to defense attorneys, and maybe eventually reduce the oddly superhuman legal power of the drug-sniffing dog.

This is priceless. Officer denies stealing fake cocaine

Let’s see if I can summarize.

As part of some bizarre operation, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police make up 102 bricks of flour, which they ship in boxes of mangoes from Peru to Canada.

Then they intercept the flour in Canada. At the end of his shift following the mango-flour operation, Constable Cook discovers that a rotting box of mangoes in the trunk of his cop car contains 15 bricks of flour.

So he takes them home, supposedly planning to drop them off with the morality squad in the morning. Since he needed to service the car, he took the bricks of flour out of the trunk and put them in a compartment in his recreational watercraft, where they are discovered along with some marijuana and mp3 players.

So, we either have a corrupt constable who is stupid and decided to store flour in his boat, or we have a corrupt constable who is stupid and thought the flour was cocaine and decided to steal it from the RCMP.

The one thing we know for certain is that this is the stupidest fraking war ever fought.

Note: this all happened in November of 2005, and they’re still in court deciding what to do about a police officer who may or may not have stolen flour from the police.

Pretty hilarious, the notion that cops can spot a drug user’s eyes in a moving car at night in the rain.

Then again, given the natural paranoia that often accompanies pot smoking, it could be a pretty effective ad.

That’s the title of today’s column in the Washington Post by Peter Moskos and Stanford “Neill” Franklin.

Public drug dealing creates an environment where disputes about money or respect are settled with guns. […]

Legalization would not create a drug free-for-all. In fact, regulation reins in the mess we already have. […]

Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing.

We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we’re at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.

Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do — for all of us, especially taxpayers.

Excellent piece, from the perspective of law enforcement (both are members of LEAP), and in the Washington Post!

If you get a chance, you should check out Peter Moskos’ excellent book Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore’s Eastern District.

Prohibitionists using statistics in false ways to lie is not new. But it’s important for us to regularly debunk the lies to keep them from becoming the accepted reality.

One of the most pernicious lies (pushed heavily by the government under the reign of Drug Czar Walters) is the one that says that the numbers of people in treatment for marijuana prove that marijuana is dangerous, or that the increase in treatment admissions for marijuana proves that today’s marijuana is more dangerous.

We see this all over the place…

DEA

Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers.

This is not the marijuana of the 1970’s; today’s marijuana is far more powerful. […]

• Among all ages, marijuana was the most common illicit drug responsible for treatment admissions in 2003, accounting for 15 per cent of all admissions — outdistancing heroin, the next most prevalent cause.
• In 2003, 20 per cent (185,239) of the 919,833 adults admitted to treatment for illegal drug abuse cited marijuana as their primary drug of abuse.

CASA

From 1992-2006:

• There was a 188 percent increase in the proportion of teen treatment admissions for marijuana as the primary drug of abuse, compared with a 54 percent decline for all other substances of abuse.

“The message for teens is clear — today’s pernicious pot is not your parent’s pot,” said Joseph A. Califano, Jr., CASA’s Chairman and President and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

“The THC potency in marijuana seized in the 1970s, when marijuana use was most prevalent, was less than one percent; today such potency levels have climbed to 8.8 percent. This increased potency parallels the increases we see in teen medical diagnoses, treatment admissions and emergencies. Parents and teachers, coaches and clergy, all who work with teens, must understand that marijuana is a risky and addictive drug with serious health and social consequences.”

Link

Marijuana is NOT a Safe Drug… in fact, it is a VERY DANGEROUS DRUG […]

According to the Department of Health and Human Services TEDS (Treatment Episode Data Set), in 2001 there were 255,394 admissions of people into drug treatment programs who stated that marijuana was their primary drug of addiction (a 176% increase since 1992.)

Link

What is the Evidence? Its use can be very serious, dangerous, and have a profound impact upon the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families. […]

According to the Department of Health and Human Services TEDS (Treatment Episode Data Set), in 2003 there were 284,324 admissions of people into drug treatment programs who stated that marijuana was their primary drug of addiction. The fact is that our treatment agencies are full of marijuana-dependent individuals with personal testimonials to the power and dangers of marijuana. According to the TED Survey, of the two million people admitted into treatment clinics each year as many as 24 percent have reported that marijuana is their primary drug of addiction.

And even today, the notion of marijuana treatment being a big deal continues to permeate discussions of legalization.

Opponents say legalizing pot would create more problems than it would solve.

The public health costs of increased drug abuse would outweigh any financial gain from legalization, Redman said.

“It’s a horrible idea, because when you reduce the perception of harm and increase availability, (drug) abuse goes up,” Redman said.
Substance abuse programs cost the county and the nation billions, Redman said. Taxing marijuana would not raise enough money to cover the cost of the problems it would produce, he said.

But, of course, the truth is very different.

I first exposed the government numbers on this blog in August, 2004 because I got fed up listening to the nonsense over and over again. I’ve now updated the analysis with the 2007 TEDS data here. Go check it out — you’ll find it quite interesting.

It shows clearly that of all admissions to treatment with marijuana as the principal substance,

• Only 14.8% were self-referred (including referral by family and friends). The is lower than any other drug.
• 56.9% were referred by the criminal justice system (ie, people who got caught with marijuana and were given the option to choose treatment over jail). This is higher than any other drug.

This isn’t an indication of marijuana’s addictive qualities at all. It’s reflective of greater enforcement (simple arrests for marijuana), and the subsequent increase of treatment as a substitute for jail. What makes it even sillier is that 36% of those entering treatment with marijuana as the primary substance of abuse had not even used marijuana in the previous month.

Now, when it comes to the truth about legalization, it doesn’t really matter whether marijuana has a high dependency rate or not — the simple fact is that prohibition isn’t a useful tool for dealing with dependency and it brings a lot of other destruction. Prohibitionists would like you to believe that legalization will lead to an explosion of increased dependency, yet they have absolutely zero evidence (all evidence tends to point to no or limited increase).

So when they say that treatment statistics prove that we should not legalize marijuana, they are positing information that is both a lie and irrelevant.

Sure, there are some people who have marijuana dependency. But there are a lot in treatment who do not. Legalize marijuana and you probably reduce the rolls by probably most of the 56.9% who were referred by the criminal justice system. Possibly more. Then maybe those who do need help can be better served.

Over 100 million people have used marijuana. Over 14 million used it in the last month. In 2007 only 42,000 were having enough problems with marijuana to feel the need to check themselves in for treatment (or were checked in by family/friends). That means well over 99% did not.

To defend prohibition based on the statistics of treatment admissions is like destroying every house in America that has a basement — merely because one of them had evidence of termites.

For more reading about how statistics are used to lie in the drug war, see
Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

For a more accurate and useful presentation of the government’s drug war statistics than you’ll get from the ONDCP, see Brian Bennett’s site: Truth: the Anti-drugwar.

Colombia-US base accord reached

Colombia says it has completed talks with Washington on allowing US troops to use seven of its military bases.

Under the deal, the US military will be able to operate on Colombian soil to tackle drug-trafficking and terrorism.

Froma Harrop: Pot Could be Gold for California

A bill to “tax and regulate” marijuana like alcohol now before the California legislature has strong support. But it’s not going anywhere as long as “legalization” is not in Obama’s vocabulary. The word “hypocrisy” has apparently made the cut.

Eric Sterling has a must-read post: NPR — Pot dispensaries in CA are medical fraud. Eric’s post continues beyond the NPR outrage to talking about the use of marijuana in non-medical settings…

Marijuana should be legal for healthy people to use socially, spiritually, or to alter their mood. […]

It seems to me that in considering the totality of circumstances it is close to being within the concept of a fundamental Constitutionally protected liberty to be able to use marijuana at a show like a Rolling Stones concert! Surely no adult ought to apologize for smoking pot there!

Continue reading →

I often run into people who have been so conditioned into believing that prohibition is the only option, they cannot even conceive of (or listen to) any alternative. They’re the ones who believe legalization is surrender.

I was thinking about them this afternoon, when I went to visit my friend George in the local hospital. He was over in the new Theodoric wing of the hospital. The nurse had finished attaching a syringe and tube to his arm and was in the process of draining him. I asked him what was wrong.

“Oh, it’s just the flu,” he said, “but the doctor said this is supposed to help me. So far, it hasn’t, but he said that just means they haven’t taken enough blood yet.”

After I spent some time with George (and he blacked out), I ducked into the room next door where a young woman was being covered with leeches.

“What’s wrong with you?” I asked.

“Nothing,” she replied, “except for these leeches. I was doing fine but they told me I had to come here for treatment to purge me of ‘bad humors.’ I think they just didn’t like the way I thought.”

I wandered out into the hall and found a couple of doctors discussing bloodletting techniques. I confronted them.

“Why are you doing this? Bloodletting is archaic and destructive!”

“Oh yeah?” replied one. “What would you have us do? Ignore the sick? Let them die? We took oaths to cure people and nothing you say will stop us from continuing our duty.”

“But you’re not actually curing anybody,” I said. “You’re just making them weak. Can you actually point to success? You need to stop bloodletting and turn to actual proven alternatives.”

“It’s true that we’ve had limited success,” replied the second doctor, “but that’s no reason to give up. And I’m offended by your notion that we should just let these people die.”

And then they called security.

So I did the only thing I could — a hospital jail-break with George and leech girl. At least I saved a couple.