Drug WarRant

I saw Martha Clarke’s Garden of Earthly Delights last night at the Minetta Lane Theatre. Stunning. Now I’m off to take my train trip home and will be out of touch until Sunday night.
“bullet” Rob Kampia will be appearing on a program about marijuana hosted by Al Roker on MSNBC on Sunday at 10 pm. I have no idea what you should expect on that one, but boy, it seems that everyone wants to talk about it now!
“bullet” Did anyone see the John Stossel special last night? I haven’t heard anything about it yet.
Update: Here’s the video:

Glenn has been a strong supporter of drug policy reform for some time, and I even helped write a guest post on reform at his site several years ago.
But he’s had a lot of other things on his plate and his support recently has been in the area of fighting against authoritarian government approaches to rights (which certainly impacts drug policy).
However, now Glenn is using his knowledge of Portugal to provide perspective on our own drug policies.

In 2001, Portugal became the only EU-member state to decriminalize drugs, a distinction which continues through to the present. Last year, working with the Cato Institute, I went to that country in order to research the effects of the decriminalization law (which applies to all substances, including cocaine and heroin) and to interview both Portuguese and EU drug policy officials and analysts (the central EU drug policy monitoring agency is, by coincidence, based in Lisbon). Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense. […]
There is clearly a growing recognition around the world and even in the U.S. that, strictly on empirical grounds, criminalization approaches to drug usage and, especially, the “War on Drugs,” are abject failures, because they worsen the exact problems they are ostensibly intended to address. “Strictly on empirical grounds” means excluding from the assessment: (a) ideological questions regarding the legitimacy of imprisoning adults for consuming drugs they choose to consume; (b) the evisceration of Constitutional and civil liberties wrought by drug criminalization; and (c) the extraordinary sums of money devoted to the War on Drugs both domestically and internationally.

Instead of just delivering his report, Glenn will be presenting it at CATO and participating in a sort of debate about it…

On April 3, at 12:00 noon, at the Cato Institute in Washington, I’ll be presenting the 50-page report I wrote for Cato, entitled Drug Decriminalization in Portugal. Following my presentation, a supporter of drug criminalization laws — Peter Reuter, a Professor in the University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology — will comment on the report (and I’ll be able to comment after that), and then there will be a Q-and-A session with the audience. The event is open to the public and free of charge. Details and registration are here at Cato’s site, where the event can also be watched live online (and, possibly, on C-SPAN).

These are the discussions we need to be having. Great to have Greenwald in the game.

This was a last minute deal no advance notice to speak of…
Here’s a transcript of Friday night’s debate between Ron Paul and Stephen Baldwin on legalization.

So I was looking out the window at one point last night and saw a guy walk by, and I exclaimed “Hey, there’s a guy walking by with a cat on his head!” and the person I was talking to, without looking up, said “Yeah, I hate that guy.” And I remembered I was in New York.
I saw “Hair” last night on Broadway. It’s in previews and I think it’s just about 95% there. Really good show. Had the entire audience on their feet clapping and singing at the end, with about a hundred audience members on stage (and I’ve still got those tunes going through my head).
“Hair,” of course, was about the counter-culture in the 60’s and the show’s message of peace, love, and psychedelic drugs was controversial then — much less-so now. It’s time for “Hair” again – not only as an historical piece, but as an opportunity for a new affirmation. I loved seeing the audience — multiple generations, from those who may have seen it when it first opened in 1967, to the 10-year-old kid brought by his mother. There were teenagers with flowers in their hair as well as folks with white hair or no hair. And nobody had any trouble with the nudity or the pot smoking. Of course, while the nudity was real, the pot smoking was fake (stage cigarettes for the cast) and I did have a couple of moments when I realized that this would be an amazing show to watch while high, and I thought about the fact that you can drink a six-pack and go enjoy a sporting event, but you can’t smoke a joint and go watch a musical. Why?
“bullet” There really is a buzz in the air. Legalizers are being kept busy. LEAP’s Howard Wooldridge debates Ron Brooks on Al Jazeera (some audio problems)

“bullet” Drug Czar Appointed, Makes Ridiculous Remark

For too long, we have operated, as the Vice President said, in silence when it comes to making our country drug free and reducing the demand for drugs.

“bullet” Time Magazine: Can Marijuana Help Rescue California’s Economy? Halfway decent article, but Joel W. Hay is a real moron:

Joel W. Hay, professor of Pharmaceutical Economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. “Marijuana is a drug that clouds people’s judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react and it certainly has impacts on third parties,” says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. “It’s one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they’ve caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities.” He adds: “There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana but there are lots of people who can’t, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones.”

What a load of crap. I guess Joel’s OK with people getting killed in the streets, then, and drug gangs getting rich. He doesn’t mind that as long as we’re able to jail people who get high responsibly.
“bullet” “drcnet”

Thanks to daksya in comments for the head up. Noon today, Eastern time, on CNN Mark Kleiman will be debating somebody from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition on drug legalization.
Mark has already charted the course of the debate, including what his opponent’s arguments will be. Oddly, he seems, in my mind, to be conceding before the debate begins.
Mark says the LEAP rep will (parenthetical responses are Mark’s):

1. Assert that prohibition results in violent drug markets that wouldn’t exist under legalization. (True.)
2. Point out that Mexico and Afghanistan are suffering badly from the drug war, in ways that threaten U.S. national security. (True.)

Well, if they agree on the big points, then what’s left?

3. Claim that since “anyone who wants drugs can get drugs now,” legalization wouldn’t increase consumption, or that if it did increase consumption it wouldn’t increase abuse. (Ludicrously false, as the example of alcohol illustrates.)
4. Claim that legalization would reduce access for kids by limiting the supply to legal an therefore regulated channels. (Ludicrously false, as the example of alcohol illustrates.)

You see, Mark has this bizarre notion, totally unsupported by any facts, that everything is alcohol. That somehow, any new legalized substance will automatically reach the societal use/abuse level of alcohol, and do so without affecting the levels of alcohol use/abuse.
This is nonsense.
Alcohol is one drug. Heroin is another. Cocaine is another. Marijuana is another. Each has its own profiles for use and they’re different. Even alcohol has differences of use/abuse within itself (compare beer to single-malt scotch, for example). There is also substitution that occurs when legal status changes. Some alcohol users may switch to cocaine, some to marijuana. Sure, there will be shifts, and some drugs will see increased use/abuse, while alcohol may see decreased use/abuse all depending on a host of factors.
But in general, those who are likely to abuse drugs (whether due to psychological, financial, genetic or other factors) are going to do so whether a particular subset of abuse-potential drugs is legal or not. Their drug of choice may change, but their numbers won’t change significantly. Certainly not enough to offset all the other benefits of ending the war on drugs.
I think Kleiman may also be wrong here in asserting what the LEAP opponent will say. The LEAP rep is actually more likely to assert that drugs are potentially very dangerous and need to be regulated. Kleiman thinks that prohibition can regulate drugs, and that’s just false.
His final point – that his opponent will:

5. Refuse to specify the set of taxes and regulations that ought to replace prohibition.

This is silly and childish on Mark’s part. It’s not LEAP’s job to set taxes and regulations. There are tons of models and all of us would be happy to discuss which models would work the best in different situations (and no, nobody with half a brain thinks that alcohol would be the model for all drugs). The reason we often don’t talk specifics, is that we’re usually shut down before we get that far as we’re constantly told that even an “open, honest national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics” is unacceptable.
And we’re not just told that by politicians in Texas.
You know, when it comes to suggesting options of taxes and regulations for legalized drugs — some concrete information for politicians to consider — if only there were a type of person with a skill set — an academician maybe, or somebody who works with a think tank. People who specialize in, say, public policy.
It looks like I’ll miss the debate. Document it here. I’ll put up a transcript later if one is available, and Mark promises to post the video.
Update: It’s going to be Jack Cole and according to Tom Angell, it’ll be at 12:15 on CNN International. This should be good.

Made it to New York. The train ride was long, but quite enjoyable.
It’s actually kind of nice to be out of touch for a while every now and then — the problem is when you get a chance to get online again, and you have 200 emails and 4,000 unread news articles.
It’s always great to be in New York City. The energy of the town is amazing (although I personally tend to prefer it now as something to enjoy on a visit rather than as a way of life).
I highly recommend the Blue Fin Restaurant at 47th and Broadway. They’ve got an incredible bartender (Christen is a former student and an old friend of mine) and their food is always superb. Their salmon sake was perfect, and then for an entree, I had the Crispy Skin Salmon (medium rare) with potato hash, smoked bacon, brussels sprouts, pommery mustard butter. Amazing. (and reasonably priced)
“bullet” There are two members of Congress who just make me smile when I see their names together: Ron Paul and Barney Frank. In the real world, these two individuals would be such polar opposites in so many ways that it would be hard to even picture them in the same room. And yet, in the fake world of Congress, these two individuals distinguish themselves by being real and thus have a lot in common.
Barney and Ron use reason more than political consideration. So even though they differ dramatically politically, there are certain issues where reason and truth get you to a specific place far from where politics takes you. And that’s where you’ll find these two alone together.
On Tuesday, Paul and Frank (just another reason to love them – between the two of them, they have four first names) co-wrote a letter seeking co-sponsors for the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

In recent years, industrial hemp has been put to many popular uses. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil, as well as food products containing hemp seeds and oil. Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, and carpet. One ofthe more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door panels of about 1.5 million cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel. Nevertheless, under federal law, all industrial hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of grown by American farmers.
Industrial hemp was grown legally in the United States for most of our nation’s history. In fact, during Wodd War II, the federal government encouraged industrial hemp farming to help the war effort. Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of
industrial hemp in the definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of
THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be
psychologically affected by consuming industrial hemp. Federal law concedes the safety
of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported as food.
Please stand up for American farmers by cosponsoring the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

VoteHemp has an Action Alert on this for writing your Congressional Representatives.
“bullet” Bolivia’s Morales calls on Obama to back coca campaign.

U.S. President Barack Obama should recognise traditional uses of the coca leaf because not all production becomes cocaine, Bolivian President Evo Morales said on Wednesday.

It’ll be very interesting to see what changes occur in our relationships with Latin American countries over the next four years.
See also this article about the coca leaf and UN prohibitions: Leaves of Wrath Led US to Blackmail WHO
“bullet” They keep doing it! The AP continues the ridiculously stupid meme: Drug war’s violence is called a sign of progress
Really?

“The reason you see the escalation in violence is because U.S. and Mexican law enforcement are winning,” Garrison Courtney, spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration, said Tuesday. “You are going to see the drug traffickers push back because we are breaking their back.”

Give me a break.
“bullet” Time Magazine “reviews” UNODC head Antonio Maria Costa’s recent paper in The Disturbing Rise of Drug Gangs. Time’s Alyssa Fetini demonstrates no knowledge of anything by simply uncritically presenting Costa’s propaganda.
“bullet” Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page has an excellent OpEd on medical marijuana Is it reefer madness?

President Obama recently reversed much of what has been called the Bush administration’s “war against science.” He needs to turn around the war against medicinal marijuana too.

“bullet” The 52nd Session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs is going on right now (through March 20) — and this will determine the UN direction on drug policy for the next 10 years.
Transform kicks off their coverage with Fear prevails at the UN as voices for drug law reform are smeared
If you want to follow the proceedings in depth, visit CNDblog which has been set up completely for that purpose (they have close to 50 posts already in the first 2 days of the session).

“bullet” I found this article fascinating. I’m pretty sure I’m reading it right, but check it out yourself. I believe that the author is referring to drug policy reform groups as anti-crime groups. Which is absolutely correct, of course, since legalization will dramatically reduce crime, but I didn’t expect to see it in a newspaper.
Anti-Crime Groups Cautiously Optimistic About New Drug Czar

Washington, D.C. (AHN) – Vice President Joe Biden’s announcement of the choice of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the nation’s drug czar on Wednesday elicited praise from Washington lawmakers, but cautious optimism from non-profit anti-crime groups.

And then it goes on to get quotes of cautious optimism from Ethan Nadelmann and Norm Stamper.
“bullet” The big news, of course (and this has been brought up in comments) is that the position of Drug Czar will go back to not being a cabinet-level position.

The agency will no longer have Cabinet-level status, but the official said that Kerlikowske “will have a seat at the table when important decisions are being made … and full access and a direct line to the president and vice president.” […]
Colleagues expect him to ramp up efforts to stem demand for illegal narcotics by emphasizing prevention and treatment.

It’s good to see at least, if nothing else, a shift of perceived emphasis by taking it out of cabinet-level position.
I also found this interesting:

John Carnevale, an official in the drug office from its inception in 1989 until 2000, met Kerlikowske while working on ways to measure the agency’s effectiveness. “He’s big on accountability,” said Carnevale.

Carnevale has been a very outspoken critic of the ONDCP and its lack of accountability.
More at the Washington Post
“bullet” Now if you want to see a blatant attempt at ass-kissing, check out this press release: The Partnership for a Drug-Free America Lauds Kerlikowske as New Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy. They even snuck in an opportunity to kiss Joe Biden’s ass. This is a group that, of course, depends on the government to supply them with grant money to spread propaganda.
Note how PDFA is even reading the tea leaves and getting the picture that marijuana demonization will be of less interest to this administration…

“The Partnership looks forward to working with Chief Kerlikowske and his team in a renewed effort to address the most pressing threats to our nation’s youth, including the intentional abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medicines, and to continue the outstanding progress made on illicit drugs like methamphetamine.”

Marijuana isn’t even mentioned once.

People often talk about the drug war being a failure, and, in fact, three quarters of the voting public believe the drug war is a failure.
I’ve said it myself.
But it’s really not a good description, and calling it a failure doesn’t do what we need to motivate the public to care enough about reform.
You see, the word “failure” conjures up images of merely not succeeding. We often think of it like grades in school. A failure is someone who didn’t apply himself, or failed to do the necessary things to “pass.” It implies that there could be a path that would result in “success” if only more effort was given, or a different approach.
By calling the drug war a failure, we’re treating it like some kid getting an “F” in chemistry because he slept through too many classes, when in fact it’s more like the kid blew up the chemistry building and released toxic chemicals into the drinking water.
That’s not a failure to accomplish something. That is accomplishing something very, very bad.
We need to remind people that, yes, the drug war has failed to accomplish any of its stated goals, but the drug war is not a failure.
It is the problem.

Found some wifi on a layover in Chicago and have some time to kill.
“bullet” Moron of the day. Florida Senator Mike Bennett wants to reduce unemployment benefits to pay for drug testing those on unemployment. Yeah, that’ll calm things down in periods of extreme financial unrest. Fortunately, the ACLU is on the case. [Thanks, Mel]
“bullet” Quote of the day:

Bill Maher on Presidential cocaine abuse. “To start off, George Bush did a lot more blow than Obama ever did. Please don’t ruin the only thing I like about him.”

“bullet” Next up from the ONDCP, an anti-meth campaign. I think we should scrap all the anti-drug government-funded media campaigns, but if we’re going to have any, this is a better subject than all the stupid anti-marijuana ones we’ve been facing.
Of course, the latest, which probably was actually developed last year and is now seeing some media and blog play, is this stupid online interactive piece that claims that getting high will damage your video game playing capability (via everybody, but I like Reason’s headline best: I Was Gonna Kill an Orc, But I Got High). Because, of course, being a little slower at certain video games can ruin your future success of a lifetime sitting on Pete’s Couch while your dog looks at you with disappointment and an alien steals your girlfriend. Wow. I just realized. The people who make these ads are reeaaallllyyyy stoned.
“bullet” Somebody asked me why I hadn’t talked about Glen Beck coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana. I hadn’t heard about it until then. I really don’t watch any of the 24-hour cable stations (I actually have to put in my parental guidance security code to watch FOX news) and shows like Beck’s don’t interest me in the slightest. If something important happens on any of those talking head shows (other than Stewart or Colbert, of course) I’d rather read a transcript than watch the video.
But apparently Beck did it

Beck starts off this segment saying “I woke up this morning and I thought, we should legalize marijuana.”

All right. Go Beck. Maybe he learned something from his debate with Kampia.
“bullet” Programming note. John Stossel will be talking about medical marijuana provider Charlie Lynch this Friday.
“bullet” New Yorkers: Time to apply some pressure to get rid of the Rockefeller drug laws.
“bullet” Putting pot under the microscope (L.A. Times)

Members of Congress have urged Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to amend or overrule the order, and he should do so. Then he should go further and change the culture of the agency. Instead of thwarting the advancement of science, the DEA should encourage cannabis research. As California and the U.S. government continue to debate the future of medical marijuana, what we need is a body of work on the drug’s efficacy in treating a variety of illnesses and conditions. Instead, we have a collection of small studies and individual testimony. On Monday, President Obama signed a “scientific integrity presidential memorandum” and promised that his administration would base its public policies on science, not politics; the DEA is one of many federal agencies ready for enlightenment.

Related:

“Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. 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.” – Barack Obama

Now let’s hold him to it. And get Congress to help out. Remember, science could be a way to sidestep the political traps of drug policy reform. It allows the politician to shift the responsibility onto the scientific evidence when making policy that is controversial.

Blogging is going to be a little bit sporadic this week. I’m heading to New York for a few days. And this trip is not only about being in New York, but getting there.
I’m taking Amtrak’s Lake Shore Limited from Chicago to New York (and another train between home and Chicago), so, basically, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday will be spent on the train with no wifi connection. I plan to read and look out the window.
I’ll be in New York on Wednesday evening through Saturday morning if anyone wants to get together for coffee or a drink.
I’m also seeing Martha Clarke’s Garden of Earthly Delights (which I’ve wanted to see since the 1980s) and the classic musical Hair (which, of course, I’ve seen before, but I’m anxious to see the new Broadway revival now in previews), and I’m connecting with some friends.
So discuss and share (you guys are the greatest at keeping track of what’s going on). I’ll jump in when I can while I’m in New York, but for a couple of days the best stuff will probably be in comments.
“bullet” Here’s a little video for you from the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union contest.