Drug WarRant

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.

This is already been pretty well picked up elsewhere while I was busy converting the blog: see How New York’s Finest Get the Weed Out at Reason and Scott Morgan’s Police Will Do Anything to Arrest People for Marijuana, but I wanted to make sure I mentioned it.

I’m talking about Harry G. Levine’s article: The Epidemic of Pot Arrests in New York City in Alternet.

You see, in New York, having a small amount of marijuana in your pocket is not an arrest-able offense. However, having it out in the open is.

According to U.S. Supreme Court decisions, police are allowed to thoroughly pat down the outside of someone’s clothing looking for a gun, which is bulky and easy to detect. But police cannot legally search inside a person’s pockets and belongings without permission or probable cause.

However, police officers can legally make false statements to people they stop, and officers can trick people into revealing things. So in a stern, authoritative voice, NYPD officers will say to the young people they stop:

“We’re going to have to search you. If you have anything illegal you should show it to us now. If we find something when we search you, you’ll have to spend the night in jail. But if you show us what you have now, maybe we can just give you a ticket. And if it’s nothing but a little weed, maybe we can let you go. So if you’ve got anything you’re not supposed to have, take it out and show it now.”

When police say this, the young people usually take out their small amount of marijuana and hand it over. Their marijuana is now “open to public view.” And that – having a bit of pot out and open to be seen – technically makes it a crime, a fingerprintable offense. And for cooperating with the police, the young people are handcuffed and jailed.

People really need to know about this kind of stuff. Serve and protect is a thing of the past. Deceive and destroy are the mottos of today.

Consider this story. A school teacher who liked to smoke pot on his own time in his own home was robbed. He told the police that it was money that was stolen, not pot (he would have been stupid to say that his pot was stolen). The robber was caught and made up a bunch of stories about the teacher having child porn, hosting drug parties for underage children, etc. So the police released those un-investigated allegations (which turned out to be false) to the media, destroying the teacher’s life, and jailed the teacher for pot and obstruction of justice (failing to say that it was pot that was stolen from him). The thief wasn’t charged.

Or, read this story To Catch a Stoner in Oregon. Tigard police have been on Craigs List trolling for lonely men.

“Tuesday is my last day at work this week and I wanna party on Tues night!! I’m a hot blonde who has all the right moves.” The ad promised to trade those moves to anyone who could offer some “420,” or marijuana.

And the lonely guys who responded?

Walsh had 3.5 grams of weed in his pocket—normally enough to earn him nothing more than a ticket. But because he’d agreed to trade drugs for sex, the cops charged Walsh with misdemeanor prostitution and delivery of drugs, a felony, and booked him into Washington County Jail.

Fortunately, the DA’s office is refusing to prosecute some of the cases, realizing that it’s classic entrapment. (Read the whole article, it’s quite interesting.)

I would like to see the day where the public could feel comfortable with trusting the police. Right now, that trust just isn’t there in most cases (that doesn’t mean that there aren’t individual officers that I trust and admire — there are — just that the occupation as a whole is tarnished, largely by the drug war).

It’s important to remember that the police are allowed to lie to you. Some take quite a bit of pride in that fact. When they say that they’re your friend and that it’s in your best interest to cooperate fully with their requests, it isn’t true. And finally, there is never a good reason to voluntarily consent to a search. Ever.

Link

The United States and Mexico are “winning” an often brutal war against drug cartels that operate across the border separating the two countries, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday.

“We are not only fighting this fight, but we are winning it,” Napolitano, a former border state governor, said in prepared remarks to the Southwest Border Task Force gathered in the border city of El Paso, Texas. […]

Warning that further violence was likely, she offered support for the government of Mexican President Felipe Calderon despite allegations of military human rights abuses.

“The fighting has resulted in more than 12,000 deaths in Mexico, and there will, no doubt be more,” Napolitano warned.

Although 75 minutes is way too short for this panel at the progressive netroots on Friday, it definitely looks interesting. Ryan Brim, Radley Balko, Mark Kleiman, and LEAP’s David Bratzer. I’d love to get a report on it from anyone attending.

This is really a follow-up to the previous post, and I already added the link as an update there, but I can’t resist commenting on these points, reported quite well from El Paso by Sito Negron at Newspaper Tree.

Talk about pathetic…

When asked whether there was a difference between hard drugs like cocaine and marijuana he said it was a question for the attorney general, and when pressed on the question he said “I’d wait and ask the attorney, I’ve had only one meeting with the attorney general so far and I’m pretty new in my tenure so I think I’d just defer until we go further down the road.”

He doesn’t know what he’s supposed to say. Wow.

Then, about medical marijuana (remember, this is the guy who very recently said “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.” Now:

As for medical marijuana, he said: “I think the medical marijuana, we’re reserving that question for the medical community. The decision on whether marijuana actually has a medicinal benefit within its chemical compound is a question we’re going to let science answer.”

Uh huh.

Finally, and here’s a real kicker, he’s asked about alcohol prohibition.

Finally, he was asked about whether the end of Prohibition reduced violence in Chicago, and whether that was a possible model for legalizing marijuana.

“I’m not sure I’d liken what we’re talking about to Prohibition, but I don’t think anybody thought after Prohibition was lifted crime ended as a result,” Kerlikowske said.

Classic nirvana fallacy. Of course, crime didn’t end. But it was dramatically reduced, and the structures for organized crime related to the black market of alcohol were weakened fatally. That’s the exact same situation that we face with prohibition of drugs.

OK, Kerlikowske is a tool, and he’s making the office look silly. But there’s something else happening. Everywhere he goes, he’s being asked the legalization question. And now he’s being asked the Chicago prohibition question. The press is waking up, or becoming emboldened, or something.

Additionally, note in Negron’s article…

But Kerlikowske, who by the rules governing his office cannot say anything else — “The statute says we have to absolutely resist (legalization” — said that the administration is working on a “different approach” to the Drug War.

More and more, the Drug Czar’s statements are prefaced with the disclaimer that what he has to say does not include all the options. (And by the way, I take full credit for that. It’s taken a couple of years to catch on, but my article is having an effect.)

This is fabulous stuff. People are commenting on what the Drug Czar has to say, but no longer accepting it. Kaptinemo in comments may have it right:

I keep thinking that I’m witnessing the ‘end of days’ when it comes to the ONDCP. And Mr. Kerlikowske has been chosen (and probably knows that he has) to preside over its’ dissolution.

In the Christian Science Monitor former Colombian Senator and Defense Minister Rafael Pardo and Professor Juan Gabriel Tokatlian (from Argentina) call for a timeout.

Before Washington ramps up yet another losing war on drugs, it should take a clear-eyed look at how its current strategies are affecting the supply and demand of drugs. Congressman Eliot Engel (D) of New York has introduced a bill to do just that.

Washington would be wise to back Congressman Engel’s initiative because there has not been a thorough, frank evaluation of the fight against drugs in decades. The drug czar office’s annual report is not enough. Recommendations by an independent commission, however, could generate the consensus and strategy we sorely need.

A commission. What a great idea. If only Nixon had asked for a commission to study the issue before ramping up the war on drugs way back then… Oh, right.

It’s a good recommendation, even though Engel doesn’t have the guts to let the commission form honestly.

Let me be absolutely clear that this bill has not been introduced to support the legalization of illegal drugs. That is not something that I would like to see, nor is it my intent to have the Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission come to that conclusion.