Drug WarRant

Updates to yesterday’s post
“bullet” A big thanks to Dano regarding the postponement of Ammiano’s legalization bill (AB 390). A note from Dale Gieringer posted at Mendocinocountry’s Blog says:

Contrary to the article by Richard Johnson, Assemblyman Ammiano did NOT withdraw his bill AB 390 (which is for legalization, NOTŠ decriminalizationŠ). I just spoke with him today, and he is pursuing it vigorously.
He had it extended into a two-year bill in order to give us more time to lobby the legislature. The Speaker had been pressing to kill the bill quickly by bringing it to an early hearing in a hostile committee. At Ammiano‰s request, the bill was kept alive and postponed for extended consideration. Hearings are expected next January or December.

“bullet” Regarding the Holder attribution in the New York Times:

And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade, Mr. Holder said he was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases.

I asked reporter Ginger Thompson whether Holder had been talking about distributing or importing rather than possession.
Her reply:

Thanks very much for your query.
Mr. Holder said he thought that too few marijuana possession cases were prosecuted by the federal government, and that he was exploring lowering the minimums to prosecute more.

Still clueless as to what that really means, but I hold to my analysis from yesterday.

This isn’t the first year that Illinois has discussed medical marijuana. So you’d think that the media would be better able to report on it by now.
“bullet” Charity Bonner reports in the Elgin Courier News.

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the pill [Marinol] has been found to relieve nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer. The USDA says the drug is a safer alternative since it does not contain the chemicals or carcinogens found in smoked marijuana. The USDA also reported that some states that have legalized medical marijuana, such as California, have seen an abuse of the system.

Dear Charity,
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is the DEA, not the USDA. The USDA is the United States Department of Agriculture. Neither the DEA nor the USDA are trained in medicine or have any reason to be commenting on the medical efficacy of drugs.
“bullet” In another article about medical marijuana in Illinois, the Southtown Star’s Maura Possley does a decent job, but is then sabotaged by her headline writer with “Springfield legislators weighing dope proposal”
Really? Dope proposal?
It made me wonder whether, if they wrote an article about breast cancer, they’d title it “Springfield legislators weighing hooters proposal.”
And you wonder why newspapers are shutting down…

“bullet” “Why is AB 390 being delayed until next year?” No idea.
AB 390 is the bill for legalizing marijuana in California, introduced by Ammiano.
This page suggests that the first hearing was cancelled by the author, and other sources do say that it has been delayed until next year. It could be that he wanted to get more ammunition together, or more co-sponsors, or see what happens with dispensaries, or he simply knows that it doesn’t have a chance of passing now, so he’s extending its life to get more coverage next year.
If anybody has better information, I’d love to hear it.
“bullet” What’s going on with this report in the New York Times about AG Holder’s meeting with the AG of Mexico?

And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade, Mr. Holder said he was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases.

You got me.
Eric Sterling thinks that somebody (possibly the NY Times) confused “possession with importation, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute.” Which makes sense, because using federal prosecutors to go after mere marijuana possession would be a particularly stupid thing for Holder to suggest as a means for assisting with the Mexican drug war.
I’ve got an email out to the reporter, but I haven’t heard back yet.
I think Eric’s right on this – it’s the only thing that makes sense. Now that doesn’t make us particularly happy, because we don’t feel that marijuana should be illegal at all, so any proposed increase in enforcement seems terrible. And yet, I’m not particularly surprised.
What’s Holder supposed to do? The only solution related to the Mexican drug war that would actually make any difference is off the table — legalization. This administration is not going to suggest legalization as a solution. Period. We never expected them to. If you can’t suggest a real solution, what do you have left? You have to make a big show about there being some aspect of prohibition that hasn’t been done, or hasn’t been done enough, or enough in the right way, and pretend that it’ll make the difference (even though you know full well that it won’t).
It’s not like Holder can say “Well, with all those people dying, we’re just going to keep on doing what we’ve been doing. Maybe a little less.” Of course not — he’s got to at least appear to be kicking some ass and making a difference, even though what he’s suggesting, upon closer examination, appears to be nothing more than finding some marijuana smuggling offenses and prosecuting them in a federal court instead of a state court — like that could possibly have any effect.

I was busy traveling this weekend, and exhausted from driving back from Chicago in a blinding snowstorm (in April?) last night, so here’s al I’ve got for you. Carlos Santana tells President Obama: “Legalize Marijuana.”

What else is going on?

“bullet” Maia Szalavitz: Is the Media Finally Getting it On Drug Policy?

For years, virtually every internet discussion of drug policy has been dominated by drug policy reformers and outright legalization advocates–but this growing sentiment amongst the most educated and connected went unreported.
Maybe the MSM is finally waking up–they can no longer simply create and re-enforce conventional wisdom. When the facts about drugs are only a few clicks away, the propaganda loses its luster.
Given that the vast majority of journalists have smoked pot and at least a third of those in their 40’s or up have probably taken cocaine without significant problems, does it really make sense for them to go on carrying water for the drug warriors, worrying about “the children” and infantilizing their audiences by repeating myths that many must know themselves to be untrue?

“bullet” David Sirota in the Denver Post: This is the truth on drugs … any questions?

Indeed, as federal agencies acknowledge alcohol’s key role in deadly illnesses and domestic violence, their latest anti-pot fear mongering is an ad campaign insisting Ö I kid you not Ö that marijuana is dangerous because it makes people zone out on their couches and diminishes video gaming skills.
(This is your government on drugs: Cirrhosis and angry tank-topped lushes beating their wives are more acceptable risks than stoners sitting in their basements ineptly playing Halo … any questions?).

“bullet” Will Wilkinson in The Week:

My name is Will Wilkinson. I smoke marijuana, and I like it.

“bullet” Out of The Cannabis Closet at The Daily Dish:

“I am a self made multi-millionaire with three houses in three states including a ski house in Colorado and a penthouse apartment in Manhattan. I’m happily married and keep fit by running 15 miles a week and working out regularly. I support the arts and other charities heavily. I oftentimes work long hours and manage a crew of about 70 people. I have been a weed smoker for as long as I can remember. Recently I received a glass bong as a present. Tonight my friends and I are going to rip huge tubes of sweet OG kush and get high as shit. Then I will take my responsible millionaire ass and plant it in front of the TV for a long night of xbox and candy eating. I will laugh uncontrollably and have a fantastic time. These nights of Xbox and reefer is one of the best things in my life… And I got a pretty damn good life.”

“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Reminder: Glenn Greenwald will be at the Cato Institute tomorrow (Friday) at noon Eastern to talk about his paper: Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. Peter Reuter will be responding, and Tim Lynch, moderating.
If you can’t get to the Cato Institute, you can watch the event live here.
The paper itself is now available to read online at Cato or you can download the pdf.
It’s a fascinating paper.
It’s amazing how little we have discussed Portugal and their drug policies in the states. I would imagine that is, in part, a function of how unfamiliar we are with the language. Fortunately, Glenn is fluent and bridges that gap for us.
Decriminalization in Portugal really works. It’s certainly not what I would wish for an end goal here – I want to see regulated legalization, not merely decriminalization. Yet what Portugal has in place is far superior to our criminalized approach. It’s more effective, it’s smarter, and it’s more… human. We can learn a lot. In particular, we can learn that moving away from criminalization will not result in the social breakdown that is the warped fantasy of prohibitionists.
So what led Portugal to pursue decriminalization?

… decriminalization was driven not by the perception that drug abuse was an insignificant problem, but rather by the consensus view that it was a highly significant problem, that criminalization was exacerbating the problem, and that only decriminalization could enable an effective government response. […]
Since Portugal enacted its decriminalization scheme in 2001, drug usage in many categories has actually decreased when measured in absolute terms, whereas usage in other categories has increased only slightly or mildly. None of the parade of horrors that decriminalization opponents in Portugal predicted, and that decrminalization opponents around the world typically invoke, has come to pass. In many cases, precisely the opposite has happened…

Glenn does a nice job of breaking down the statistics, and comparing them to the rest of the European Union, also noting that both drug-related disease and drug-related mortality rates have decreased since decriminalization.
So how does this work?
They worked very hard to take it out of the criminal justice system, recognizing that the criminal justice system is the worst place to turn to help people. Drug possession is still illegal, but being caught with up to 10 days supply of any drug is merely an administrative action, not a criminal action.

…police officers are required to issue citations to the offender, but they are not permitted to make an arrest. The citation is sent to the commission, and the administrative process will then commence.

Enter the Dissuasion Commission, which will hear from the alleged offender and

“gather the information needed in order to reach a judgement as to whether he or she is an addict or not, what substances were consumed, the circumstances in which he was consuming drugs when summoned, the place of consumption and his economic situation.” […]
… the overriding goal of that process is to avoid the stigma that arises from criminal proceedings. Each step of the process is structured so as to de-emphasize or even eliminate any notion of “guilt” from drug usage and instead to emphasize the health and treatment aspects of the process.
The alleged offender, for instance, can request that notice of the proceedings not be sent to his home in order to preserve privacy. Commission members deliberately avoid all trappings of judges, and the hearing is intentionally structured so as to avoid the appearance of a court. Members dress informally. The alleged offender sits on the same level as the commission members, rather than having the members sit on an elevated platform. Commission members are legally bound to maintain the complete confidentiality of all proceedings. At all times, respect for the alleged offender is emphasiezed.

Wow. Can you imagine that? Respect for drug users.
What does the Commission do then?

In 2005, there were 3,192 commission rulings. Of those, 83 percent suspended the proceeding; 15 percent imposed actual sanctions; and 2.5 percent resulted in absolution. That distribution has remained constant since the law’s enactment. Of the cases where sactions were imposed, the overwhelming majority merely required the offenders to report periodically to designated locales.

Identify the people with real problems and try to help them. Talk to the others and let them go.
How bizarre this is compared to what we see every day in the U.S.
If you can, check out the session with Glenn tomorrow (Friday), and report back here. I’d love to see it, but unfortunately, I’m in meetings at that time.