Drug WarRant

Radley Balko covers the story.

…the Prince George‰s County Sheriff‰s Department announced that its internal review found that its officers did nothing wrong in the SWAT raid on Berwyn Heights, Maryland Mayor Cheye Calvo‰s home.

As Radley notes, the comments by Sherrif Michael Jackson were particularly outrageous, including:

‹I‰m sorry for the loss of their family pets,Š Jackson said. ‹But this is the unfortunate result of the scourge of drugs in our community. Lost in this whole incident was the criminal element. . . . In the sense that we kept these drugs from reaching our streets, this operation was a success.Š

First of all, the police intercepted the package at the warehouse. At that point, they had already kept the marijuana inside from ‹reaching the streets.Š Everything that happened next was at the discretion of the officers who carried out the investigation and raid well after the marijuana had already been confiscated, which means they and they alone own the results of the raid.
Second, what happened to Calvo isn‰t the ‹unfortunate result of the scourge of drugs in our community,Š it‰s the result of a bumbling, overly aggressive, wholly incompetent police department. And it‰s the result of a drug warrior mentality that believes invading someone‰s home with guns and filling their pets with bullets is an appopriate response to a possible violation of state marijuana laws.

Do these people have any sense of how ridiculous they look when they try to justify their war? Just check out the comments on the Washington Post Article. I haven’t found a single one yet supporting the sheriff. [correction: one, out of 112 comments, supported the sheriff, and it was pretty stupid]

In response to ‘Leave me the hell alone‰
Medical marijuana user wants to know why police raided his home, comes this:

I’ve just learned that Radio Userland and Salon Blogs, which have hosted Drug WarRant since it started in 2003, are shutting down for good in December.
That means I will lose all prior comments (which were hosted on their server), and I will lose all the ‘blogs.salon.com’ addressing scheme (which really affects popular pages like “why is marijuana illegal” — all the current links to it out on the web will be dead links.
Now I can go ahead and mirror the entire blog to a different server and continue to use the software, but as long as I’m losing all those links, that removes my one main reason for continuing to use a fairly clunky blogging software.
So I’m looking for suggestions. My technical expertise is moderate – very strong in html/css coding, less so in server/database areas. What would be a good platform to move to? What should I use for comments? (Yes, I know a lot of you will be thrilled that the current commenting system will be gone.)
One possibility is to use the Radio software to mirror the archives and keep them that way, and start fresh with the new software.
I think I’d like to keep the same basic structure of the blog — it seems to work pretty well for me.
What are your thoughts?

“bullet” Interesting perspective from Bruce Mirken: How Does It Feel To Be On the Losing Side of History?”

Now I think I know what it must have been like to be, say, the last premier of East Germany, standing guard over the fading embers of an empire in irreversible decline. It‰s a little sad. Like them, the Terrence Farleys of this world no longer have a real case to make or a reason to justify their existence. They just cling to what they do because, well, it‰s what they do and they don‰t know anything else.

“bullet” Sasha Abramsky in The Nation: The War Againg the ‘War on Drugs’

The state with the toughest three-strikes law in the land and a prison population of more than 150,000 is facing the real possibility of having to release tens of thousands of inmates early in order to pare its $10 billion annual correctional budget.
At the same time, an increasing number of the state’s political figures are challenging the basic tenets of the “war on drugs,” the culprit most responsible for the spike in prison populations over the past thirty years; they argue that the country’s harsh drug policies are not financially viable and no longer command majority support among the voting public.
Similar stories are unfolding around the country; in Washington, federal officials are talking about drug-policy reform and, more generally, sentencing reform in a way that has not been heard in the halls of power for more than a generation.

“bullet” Protecting medical marijuana shops a tricky task for police… Hmm… you know what would make it easier? Legalize.
“bullet” Some media starting to pick up the WHO report bombshell that Transform reported last week: Suppressed report raises questions about drug policy
“bullet” Massachusetts Suspends Pentagon Giveaways to Local Police Departments. Good job by the Boston Globe (and Radley, of course) in bringing this issue out in the open.
“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Support the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009
This act, introduced by Barney Frank, would eliminate federal penalties for possession of up to 3.5 ounces of marijuana. It’s a start.
Go to MPP to send a form letter, or contact your Representative directly.

Former White House Spokesman Robert Weiner wrote a letter to the New York Times… and then released a press release stating that he had done so: Drug Legalization Would Be ‘Catastrophe’, Says Ex-White House Drug Spokesman Bob Weiner; Drugs Have Not ‘Won The War’; Op-ed Letter in New York Times Today

Former White House Drug Policy Spokesman Robert Weiner is attacking the arguments of the most recent drug legalization advocates: “They invite a catastrophe of greater drug use, car crashes, school and work dropouts, hospital emergency room cases, and crime including domestic violence and date rape.”

Really? And you know this… how?
How about if I said “Allowing people with the last name ‘Weiner’ to walk free in this country invites a catastrophe of child pornography, global thermonuclear war, hangnails, and disruptions in the space-time continuum.” Sure, I can say that, but it’s meaningless and completely lacking in any factual support, as is his statement.
He continues:

“Legalization would be a catastrophe. (Some) use the analogy of legal alcohol. But we have an estimated 15 million alcoholics in this country and 5 million drug addicts; do we want the 5 to become 15?

Again, where does this come from? Is there some magical property that any legal substance will automatically result in the same number of abusers? Are there 15 million tobacco addicts? 15 million caffeine addicts? Were there 15 million salvia addicts when it was legal in all the states? And are they all unique? This is absurd. Each drug is different and has different results. There’s absolutely no evidence that there would be any more addicts to currently illegal drugs when they become legal.

“Parents, police and the American people know that taking away the incentive of the normative power of the law would increase drug use and related car crashes, school dropouts and work absences. That is why the law has remained in place.
“Hospital emergency rooms would be flooded, and crime would return to the crisis levels of the 1970s and ’80s, when drug use was at its highest. Domestic violence and date rape would be substantially higher. The majority of arrestees in 10 major American cities recently tested positive for illegal drugs, a remarkable indicator of a link between drugs and crime.”

Ah, start with false conjecture after false conjecture and then, yes, you push the blatant dishonesty. Implying a causal link, not just a correlation. Wow!
A lot of stroking, Mr. Weiner, but you still have nothing measurable.

Some good stuff that may have slipped through the cracks…
“bullet” An embarrassing interview with the drug czar — Scott Morgan

Rolling Stone‘s June issue takes an in-depth look at the evolving political climate surrounding drug policy (a portion is available online), including a deliciously embarrassing visit with drug czar Gil Kerlikowske. Remember Kerlikowske’s recent statement about not calling it a “war on drugs” anymore? Well, guess what he’s got in his office:

ádespite this sudden outbreak of sanity, rumors of the drug war’s death are greatly exaggerated. Visitors to the drug czar’s office in Washington — formally known as the Office of National Drug Control Policy — are greeted by the visage of Uncle Sam on a poster declaring, WE ARE AT WAR. ARE YOU DOING ALL YOU CAN?

You really couldn‰t ask for a better exhibit in the total incoherence and rank dishonesty of the drug czar’s claim that our drug policy isn‰t a war. I don’t blame him for trying and it’s certainly encouraging that we’ve reached a point at which the drug war is so controversial that they’re trying to change its name. But how could they possibly forget to take down the damn sign? I mean, really, did they forget that Rolling Stone was stopping by?

This really shows the total incoherence and dysfunction that is our federal drug policy.
“bullet” Take that, Governor. Rhode Island passed a bill to allow a small number of “compassion centers” — medical marijuana dispensaries — to give patients a legal means of purchasing their medicine. Governor Carcieri vetoed the bill. So the Senate voted to override the veto 35-3, and the House went 67-0.
That’s power. Rhode Island gets its dispensaries, and Carcieri looks weak for opposing them.
“bullet” Radley Balko is interviewed at The Atlantic on law and order, non-knock raids, etc. Part 1 — Part 2 — Part 3. (they’re very short – could easily have been done in one).
“bullet” Credit where credit is due. I have often taken the AP to task for their articles on marijuana and drug policy, but this one, which has been widely circulated in papers all across the country, is remarkably good!

It’s remarkable how much truly bad science is related to marijuana research. The latest is this: Evaluation of the DNA damaging potential of cannabis cigarette smoke by the determination of acetaldehyde derived N2-ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine adducts by Singh R, Sandhu J, Kaur B, Juren T, Steward WP, SegerbÉck D, Farmer PB
Now, some science monkey is likely to come along at this point and say “How dare you call it bad science? Do you know more than these researchers? Have you studied their work?” No. But it’s bad science. And I can tell by reading the final sentence of their abstract:

In conclusion, these results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development.

The mere fact that they are implying negative possibilities about cannabis consumption in a scientific abstract makes it science by press release, which is, by definition, bad science.
They know, based on such a statement alone, that sensationalist media all over the world will give them publicity for their work without even looking at it.
They also know that they have absolutely no evidence that supports such conjectures — all they have is an interesting little datum of scientific trivia that says nothing, but may lead to further research. That, however, doesn’t get them in the papers.
Listen, I could conduct a study where I injected marijuana mixed with air into the bloodstream of rats causing all of them to die (from the injected air, of course), and end my abstract with a statement that this study implicates the possibility that THC in the bloodstream causes death. And Fox News would have a headline.
Just like they have today: Marijuana Not Only Gets You High, It Damages Your DNA

Researchers at the University of Leicester in England have found “convincing evidence” that pot smoke damages DNA in ways that could potentially increase the risk of cancer.

Paul Armentano does a nice job of taking down the Fox article.

Just for the record, in 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study (yes, Dr. Tashkin actually performed research on humans, not ‘calf thymus DNA‰) ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract — even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime.
Let the folks at Fox put that in their pipe and smoke it. [emphasis added]

It happens every time.
To be honest, it’s depressingly unrealistic to expect more of the media. They love this crap. But those who work in scientific fields must start holding their colleagues to some kind of standard of professionalism. This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

It really does get interesting to see who comes out of the woodwork to defend prohibition. And more and more, they’re the real nut cases.
John English: The Drug War

Marijuana is a life and death issue for your children. Drug use is not a game! Users are thoroughly out of control! Their myopic mindset sees only it‰s hedonistic desire. They have come to hate law enforcement, those who respect it and would bring about the end of civilized society if let be.

English also wrote yesterday: Medical marijuana

The societal ills, attributable to marijuana, warrant keeping it illegal! The term, ‹Medical marijuanaŠ is a misnomer. Plain and simple, legalization is a dangerous scam and needs to be exposed as such! It‰s no more a medicine than is the elixir a snake-oil salesman sold off the back of his covered wagon — the one that mixed opium with alcohol! Marijuana has been intentionally misrepresented to be medicinal, by those who want to get high, without incurring the consequences.

Of course, this is not anyone of real significance, but he is the caliber of most of those today who write in favor of continued (or increased) prohibition.
See Ted Nugent: Ted Nugent: We could be winning war on drugs

Legalizing drugs would be like pouring gasoline on a blazing fire in hopes of extinguishing it.
We have all the laws we need to fight drugs. What America needs is the willpower and a renewed warrior spirit to crush evil and evil-doers. […]
Every American who smokes dope, manufactures, buys or sells meth or uses any illegal drug is aiding and abetting the enemies of America. Case closed.
This spiritual inbreeding and cannibalism must be identified, admitted and stopped immediately. America can and must do this. Good over evil. Next.

This is pure crazy.
When you look at these, and then read the statements of the supposedly ‘sane’ prohibitionists out there, you start to realize that there’s not really that much difference…
Kevin Sabet: The price of legalizing pot is too high

What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, healthcare costs would rise and productivity would suffer.

In sections, he at least sounds more reasonable than Ted Nugent, John English, or Stephen Baldwin (and has a better sense of grammar), yet when you analyze the content, the disconnect from reality (and lack of interest in facts) is palpable, and has little difference from the crazies.
Interestingly, in the Sabet article, you get the impression that he’s trying to line up with Caulkins and Kleiman. Make of that what you will.