Drug WarRant

In yet another instance of epic fail, the drug czar’s office has come up with some new anti-marijuana ads.
These will be hanging on dorm room walls and in stoner basements in no time.
Click on the image to see the full-size pdf (each is about 1 meg).

I predict these will be so popular that in a few months cops are going to claim that having one of these posters is probable cause to search for pot.
I, too, want to EARN a JILLION BUCKAROOS as a BURRITO TASTER, with GLAMOUR and EXCITEMENT in EVERY BITE!

Via Digby

FDR was, of course, a consummate political leader. In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
He understood that a President does not rule by fiat and unilateral commands to a nation. He must build the political support that makes his decisions acceptable to our countrymen. He read the public opinion polls not to define who he was but to determine where the country was š and then to strategize how he could move the country to the objectives he thought had to be carried out.

Everybody has an agenda to push with the new President-elect. We’re going to be on a list a mile long. And it’s not enough for a lot of people to be in favor of drug policy reform. They must want it bad enough to make political leaders do it.
That requires making the grass roots overwhelming.
Let’s take a quick look look at two different individual rights issues right now — gay rights and drug use. Both have a strong and committed advocacy core. Both generally enjoy some measure of public support. Both suffer somewhat from the “doesn’t affect me” syndrome (ie, “I’m generally for gay rights, but I’m not gay, so I don’t care that much about making gay marriage legal.” or “I’m generally for decriminalization, but I don’t do drugs, so I don’t care much about making drugs legal.”* )
However, individual rights isn’t all that drug policy reform is about. There are also the cost of prohibition — massive costs in taxpayer financing, in violence and corruption — and those costs affect everyone.
All we have to do is get the entire country outraged at the drug war. And then, the President-elect will have no choice but to make change, regardless of his disposition.
* (It’s hard to read how much that impacted this week’s referenda on the two topics.)

Surprise. Not.

The nearly $5 billion U.S. aid package known as Plan Colombia failed to meet its goal of halving illegal narcotics production in this Andean nation, says a U.S. congressional report released Wednesday.

Um, yeah. Sort of like I failed to meet my goal of eating half as much dessert tonight by eating extra dessert.

Despite record aerial eradication, coca cultivation rose by 15 percent in this Andean nation during Plan Colombia’s 2000-2006 run, the report by the U.S. Congress’ research arm says.

Hey, if we wanted a 15 percent increase in coca cultivation, I bet you we could do it without spending $5 billion.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is looking for someone to replace Senator Obama.

Wanted: Someone to serve two years in the U.S. Senate. Requirements: Must be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least nine years and an Illinois resident.

I qualify. And I’d be willing to serve if asked.
Just sayin’

OK, we have a new President, probably a new direction, lots of new possibilities (and also the possibility that nothing will change).
Putting aside temporarily my usual mantra that our efforts must be to motivate the people rather than count on politicians…
What’s going to happen? When? How can we have input?
First, here’s what’s not going to happen:

• Day One: President Obama, with a stroke of his pen, removed marijuana from the Controlled Substances Scheduling completely, saying “If the states want to waste their time and money arresting people over a plant, that’s their problem. The federal government has no interest here.”
• Day Two: The Drug Enforcement Administration was gutted today…

Well, you get the idea.
Here’s what conceivably might happen relatively early, but if so, fairly quietly. The DEA might simply stop conducting medical marijuana raids. Since that’s a sporadic activity, it could take some time before some bright person in the press asked about it. At that point, some low-level functionary would would be tasked to respond with something like:

Marijuana is illegal under federal law. There are no exceptions for so-called medical marijuana, and we will arrest those who break the law. At this time we have simply had higher priorities for our drug enforcement agents.

And the message would quietly go to the states that as long as medical marijuana programs stayed low profile, there would be no federal presence.
I consider that scenario (or something similar) to actually be quite likely.
So, what about further reform? And what about the drug czar?
A must-read is Eric Sterling’s post today: Morning-after Question: Who will be the Obama Administration’s drug policy appointees?. Eric knows how things work in putting together an administration’s team, and I think he’s right on the money in two areas in particular — one, on when policy changes might occur:

Selecting appointees is a higher priority than making any policy decisions. First, it is easier for the media to count up “unfilled” positions and blame the new Administration for being “slow” to fill vacancies. Second, because few policy changes are without political costs, most changes will require extensive preparation of the public. The possible exceptions might be medical marijuana and sterile syringe exchange which have large public support.

Hence the notion of a quiet move toward relaxing medical marijuana-fighting efforts.
Second, Eric notes that we shouldn’t expect a new Drug Czar very soon.

I would not be looking for an announcement of a nominee to be the ONDCP director until the Spring. DEA can operate with an acting director, likely to be a career DEA manager, for a long time, as can NIDA. The decision of DEA Administrator won’t come before a new Attorney General has time to orient himself or herself.

In 2001, George W. Bush didn’t appoint Walters until May and he wasn’t sworn in until December. Asa Hutchinson wasn’t head of the DEA until August.
So we probably have a little time. Eventually, though, President Obama is going to have to act on an appointment — it’s probably unlikely that the ONDCP will be eliminated — there will be political pressure to keep it going.
But here’s the problem: As most of you know, the Congressional authorization and mandates for the ONDCP demand that whoever is in that position lie to the people and work to make federal drug policy as harmful to our country as possible.
So, to put someone good in there, Obama would have to completely flout Congressional legislation, which is unlikely. While Bush would be less likely to have a problem with it if it matched his desires, Obama seems to be pushing for coalition building, and would be hesitant to give ammunition to opponents (he’s probably also thinking hard about Clinton’s aborted, rushed effort at health care reform when he had a full Democratic Congress).
So what can be done?
Perhaps we can work on Congress to modify the ONDCP authorization prior to 2010.
What if we all contact our Senators and Representatives and say:

The office of the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has been a disaster for these past 8 years, and we can’t afford more of the same. Our new President needs your help if he’s going to find someone who can really do something good for our country.

1. Change the ONDCP authorization so that the Drug Czar is no longer required or encouraged to lie to American citizens.
2. Change the measurement criteria for federal drug policy from meaningless slight fluctuations in drug use, to the clear reduction of drug-related harm and drug-war-related harm.

Please help President Obama appoint someone who can do some good for this country, by changing outdated and wholly inappropriate guidelines for the ONDCP Director position.

I don’t know. Could we do it? If such a movement became known to President Obama, would it make him more likely to consider a non-hardline drug warrior?

“bullet” Fines, not jail, for an ounce or less of marijuana, will now be the law in Massachusetts.
“bullet” Sado-moralist Mark Souder (Indiana) will be returning to Congress.
“bullet” Medical Marijuana wins in Michigan.

Vote. You know you want to be part of this one, so just do it. I’m not going to tell you who to vote for. By now, if you’ve got a brain, you’ve figured out what you’d like to do with your vote, and don’t need me to help you.
I’m also going to assume that if you have a drug policy related referendum question on your ballot, you’re not going to screw it up. If you’re a reader of this blog and need me to tell you whether to vote for a marijuana decrim referendum, or a release-non-violent-drug-offenders referendum, then it’s time to put down the joint and get off my couch.
If you need to know how your representative voted on drug policy issues, this guide from DPA may help.
24 hours from now, we’re going to know about some winners and losers, but our job won’t be over. It’ll just be getting interesting.
Once the election is done, we can start working on the newly elected officials to let them know about drug policy reform. Learn about your new Representative, and start planning a visit, or a call to their staffers to let them know that there is someone in their district who knows something valuable about drug policy and would like to share it with them.
I’m looking forward to it — with the much anticipated retirement of Representative Jerry Weller (yes, that one), I’ll finally have the opportunity to actually develop a relationship with a new Representative in my district.
And this will be the time, when silly season is over for a few months and politicians aren’t as frightened of drug policy discussions.
One of the positive things I’ve noticed in this election season is the lack of discussion about drugs (outside of specifically drug-related referenda). Yes, I see that as positive, in that nobody was pulling the tough-on-drugs routine. There were plenty of opportunities, and except for insignificant moments (like McCain’s over-the-top rant about performance-enhancing drugs during tonight’s football game), there has been no call for longer prison sentences, or major drug crackdowns, etc.
It appears that the politicians have discovered that there are no votes to gain by pulling out the tough-on-drugs rhetoric. That’s huge!
Sure, they’re not anywhere near the next big step — recognizing that there are votes to gain by supporting reform — but this is a good start.
I still believe that the most important part of our efforts is to educate public opinion so the politicians can follow, but we do have a wonderful opportunity post-election to build a relationship with our political employees.

It just continually amazes me that they are unable to see that it’s just another kind of drug…

Pub-goers to be tested for drugs
Pub-goers in Aberdeen are facing a drugs test before entering bars as part of a crackdown by Grampian Police.
Officers in the force will be the first in Scotland to use an Itemiser – a device which can detect traces of drugs from hand swabs in a matter of seconds.
The test is voluntary, but customers will be refused entry if they do not take part. They could be searched and even arrested if traces are found.

So if they are free from drugs, then they will be allowed in to purchase and drink alcohol.

Ch Insp Innes Walker, of Grampian Police, said that as a result of the trial period in October “people had a greater confidence that they could enjoy a night out without fear of encountering drugs”.

They really have no sense of irony there, do they?
And so how effective a tool is this kind of exercise?

A total of 753 people were tested on Friday and Saturday nights outside nine venues, which volunteered to take part. No individuals asked to take the test refused.
Mr Greig added that without the device the two arrests could not have been made, and it could be used in the long-term fight against Aberdeen’s growing problem with crack cocaine.

Two.
And the other 751 people, having been stopped and scanned for drugs, were free to enter and consume copious amounts of drugs.

The drug czar’s “blog” apparently is concerned about getting their espresso fix when visiting San Francisco. They’re complaining about there being fewer Starbucks stores than medical marijuana locations.
I guess that recent Starbucks cut-back hurt, huh?
Update: Turns out the drug czar’s office is just making stuff up anyway. See Scott Morgan for details.

This is mostly for the long-time readers of the blog. It’s been awhile, but our old friend Andrea Barthwell surfaced this week in an article at Nurse.com on medical marijuana in Maryland.
Same kind of weasel-worded positions as usual, to make it sound authoritative, while saying absolutely nothing.