Drug WarRant

Just for fun.

from Tosh.0 on Comedy Central

‘Reefer Madness’ Redux, Is Pot Addictive? at ABC News Health is a real piece of work.
It purports to be a balanced look at whether cannabis is addictive or whether current fears are mere Reefer Madness, yet it allows an awful lot of its own Reefer Madness nonsense through…

Studies dating back to 1984 have documented a clinical syndrome characterized by “restlessness, anorexia, irritability and insomnia” that begins within 24 hours of discontinuation and can last for up to 10 days.
Today, there are no FDA-approved drugs to counteract withdrawal symptoms, although the synthetic cancer drug Marinol shows some promise.

Really? Drugs to counteract cannabis withdrawal? Do we really need that? And are prescription THC pills supposed to be the answer (especially since, if we believe the fear-mongers, a big part of the problem is the increased level of THC in today’s pot)?

As the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, marijuana produces dependence and relapse rates comparable to other drugs some researchers believe.

Really? Even a cursory look at the difference between tobacco smokers and marijuana smokers will quickly disabuse you of that notion.

With stronger pot, emergency rooms have reported more associated accidents. Just this week, seven people were killed when the driver — drove the wrong way on a New York highway and collided head on with a pickup truck. Although the drivers family has disputed the results, toxicology tests showed high levels of alcohol and marijuana.

Give me a break! Combination of the conjoined statement lie, the out and out plain old lie (use of the word “accidents” in the first sentence), and attributing marijuana causation in an accident involving high levels of alcohol.

“The marijuana that is now out has been cross-bred like people breed flowers so what you have now is different from what you had 20 to 30 years ago,” said John Massella, regional program director for the Pittsburgh-based Gateway rehabilitation center, which treats 10,000 to 12,000 patients a year.
“They develop a tolerance and need more to get the desired effect,” he told ABCNews.com.

Bull.

Gateway has seen an increase in number of marijuana dependency cases, mostly adults who do not come of their own volition. Many have been referred by family or have had trouble with the law or have tested positive in an employment-related urine test.

Yeah. In other words, they aren’t addicted. They’re showing up because of referrals.

[Roger A. Roffman] argues that the reform movement makes a “tragic mistake” to convince the public that marijuana is relatively harmless.

Hmm…. that last sentence sounds familiar.
New York Times July 19, 2009:

[Roger a. Roffman:] However, our debates need more honesty. Those favoring liberalizing marijuana policy ought to stop inferring that marijuana is harmless; it is not.

Boston Globe, June 23, 2008:

“I think [both sides] do a disservice to the general public,” said Roffman, who has written papers and edited books on marijuana use and dependence. On websites of drug policy reform advocates, “you’ll find lots of information about the very adverse consequences of criminalizing marijuana and very little mention of the very real harm associated with marijuana among some people in some circumstances,” he said.

Exactly what I was talking about in my post Harmless?
Where Roffman gets the idea that it’s my job to say that marijuana isn’t harmless (particularly when every government and media lackey is willing to lie to do so) is beyond me, particularly when it isn’t even relevant to the discussion of whether criminalization is the best way to deal with drugs.

It’s been somewhat good news that Senator Leahy blocked a favorable State Department report on Mexico’s human rights record.

Leahy’s action delays the release of $100 million in U.S. aid meant to help Mexico combat drug traffickers. The Merida Initiative, a $1.4 billion, three-year package, requires Congress to withhold some of the funding unless the State Department reports that Mexico is not violating human rights while prosecuting the drug war, the Post reported.

But will it do any good? Unlikely.

But objections by Leahy and others may have limited impact. Because the law requires only that the report be submitted, the State Department could spend the conditional money even if lawmakers object to its findings.

The Bolivian government has successfully commenced the formal process for amending the UN’s Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) to eliminate the provision that would require all countries to prohibit coca leaf chewing within 25 years (for Bolivia, that was 2001).
Interesting amendment process. If no country objects within 18 months, then the amendment passes (a nice, if time consuming, way to do it – countries need not get on the record to approve it). Countries most likely to object: United States and Sweden. If that happens, then there’s a conference to consider it.
The proposal has a very nice argument as to why this provision should be removed from the Single Convention.

In a sane society, an increase in arrests would be seen as a sign of failure.
We treat it like scoring points in a basketball game and give out bonuses.

That’s Kevin Drum in Mother Jones: California’s Prison Disaster.
A nice little piece about the prison mess

A combination of dumb drug laws, dysfunctional parole policies, “three strikes” laws passed by initiative, an endless procession of tougher-than-thou politicians, and a famously thuggish and politically powerful prison guards union has gotten California into this mess.

But, while Kevin is friends with Mark Kleiman, he really needs to stop going to Mark every time he talks about drugs. Particularly now, with his new book coming out, Kleiman talks about nothing but Project HOPE when it comes to drug policy, even when it’s only of partial relevance. California is not going to solve its prison explosion by merely instituting a parole system with drug testing, position monitoring, and “swift but mild” prison sanctions. They’re going to have to imprison fewer people in the first place, and some of those they imprison will have to be for shorter sentences.

Where do they get these people?
Take the case of Bradley Schreiber. He “served as a senior advisor at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is now president of Homeland Security Solutions.”
His company (which may be just him and Steven Grossman for all I know) issued a Press Release touting Schreiber’s drug war advice, particularly as it relates to Mexico. The following are not misquotes by press, but rather actual quotes written by him for his own press release…
1.

“Drug cartels are incredibly nimble creatures – you cut the head off one and another will just pop up.”

I do not think that word means what you think it means… Nimble? Not very nimble if you cut off their head. “Replaceable,” perhaps, or “ubiquitous.” Maybe even “regenerative,” depending on the context. But definitely not “nimble” in that tortured metaphor.
2.

Schreiber said that “the best way to stop them is to stop the flow of money. If we take away the cash, the drugs are worth nothing. The cartels become impudent.”

“If we take away the cash, the drugs are worth nothing.” No, the drugs are still valuable, you’ve just taken cash away from the cartels…. but then… Shreiber says that without cash the “cartels become impudent.” “Impudent”? “Impudent” is a cocky boldness — certainly not what you’d think Shreiber is trying to effect by taking away their cash. Perhaps he means “impotent,” kind of like his writing and ideas.
So, now that we’ve explored his inability to master the English language and the metaphor, what about Shreiber’s actual views on the drug war?
After all, in his press release he “contends that the current U.S. and Mexican approach to fighting the cartels will fail”
But Bradley’s got the answer. For that, we turn to Defeating the drug cartels: A broader approach by Bradley C. Schreiber in Homeland Security Today, where he supposedly “outlines steps that must be taken to ensure success.”
Wow. What are those steps that will ensure success where current efforts guarantee failure?

1. Stop cash smuggling. Gee, I wonder why nobody thought of that? We’ve already got cops in southern states only stopping southbound cars in the hopes of nabbing some cash (which is worth more to them than the drugs).
2. Increase interdiction efforts in Western Caribbean and Eastern Pacific areas. Interdiction? Yeah, that works. If you want to get about 10% of what goes through and not hurt the cartels at all.
3. Increase interdiction and law enforcement to stop drugs traveling to Europe through Africa. Sure, because we have the resources to patrol every mile of border of every country in the entire world. Anywhere we put interdiction resources, the cartels merely go around.
4. Inspect more shipping containers. Isn’t this more interdiction? Isn’t supply side what we’ve been doing that doesn’t really accomplish anything?
5. Pass the Colombian Free Trade agreement with Colombia, so the farmers won’t grow coca any more.

Bradley Schreiber concludes:

These are just a few of the steps that are required to succeed in our fight against the drug cartels that threaten Mexican and US national security. We can win this war once and for all, but only if we think more broadly and act more widely.

The nimble and impudent cartels are laughing all the way to the bank.

I don’t watch Bill O’Reilly, for my own sanity, but Reddit had a link to this video from last night’s show — his Cultural Warriors segment. He was talking about Amsterdam.

Some Americans (secular progressives) want to turn the USA into a permissive culture like western Europe. That’s what’s driving the drug legalization deal, gay and plural marriage, light sentences for convicted criminals….

He went on to talk about the evils of Amsterdam and how the mayor recently talked about the problems of organized crime, the existence of which, in O’Reilly’s mind, was due to the legalization of marijuana and prostitution — which, of course, is patently absurd. Even the two Fox News contributors on the show weren’t buying it completely.
At one point, one of them asked:

Why have so many more people in the USA, where marijuana is illegal, tried it? 40% of people in the USA compared to 22.6%…
OREILLY (interrupting): The way they use statistics in the Netherlands is different, plus it’s a much smaller country.

I stand in awe of his reasoning skills.

[Guest post by Russ Belville]
Marijuana legalization is the hottest topic in the media these days.
MSNBC, CNBC,
CNN,
FOX,
NatGeo, and CBS News have presented special features on marijuana business, medical marijuana, and the marijuana legalization movement.
Google Trends is showing double the interest in searches and news
hits for the term “marijuana legalization”.
Showtime’s hit series Weeds, about a suburban mom turned pot dealer, is entering its fifth season. Everywhere
you look, corporate media are happy to profit from America’s most popular herb.
Unless you want to address marijuana’s illegality and the lives that are shattered by the effects of marijuana prohibition. In that case, the corporate media cannot have anything to do with you, even if you want to pay to broadcast the message of ending adult marijuana prohibition…

Recently I was reading an opinion piece by an academic who, after demolishing the government’s position on marijuana, felt the need to admonish drug policy reformers for not fulfilling our obligation to inform people that marijuana is not harmless.
First, that’s not our job. And to a large extent, it’s irrelevant. Marijuana could be deadly dangerous and legalization would still be the answer, if prohibition, like now, didn’t actually exert a positive effect on any drug dangers and additionally had massively destructive side-effects.
The old drug czar used to love to throw that “harmless” word around, as if, assuming he could find some evidence that it was not completely harmless, that destroyed the arguments of legalizers.
But let’s assume it matters. What does the word mean?

1. free from harm, liability, or loss
2. lacking capacity or intent to injure

Clearly, the word has no meaning when applied to … anything, unless referring to it in a particular context.
For example, you may think that water is harmless, and it is, if you’re drinking a glass. However, it is clearly possible to fatally overdose on water, and floods kill people all the time.
Marijuana, if used responsibly, is harmless. If you take a ton of it and drop it from a helicopter on someone’s head, it’s not.
So, if you’re going to talk about whether a substance as a whole is “harmless” (since none can be), you really can only logically be talking “harmless” as a relative term compared to other acceptable risk substances (hence the “marijuana is safer” campaigns).
So let’s take a look at some regularly accepted things in society (legal things) where marijuana is “more harmless” in comparison…
Easy ones…

• Tobacco
• Alcohol

…but there’s lots more:

• Eggs
• Milk
• Construction Work
• Taking a vacation
• Bridges
• Stairs

Contractor: So, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, I see here that you’re asking us to put stairs in between the first and second floor in your new house. Well, we can do that, of course, but I do feel obligated to warn you that stairs aren’t harmless.

• Buckets
• Electric Blankets
• Fishing
• Crossing the Street
• A cookie

Well, you get the idea.
When prohibitionists play the “harmless” game, they’re trying to distract people from the real argument — the harmfulness of prohibition.