Drug WarRant

We’ve talked a little bit about the World Forum Against Drugs held in Sweden earlier in September, and their bizarre declaration.
But there’s so much more to ridicule…
You see, when these hard core sadomoralist drug warriors get together on vacation without bothering to unpack reason from the dusty corner of their checked bag, or worrying about appearing coherent to… the rest of the sentient world, well then their utterances become hilariously frightening.
For example, check out these amazing “rebuttals”

Seven arguments against cannabis

The journalist Pelle Olsson answered to the 7 most common pro cannabis arguments at his session

1. ‹It‰s a soft drug.Š
   Even though it is a ‹softŠ drug, it‰s still a drug.

2. ‹Alcohol is more dangerous.Š
   Cannabis is a harmful drug and it is not essential to compare it with alcohol.

3. ‹The use is widespread.Š
   Actually, only 4 % of the average adults worldwide have tested cannabis the last year.

4. ‹I‰m free to do whatever I want.Š
   The laws must be the same for everyone and dependence also takes away freedom.

5. ‹Marijuana can be used as medicine.Š
   Maybe you feel better for the moment if you are stoned or drunk, but it‰s not a medicine.

6. ‹Marijuana works as prevention from harder drugs.Š
   It is not true; cannabis is rather an entrance to the harder drugs.

7. ‹Putting cannabis in the Convention was a mistake.Š
   The cannabis-friends state that it was a mistake to put cannabis in the United Nation Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961. This is not true.

Wow, hard to argue with that kind of reasoning … because it isn’t. It’s argumentation of the form of:

The world is round. No it isn’t.

But wait, there’s more! There were speeches, and included in the speechifying was Drug Free America Foundation’s own Calvina Fay.

I think we can all agree that drugs are a problem. Today we are faced with new and more powerful drugs as well as a society that has, in many countries, become too tolerant of them.
As David Evans mentioned, In the United States, there is a very large and very well financed movement to normalize and legalize drug use and drug trafficking. Much of that movement is funded by a name that many of you know – George Soros, a convicted criminal who has publicly labeled himself as an atheist and yet has claimed that he is God…

I knew they didn’t like Soros, but…

Mr. Soros is about power and fame. His philosophy is to destroy societies that he does not like and then recreate them using his “open society” model. He destroys by creating chaos. And what better way to create chaos in society than to have a drug-addicted population that dominates. To have societies with drug-friendly laws and policies will certainly contribute to creating this chaos.
As in some other countries, Mr. Soros seeks to destroy our political system in the US and to create chaos in our judicial and law enforcement systems and even in our military.
He has contributed millions to the drug legalization movement as well as bought many of our politicians.

Yep. I believe it’s safe to say that Calvina doesn’t like George Soros.
George Soros is just a guy with a whole lot of money who wants to make a difference in the world. Instead of creating a pro-war media empire like Rupert Murdoch did, Soros put his money into efforts to encourage democracy and human rights. Yep, that’s pretty evil. But let’s get back to Ms. Fay.

Just since the beginning of 2008, we have seen an extraordinary increase in drug legalization efforts and activities in the US.

Awww… you noticed. Thanks.

Clearly, we are under attack. And this attack is not limited to the borders of the United States as has clearly been demonstrated from the presentations of others here at this conference. My work at Drug Free America Foundation takes me to many countries. I have had the honor and privilege of working with colleagues from around the world. And everywhere I go, the name and evil influence of Soros is known. His drug legalization blueprint is promoted globally.

Soros again? Come on, Calvina. I’m doing my fair share and I haven’t received one dime of Soros money. Don’t I count?
On to harm reduction.

Those who advocate for softening our drug laws and normalizing and legalizing drugs continuously raise the human rights issue. And certainly we all recognize that human rights are precious and should not be violated. But, these advocates have pushed the envelope too far when they began espousing that it is the “human right” of individuals to use drugs and endanger not only their own lives but the lives of others. With rights, come responsibilities and that is something that drug users know or care very little about.
I maintain that the harm reduction strategies promoted by the drug legalization advocates are a gross violation of human rights. Your and my rights who are drug free but would be affected by drug users – and the rights of addicts who are entitled to effective drug policies and treatment that will help them to get well.

OK, now this is just completely in la-la land. It amazes me when people make up new and creative definitions for the word “rights” that mean precisely the opposite.
She is apparently arguing for the right to not be bothered by other people having rights, and that her right trumps theirs. It’s as if she was saying…

Abolitionists claim they’re advocating for the human rights of slaves, but the true rights they would violate is the right of us white plantation owners to sip mint juleps while being served by our slaves. They would take away our right to our life of ease and our right to own other people. And, I maintain, abolition of slavery would harm the rights of the slaves themselves — yes, to have a structured life of work that keeps them out of trouble and away from the pesky cares of free men. Abolitionists would bring chaos and endanger all of us.

That is the argument world of Calvina Fay.
OK, Calvina, can you take that bizarre thought even further?

And speaking of getting well – let’s talk a minute about the fraudulent campaigns to legalize marijuana as a so-called medicine. This illusion that has been created by the Soros [Soros, again?] minions that marijuana is a so-called medicine is a huge violation of human rights!

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Truly sick people who deserve legitimate medical treatment have been duped into believing that marijuana will help them, while in reality it is hurting them. All because a special interest group is advancing a hidden agenda to normalize and legalize marijuana use. The sad thing is that people smoking pot probably do feel better even if they are not getting better but they could also feel better by smoking crack cocaine or injecting heroin. Will these be the next drugs to legalize as so-called medicine?

Nothing new here. The same old claptrap that they always trot out to argue against medical marijuana. I’ve countered it so many times that it’s boring. But if anyone wants me to do it again, just ask. (Go ahead, Calvina. Ask. But you won’t, because you already know the answer.)

The drug legalization movement certainly has more money than we do but, we are on the right side.

God, that one cracks me up every time I hear it. Drug Free America Foundation receives funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of State. The drug prohibition lobby has the resources of the governments of many countries, the United Nations, police forces, DEA, business interests, and tons of our own taxpayer money for media campaigns.
I get Google ads.
But Calvina continues…

We have science and solid data behind us. History has shown that restrictive drug policies do work. The very successful restrictive drug policy of Sweden is a perfect example of what works!

Sweden is often invoked by the prohibitionists (that’s why this was held in Sweden). Steve Rolles does a nice job of exploring the Sweden drug policy fantasy. Check it out. But back to Calvina…

Contrary to what the drug legalization advocates claim, it is not the restrictive drug policies that are harmful, it is the drug itself. There are no “safe” ways to use drugs. Policies that condone and prolong drug use should not be tolerated. Such policies are a travesty and a gross violation of the rights [again?] of individuals who suffer from addiction.

Note that there is absolutely not one word used to actually address the rock solid anti-prohibition argument that prohibition causes more harm than the drug. She merely asserts a harm for drug use and then studiously avoids acknowledging the existence of the elephant in the room.
And the “there are no ‘safe’ ways to use drugs.” Talk about nonsensical statements!
Calvina ends her speech with a long and very strange tribute to Ronald Reagan, whom she apparently admired greatly. She seems to want to compare her war against… well.. us, to Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech. Like I said, very odd.
Here are a couple of highlights from other speeches:
Jo Baxter of Drug Free Australia came up with a new one for describing harm reduction:

This policy equates to ‘parking the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff to catch the people as they fall off’.

Colorful. Wrong, but colorful.
Mr Sven-Olov Carlsson, President IOGT-NTO Sweden parrots the apparently ubiquitous talking point:

Human rights are incompatible with drug abuse. All individuals have the right to a life that is not harmed by drugs. Policy-makers need to defend and protect this right. The rights and interests of drug users are not served by supporting the continuation of drug abuse.

Apparently human rights are served by locking people up, smashing down doors, shooting their dogs, taking away their children, their jobs, their student loans, fueling black market violence and corruption, and making people piss in a cup.
HE General Khodaidad, Minister of Counternarcotics, Afghanistan:

This session is about whether Afghanistan can get rid of the opium problem and the short answer is of course “YES”. But when – I do not know.

I wish I could use non-answers like that in my job.

At the end I would like to thank once again the organizers of this important forum and I pray for a world free of drugs and terrorism.

Drugs and terrorism. Right.
There’s more, but this post is long enough. At a later point, I may discuss the truly disturbing words of Robert L. DuPont.

I mentioned earlier that the execrable DEA Museum Exhibit: Target America: Opening Eyes to the Damage Drugs Cause had not been put out of its misery, but instead was continuing its tour – now to California.
A number of people wrote to the Science Center to express their dismay, and Center staff responded:

Thank you for your email. You are referring to an earlier version of the
exhibit, and are not aware of the changes and modifications that have
been made for the Los Angeles venue.

The California Science Center recognizes that science knowledge and
technological innovation play important roles in understanding and
breaking the cycle of drug abuse and addiction. It is with this
perspective that the Science Center’s Ethics Advisory Committee reviewed
the Target America exhibit prior to agreeing to host the exhibit. Upon
review, we appreciated the potential of the exhibit to educate guests on
the science of drug abuse and the health implications of drug addiction
with certain content modifications. Since last spring, the exhibit has
been refurbished, expanded and updated to reflect these concerns.
Specifically, the DEA Museum Foundation has updated and enhanced the
current science content, added a Local Story component, and modified the
exhibit to better balance the issues of prevention, treatment, science
and enforcement.

Additional programming will further support the science and technology
educational messages. You are welcome to attend these programs and to
engage in these discussions. We are confident the current exhibit will
support our mission and provide a powerful educational experience on the
damage drugs cause, and invite you to review the revised exhibit,
opening Oct. 2nd.

Sincerely,
Shell Amega

Vice President, Communications
California Science Center

So before I rush in guns blazing (figuratively – I don’t have any guns and I can’t make it to California), I figure we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt and check out the exhibit.
So anyone who can — please visit the exhibit, take notes and pictures, and report back.
The good news: neither the California Science Center nor the DEA’s site feature the really offensive World Trade Center wreckage sculpture that was the centerpiece of the exhibit in previous locations. If they’ve removed it, that’s an encouraging sign. (Please let me know if they continue to promote the drugs-terrorism connection in any way.)
Additionally, the Science Center has downplayed the DEA’s involvement to merely “Developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration Museum and Partners.” I wonder if this means that it will be less of a DEA infomercial than the Chicago exhibit was.
However, I don’t see any way that the California Science Center could have actually properly fixed this exhibit and still have the DEA involved at all. Because quite frankly, there’s no way that the DEA would allow any truthful representation of the dangers of prohibition, which means that the “science” is still propaganda, not science.
If you do check it out, you’ll have the opportunity to:

• Play a wacky basketball game that gives you a sense of temporary memory loss first-hand, as you learn about the latest research from UCLA scientists on the effects of drugs in the brain.
• Speak into a wiretapped microphone and see your unique voice print. Learn about innovative technology pioneered in Southern California and view footage of drug enforcers and wiretaps in action.
• Through an immersive theater experience, ride along with seasoned Southern California drug enforcement officers on a simulated drug bust. Discover the science, technology and skill of surveillance and apprehension.
• Spin the Wheel of Misfortune and see the various risks drug addicts face. If you‰re lucky enough to land in Rehab, spin the Wheel of Recovery and see what your chances are for long-term recovery. Find what treatment options are available throughout the southland.

Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?
And, of course, you’ll be able to view actual wreckage from a drug-related car accident, a tenement crack-house, and the bedroom of a young teen that has accessed a Web site that sells illegal drugs.
Check out my site: DEA Targets America: Opening Eyes to the Damage Caused by the Drug War for my response to the earlier form of the exhibit, and the flyers we used to pass out to museum patrons.
I’m still open to revising the flyer further based on what we learn about the current version of the exhibit, and making quantities available to those who would like to help educate the patrons of the California Science Center as to any aspects of the science that have been neglected.

Link

John Consoli wants to get rid of drugs in the workplace, one telephone handset at a time.
Consoli, 67, is the president of On Site, a Spring Hill, Fla., company marketing DrugWipe, a handheld narcotic detector.
Just swipe the DrugWipe against a keyboard or any other surface, Consoli said, and the toothbrush-sized detector can tell whether anyone who has touched the surface in the past 72 hours had drugs in his or her system.

What a wonderful, selfless guy. John Consoli just wants to get rid of drugs in the workplace. We know this because Helen Anne Travis of the St. Petersburg Times tells us this.
Of course, it couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that Consoli owns a company that is trying to make money, could it?

A DrugWipe kit costs about $50 and can be used to check 10 to 15 surfaces. Testers must be trained and certified. Training takes a half-day and costs $500. Companies can also hire an On Site professional to test workplace surfaces; prices vary.

The good thing is that we know from reading Helen Anne Travis’ article that DrugWipe is 100% accurate. How do we know this? Because president Consoli tells us it’s true.

“It is 100-per-cent accurate,” Consoli said.

So since Helen Anne Travis is writing this article about this revolutionary change to how businesses deal with human resources, she probably talked to some businesses about this idea…

Pinning down a corporation that used DrugWipe was difficult. Since Consoli is just starting out, he hasn’t actually had any clients.

Well then, perhaps Travis shouldn’t let Consoli get to third base on the first date.
But let’s go back to this notion of certified testers wandering around companies swabbing telephones to collect glandular secretions of past activities.
Hmmm. Perhaps gloves will come back into fashion again.
But… What happened to management? I mean, real, honest-to-goodness management techniques? The kind that values good work? Companies used to hire managers who had the amazing ability to actually observe the work of their employees and discover whether they were doing a good job through that observation, and from looking at the quality of the work produced.
I know it’s hard to believe, but it actually worked for a very long time. Perhaps even better than today’s modern management techniques of ouija boards, studying employee urine, bundling failed mortgages, and collecting gland secretions with a swab.

Lima, Ohio:

More than a quarter of the 198 raids by the Lima Police Department SWAT team in the last seven years came up empty-handed without finding drugs, weapons, paraphernalia or money.
And nearly a third of the time, police do not find drugs or a weapon. Drugs alone were found in nearly two-thirds of the raids and a weapon, by itself, was found one-third of the time.
The Lima News reviewed 198 raids by the Lima Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics team from 2002 through June 2008, examining evidence inventory sheets.

Yes, this is Lima, Ohio, where police procedures murdered Tarika Wilson in her home and maimed her son.
Of course, the cops think there’s no problem with that track record.

“That means 68 percent of the time, we’re getting guns or drugs off the street,” said Maj. Kevin Martin, who called the numbers a success.

No.
SWAT action busting in someone’s home is an extreme option that should be reserved for the most critical dangerous situations, such as dealing with hostages, not as a method for conducting drug arrests.
The fact that one out of three SWAT raids is on innocent citizens is an offense to the Constitution, and should result in mass firings. What makes it worse is the fact that it appears that many of the “successful” ones only involved small amounts of drugs or paraphernalia.
It’s really sad that there is an established belief out there that SWAT is an appropriate way of dealing with drug warrants.

Did they say anything about drug policy?

“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?