Drug WarRant

“bullet” An interesting candidate

I am Ben Mitchell, the Liberty Union candidate for lieutenant governor in the state of Vermont. If I am elected and the governor leaves the state for even 10 minutes, I will pardon all nonviolent drug offenders serving time in Vermont or Kentucky prisons. I think it is stupid to pay $45,000 a year to lock up drug users when we won’t spend more than $7,000 a year to educate our young people. Besides, I thought this was a free country.

“bullet” NDP Shocked Pot Activists Smoke the Stuff

Candidates occasionally step down abruptly after some embarrassment from their past comes to light. And it’s even more routine for the parties to request those resignations, which is likely what happened in these cases.
But these two gents are among the most ardent pro-pot advocates in B.C. and have been for years. Where exactly is the scandal in learning that leading dope activists actually smoke dope?

“bullet” This is from a while ago, but I don’t think I actually saw it before. A great excerpt from an interview with Representative Barney Frank on legalizing marijuana use.

“bullet” Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the ‘Homeland’? by Glenn Greenwald. (If you don’t see the relevance of this article to drug policy, take a look at Mexico.)
“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” Be sure to at least read the editorial in this week’s Drug War Chronicle:
“drcnet”

Scott Morgan has an excellent post talking about the latest episode in the continual slaughter of dogs by law enforcement officers — the shooting of a Jack Russell terrier.

Ok, obviously there‰s some sort of major misunderstanding going on here, because the number of household pets being killed by police has gone from alarming to inconceivably, mindblowingly outrageous and intolerable. Of course, police are heroes who would never kill animals just to be mean (only sociopaths are cruel to animals), so the answer must be that police are disproportionately terrified of dogs.

It’s a good point, and I find myself wondering — since police are always going to often find themselves interacting with dogs, wouldn’t it make sense to give them some, I don’t know, training on dealing with dogs? Did some departments just cut that part of the training?

“Well, we were going to have dog training, but that would’ve taken a whole day to do it right, so we just said “Shoot ’em.” Took 5 seconds instead.” [</snark>]

Many years ago, I worked as a crew leader for a company that delivered advertising material door-to-door in Chicago and the suburbs. And some of the most vicious dogs are kept outside, sometimes on chains, by the side of the house.
Now we couldn’t make our quota of deliveries if we took the sidewalk back and forth at each house, so we often cut across lawns. And invariably, right when you get to the side of the house you’d come face to face with a large dog three feet away from you, with 20 feet more chain.
And we weren’t issued guns.
So you know what, we learned how to get along with dogs. We learned dog psychology. And I never had a delivery person get bit.
Add to that the postal carriers, UPS/FedEx, meter readers, and neighborhood children. They all figure out ways to deal with the dog without shooting him.
Now you may say that the police have a different situation in that they are dealing with dogs inside the house. And that’s true. But that leads me to another theory.
You see, dogs aren’t any more dangerous inside the house. They just bark a lot. And all that barking in the confines of a room gets really loud, and if you’re stressed, it can make you edgy. “I can’t think with all this noise!”
Maybe cops shoot dogs because they want quiet.
That wouldn’t be a very good public reason, of course. “We killed your family member because he was loud.” That’s why they use the “I felt threatened” line.
Just a thought.

Another interesting post over at Transform Is self-censorship helping perpetuate the drug war?

Is it possible that there are groups that recognise the truth about prohibition, but self-censor on this issue when in the media eye?

The short answer: Yes.
And it’s both groups and individuals. It’s the people who whisper to me in the hallway “I agree with your letter in the paper.” It’s some academics who say that there isn’t enough political will to consider discussing alternatives to prohibition. It’s the Democrats who say that this is not the time to take a stand on such a controversial issue. It’s the elected officials who fear the 30-second attack ads. And it’s all the ordinary people who see that everyone else has shut up about it, so they figure they’d better be quiet as well.

Check out this post over at Transform.
Steve points out this bizarre Declaration of: World Forum Against Drugs (Stockholm Sweden, 2008) (pdf)
It’s a real mess, with statements like:

There can be no other goal than a drug-free world.
Such a goal is neither utopian nor impossible. […]
All people have the right to
expect their governments to protect them and
their families from drug abuse and to have a life
free of drug abuse. […]

What a strange use of the word “right.”

All forms of differentiation between so-called
‹softŠ and so-called ‹hardŠ drugs must cease. Extensive
research confirms that the use of cannabis
is detrimental to health, causes crime, and is addictive.
Cannabis, and certain other drugs regarded
in some countries as ‹softŠ, should be
viewed in the same way as other types of
illicit/psychotropic drugs when it comes to control
policy, rehabilitation and preventive measures. […]
The so-called ‹medicalŠ projects for distribution of
heroin to drug addicts as a means of ‹harm reductionŠ
are nothing but an attempt to legalize drugs
through the ‹back door.Š

Love all the scare quotes.

We denounce so-called ‹medical marijuanaŠ policies
where marijuana is used as a ‹medicineŠ, […]
We oppose all forms of legalization of illicit/
psychotropic drugs because such policies do not
withstand critical evaluation, tend to run contrary
to general experience and violate the Conventions.

Critical evaluation? You get the idea. As Steve says:

…it’s so exotic as to render itself almost completely irrelevant to real world debate. It’s actually self neutering. And if it really is going to be the banner for the remaining defenders of the drug war, then the drug peace is probably nearer than we might have hoped.

One of the ones who received the letter was Alex Wodak, board member of the International Harm Reduction Association. He wrote a very powerful letter in response, which is shared in its entirety in the Transform post. Well worth reading.
…
[Some earlier posts on Drug Free Worlds include my conversation with Mary Jane, and Drug Free West Virginia]

“bullet” It’s clear to me that, when only considering the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, Obama is better than McCain on drug policy and criminal justice issues. But that isn’t saying much. Read Jeralyn at TalkLeft: Police Unions to Endorse Obama/Biden. Also Heather Tirado Gilligan/Nikki Jones: Obama’s Approach To Fighting Crime Actually Based On Research. In the meantime, Ron Paul ends up endorsing Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. It looks like there will be several options to vote for for third party (particularly if you live in a state that is clearly blue or red), all of which will have a better drug policy than the Republicrats, but who appear likely to receive a whopping 1.2% of the popular vote (combined) and 0 electoral votes.
“bullet” The War We Won’t Talk About by Salim Muwakkil
“bullet” Tech Should Take Wooldridge’s Message Under Consideration
“bullet” Are Drugs Gopod or Bad?

A drug isn’t necessarily good or bad; instead a drug is considered to be any substance that changes the way we think, act, or feel. This definition covers all drugs: over the counter, illegal, prescriptions, social acceptable, legal. The positive or negative effects of drugs depend on the way that they are used or misused.

“bullet” Joshua Callington’s No Better Time to Become an Activist got me thinking… Is that true? Is perhaps all that’s going on in the country finally waking the citizenry up from its ennui? Can we, as drug policy reformers, tap into that?

Well, the Cato Unbound series on Responsible Drug Use has concluded. To recap, here are some of my earlier posts on the series.

• Jonathan Caulkins is Tired of the Legalization Debate
• Jacob Sullum continues the discussion
• In Search of Free Prohibition
• In Which I Talk About Jonathan Caulkins Again
• The Conversation (parts 1-9)

The last ones added to The Conversation since then were:

10. » Be Realistic About how Much Information Alone Changes Behavior by Jonathan Caulkins.
11. » Pot Smokers for Prohibition by Jacob Sullum.
12. » 25 Million Wrongs Don’t Make a Right by Jonathan Caulkins.
13. » Against the Ban on Cannabis Smoking; for the Ban on Cannabis Commerce by Mark Kleiman.
14. » Drug Information Isn’t Just for “Druggies” by Earth and Fire Erowid
15. » Public Health Promotion is OK by Jonathan Caulkins.
16. » Politicians with Pot Problems by Jacob Sullum.

I’m not going to try to dissect them all today — in general, these start devolving into clarifications and side discussions — but I’ll hit a few highlights.
Caulkins continues to astound — first it was his ignorance, but now it’s his shilling for ignorance. In [10], he dances around for quite a while downplaying the importance of “accurate information about drugs.” When called on it by the Erowids in [14] (be sure to check out their delightful description of caffeine), Caulkins comes back in [15] by stating:

I generally prefer for such campaigns to achieve their ends simply by providing accurate information, but acknowledge that sometimes appealing to emotions or providing only selective information is more effective at changing behavior.

Selective information is one of those delightful euphemisms for lying. Because that’s what he really means — intentionally deceiving through selective information.

I understand that many Cato readers who are committed to libertarian principles could dislike any taxpayer-funded, government-managed campaign designed to promote healthy behavior.

Perhaps, but I think the readers would be even more outraged at using taxpayer-funded, government-managed campaigns that lie to the people.
Watch the great slight of hand that Jonathan uses here when talking about drugs:

To avoid any misunderstanding, when I used the word ‹drugŠ in the previous paragraph I meant the big four illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine/crack, heroin, and meth). The statement also happens to be true of tobacco. I have no idea whether it applies to caffeine, and I do not much care. That is not, as the Erowids imply, because I do not think caffeine can reasonably be considered to be a psychoactive drug. It is simply because I do not think caffeine poses problems that merit public policy discussion or intervention. There are many serious problems associated with drug use and/or attempts to control use, including overdose, family dysfunction, crime, violence, corruption, etc. Caffeine barely registers on any of those metrics.

And why does marijuana register on those metrics? Because of prohibition.
Jonathan goes off the deep end a few other places, including a lack of comprehension in [12], but by now it’s hardly worth discussing, since he’s dug himself so deep a hole.
Mark Kleiman delivers a stirring call for decriminalization of marijuana use in [13]. It’s true that he has consistently felt that marijuana laws against consumption should be changed, although when talking with mainstream media, he tends to avoid mentioning that fact. He proposes the idea of allowing people to grow their own and distribute without selling, but is adamant about keeping all commerce illegal. This goes to his obsession with the harmful effects of Philip Morris marketing drugs — he is unable to imagine a practical legalization option that doesn’t involve massive marketing.

So I conclude that the ban on cannabis smoking Ö as opposed to cannabis commerce Ö cannot be justified, and that the majority in this instance acts wrongfully in restricting the liberty of the minority for no particular public purpose. That does not shake my conviction that allowing commercial marketing of cannabis along the lines currently permitted for alcohol would risk a very substantial increase in the level of abuse, as the legalization of the old ‹numbers gameŠ led to the substantial prevalence of problem lottery gambling we now observe.

Of course, Kleiman’s proposal leaves the black market intact, and potentially many of the abuses of the drug war, but it’s certainly better than what we have now.
All in all, an interesting discussion (even though somewhat limited, and lacking the voice of the public, except through blogs watching the debate). By the end of it, each of the players had relatively clearly established their position.
I’d like to see the Erowids get involved in more discussions — I think they have a lot to offer, even though it’s truly impossible to have a full reasoned discussion of drugs without drug policy rearing its ugly head. I think Jonathan Caulkins should find an occupation where intellectual activities are not required. I believe Mark Kleiman has the smarts to have something important to say, if he could just get past his fears and really look at the whole story with reason. And I believe that we need to do a better job of reminding people that prohibition isn’t free.
Cato Unbound concludes with a round-up of those blogs that provided “thought-provoking” contributions to the conversation.

The Post came out with an editorial today on Salvia: Meet — or Don’t Meet — Salvia
Remember, this is one of those solutions in search of a problem. Most people who use Salvia never want to again. It has no evidence of causing addiction, and there would be very little interest in it (except in a very small population who use it for spiritual exploration purposes) if it wasn’t for all the legislators calling attention to it by outlawing it.

Although 13 states have prohibited or otherwise regulated salvia, the herb is not banned under federal law and is sold legally online and in specialty shops that carry drug paraphernalia and other products. Given the rapid rise in its use, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration should conduct a formal review to determine whether access to it should be restricted or banned.

The DEA? Oh, yeah, that’s an unbiased and scientific approach. The DEA wouldn’t know science if they accidentally broke down its door and shot its dog. And unbiased? It’s like putting a bank robber in charge of securing our nation’s financial structure (Oh, wait…)
Of course, the Washington Post does have good reason to be concerned based on the other experts they consulted for this editorial:

But the federal agencies should consider the 5,000 or so salvia videos posted on YouTube, many appearing to show disturbing effects, as a spur to take this substance seriously.

Turning to YouTube videos and the DEA for creating public policy.
Does this mean that if there were a bunch of YouTube videos showing people smoking the editorial pages of the Post that we should consider a federal criminalization of that as well?
Because we could do it.

I just watched a Simpsons re-run called Mona Leaves-a. Now I know that the Simpsons is a cartoon and I don’t expect writer Joel H. Cohen to care a bit about the scientific accuracy of… anything.
Still, for anybody watching who thinks “The Simpsons” is an historical document, I thought I’d pass on this useful clarification.

If you’re trying to rescue your husband from goons who plan to shoot off a missile full of nuclear waste into the Amazon rainforest, burning your hemp purse outside the air vent may not actually cause the guards to get stoned and disoriented, nor cause Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit” to play.

This has been a public service announcement.

Link

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000. [That’s eleven trillion, three hundred fifteen billion dollars]

Do we really have the money lying around to continue arresting 800,000 people a year on marijuana charges?

George Michael has been cautioned for drug possession after being arrested at a notorious meeting place for gay men.
The 45-year-old pop star was reportedly caught with a small amount of cannabis and crack cocaine on Hampstead Heath in North London.
It is the fourth time in three years that the pop star has been arrested on drugs charges

Watch a classic music video