Drug WarRant

The New York Times has a very strange article on Mexico’s recent partial decriminalization law: In Mexico, Ambivalence on a Drug Law

That “ambivalence” apparently stems from the New York Times talking to two people: a drug addict and a former drug addict.

“No one should live like I live,” [cocaine and heroin addict Yolanda Espinosa] said. “It’s an awful life. You do anything to satisfy your urge. You sell your body. It ruins you. I hope this won’t make more people live like this.” […]

At one Tijuana drug treatment center, a former addict was not convinced that going easy on those found with drugs was the right approach. “With everything that’s happening, we need to distance ourselves from drugs,” said the former addict, Luis Manuel Delgado, 50, who is also the center’s assistant director. “Imagine if I told the people in here that it was now legal for them to have a little. No way.”

Jailing addicts helps them reach rock bottom and decide to turn their lives around, Mr. Delgado said.

Even putting aside the fact that today’s addicts got there despite (and maybe partly because of) massively repressive laws, and that evidence shows much better ways of helping those who abuse drugs than the “rock bottom” approach, does it make sense to turn to those who have problems with a substance for advice on policy for everyone else?

I have problems with certain types of food, in that I find them hard to resist, which makes me overweight, and could cause future health problems. What if I said that anybody who eats those foods should be thrown in jail as a way to force myself to stop?

Or should a video game addict call for anyone who plays Zelda to be imprisoned? Or maybe someone with a sexual fetish should call for a complete prohibition on women’s shoes?

I’m not saying that those who abuse drugs shouldn’t be allowed to speak about drug policy — of course, everyone should. But the New York Times seems to be pretending that drug abusers are the only ones with a dog in this hunt, which is ridiculous.

Cato Unbound has another excellent discussion series on the war on drugs, this time focusing on Mexico, though naturally, the discussion ends up coming back to the U.S. time and time again as it must.

The lead essay — A U.S. War with Mexican Consequences — is by Jorge Castañeda, who was the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs from 2000-2003. He starts moving the discussion in an interesting direction.

If current trends toward medical decriminalization continue, if the Webb Commission in the Senate concludes that some changes in U.S. drug laws are necessary and desirable, and if the Obama administration pursues a de facto harm reduction approach without explicitly stating it, there may be a way for Mexico to extricate itself from its current, tragic predicament. Otherwise, though, there does not seem to be any accessible, affordable, and acceptable exit strategy from the current war. And Mexico will continue to pay an exorbitant cost for having plunged, with U.S. support and encouragement, into a war with no ostensible victory in sight. […]

As long as criminalization, its hypocrisy, and serious discussions of the alternatives are banned from public discussion, U.S. drug policy will remain what it has been for the past forty years: a supply-side, foreign-policy, nickel-and-dime war waged beyond U.S. borders. In the case of Mexico, for a series of specific reasons, that policy, as well as domestic Mexican political considerations, have led to a war that cannot be won and should not be waged. […]

There is no optimum solution to this conundrum. But the only conceivable alternative lies in a change in U.S. drug policy: not demand reduction, or supply interdiction, but decriminalization, harm reduction, adjusting laws to reality instead of uselessly attempting the opposite, and understanding that the last thing the United States needs is a fire next door.

Continue reading →

Just a quick note regarding yesterday’s book bomb for Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano, and Mason Tvert…

The book got up as high as #14. Pretty darn good (not #1, but I’ve never seen a drug policy book get up that high). Today, it’s still holding in the top 100, giving it some good attention. This site helped out — 35 books were purchased going through the links on Drug WarRant.

Well, the conversion to the new site has been working quite well, and it seems people are finding it, for the most part. I’m still working on getting 301 re-directs for the pages on the old site and hope that those will be in place soon.

One great thing about the new site is that I have full control over the commenting system (I had no control on the old site). It seems to work fine for me to approve someone’s first post and then they can automatically post freely (I’m hoping that first approval requirement isn’t putting anyone off). It’s part of the game of fending off the inevitable hordes of spammers (and they have found the new site).

You can follow along with the spam scorecard at the bottom of the right column. Akismet is a very powerful system that quarantines anything it thinks is spam and it does a pretty good job. Occasionally a real post (usually with lots of links) will get caught up, but I can always rescue it out of the spam folder before it gets deleted and manually approve it. The spam techniques are quite fascinating. Some are just massive long lists of links — others are more subtle in an attempt to get past spam filters. The ones I love are those that claim to be wanting to start a conversation, usually in the most broken English imaginable (perhaps using random word generators? or really bad translators?), such as…

How ar You?

Nice sickly out of the closet there. At least here where I am at.

Other than that my facvorite movie is playing tonight, I don’t recollect what to forgive as I am pretty chic to this.
Entertain allow in me distinguish how to proceed.

So yearn .. til late then.

How can I delete such moving poetry?

Eric Sterling has mocked up a Personal Marijuana License Application (pdf). Interesting exercise.

Man gets three months in jail for possession of breath mints. Yeah, I’d sue, too.

World’s First Cocaine Bar in Bolivia.

“Tonight we have two types of cocaine; normal for 100 Bolivianos a gram, and strong cocaine for 150 [Bolivianos] a gram.” The waiter has just finished taking our drink order of two rum-and-Cokes here in La Paz, Bolivia, and as everybody in this bar knows, he is now offering the main course.

Illinois: New law aims to fund drug investigations

Convicted drug dealers will help pay for the cost of anti-drug investigation under legislation approved by Gov. Pat Quinn. The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, and state Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, will levy a $25 fine on those convicted of drug offenses.

The money will go toward local drug task forces, some of which saw reduced federal funding last year.

Just what we need. More incentive for drug task forces to go after the little guy.

Colorado juror: Medical Marijuana Case a Waste of Resources

Drug-Testing Firm Latest Specimen of Tough Times

Globallab Solutions of Charlotte Is Handing Out Far Fewer Test Cups These Days, Thanks to the Hiring Drought. […]

“When you opened the doors at 8:30, you’d have five or 10 people waiting,” said Sullivan, who runs the nine-employee company with his wife. “And then, a steady flow all day long.”

These days, it’s more like a trickle. […]

He says business has been in the toilet since October, and he’s seen no recent signs of an uptick.

I’m playing the world’s tiniest violin for them.

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.

This was tried in 2006, but the U.S. objected and it didn’t pass. But now it’s the law

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory — although the law does not specify penalties for noncompliance. […]

“This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty … for a practice that was already in place,” Espino del Castillo said. […]

The maximum amount of marijuana considered to be for “personal use” under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 “lines.” For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.

This is a useful step, but a very small one. Of course, it won’t have any impact on the cartels or the violence in any way. It is interesting that the U.S. has not seen fit to throw a fit about it.

Update: New York Times headline writer doesn’t get it. Their headline for the AP article: Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession. Um, no. If you’re mandated to attend treatment after being caught the third time with something, it’s not really legal, is it? And possession isn’t even really decriminalized if what you possess happens to be more than 5 grams of pot or more than .015 milligrams of LSD (how do you even measure that?)

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.