Drug WarRant

Drug WarRant reader Chris found something interesting on the editorial page of a San Franciso newspaper from August 30, 1910 (full page available here as a pdf).

The paper was urging the municipal authorities to use their best efforts to “stop the use of narcotic poisons.” Their description of the problem in the editorial is fascinating:

San Francisco’s municipal authorities should use their best efforts in aid of the campaign to stop the use of narcotic poisons, which, notwithstanding severely repressive legislation, does not seem to diminish.

Lesson #1: Even “severely repressive legislation” has no impact on drug use.

The use of these injurious and demoralizing drugs does not appear to have been checked in any effective way.

Lesson #1 is re-stated.

The state association of pharmacists has been using its utmost endeavors to limit the sale of narcotics, and while it has done much to prevent trading in these poisons by reputable druggists, the result has chiefly been to raise up a class of illicit peddlers, who are willing, in view of the large profits, to take chances on going to jail.

Lesson #2: Prohibition results in a very lucrative black market which encourages people to turn to criminal activity.

Some of the victims of the narcotic habit have been driven from the large cities because of the high prices involved in law breaking, but they have continued to keep out of the clutches of the officials by going to the newer towns where things are wide open.

Lesson #3: When prohibition tries to clamp down in one area, it just pops up in another.

The military authorities at the Presidio are surprised to find the drug habit spreading among the garrison….

Lesson #4: No place is so secure that it can prevent supply from meeting demand.

Now, perhaps we shouldn’t be too hasty to fault the editors of the San Francisco Call in August of 1910 for being unable to read the clear lessons in their own words and still suggesting a continuation of prohibition efforts. Perhaps they had limited historical background upon which to gauge the effectiveness of their suggestions.

But what’s the excuse of the media 99 years later?

While we keep the book bomb going, here’s a little gem to entertain you. Somebody made a parody of an Intel commercial where people are holding a microchip in their hands….

Edit: As of 10:00 pm Central, it’s up to #17, and now they’ve dropped the price a buck to $8.97. If you haven’t bought it yet, that’s an incredible price.

Buy this book today on Amazon.com: Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano, and Mason Tvert (just click here or on the image above). Hopefully, if enough buy it today, it’ll push up the sales ranking for today and a drug policy reform book will get ranked #1 (or very high).

Will it work? Who knows. But it’s a good book to get anyway. Norm Stamper said he couldn’t put it down. Check out the reviews by Mike Gray, Alex Kreit, Barbara Ehrenreich, Nadine Strossen, Gary Johnson, Mark Stepnoski, David Sirota, Gregory T. Carter, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Mitch Earleywine, Rob Van Dam, and David Boaz,

Better yet, the price is right. $10.17 at the time this was written. It’s also available for Kindle.

I’m buying a copy today, so why don’t you?

Maybe, just maybe, it’ll rocket up on the Amazon sales rankings, and then that’ll catch some media attention, and a whole lot of people will buy and maybe even read the book who don’t pay a lot of attention to drug policy reform. Then maybe, just maybe, they’ll say “Hey, wait a second. I thought marijuana was really bad and dangerous and stuff. Were they lying to me all this time? I suppose I should listen to what those dirty druggie hippies have been saying all along about drug policy reform…”

Plus, it’s a good book to have on your coffee table to start a conversation when Aunt Mildred comes to visit.

Another day, another revelation that marijuana is… yawn… good for you.

Little things like

• A study showing that lifetime marijuana use is associated with a “significantly reduced risk” of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

or

• This study showing that marijuana has dramatically different effects on lung function than tobacco does, with findings on lung capacity and airway resistance for marijuana users similar to those who did not smoke tobacco.

or

• Another study showing once again that chemicals in cannabis can halt the proliferation of cancer [and now it’s many types of cancer].

This is really getting old.

But you all knew this, right? I’m sure they taught this in the schools, and that the Surgeon General has gone on the TeeVee to tell everyone to vaporize a moderate amount of pot on a regular basis as a preventative for cancer, right? And I’m sure that the website for U.S. Health and Human Services has information about the valuable properties of this plant for people’s health, right? After all, that’s their job. And I’m sure the media has regular health columns explaining the best way to use marijuana to take advantage of its healthful properties, just as they have had articles on drinking red wine in moderation for heart benefits, or using aspirin to prevent heart attacks.

You know what would be really funny? If they took something with such proven benefits as marijuana and told people they couldn’t use it, even though it could mean that some people might die. Can you imagine how pissed off people would get? There’d be riots at town hall meetings and stuff.

Boy, that could get pretty nasty.

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.