Drug WarRant

First, we have the Mexican ambassador yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation calling for a discussion on marijuana legalization…

“This is a debate that needs to be taken seriously, that we have to engage in on both sides of the border: both in producing, in trafficking, and in consumption countries,” Sarukhan said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, when asked about legalization.

Now today we hear that a full national discussion is taking place.

Mexican lawmakers and experts on Monday began a first debate on the legalization of marijuana as part of a possible strategy to tackle the country’s powerful drug cartels. […]
Mexican lawmakers and experts on Monday began a first debate on the legalization of marijuana as part of a possible strategy to tackle the country’s powerful drug cartels.

Looks like our friends south of the border are doing a pretty good job with elevator arguments…
Can we use this to shame our own Congress?

Lawmakers in Mexico are looking at all options for reducing the drug war violence that is tearing apart their country. Regardless of your views on legalization, don’t we owe it to the thousands who have died to insure that every possibility has been fully considered, analyzed, and debated?

“bullet” Talk about data quality… This was a a few weeks ago, but I still get a kick out of it.

Investigators Get Government Approval for Fake Medical Product:
The Government Accountability Office was able to register with the Health and Human Services Department a fictitious institutional review board and panel of doctors and scientists that was led by a dog named Trooper.

“bullet” Another wrong address drug raid. Don’t know much about the details on this one, but a family about an hour away from me is suing police for a raid on the wrong apartment.
“bullet” Legalizing Key to Ending Drug Violence. Bill Steigerwald interviews Jeffrey Miron.

If there were no demand for drugs, there would be no drug market. It wouldn’t matter whether we prohibited drugs; there would be no violence. But there is going to be a demand for drugs whether we like it or not, and if we drive the market underground we are going to have many more negative sideeffects of that market than if we were to adopt a regime of legalization.

“bullet” Wall Street Journal: The Antidrug Campaign Tries a New Message. Um, no. It’s an old message and it doesn’t work.

Lloyd Johnston, principal investigator of the University of Michigan’s “Monitoring the Future Study,” which is funded by the federal government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse and tracks drug, alcohol and tobacco use, says he plans to press the Obama administration and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America to use the death toll in Mexico to engage the consciences of pot smokers.
Mr. Johnston likens the Mexico argument to the campaign against secondhand cigarette smoke; when smokers learned their habit was harming others, he says, many quit who wouldn’t have otherwise.

Yeah, like that terrorism thing, right?

The argument that pot smokers are unintentional collaborators in drug-related violence has been tried before. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the ONDCP ran ads in which one middle-aged man told another that buying drugs supported international terrorism. That campaign broadened into ads saying that casual drug use supported violent groups in Mexico, Colombia and U.S. cities.
“A lot of young people, especially teenagers, can sometimes be a little impervious to just simply, ‘This is bad for your health,’ or ‘This is bad for your future,”‘ says Mr. Walters. “They are idealistic and … they don’t like supporting people who kill others and harm the innocent.”
But research suggested the ads did not work. A federally funded study released in 2006 and conducted by the research firm Westat and the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication found that antidrug ads by the ONDCP during that time had no effect on the kids who’d seen them, and in some cases actually made them more interested in marijuana.

“bullet” Outstanding OpEd by Mike Gray in the Washington Post – a must read. We Tried A War Like This Once Before

Capone and his boys were agents of misguided policy. Ninety years ago, the United States tried to cure the national thirst for alcohol, and it led to an explosion of violence unlike anything we’d ever seen. Today, it’s hard to ignore the echoes of Prohibition in the drug-related mayhem along our southern border. Over the past 15 months, there have been 7,200 drug-war deaths in Mexico alone, as the government there battles an army of killers that would scare the pants off Al Capone.

“bullet” Obama taps addiction specialist for No. 2 drug czar

In another clear break from past policy, President Obama announced Friday that he intended to nominate as the nation’s No. 2 drug czar a scientist often considered the No. 1 researcher on addiction and treatment.

OK, but it’s hard to get excited when the Partnership for a Drug-Free America approves…

“We’re blown away. He understands,” said Stephen J. Pasierb, president and chief executive of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, that addiction “is a parent, a family, a child issue.”

“bullet” In an article about the Supreme Court case of the 13-year-old girl who was strip-searched in school over trying to find some non-prescription Advil, this passage really points out the cluelessness that we see so often in the drug war.

“I guess it’s the fact that they think they were not wrong, they’re not remorseful, never said they were sorry,” April Redding said this week, as she and Savana talked about the legal fight over that search, which has now reached the Supreme Court.
And even more: When, days later, the principal met with April Redding to discuss what had happened, she said he was dismissive of an event so humiliating that her daughter never returned to classes at Safford Middle School.
“He said, ‘There was an incident with some pills, and we had to find out if Savana had them, but you should be happy because we didn’t find any on her,’ ” Redding recalled. “I got really upset and was telling him, ‘Why did you do this to her? How could you do this to her?’ ”

We humiliated you and violated your rights, but you should be happy! We didn’t find anything so you’re innocent. Why are you upset?
“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Yes, old timers. I’m talking about the Data Quality Act – the DQA – aka the IQA. Does it bring back memories? Are you feeling ancient right now?
Quick primer for the newbies:
The Data Quality Act was a regulation put into effect requiring government agencies to disseminate accurate and truthful information (really!), allowing groups or individuals to challenge that information, and requiring the agencies to respond in 60 days.
Well, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) decided to put that to the test. Health and Human Services had a lot of inaccurate information (OK, lies) about medical marijuana on their website and other materials. If corrected to the real truth about the medical validity of marijuana, it would actually make it much harder for the federal government to deny marijuana re-scheduling appeals (ie, if HHS has the truth on their website, then the DEA can’t point to HHS and say “see, there’s no accepted medical use for cannabis – HHS says so”).
So the petition went forward…

• October 6, 2004: Original complaint filed (good, I thought — HHS will have to correct its information by the end of the year. Right.)
• December 1, 2004. HHS says it needs more time. (Note: You can read all the letters here)
• February 2, 2005. HHS says it needs more time.
• April 5, 2005. HHS says it needs more time.
• April 20, 2005. HHS claims that it doesn’t really need to respond.
• May 19, 2005. ASA appeals the non-response.
• July 28, 2005. HHS says it needs more time to respond to the appeal.
• October 5, 2005. HHS says it needs more time.
• December 8, 2005. HHS says it needs more time.
• February 7, 2006. HHS says it needs more time.
• April 12, 2006. HHS says it needs more time.
• April 20, 2006. FDA comes out with its nonsense declaration about marijuana not being medicine.
• May 2, 2006. ASA sends a letter threatening to sue if HHS continues to delay.
• July 12, 2006. HHS denies the appeal (by avoiding the question)
• February 21, 2007: ASA files lawsuit in district court.
• May 25, 2007. Government files motion to dismiss claiming that the courts don’t have jurisdiction and that ASA doesn’t have standing.
• June 21, 2007. ASA responds
• November 20, 2007. District court dismisses ASA’s lawsuit, stating that HHS wasn’t really required to do anything.

and now…
ASA has filed an appeal in the 9th Circuit Court. This is from their opening brief.

The primary issue on appeal is whether the “Information Quality Act” … (“IQA,” also referred to as the Data Quality Act)… gave ASA a legal right to obtain a timely, substantive response to its IQA Petition, or whether, as the district court held, the IQA is merely horatory and that Congress intended to allow agencies to obey the IQA’s commands, or not, as they choose, free from all judicial review.

Good luck, ASA! I admire your perseverance.
One of the standard tactics of the federal government is to delay, delay, delay hoping you’ll tire or die before they have to do anything.
Of course, it would be foolish to depend only on the results of a drawn-out administrative procedure, but hitting them from all sides — that’s powerful. So, pursuing the DQA, pushing for re-scheduling, lobbying Congress, educating the people, correcting the media, writing letters in newspapers, committing acts of civil disobedience, demanding scientific truth, writing a blog — it all adds up to critical mass.

A very important film is opening on April 17 (in select theatres, as they say).

American Violet (official film site) is based on the true story of one of those horribly destructive and racist drug war situations involving a snitch and the arrests of dozens of African-Americans in Hearne, Texas who often had no recourse but to plead guilty, even when they were innocent. One young black single mother had the courage to maintain her innocence and finally won, bringing to light the corruption involved in the drug war.
The movie has a top-notch cast (including Alfre Woodard, Charles Dutton, and Will Patton).
Spread the word and support the film if you can.

The TV is showing ads for an upcoming show by blue collar comedian Ron White, including this clip of him talking about his drug bust.

They found seven-eighths of a gram of marijuana. Now, when I have seven-eighths of a gram of marijuana, I consider myself to be out of pot.

In a comment over at Hit and Run, Pat Rogers takes me to task for leading the sheep who read my blog down the dangerous hope path when I should apparently be automatically condemning everything that the Obama administration does without investigation or analysis.

Second, for those blaming the folks who honestly thought that Obama would be different and so voted for him, it was not their fault. They were led by commentators in the reform community who idealistically rephrased and misrepresented everything that Obama actually said leading reformers by their hopes rather than informing them of the reality. And this continues today. I got the Holder quote from Pete Guither’s Drug WarRant where Pete and Eric Sterling dissect the Holder quote, deny what he actually said. And then proceed to fantasize about what they think he really said. “Sometimes, I’m clueless“

Pat’s not the only one to imply that I’ve drunk the cool-aid, so I should probably make this clear…
Yes, I admit that I personally like President Obama. I think he’s intelligent and I like having a President with an I.Q. above 20. I think that he has the potential for improving our ability to work with the rest of the world (which is in our direct interest), and I think that he has the potential to be better (not in any way good, but less bad) on drug policy than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or John McCain (which still isn’t saying much). On the other hand, his record on civil liberties is atrocious and dangerous, and I’m in full agreement with Glenn Greenwald in this area. Others may have different opinions in all these areas and I welcome the diversity of opinion that shows up at this site in the comments section.
Those who think I give Barack a free pass clearly haven’t read this blog. My ‘bama-bashing bonafides go back almost five years, when I rather pointedly endorsed Kohn for U.S. Senate over Obama. I have regularly criticized him and I have also constantly told people that reform will not come from the President (any President), but from the people. However, I have no interest in the vapid emptiness of reflexive Obama hatred.
Back to the topic in question. A New York Times reporter claims that Holder said (and she did not quote him, but paraphrased) that he wants to look into prosecuting more lower quantity marijuana possession cases at the federal level.
Now, someone could read that and say “The feds want to bust regular marijuana users. Fuck Obama!” And that might feel good. But I don’t know what it actually accomplishes.
To me (and clearly to Eric Sterling), it didn’t pass the smell test.
It just doesn’t make sense.
I don’t mean that it doesn’t make sense in the sense that the drug war doesn’t make sense. Of course I don’t expect politicians to say things that make actual sense.
But I do expect them to make sense within the perverted and corrupt context of their own political self-interest. And you don’t have to be a theatre major (although I was) to be able to play-act the part of a prohibitionist pandering politician and try to imagine their self-interest.
It isn’t that it doesn’t make sense because it’s Obama’s AG. This wouldn’t have made sense if it was John Ashcroft or Janet Reno, or Michael Mukasey or Alberto Gonzales. It wouldn’t have made sense if it was John Walters or Karen Tandy. What political value do you get from actively pursuing an increase in federal prosecutions of marijuana possession cases?
Even more so, it doesn’t make sense now. Not when the larger discussions are about recommending that the feds increase the quantities of crack/cocaine needed to trigger federal prosecution. Not when Webb is calling for a re-evaluation of the entire drug war. Not when public opinion is exploding regarding marijuana legalization. Not when more states are poised to pass medical marijuana.
And finally, it doesn’t make sense when talking with the Attorney General of Mexico (which Holder apparently was). How does it help Mexico if the feds are spending their time prosecuting small-time marijuana possession cases in the U.S.?
Maybe there is a way that it makes political self-interest sense. I just don’t see it. That’s why I questioned it. That’s why I attempted to analyze it. Not because I wanted blindly to believe in hope, but because I have a blog and I was trying to understand something that wasn’t making sense to me.
If Holder attempts to expand federal prosecution to go after small-time marijuana possession cases, then I’ll be on the front lines condemning him.
But in the meantime, I’m going to continue trying to understand. And I’m sorry if some people don’t like that.
Update: Scott Morgan has some backstory that helps to explain Holder’s comment.

The officials who met with Holder today quizzed him on a variety of local concerns. For example, Barbara LaWall, the Pima County, Ariz., attorney, said that federal prosecutors in her state were refusing to take cases involving cross-border marijuana seizures of 500 pounds or less.
The result, she said, has been no convictions for hundreds of smugglers caught with about 490 pounds of marijuana. [Baltimore Sun]

So when Holder says he’s “exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases,” he’s responding to complaints that major traffickers are currently being allowed to walk.

This makes sense. Not that I think Holder is right to be ratcheting up the drug war – of course not. Marijuana should be legal. Period. But what Eric Sterling and I were speculating appears to be, in fact, correct. The New York Times reporter is not clear about the definition of the word “possession” as used in law (and as is known to most marijuana users). None of use would refer to the federal prosecution of a smuggler bringing 490 pounds of marijuana into the country as a marijuana possession case.
It may be easier for our outrage to assume that Holder has decided to send the feds after people with an ounce, but I’d rather know what’s really going on. Thanks to Scott for tracking it down.

Drug WarRant regular Daniel Williams’ new online talk show the opium den goes live tonight at 9 pm Eastern.
Check it out.
Daniel is also the author of “the Naked Truths about Drugs”

Just as an ongoing reminder:

Barack Obama: “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

This excellent quote is going to serve as a kind of touchstone for evaluating various administration activities.
So let’s check in on that philosophy:

Today we honor D.A.R.E. for its important work. The efforts of D.A.R.E.’s instructors and supporters benefit our Nation’s children and are deserving of praise and appreciation. D.A.R.E.’s renewed efforts to implement science-based programs and to strengthen partnerships among law enforcement, families, and their communities are particularly worthy of commendation. Through effective teaching methods and broad participation, D.A.R.E. can help ensure that every child in America enjoys the opportunities he or she deserves.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 8, 2009, as National D.A.R.E. Day. I call upon our youth, parents, educators, law enforcement personnel, and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs and activities.

Ah, notice the insertion of the words “renewed efforts to implement science-based programs.” That must be what he was talking about.
Still seems like we’re throwing a birthday party for a pig with brightly colored lips.

I haven’t generally considered myself a fan of Tom Tancredo in most political areas, but apparently he’s looking to become a new force in drug policy reform.
Vincent Carroll: Tancredo’s next crusade? in the Denver Post…

What do you talk about at lunch with Tom Tancredo? I thought I knew, but to my surprise (and relief), we spent much of the hour discussing the wisdom of legalizing drugs rather than rehashing our disagreements over illegal immigrants.

“The status quo isn’t working,” Tancredo says, meaning the war on drugs has failed Ö spectacularly. And while that’s hardly a novel insight, most people who reach it don’t take the next step of questioning the drug war itself. […]

Meanwhile Ö and you already know this from a slew of news reports Ö the ferocity of international drug cartels is simply breathtaking. Cartel-related violence and terror Ö including beheadings and torture right out of al-Qaeda’s playbook Ö snuffed out 6,000 or so lives last year in Mexico alone, with 1,600 murders just in Ciudad Juarez. Tancredo worries about this corruption seeping northward if we don’t de-fund the drug lords by legalizing at least some narcotics.

Tancredo’s also established a think tank – The Rocky Mountain Foundation – and one of its major thrusts appears to be to discredit the war on drugs.
The more allies we get from an ever wider range of political homes the better.
I’d love to see Tancredo go on Lou Dobbs and tell him that drugs should be legalized, just to see Dobbs’ head explode.

Glenn Greenwald’s excellent report (on the successful decriminalization of all drugs in Portugal for personal use) was picked up by Scientific American: Portugal’s Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results
What really caught my attention in this article was that they got the UNODC to agree that it seemed to work, but the response was Kafkaesque.

Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal “appears to be working.” He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, “because it smacks of legalization.”

Yes, decrim works, but we don’t support something that actually works because it sounds like something we’re afraid want to talk about. Right.

A spokesperson for the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy declined to comment, citing the pending Senate confirmation of the office’s new director, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs also declined to comment on the report.

Well, I guess no policy is better than what we’re used to.