Drug WarRant

“bullet” More on the former drug czar’s appearance on CNN:
Dan Bernath demonstrates the breathtaking nature of John Walter’s pathological need to lie in How Can We Miss You if You Won’t Go Away?:

Walters begins a tirade about medical marijuana in California, saying ‹it has been reported in the newsŠ that there are more medical marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco than there are Starbucks coffee shops.
What Walters says is technically true Ö that lie has indeed been reported in the news. What he fails to mention is that the source was none other than John Walters. And those news reports were widely dismissive of Walters‰ fib. Both Starbucks and the San Francisco Department of Health refuted it.
But by cleverly distancing himself from his own lie and attributing it to ‹the news,Š Walters is free to repeat it as much as he wants without ever being held accountable.

Paul Armentano makes it clear how he feels about the ex-czar over at the Huffington Post: What Do You Know, the Ex-Drug Czar Is Still Full of Sh*t!:

In a revelation that I’m sure will come as a surprise to absolutely no one, it turns out that ex-Drug Czar John Walters is still full of sh*t.

… and goes on to demolish each of his points.
And for more fisking of that CNN piece, see De-Filtering: Jeffrey Miron vs. John Walters on CNN at Show Me the Facts.
“bullet” In a related note, Kaptinemo in comments found a video at Huffington Post from last month of Rob Kampia Bruce Mirken on the Rachel Maddow show. It’s a nice piece (and Mirken does a nice take-town himself of Walters, calling him “a pitchfork-wielding fanatic – an absolute zealot (particularly on marijuana), who had no interest in facts, no interest in data, and frankly was perfectly happy to lie about what the research said in service of his own ideology.”
I haven’t watched Maddow much — I was impressed with how she handled the segment compared to what we see from most other cable news shows.
“bullet” Barney Frank was on Lou Dobbs and was on fire. He talked about a number of things, but move ahead to the 3:10 point in the video and you’ll see the discussion on marijuana legalization.

A couple of highlights: Frank (referring to Schwarzennegger):

Well, first of all, when people in my business say it’s time for a debate, it generally means that they are for something that they’re afraid isn’t popular enough yet. I’m for more than a debate…

And this important point from Frank:

It’s a mistake to divide human activity into two sets of classes: One, things that government prohibits, and then things that government encourages. Most human activity ought to be neither. It ought to be up to you to make the choice.

Barney was so engaging that Lou Dobbs had nothing really to say and just smiled.
“bullet” Going to Court. Lesson One.
If you’re going to court, leave the marijuana at home.

Authorities in New York state said a man searching his pockets for a summons in a courtroom dropped a bag of marijuana onto an officer’s shoe.

“bullet” Marc Emery comes to the rescue of a double-amputee medical marijuana patient who is to be evicted for smoking marijuana (because of the marijuana smoke smell) and gives her a Volcano Vaporizer (along with some Blueberry Island Sweet Skunk).
“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

New Zogby poll: 52% favor legalization

Voters were asked: “Scarce law enforcement and prison resources, a desire to neutralize drug cartels and the need for new sources of revenue have resurrected the topic of legalizing marijuana. Proponents say it makes sense to tax and regulate the drug while opponents say that legalization would lead marijuana users to use other illegal drugs. Would you favor or oppose the government’s effort to legalize marijuana?”

Then:

“The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”

Now (page 795 of the budget appendix released today):

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.”

Extremely disappointing.
Update: The White House responds:

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the administration isn’t yet ready to lift the ban – but Obama still supports needle exchange.
“We have not removed the ban in our budget proposal because we want to work with Congress and the American public to build support for this change,” he said. “We are committed to doing this as part of a National HIV/AIDS strategy and are confident that we can build support for these scientifically-based programs.”

…
In other news, Gil Kerlikowske was confirmed as the new Drug Czar. Norm Stamper writes him a letter.

Please don’t blow it, Gil.

Bernd Debusmann has a good OpEd at Reuters: Drugs, elephants and American prisons

Are the 305 million people living in the United States the most evil in the world? Is this the reason why the U.S., with 5 percent of the world‰s population, has 25 percent of the world‰s prisoners and an incarceration rate five times as high as the rest of the world?
Or is it a matter of a criminal justice system that has gone dramatically wrong, swamping the prison system with drug offenders?

He also talks about the shifting mood in the country that is becoming quite noticeable.
Nice little OpEd.
Then I was struck by a comment by “SG” to the article…

I am weighing the pros and cons and right now I veer towards the cons, especially because children are ultimately involved: kids are not to blame if their parents/guardian reckless attitude towards smoking pot will endanger their well being.
If a kid swallows a plastic bit of toy in the room next to where you are cheerfully yapping away sharing a dooby with your friends and unaware, what then?

My first reaction: Why have you placed a random unsupervised child in the room next to mine? I’m not married, haven’t had any kids, and don’t have any plastic toys, but you want to arrest me because of an imaginary child and an imaginary toy in an imaginary room, based on an imaginary view of my responsibility as a parent and my awareness when stoned?
This is a big part of the problem with prohibitionists. They imagine a scenario where someone might get hurt and decide to “solve” it not by addressing the actual scenario logically, but by arresting everyone whether they have any connection to the scenario.
It would be just as easy to imagine in SG’s scenario a situation where a mother is so absorbed with cooking dinner, juggling various timings, keeping one thing from burning, while blending the sauce, etc. that she fails to notice the child in the next room choking on a plastic piece of a toy. My God! We have to get women out of the kitchen! We need to outlaw cooking!

CNN covers Schwarzenegger’s call for a debate on marijuana legalization and brings on Jeffrey Miron and John Walters (Warning: Walters will make you want to throw things, so get breakables out of close reach. See if you can count the outright lies.)
Miron does a great job, but Walters speaks without taking breaks dominating the time. Walters’ big theme: marijuana causes violence.

Bizarre moment early in the piece (before the debate) was John Coleman of Drug Watch International comparing pot in the day to today’s weed:

No question about it… it’s the difference between having, maybe, a four-ounce glass of beer versus an eight-ounce glass of Jack Daniels

Um, really?

1. Who drinks a four-ounce glass of beer?
2. Where does pot come in pre-determined consumable amounts?

Of course, in actuality, the difference between low grade marijuana and that with high THC content ends up being more like the difference between drinking a six-pack of beer and having an ounce of scotch neat.
And, of course, here’s the other thing: You drink too much Jack Daniels and you can die. Not so with marijuana.

Follow-up to yesterday’s post…

REDDING — Join the math club, take a drug test. That was the rule in the Shasta Union High School District until today, when a California Superior Court judge put a stop to the district’s policy of requiring students to consent to random drug testing in order to participate in school-sponsored activities like marching band and math club. The court granted a preliminary injunction, voiding the district’s drug testing program and allowing students who did not consent to testing to resume their co-curricular activities. The ruling is a promising victory for the three students and their families who took a stand against the district’s policy.

Good news, even though it’s just a first step.

For Brittany, today’s ruling marks an important personal victory. She is now free to play in the statewide competition this weekend on May 9. As a senior, this is her last chance to compete with her flute ensemble.
“Schools already have the authority to test or search any student if they have a reason to think they’ve been using drugs. But mandatory testing impedes students’ ability to participate in a number of student activities and intrudes on their privacy,” said ACLU-NC Staff Attorney Michael Risher. “Students should not be treated like suspects because they want to play in the school band.”

Exactly.

This is how politicians cover themselves.

‹I think it‰s time for a debate (regarding taxing and regulating the sale of cannabis for adults). I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I‰m always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries? It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could move to that.‹

As Scott Morgan notes:

I like what’s happening with this “let’s debate it” line we keep hearing lately. It’s a way for public officials to show interest in the subject without alienating anyone who feels strongly about the issue. […]
Considering the famous Schwarzenegger-smoking-pot video that’s all over the web, some will accuse him of hypocrisy should his position ultimately fall anywhere short of outright support for legalization. Still, it’s notable in and of itself that we’re beginning to see politicians shifting away from knee-jerk opposition to reform, in favor of the more open-minded position of endorsing a debate on the subject.

All we’ve asked for is an open and honest debate. If we can truly have that, we’ll win.
More at NORML.

This kind of student awareness is gratifying to see.

A Shasta County Superior Court judge will rule Wednesday on a temporary injunction sought by a group of students hoping to block Shasta Union High School District’s drug-testing policy. […]
An injunction would allow students in the district to participate in band, choir and other extracurricular activities without having to take drug tests.
One of the students suing the school district wants to participate in a state flute competition this weekend. When randomly selected earlier this year, the student refused to take the drug test.

Do you know what that student had to go through to be selected to be in a state flute competition? The hours of practice and dedication!
I work with music students every day and they are extraordinarily bright and hard working. They have to be to attempt that career path. This flautist is not likely to be a problem for the school, so why are they going after her for drug testing?
Well, the answer is that school officials aren’t allowed (yet) to test all students, so they have to come up with rationale to test as many as they can, and they use the extra-curricular activity approach as one way to do it. How?

He also argued that some of these activities could be dangerous for students impaired by drugs or alcohol. FFA students work with livestock at many of their competitions and students performing in show choir employ complicated lifts in their dance routines, he said.
“We have targeted the group most at risk of being harmed,” Kelley said.

Bull. That doesn’t even pass the laugh test, let alone the smell test. And what about playing the flute?
The truth is that targeting extra-curricular activities is a horrible approach. Students who are actively involved in music and theatre and FAA and other positive after-school activities are more likely to be well-balanced in their lives. Does that mean that all of them are going to be completely drug-free? Of course not, no more than any other group. However, they are much less likely to have a drug problem than students who have no positive extra-curricular activities.
So even the tiniest possibility that your drug testing policy will deter students from participating in these activities is harmful. And given the value of these activities, every dollar you spend on drug testing could be more productively spent on band.

One of most important advantages we talk about regarding legalization and regulation is getting rid of the violence, destruction, and corruption that is an inevitable part of the massive black market operation that is an inevitable by-product of prohibition.
Clearly our message is getting out there, because we’re now starting to hear push-back from prohibitionists (and prohibition apologists) on that very talking point. The usual response goes something like this:

“Some claim that legalization will eliminate black markets, but that’s false. There will always be black markets as long as drugs are taxed, regulated or controlled.”

And yes, they’re technically correct. The only way to completely eliminate any chance of a black market for a demand commodity is to have absolutely no taxes or regulation (economic freedom is an enemy to black markets). But their argument is specious and pathetic.
There’s all kinds of black markets. When a 22-year-old buys a six-pack for his 19-year-old brother, that’s a black market transaction. But it’s hardly comparable to Al Capone during liquor prohibition.
Say you live in South Carolina, where the tax on cigarettes is $.07 per pack and you’re visiting a friend in New Jersey, where it’s $2.57 per pack. Your friend may ask you to bring a couple of cartons with you when you visit and he’ll reimburse you. Despite the massive differential in taxation, it’s unlikely that the thought of the potential profit is enough to make you kill your neighbors and put their heads on pikes as a warning to other South Carolinians not to mess with your cigarette smuggling business.
So, yes, there will be black markets, but the prohibitionist argument is as stupid as saying “Sure, this treatment will cure your cancer, but you’ll still have a runny nose, so we probably shouldn’t do it.”
The fact that there will still be minor black market transactions in regulated legalization can be instructive — it will help us be cautious about setting taxes too high, or regulations too stiff, in order to limit the “sniffles.” But the most important thing is legalization, to cut out the worst of the black market — the cancer that is destroying us.

Not that he’s any more qualified to speak about legalization than anyone else, but he is a big name (and his statement is already getting some press).

Michael Douglas is urging U.S. government officials to consider legalizing the use of marijuana. […]
And the 64-year-old is adamant that making cannabis legal would boost America’s flagging economy and make the world more peaceful. […]
“I’m questioning it. We’re trying to get a lot of money for health and education and I’m wondering… you look at these gangs, and I look back at Prohibition. When we didn’t allow alcohol, what did we have? We had gangs. We had big gangs. It’s something that needs to be discussed a little more. It’s an economic issue and a violence issue.”